Yellow Science…Renowned Climate Modeller Now Claims Temperature Stagnation Is Actually Evidence Of Warming!

Lately climate scientists have been telling us that cold weather is now evidence of warming, hard winters and big snowstorms, too.

Well, it turns out that the current global temperature stagnation is also now strong evidence of global warming. At least that’s what climate modeller Prof. Reto Knutti writes at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich blogsite in a piece titled: “Climate is (not) taking a break”, where he twists himself into a complex pretzel to explain why there’s been a global temperature stagnation. Hey, our models actually predicted it!


Prof. Knutti leads the Climate Physics group at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich. It focuses on climate modeling. See his publications here. Photo credit: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich; Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science.

In his blog article he starts by claiming that the stagnant temperature of the last 15 years: “…is nothing unusual: Also during the 20th century there were periods of stagnation, and even cooling. Even climate models show such behaviour – also for the future. So they do not contradict the long-term global temperatures.”

It wasn’t long ago that climate scientists were claiming things were “worse then we thought” and that the climate was careening out of control. Now that the climate is not changing at all, they are suddenly saying they aren’t surprised at all, and are even starting to claim their models had projected it.

Knutti even takes it a step further. In his piece he even tries to have us believe that the stagnation is actually evidence of warming! You see, from dozens of models, he managed to find one or two that foresee periods of stagnation interrupting the overall warming. He writes:

Not surprised…

Since the beginning of the 1970s, the global temperature has risen strongly. However in the last 10-15 years the trend has flattened out considerably. Depending on the year used as a starting point, the trend is practically zero. This is what temperature curves from the different institutes show. Even when there are some slight variations between the curves, they all show the same pattern [1].

The fact that the global temperature rise has stagnated does not contradict long-term climate change. To the contrary: Also in the future we have to anticipate short periods of stagnation or cooling. In principle, the science is not surprised by this finding. This is because such short-term temperature behavior also occurs in climate models (see chart). And that, by the way, in the same models that postulate an anthropogenic temperature increase over the long term.”

I placed the emphasis on “To the contrary” because it tells us that Knutti is claiming that because there is a stagnation today, and the models said there would be, the longterm-warming trend for the next 100 years has to be right. Such is the science of a climate modeller.

Here’s the chart he refers to, along with the text below it:


“Global temperature change in simulations from climate models from CMIP5 for the historical period (gray) and for various scenarios. Each line depicts a simulation. The observed data are depicted in black. As an example, one simulation, marked yellow, shows especially strong warming until the year 2000 and then followed by a period without warming over 20 years.”

Because the yellow model has it right, it has to mean that the modelled warming is correct – Knutti is suggesting. This is as preposterous as science could ever get. From dozens of models, he cherry-picks the one or two that support what he wants to believe.

One scientist has pointed out to me that there’s even a model that doesn’t show any warming until 2050. He wrote in an e-mail: “There is even one model curve which has hardly any warming until 2050. That must be their fall-back rescue anchor. If temperatures in 2050 are like today’s, then they will still claim they were right.”

So what’s the cause of the current stagnation?

Knutti proposes a variety of explanations: “Aerosols or also land-use. Then there are natural factors, like volcanos erupting or solar activity and internal fluctuations (weather). They all vary – and with it the annual temperature increase.”

Knutti also adds that the sun and El Nino phenomenon perhaps play a role in the stagnation. About temperature stagnations he even says: “They are to some extent a type of extreme event of the future.” And thus are evidence of climate change?

Of course, we don’t think for a minute Knutti himself actually believes the rubbish he is spewing above, i.e. stagnation supports the CO2 warming theory. At the end of his essay he even makes a confession, and opens the door to the possibility CO2 may be completely exaggerated:

It could be that the temperature reacts less strongly to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than assumed (over-estimated climate sensitivity). Or to put it in another way: The climate models may be over-estimating the warming. The global temperature of the last 10-20 years is pointing in that direction, however it is precisely the models with the higher senitivity that are simulating the mean climate the best.”

PS: Here’s a chart of CMIP5, h/t a reader. Where’s the predicted stagnation?



Wave of Climate-Science Criticism…Dieter Helm’s New Book Calls Global Climate Policy “Outright Failure”
Dieter Helm

The European Energy Review has a review of Dieter Helm’s new book The Carbon Crunch“, read here (scroll down to: Dieter Helm’s new thriller separates climate fiction from fact).

According to the EER, Helm is one of the most famous energy economists in Europe – a professor of energy policy at the University of Oxford and a fellow in Economics at New College, Oxford. He has also served as special advisor to the UK government and to the European Commission.

It’s another recently published book criticizing climate science and policy by a high profile author in Europe.

EER writes (emphasis added):

Dieter Helm’s new book “The Carbon Crunch” reads a bit like a detective novel. It is about ‘who killed climate policy’. And how we can revive the corpse.

He starts his story with the stark observation that international climate policy, led by the EU as self-styled climate frontrunner, is an outright failure. The endless UN climate conferences and the famous Kyoto treaty are not delivering the goods. Neither is the EU Emission Trading Scheme. Moreover, what is worse, climate as a public concern is sliding down the political agenda. Clearly, something must be done – and done quickly – to stave off disaster.

Well, disaster? Is climate change really the threat that many people say it is? Helm notes that the public has become more sceptical in this regard – or more fatalistic, with the same effect. To his credit, he does not blame the “climate sceptics” or ExxonMobil for this. On the contrary, ‘green’ NGO’s and climate scientists deserve a lot of the blame, as they are frequently guilty of alarmist predictions and pretending to be certain about inherently uncertain things.”

So like Hans von Storch, Dieter Helm is also convinced that climate policy is dead and that the science is hyped up.

On solar and wind projects in Europe as a solution to pollution by coal, Helm tells us the policies to promote renewable energies  (sun and wind) have been a disaster:

This is so much money wasted. These policies allow European politicians to grandstand about how brilliantly Europe is limiting its emissions, but they do not have any significant effect on the climate.

Grandstanding? Isn’t that precisely what Obama wants to do now? He may want to reconsider about getting in on the folly.

And Helm tells us how that Europe is cheating with its carbon bookkeeping:

The EU may be limiting its emissions from carbon production, but this is because European industrial production has shifted to a considerable extent to Asia – and the EU does of course import Asian products for its consumption. So what really counts is not so much carbon production, but carbon consumption. In the UK, for example, notes Helm, carbon production went down 15% between 1990 and 2005, but carbon consumption went up 19%!”

Helm, a warmist, also admits that going green does mean pain, and there is no denying it. EER writes…

Helm is at least honest enough not to pretend that climate policy is somehow going to be effective without economic sacrifices. Any solution will hurt, no matter how much politicians prattle about “green growth”.  […] Whether political leaders will be able to persuade people to shed ‘blood, sweat and tears’ in this cause, is the big question. They could at least start by reading this book.”

Read more here, scroll down to: Dieter Helm’s new thriller separates climate fiction from fact.

Photo credit:


Von Storch/Krauss New Book: “Global Society Doesn’t Need Politicized Science Calling For A 2°C Target”

Climate Trap

Yesterday I wrote about Hans von Storch’s and Werner Krauss’s new book: “The Climate Trap – the dangerous proximity of politics and climate science”.

There is already some reaction to the book, which is scheduled to be released on February 25…a little over a year since Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning dropped their bombshell “Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun), which tells us claims of a coming climate catastrophe are unfounded.

The publisher Hanser Verlag writes:

The climate conferences have ended in failure and achieved no consequences, even though emissions continue rising. Climate scientist Hans von Storch and cultural scientist Werner Krauss explain how we ended up in the climate trap – and how we can get out of it. The inflationary announcements of the climate catastrophe led to a loss of credibility in science. Climate change is not a scientific question, but a societal one. It has to be anchored regionally in culture, every-day life, and politics. Global society does not need any politicized science calling for a 2°C target. Instead it needs a science that fathoms the conditions for a pragmatic approach to climate change.”

Reimar Lüst, former president of the Max Planck Society here:

This is an unusual and provocative book. A natural scientist and a cultural scientist have written it together. Hopefully it will annoy both the climate deniers and the climate alarmists within their insular circles.”

If it indeed annoys the alarmists, which I’m sure it will, then very few “deniers” will be annoyed at all by it. We can take criticism.

Gerhard Traufetter of Der Spiegel here:

Hans von Storch is a pioneer in climate modeling and one of the cool-headed voices on the subject. For years he has been dealing with the role of climate scientists, and has sharply criticised that some of them have attempted to drive policy with their research results. Together with cultural scientist Werner Krauss, he is calling for a clear designation of roles: Climate scientists should concentrate on physics and make themselves available to policymakers as ‘honest brokers’.”

Patrick Bahners of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung here:

Hans von Storch doesn’t call for an immediate meteorological state of emergency whenever a snowstorm does not allow itself to be stopped by all the chicanery of environmental law. The realists among the climate scientists are not guaranteeing good weather, but are guaranteeing clear views.”

Again there are lots of indications the book has plenty of harsh criticism aimed at the alarmist scientists who are trying to shape politics. Step by step, voices are speaking out against unfounded climate catastrophism in Germany.

Good news!

Photo credit of book Die Klima Falle: Hanser Verlag


New Book By Hans von Storch: Climate Scientists Took On Role Of Prophets…”Completely In Over Their Heads”

At their blogsite here climatologist (IPCC author) Professor Hans von Storch and cultural scientist Werner Krauss have announced they’ve authored a new book on the topic of climate change, society and policy:

Climate Trap

“The Climate Trap – The dangerous proximity of politics and climate science” – Hanser Verlag

The book will be released later this month by Munich publisher Hanser Verlag. A longer excerpt for reading is available here in German.

This is neither a skeptic nor an alarmist book. In it von Storch and Krauss have plenty of harsh criticism for both sides of the debate, and then some. Both sides, they claim, are responsible for having driven the climate issue into the ground. The book, they say, explains how climate science got there in the first place, and what possibilities are left to get climate sciences back on track so that it can produce productive action.

Here are some excerpts of the publisher’s excerpt:

On the state of climate change today, von Storch and Krauss write (my emphasis):

After the unprecedented success story of climate change becoming an object of public attention and concern, climate policy and the accompanying climate debate have wound up in a dead end. Despite the Kyoto Protocol and other agreements, commitments to transform the energy supply, and all the climate summits, there’s been no noteworthy success. To the contrary: The curve depicting global emissions of greenhouse gases has been surging upwards. In the summer of 2012, at the summit Rio +20, katzenjammer was everywhere.”

On the climate debate:

Together with climate politics, the climate sciences have ended up in a credibility crisis. The often-made commitment of limiting the temperature increase to 2°C is scientifically controversial and practically impossible politically. The debate is also being paralyzed by a raging public dispute between alarmists and skeptics. […]

The climate debate is stuck in the mud, the credibility of climate scientists has been cast into doubt, and the policymakers’ ability to act on the issue of climate is minimal. We are sitting in the climate trap.”

Why are we in this trap? Von Storch and Krauss write:

It’s not only incompetent politics, the exaggerations by the media and climate protectors, or the destructive forces of the skeptics that are responsible for the interim failure of climate policy. More responsible is the fact that we failed to understand the problem in its full dimension.”

The authors reveal how they feel about alarmist scientists. Since the early 2000s they felt “something was amiss”.

Was the climate apocalypse really at our doorstep as we could read in the media? Or were they exaggerating in their depiction of the results coming from climate science? […]

The climate scientist [von Storch] had the suspicion that climate science was dragging around a ‘cultural rucksack’ that was influencing the interpretation of the data. The cultural scientist [Krauss], with regards to the appearances by some climate scientists in the media and the roles they were readily assigned, was reminded of weather-wizards and shamans of foreign cultures.”

In the book, the authors even describe climate science as a ‘tribe of scientists’ and how some began behaving like prophets:

Some climate scientists were regular interview-partners and talkshow guests – and thus self-confidence became bigger, to the point that they knew the truth about climate change and thus became convinced that policy-making and society should follow the deeper insight of science.”

Without really being aware of it, climate scientists had taken over the role of prophets: They predicted the imminent end-of-the-world if society did not fundamentally change soon, reduced its emissions, and behaved more sustainably with the environment. The problem was not only the message, but also that they were were often completely way in over their heads with the role as mediator between nature and society.”

These “prophets” put out a story that was too much to handle. Von Storch and Krauss write:

Science delivered the raw material for a big climate narrative, one that still continues to shape our perception and media depiction of climate change today. It unleashed the horror scenarios of the Cold War and the fear of the atom, conveying them into the 21st century. A narrative seeded in the world by climate scientists, and one that keeps going out of their control again and again.”

The authors tell us that the way out of the “climate trap” is to begin by “viewing climate change as an issue that does not hang over us like ominous writing on the wall, but as one that has an appropriate place in our societies.” Krauss and von Storch are telling us: “Cool it!” They propose a third, alternative way.

If the rest of the book is like the beginning, then it will have the potential to change the direction of the climate discussion in Germany for the better. It’ll be near the top of my birthday wishlist.

Germany’s Vision Of Electric Mobility Fades As Renewable Energy Sector Collapses, And Nuclear Power Is Refused

Germany’s rosy vision of electric car mobility, like windmills and solar energy, may have once looked good on paper, but it sure is now taking a licking from reality.

elektro auto Michael Movchin

“In the process of dying off,” says a German auto expert from the University of Duisburg-Essen. Photo credit:  Michael Movchin, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Now the vision is being carried away to the graveyard in a pine box. The greenie Süddeutsche Zeitung (South German Newspaper) reports on the imminent demise of the electric car. H/t: Benny Peiser. The Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

So far it hasn’t worked out. The electric auto, which just a few years ago was idolized as a ‘technological revolution for transportation’, just isn’t taking off. The E-Auto project is in the process of dying”, laments Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, auto expert at the University of Duisburg-Essen. […] The pioneers, no question about it, are disappointed.”


On paper the revolution is already rolling. But not on the street. To the contrary: some pilot projects are quietly disappearing.”

Not long ago proponents were pitching the vision of electric cars moving almost silently in the city, producing no smog, accompanied by an extensive network of convenient charging points located at every parking lot and at home…”park and charge” everywhere. Most of the electricity of course would come from wind and sun, and the planet would be saved. And no more extreme weather.

German environmentalists, saw it as an opportunity for Germany to show the world how it’s done and thus got the government to invest massively in the electric car infrastructure.

Today, the whole project appears to be in ruins. Powering electric cars, after all, would have required a far greater supply of electricity. But instead of assuring more production of CO2-free electricity, Germany shot the electric mobility project in the heart when it shut down 8 of its 17 nuclear power plants two years ago. Now the country finds itself importing electricity.

Without the plentiful supply of cheap electricity that nuclear reactors provide, there is no chance of electric car success. At the moment Germany is struggling to supply the basic needs of the country, let alone the power that another 50 million cars would need!

Another obstacle for energy for the electric car is that solar energy and wind energy are nowhere near fulfilling expectations. The industry as a whole has been plagued by bankruptcies. Subsidies are now being cranked back.

Other obstacles of course are the high price of electric cars and their lousy range. Who’s ready to pay $40,000 for what is basically a golf cart and peters out after 100 km?

Electric cars probably could work for many in Germany, if there was a cheap, plentiful and steady supply of electricity. But as long a the country remains stubbornly opposed to nuclear power, then forget about powering cars with electricity.


Another Blow To Germany’s Solar Industry: “Center For Solar Excellence” Bankrupt After Less Than 3 Years!

MDR television and radio here report of another solar energy catastrophe in Germany. Hat tip: Holger Thuss via Facebook.

It was a high tech center opened amid much media fanfare and ceremony back in April 2010, as the video below shows.

Fanfare and ceremony surrounded the opening of the now bankrupt “Center For Excellence” back in April 2010.

Numerous leading politicians, including national Research Minister Annette Schavan, were in attendance, and they all praised the “Center for Training and Excellence in the High Tech and Solar Industries” in Erfurt.

At the time, it was one of the latest prestige objects symbolizing the country’s ambition to become a global leader, and thus an example to the world, in renewable energy and environmental responsibility.

The facility was built at a cost of 10 million euros, 8 million of which came from the taxpayers. Today it stands bankrupt and empty. Insolvency liquidator Romy Metzger told German public television:

I no longer expect the assets will find a user for the way it was used formerly.”

German television adds that the building and inventory most likely will be separated. It simple laugauge: the project flopped. And now, according to MDR, an auction of the assets is no longer being ruled out. No interested investor could be found for the object as it was earlier.

The “center for excellence” included laboratories and clean rooms. Originally it was supposed to educate 2500 people every year for Germany’s planned mighty solar industry.

But over the last two years, almost every single one of Germany’s solar module and equipment manufacturers, most heavily subsidised by taxpayers, has closed in a wave of insolvencies not seen since East German industry collapsed in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It’s deja vu.

Germany’s entire solar industry has been transformed into a vast wasteland of false hopes and dashed dreams. MDR writes:

Demand never materialized and the solar expertise centre declared insolvency in June 2011.”


Germany’s Solar Bloodbath Continues…Bosch Solar Arm Loses More Than $2.5 Billion in 3 Years!

Klimaretter, the German catastrophe-obsessed warmist site that dedicates itself to “rescuing the climate”, has a story today of the ongoing bloodbath in the German solar industry, here.

Engineering giant Bosch issued a press release in English here, where it reports that a cooling global economy has slowed the pace of growth of the Bosch Group.

But the real damage has come from its solar arm: “a likely one billion euros of impairments and losses in the difficult photovoltaics business had a significant effect on the earnings situation”.

According to, Bosch’s solar arm posted an operating loss of 450 million euros in 2012. In addition, the solar arm took unplanned special depreciations totaling about 600 million euros. Therefore the losses totalled more than 1 billion euros in 2012 alone. That comes on the heels of “impairments” of 560 million and 425 million euros in 2011 and 2010 respectively. adds:

According to Bosch, the solar arm is currently worth zero euros.”

It goes without saying, the company’s 2000 solar workers now face an extremely precarious future. Already one plant in Erfurt was shuttered at the end of the year.

Instead of focusing on saving the planet from an imaginary climate catastrophe, one that is generated by dubious models concocted by environmental kook physicists, perhaps ought to focus more on real issues, like rescuing German jobs by promoting sensible policies.


Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt: OHC Tells Us To “Prepare For A Long Phase Of Temperature Stagnation”

Someone please tell us where’s the warming

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has released the global mean temperature figure for 2012. The anomaly is +0.56° Celsius. A look at the last 30 years (a climate-relevant time-period) shows a global temperature stagnation:

Temperature anomaly (in hundredths of a degree) from 1983 to 2012.

This has created a commotion in the media. Spiegel has taken notice and reported of “puzzled scientists”. Perhaps we can lend them a hand in finding the missing heat. The 5-year moving average has been flat since 2002 – a full decade. There really hasn’t been any significant increase since 1997; that’s 16 years. James Hansen (see our blog report: “Who is James Hansen?“), released the temperature data while publishing an enlightening paper (Hansen et al. 2013, pdf). In it he acknowledges the temperature rise stop and attributes it mainly to the effects of natural variability. Global ocean heat content (OHC) of the upper 700 meters has also flattened, especially since 2004:

Therefore it is argued that since the beginning of the millenium the heat must have been transported to the ocean depths, down to 2000 meters. However, from those depths, little data is available. As a whole, everything appears vague and imprecise. Yet, there is something we wish to take a closer look at. Question: Where could this have possibly taken place? Here’s a look at the heat content (down to 700 m depth) of the Southern Hemisphere:


Here the trend is uninterrupted. There’s been no change in trend since 1990. Now let’s take a look at the Northern Hemisphere:


Here nothing has warmed in the last 10 years (see our blog article “A look at the global mean temperature in 2013. Is cooling ahead!“). In the meantime, this is what we have found, also published at climate website climate4you:


The above is the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) of the North Atlantic above 30° north, which is also known as the AMO region, which is where the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation takes place. The dataset shows the anomaly from the detrended sea surface temperatures (SST). A look at the region of impact shows that a huge area of the Northern Hemisphere is impacted:


Depicted above is the correlation of the AMO region with the global temperatures (positive correlation in orange, red violet). In the Northern hemisphere large regions are effected: USA, Central America and all of Europe, up to the Urals and also the Far East. In the Southern Hemisphere there’s practically no correlation! There the AMO does not play a role. What’s the relationship to ocean heat content (OHC)?


The above chart shows how the course of the OHC, whose magnitude in the North Atlantic has been dropping since 2004, correlates with the entire OHC of the Northern Hemisphere since 2004. The “cold colors” show the areas of water that behave like or similarly to the North Atlantic, i.e. in decline. In regions where warm colours rule, OHC is rising and thus counters the North Atlantic.  In the ocean regions where the AMO has an effect (see the preceding chart ), OHC behaves like the North Atlantic. Only the Northeast Pacific is out of sync. Here a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been in play for quite some time now. OHC in the North Pacific also has not been doing much since the year 2000:


The decline in OHC in the Northern Hemisphere could be well connected to the effect of the AMO. The flattening out of the OHC is very likely an AMO signal, which began to decline in 2005. Or is the North Atlantic being massively impacted by the anthropogenic aerosols (which are often used as an explanation) to explain the AMO? This is likely not the case because the chart showing the distribution of tropospheric aerosols indicates that the North Atlantic is one of the regions of the Northern Hemisphere that is impacted the least.

Figure from Shindell 2007.

So here it’s likely that the thermohaline circulation is offsetting the temperature driving greenhouse gas effects. If the early phase of the falling AMO has been able to offset the effect of anthropogneic greenhouse gases for years, then the rising AMO’s impact on temperatures during the period of 1975 to 1997 had to have been half of the entire observed warming during the period.  This would have profound consequences for the prognoses: The effect of the greenhouse gas was only 50% responsible for the warming since the intensive industrialization since 1960.

Implicitly, maybe late – but not too late – the British MetOffice recognized this as it recently corrected its prognosis for the coming years (see blog article “The avalanche gathers speed: British Weather Service drastically reduces its warming prognoses until 2020“). It concedes the effect when it explains: “In this case, changes in ocean surface temperatures in some parts of the world over the past year are understood to have made a key contribution to the difference between the 2011 and 2012 forecasts…”.

Therefore we should prepare for a long phase of stagnation if the AMO continues falling for decades. This is even simulated in a little known paper (Wouters et al. 2012). The authors are able to reporoduce the variability without the anthropogenic influence.


Temperatures have been flat for more than 10 years and the OHC of the North Atlantic reached its peak 7 years ago. We have shown that global temperatures follow the OHC there (see: “A preview of global mean temperature in 2013: Cooling ahead!“). We now see that the temperature course over the years followed the OHC, in harmony with the AMO. Cycles, particularly the oceans, were always suspected in the IPCC reports. Such cycles, however, are obvious and lead to the conclusion that manmade greenhouse gases are only 50% responsble for the warming. The impact of the thermohaline circulation on the climate is a key to understanding climate change and to what we can expect in the years ahead.

Another key is the sun. If a Maunder-type of minimum occurs, then we will certainly not see any temperature increase of the type vehemently postulated in the IPCC reports. These are exciting times – stay curious!


IPCC & Climate Science Taken Over By Environmentalists. Christy: “Reports By Advocacy Groups Not Credible”

donna_laframboiseImagine if the sugar and butter industries took over nutritional sciences. It wouldn’t be long before fruits and vegetables turned out to be the most dangerous foods on the planet.

When it comes to climate science and energy policy, a similar absurdity is taking place, i.e. the environmentalists are taking over energy policy-making. Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise has uncovered it, and FOX NEWS here has the report: “Leaked UN climate report slammed for citing WWF, Greenpeace“.

Fox writes:

Critics are blasting a draft U.N. climate change report that combines studies by advocacy groups like the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace alongside scientific research papers — the same issue that led independent auditors to slam the U.N.’s last report.

‘You’d think that the IPCC would have learned its lesson, that it would have told its authors not to rely on these sorts of publications,’ said Donna Laframboise, the head of, an investigative website skeptical of the scientific consensus on global warming.

‘The report currently includes, amongst its list of references, nine separate publications produced wholly or in part by the WWF,’ Laframboise told ‘The report currently includes nine separate publications produced wholly or in part by the WWF.'”

So nothing has changed at the IPCC. In it’s 2007 report, advocacy and activists groups were cited throughout. The science isn’t convincing enough and so the IPCC is resorting to scientifically unfounded exaggerations from advocacy groups who are pushing a sole agenda. FOX NEWS quotes John Christy, climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville:

“In general, I don’t think reports by advocacy groups are credible.”

Laframboise adds.

The real issue is that all of the evidence is being evaluated either by people who embrace an activist worldview, or who don’t consider an activist worldview to be at odds with rigorous science. […] The IPCC sees nothing wrong with activist perspectives. That’s what gives the game away. That’s what tells us that what’s going on at the IPCC is not science.”

Read more: www.foxnews.climate-report-slammed-for-citing-wwf/

Photo credit:


Leading German Meteorologist Dismisses Climate Horror Scenarios…”Are Without Any Scientific Merit”

Dr. Karsten Brandt is one of Germany’s leading commercial meteorologists and runs, which provides forecasting services in the private sector. He often appears as an expert in the German media, see here for example.

At his site he recently published an article, which I’ve translated in English with kind permission.


Brandt_donnerwetter.deWhere’s the Climate Change?

By Dr. Karsten Brandt

Climate change – varying signals
Things are getting tense for the prophets of global warming, or better said: serious. This is because climate models are supposed to reproduce reality. For 25 years there have been “modern climate prognoses from ever more sophisticated calculations and every bigger computers”. In the meantime billions (and perhaps even a trillion) have been spent on climate science. The result: It’s going to get warmer quickly. By 2020 climate change will be especially detectable in the global temperature curve.

But the actual signals are in fact confusing. On one hand numerous temperature records are being broken at weather stations, and on the other hand various data are showing that the temperature trend has stagnated over the last 15 years.

A truly good explanation for this surprise does not exist. In 2007 provided a number of contradictions surrounding the climate prognoses. For example, the danger of storms in Germany was supposed to increase, but nstead the danger of storms in Germany has been on the decline.

Here are our views on climate change from 2007, and they still hold today

After North Sea storm “Kyrill“ struck, one could read and hear everywhere that the weather has gone crazy and that climate change was causing more chaotic and dangerous weather in Germany. But repeating a claim over and over again does not make it correct. Weather Services has therefore put many of the more popular claims to the test.

Fact: Climate is changing, the temperatures have been rising globally, and also in Germany this trend can be clearly seen. It’s also a fact that man has played a large role in this development and thus must continue making efforts to protect the environment. But it is also a fact that the horror scenarios produced for Germany are without any scientific merit:

Claim no. 1: Storms and cyclones are on the rise
The fact is that the number of storms and cyclones over the last few years have been very low from a historical standpoint. Around 1550 about 40 storms were observed each year; that number dropped to around 20 during the 18th century. In the 19th and 20th centuries the number ranged between 10 and 20. The last years have been really quiet. the number of storms dropped considerably, especially after 1995.

Thus claim no. 1 is false!

Claim no. 2: North Sea storm surges are on the rise
Statistics show that the number of storm surges at the German North Sea coast have dropped markedly. After a strong increase in storm surges during the 1940s, it can be observed that they are much less today.

That claim is false as well!

Claim no. 3: Climate change is causing more hurricanes
There are no statements concerning wind climate in the pertinent IPCC publications. In its own publication, re-insurer Munich Re determined that future development is very uncertain. But if the climate prognoses are correct, then westerlies should be weaker, and thus the probability of large storms even declines! Therefore it is incomprehensible how such claims could be made.

The claim is at the very least doubtful.

Claim no. 4; Bad weather (violent thunderstorms/tornadoes) are increasing in Germany
This is also a widespread belief. But it is not supported by any data. To the contrary: the number of days with storms and heavy rains has declined or remained constant at many weather stations since the mid 1990s. Especially in the summertime stormy winds occur only during thunderstorms. One example: in Aachen the number of storm days (wind strength more than 6) from 1990 to 2006 declined to only 2 days per month during this period (that’s 25% less!).

The claim is false!

Claim no. 5: Bad weather (violent thunderstorms/tornadoes) are increasing because of climate change
This is merely suspected in studies by climate scientists, but there is no proof. The data actually point to the contrary.

This claim is doubtful at best.

Claim no. 6: The weather is becoming more chaotic and the atmosphere is “more loaded with energy”
It’s claimed time and again that rising temperatures will lead to greater temperature differences, and therefore will mean higher energy and bad weather potential in the atmosphere. Indeed temperatures in the polar regions are rising faster than in the subtropical regions. But this would point to a decrease in temperature difference, and thus tend to quiet the atmosphere.

That claim is false!

Claim no. 7: The climate has become more variable. Temperatrure fluctuations are greater. You can no longer rely on anything.
In studying the temperature fluctuation range in Germany (standard deviation) since 1756, the exact opposite is true. In the 18th century the standard deviation for the annual mean temperature was 25% higher than today. It dropped steadily until 1920 to today’s level, and has been fluctuating at this level ever since. Thus the weather has not gotten more variable. It used to be much worse.

The claim is false!


Before you think that the author is “naturally” pursuing personal “interests” as a climate skeptic and paid by CO2 polluters, please note that he is merely a small business director who runs a small limited liability company, and is thus perhaps more free to speak up than the representatives of the global climate circus, many of whom we know have made impressive careers and are living very well.

Be skeptical whenever anyone makes 100-year prognoses because no one is able to really forecast the climate. Already in the 1960s a number of climatologists failed with their 100-year forecasts and beyond (ice age prognoses). The climate system is far too complex to allow us to simply make regional forecasts for climate development.

At the Wetterpark in der Eifel, climate change is a big issue. We would be pleased about your visit and a discussion with you.

Karsten Brandt

Photo credit:


Cold Claims Over 300 Lives In Eastern Europe – Tens Of Thousands Without Power…Media Pretend It’s Warming!

The European media are just too embarrassed about having gotten it completely wrong when it comes to global warming. So they just continue pretending that the cold isn’t really happening. As people are freezing to death all around them this winter, they keep telling themselves (and us) it’s getting warmer! I’ve never witnessed such an astonishingly surreal situation.

Cold_NOAA photo

Death toll due to cold keeps climbing in Eastern Europe. Photo credit: NOAA public domain photo.

As hundreds of lives are being lost this winter, the media refuse to see it, talk about it, to believe it. Instead they keep telling the people something has to be done about the warming. They tell us about Australia 20,000 km away. This is like watching a weird Star Trek episode of a planet where people are walking around like zombies. Can someone send a doctor over to declare this media brain dead?

To get the news about the deadly cold that is gripping Europe, Russia, Siberia and a large part of Asia, you really have to search beyond the flat-line mainstream media.

For example, Blick website today has the story on how so far this winter over 300 people have frozen to death in Eastern Europe:

Many cold deaths in Poland and Russia

Because of the cold, many persons in Poland, Russia and Lithuania have died. because of the forecast temperature fall to -20°C in the coming days, the Ministry of Interior in Warsaw on Tuesday has reminded the public to be more cautious. […]

19 people have frozen since the beginning of the year in Poland, 3 on Sunday alone. So far this winter more than 100 people have died. After water pipes had burst because of freezing, tens of thousands of Poles are now cut off from electricity.

In Russia the number of deaths due to the cold has climbed to about 190, this according to authorities in Moscow via Interfax news agency. Just in the last few days alone 7 people died of hypothermia.”

The death toll does not include the dozens that have died in Belarus, Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe, and so it is likely much higher.

Photo above is actually of the North Pole, and is to convey that it’s cold out.


Are Europe’s Blogs In Danger? European Commission Advisers Propose Stricter Monitoring Of Internet Media

Today’s totalitarian ideas are always disguised as righteous plans to ensure “fairness” and “social justice” and they often start in Europe. Then the US Democrats drool over them and scheme to sneak them into the US.

The latest in Europe is to take much more control over the media. German flagship daily the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has a piece called: EU Advisers Wish To Monitor Media More Strictly. Hat-tip: To what extent this will impact blogs, I have no idea.

A group of EU Commission advisers say, “Europe’s freedom of the press is in danger” and so Europe has to act. Right!

The advisers are calling for stricter state monitoring of the media. According to the FAZ, the group says, “Some media outlets should be financially supported.” And others not?

Anyone living in Europe following the media to any extent knows that Europe’s traditional mainstream leftist media are in dire straits. A number of center-left dailies have recently bitten the dust, and so we suppose they are now looking for generous handouts.

The FAZ writes that stricter monitoring by the EU state would “ensure pluralism and quality”. The group of advisors proposes that the “European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights should monitor freedom of the press and free speech in member states”. You see, today there are media outlets out there who feel their rights to free speech are being infringed because citizens are no longer interested in paying for their crap. Now the government should force citizens to pay for crap that nobody wants – through subsidies.

The advisors also say an “independent monitoring agency“ made up of scientists could be set up. The advisers say that “more pluralism must be achieved, especially in the online media“.

The advisory group is hardly made up of lightweight bureaucrats. It includes former German Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin (who once compared President George W. Bush to Hitler) and Latvia former President Varia Vike-Freiberga. Däubler-Gmelin for example is calling on Europe to require its member states to have “independent media panels that would impose fines, force counter views, or revoke media licenses”, and to make sure these member-state media panels “abide to European values”. Sounds like free-speech policing to me.

The advisers believe that “freedom of the press is threatened by political powers, excessive commercial power, new business models, changing media landscape and the rise of new media.”

The FAZ writes:

One particularly large problem the advisers find is the creeping loss of quality in reporting, as Ms. Vike-Freiberga showed. Among other things, it arises from the new media like in the Internet where anyone is allowed to disseminate information. “For this reason the group also proposes that it is also essential for the state to support unprofitable media are essential.”

The panels also says that media should comply to a code of conduct and guidelines for publishing.

So, will Obama try again to push through the Fairness Act in USA? Don’t be surprised if he does.



Major German Daily Carries Front-Page Headline: “Global Warming Keeps Us Waiting…CO2 Over-Estimated?”

For awhile it appeared the German mainstream media were going to ignore the reality that the globe hasn’t warmed since the issue has been around (15 years).

But last Friday, Spiegel here was the first major German media outlet to break the ice and asked where the warming’s gone?” Read about it here.

HAZ 18 Jan

 Saturdays’s major daily of Hanover, Germany carries the front-page headline: Global Warming Is Keeping Us Waiting

Saturday, yet another major media outlet, the Hannoversche Allgemeiene Zeitung (HAZ…Hanover’s major daily) had a front page headline! on its print edition (marked yellow above) titled: Global Warming Keeps Us Waiting!

Hat-tip: Klaus Oellerer

Germans more than ever, now having endured 4 brutal winters in 5 years and now fighting through another wave of brutal cold and heavy snowfall, are asking: Where’s the bloody warming!

Today’s UK Telegraph even comments: It’s snowing and it really feels like the start of a mini ice-age.”

The sub-headline of the HAZ reads:

Is carbon dioxide being over-estimated? British scientists announce: the temperature increase stopped already 15 years ago.”

In the piece, Margrit Kautenburger asks, “What is it going to be? Is it going to be warmer, or not? The contradictory reports of global warming are falling all over each other.”

Over the years Germany has been bombarded by the media with dire warnings, spurred on by the catastrophe-obesessed Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), that the warming was galloping ahead like never before. Now, suddenly, observations and measurement data show there’s been no warming at all – even though CO2 emissions have steadily risen. The public is wondering what’s going on.

Kautenburger writes that the “authorities have corrected their climate projections significantly downwards” and quotes veteran German meteorologist Klaus E. Puls:

Nature is behaving differently than what the models predicted. However, that fact is being ignored. […] Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but its impact is being completely exaggerated. Puls says that the correction by the Met Office is a sign that there’s a change in thinking taking place. Climate science is too politicised. We need an open and fair discussion.“

Like Spiegel, the HAZ also writes that “climate scientists are puzzled” and adds.

The uncertainty shows, if anything, one thing: The climate is still mostly misunderstood. Foremost short-term trends are uncertain, concedes climate scientist Mojib Latif of the Geomar Center for Ocean Science in Kiel.”

Latif really ought to know. Back in 2000 he infamously predicted there would be little snow at our latitudes.  That prediction is now turning out to be preposterous. 4 of the last 5 winters have been harsh, and right now much of Germany is being paralyzed by yet another hefty blanket of snow.

Have you looked out the window today, Mojib?

Warmist Spiegel/Euro-Media Concede Global Warming Has Ended…Models Were Wrong…Scientists Are Baffled!

Spiegel has finally gotten around to conceding that global warming has ended, at least for the time being.

IPCC temperature chart 2012

Yesterday Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski published a piece called: Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung (Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming).

We’ve been waiting for this admission a long time, and watching the media reaction is interesting to say the least. Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?

Bojanowski adds (emphasis added):

15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large. The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.”

The big question now circulating through the stunned European media, governments and activist organisations is how could the warming stop have happened? Moreover, how do we now explain it to the public? To find an answer, Bojanowski contacted a number of sources. The result, in summary: scientists are now left only to speculate over an entire range of possible causes. Uncertainty in climate science indeed has never been greater. It’s back to square one.

One explanation Spiegel presents is that the oceans have somehow absorbed the heat and are now hiding it somewhere. Yet, Bojanowski writes that there is very little available data to base this on: “There is a lot of uncertainty concerning the development of the water temperature. It has long appeared that also the oceans have not warmed further since 2003.” Spiegel then quotes Kevin Trenberth concerning NASA’s claim that they’ve detected a warming of the oceans: “The uncertainties with the data are too great. We need to improve our measurements“.

Spiegel also writes that the missing heat may be lurking somewhere deep in the oceans. But here Bojanowski [Spiegel] quotes Doug Smith of the Met Office: “This is very difficult to confirm“. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI) suspects that energy has been conveyed to the ocean’s interior, but there’s a dire lack of data to confirm this. Bojanowski writes over the current state of ocean data measurement: “Without intensifying the data measurement network, we are going to have to wait a long time for any proof“.

Scientists also suspect that the stratosphere may have something to do with the recent global temperature stall. Susan Solomon says the stratosphere has gotten considerably drier, and so warming at the surface may have been reduced by a quarter. But Bojanowski reminds us that under the bottom line, the scientists are pretty much without a clue; he writes:

‘However, climate models do not illustrate stratospheric water vapour very well,’ says Marotzke. The prognoses thus remain vague.”

Well then, maybe it’s due to aerosols from China and India blocking out the sun, some scientists are speculating, and “thus weakening warming by one third“.  Spiegel writes that “If the air were cleaner, then climate warming would accelerate.” But aerosols have always been used a convenient joker in climate models to explain unexpected cooling, such as from 1945 to 1980.

In fact, all the explanations presented by Bojanowski above have already been thoroughly looked at in a book-  one year ago – by a pair of scientists: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Last year much of the media massively ostracised them for floating “crude theories”. A year later it’s indeed strange to see that their “crude theories” are now completely in vogue.

How does Bojanowski sum it up? “The numerous possible explanations do show just how imprecisely climate is understood.”

Trenberth is left with only anecdotes, isolated singular events

Yet, as Bojanowski points out, some scientists refuse to give up on the AGW theory. He writes:

Under the bottom line, there are a number of various ominous signs of warming: rising sea levels, Arctic sea ice reduced by a half in the summertime, melting glaciers. At some locations there are signs that extreme weather events are increasing. ‘There are many signs of global warming,’ emphasizes Kevon Trenberth, “near surface air temperatures is only one of them.'”

Sorry, but isolated singular events do not constitute trends, let alone science. Prof. Trenberth really ought to know that. This is pathetic. The observed data and measured trends have stopped showing global warming. So are scientists now claiming that singular events are robust signs? This would be only one step away from astrology!

Bojanowski reminds us again that the science is poorly understood and that a number of factors are at play. He writes:

Indeed new surprising data keep popping up. Recently a new study appeared showing that soot particles from unfiltered diesel engine exhaust and open fires have had an impact on warming that is twice as high as what was first thought.”

Bojanowski also tells his readers that “Computer simulations have shown that warming has made tropical storms more seldom.”

He also mentions other factors that are poorly understood, such as: solar radiation’s impact on clouds, water vapour cycles, and natural and man-made aerosols.

Short term prognoses remain “especially uncertain”. But longterm ones are sure?

Spiegel at the end of the article seems to be duped into thinking that short-term prognoses are uncertain, but longterm ones are rather sure. Spiegel quotes warmist Jochem Marotzke of the MPI:

Climate prognoses over time periods of a few years still remain especially uncertain. ‘Our forecasting system in this regard still lets us down,’ says MPI director Marotzke. “But we’re still working on it.”

This to me appears to be an attempt to have readers believe that although they’ve botched the short-term projections completely, they are likely still right about the longterm projections of warming. Now take five minutes to get your laughing under control. … If the models failed for the first 15 years, then they are no good! Period! They’re crap, and you cannot rely on them for projecting the long-term. They belong in one place only: the dustbin! How long must we wait before climate scientists return to science?

Don’t get me wrong, at least this article, admitting something is terribly amiss, is a very encouraging step in the right direction. But it’s difficult to remain hopeful when climate scientists continue demonstrating that they do not even know what proper scientific methodology is.

Lastly, I like they way Bojanowski ends his piece:

Current prognoses warn of a 5°C warming if CO2 emissions continue as before. But it is not now well-known just how much natural climate impacts are able to change the temperature development – the new NASA data have revealed this as well.”

Spiegel science writers would be well-advised to read Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s “Die kalte Sonne“. Practically every question brought up by Bojanowski has been answered there – one year ago. Moreover, Lüning”s and Vahrenholt’s temperature model for the next 100 years so far has been dead on.


Lance Armstrong, Livestrong And Climate Research

I commented at Facebook about Lance Armstrong earlier today, writing that I had pretty much lost respect for Lance when he paired up with jet-setting climate activist and “rock star” Sheryl Crow, and watching John Kerry acting like his best fan at the 2004 Tour.

Today it doesn’t surprise me that he has turned out to be a dishonest cheater. Of course, he doesn’t see it that way. Such folks never do.

Climate research robs cancer research

But whatever you may think of Lance, you have to respect the work he’s done in raising awareness and millions for cancer research. The key to fighting many types of cancer is researching and developing life-extending drugs and treatments. Many patients are literally on the brink, hanging on, hoping they’ll still be around long enough to see the next new effective treatment.

I friend of mine was recently diagnosed with multiple myeloma. Although it was a devestating blow, and the outlook at first looked pretty bleak, there are some good news out there. Firstly, at the age of 49, he is relatively young and strong, and thus can endure different life-extending treatments.

Secondly, I’ve read up about it and was encouraged and impressed by the variety of new, promising treatments that have been developed so far, or are now in development. Multiple myeloma, once a death sentence, is now becoming a treatable cancer, and many patients’ lives are being extended for years. However, development is slow and extremely costly. There just isn’t enough funding out there. Sure progress is being made, but I can’t help but wonder what treatments would have been developed by now had cancer research been more generously funded – had it not been robbed.

Imagine what could have been accomplished by now if a part of that enormous sum of money sucked up by climate research had gone into cancer research instead. With $100 biliion, imagine the number of treatments that could have been developed and the number of lives extended or even saved. Those of you who know someone with a serious case of cancer, you know all to well the hope they desperately cling to, hoping the next treatment arrives before they leave. For many, it’s a race.

Sure some climate research has produced good results, and I’m not saying all the climate funding could be shifted to cancer research. However, looking at the massive climate conferences and bogus studies out there, one can’t help but to think that a considerable share of climate research has been dubious, and even bordering on fraud and lunacy. Eventually, this is going to cost us. Just today, they’re finding out their climate models have been completely wrong. They couldn’t even get the first 15 years right.

Lance needs to lobby the government.

I don’t wish anything bad on anyone, but I’d like to ask many world-travelling IPCC climate scientists out there how they’d react if one day they had the misfortune of being diagnosed having an incurable form of cancer, with the doctor saying, “Well, there’s no effective treatement out there, at least for now. With the current level of research, we may find an effective treatment in maybe 10 or 15 years. Unfortunately, you’ve got only a year or two to live.”

You’d probably wish they had done more research.


Weather Service Warns of “Shock Cooling” Coming To Europe…4th Bitter Cold Euro-Winter In 5 Years Shaping Up!

Germany and Eastern Europe have been gripped by freezing temperatures and snow for a week, and now Germany’s no.1 daily Bild has an online report warning that “things are going to get a lot worse over the coming week”.

Europe forecast CW4_2013

Asia forecast 3

Temperature forecast for next week. Chart source: National Centers for Environmental Protection:

A blast of frigid air is once again getting ready to make an already cold situation even colder – much colder! Bild writes: “NOW COMES THE SHOCK COOLING!”

Beginning in the middle of next week, night-time temperatures down to -20°C are expected. In the daytime the mercury will climb to only -10°C. Everywhere in Germany!”

For those waiting for warmer winters with little snow and balmy temperatures, as the warmists used to promise us, you’ll just have to forget about it this winter too. If the current cold keeps up, then this will be the 4th colder-than-normal winter in Central Europe in the last 5 years.

And what do the weather models show for Week No. 5 (the week after next week) for Central Europe? Right now they show things staying pretty cold. Here’s the forecast for next Thursday, 24 Jan.:


Source: National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP),

And here’s the projection for 12 days from now, Wednesday, Jan 30:


A bit warmer…Source: National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP),

And here’s the projection for 15 days from now:


Source: National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP),

Clearly temperatures for Central Europe will remain far below normal, and with no relief in sight.

It’ll be interesting to see if the German power grid holds up. If neighboring Eastern Europe, and France to the west, are hard hit by bitter cold, then they may not have any surplus power to spare for Germany, which shut down 8 nuclear power plants a year and half ago. Germany thinks that it can fill that gap with wind and solar energy.

Of course that will only work if the sun shines, and there’s no snow covering the solar panels, and if the wind blows steadily, and if people don’t run too many dryers. Don’t be surprised if the government orders large power consumers and factories to shut down.

As for myself, I’m going to start looking for a Honda generator to power our gas-furnace. Even though we’re living in times of “global warming”, I’m not keen on freezing to death in it.

How much is this cold going to cost?

A lot. Bitter cold always claims more lives. here tells us that warm winters are far more agreeable for humans, as they entail fewer car accidents, lower heating costs, and better economic activity. Moreover, cold claims far more lives. writes:

The colder it is, the more people die! Already starting at a temperature of 18°C, the death rate climbs 0.6% for every degree Celsius it gets cooler! Especially old and sick people are hard hit. At a temperature of 0°C, about 9% more people die than at a relatively mild temperature of 15°C.

Now just imagine how bad it’s going to get when the mercury plummets to -20°C! It works out to 21% more deaths! And the idiots want us to fight warming?


Veteran German Meteorologist Calls Climate Science “A Fairy Tale That’s Rich In Fantasy…Spook Watching”

Two short items today: 1) an open letter from independent German climate scientist Josef Kowatsch in response to the recent PIK study we discussed here, and 2) an opinion piece appearing here by veteran meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang Thüne on the topic of climate science in general.

1) Open letter to the PIK by Josef Kowatsch

To: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Date: January 15, 2013 11:04 AM
Subject: Your alleged heatwaves as proof of a (non-occurring) climate heating / PIK press release

Dear Madam or Sir,

Of course heat records have been recorded in various regions of the world over the last 10 – 12 years. Yet temperatures during this period have neither risen in Germany nor globally; rather they have fallen slightly. Moreover, a number of cold records have occurred. In your press release you completely ignore these cold records and avoid mentioning them. What follows is a chart of Germany’s temperature over the last 15 years:

Germany temperature trend Josef Kowatsch

Chart source: Josef Kowatsch, EIKE; Data source is the DWD German Weather Service

Over the same time period, global CO2 emissions have increased. The increase in CO2 has had no warming effect. Indeed there has been a light cooling. These are the facts. Your press release is simply not honest.

I’ve sent this letter to other media outlets as well.

Yours sincerely,
Josef Kowatsch
73460 Hüttlingen, Germany
Independent climate scientist, as I am not getting paid by the CO2 tax coffers.


2) Veteran meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang Thüne slams climate science

Thuene_der wettermannIn a commentary posted at his website, meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang Thüne aims harsh criticism at warmist science. The article is titled: The Greenhouse: A House of Bondage. As the title suggests, Thüne describes a science that has run amok, and now threatens to take over the lives of every citizen on the planet – how we behave, think, and what we eat.

He reminds us that attempting to control “weather and climate” by controlling human behavior is an utter folly, and there are other far more powerful factors at play in dominating weather and climate – like the sun.

To illustrate this point he describes how temperatures on can vary by up to 100°K at some locations. In Oymyakon in Yakutia, Russia, a record low temperature of -68°C was once recorded. At the same location, the temperature reached a record 34.6°C on July 28, 2010. Thus the temperature here can fluctuate over a range of more than 100°K. What does CO2 have to do with that? CO2 is even higher there in the winter, yet it’s far colder. Clearly the sun is the driving factor.

Thüne concludes at the end of his commentary: “The statement that CO2 concentration, whether natural or man made, is the main factor in driving air temperature is a scientific fairy tale that’s rich in fantasy. Making climate forecasts is spook-watching!”

Photo credit Dr Thüne:

(h/t: Bernd Felsche)


Arctic Sea Ice Area Back To Normal! Dramatic Record Refreeze Wipes Out “Dramatic” Melt Of August!

Arctic sea ice extent today is, for all practical purposes, BACK TO NORMAL!

Arctic sea ice extent 15 Jan 13

Chart source:

That return to normal only means one thing. The “dramatic melt” of August 2012 had to have been reversed completely by an equally dramatic refreeze this winter. Unfortunately we’re not going to find any news stories about that in the media, are we? Ice and many other climate developments are only one-way dramatic for the warmists, i.e. only when it melts, and not when it refreezes.

“Oh! But hold on!” some of you out there may say. “It’s thickness (i.e. volume) that’s really important, and not area.”

Yes, that’s correct. But how come we never here the media talk about ice volume in August? In August, suddenly only area counts. Funny how they bring up volume only when ice refreezes and things are back to normal.

If you do look at volume (Antarctica and the Arctic), then there really is nothing to worry about. Global ice volume varies by only a few thousandths of a percent globally each year – even over decades. I discussed this once already not long ago HERE.

If you charted global ice volume (Arctic + Antarctica) over time, the thickness of the line would more than cover the decadal variations. But don’t hold your breath waiting for a warmist to show such a chart. You’ll never ever see it from them.


European Climate Institute: “Climate In Germany Has Been Cooling For 15 Years”!

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) has been looking at the temperature trends for Germany. The German media, politicians and institutes have been insisting that warming and climate change are happening faster than ever. However, this claim is completely foreign to reality.

Climate change in Germany is cooling. No increasing temperatures in 15 years

Using the data from the German Weather Service (DWD), the climate in Germany has been cooling over the last 15 years.

Germany temperature trend Josef Kowatsch

Germany’s temperatures have been falling since 1998 while global CO2 concentrations have risen. (Chart source: Josef Kowatsch, EIKE; Data source is the DWD German Weather Service)

At the end of 2012 the DWD published the mean annual temperature for Germany. This year the figure was 9.1° C. Although there were no warnings of an imminent heat catastrophe in the media, there was also no depiction of the real situation. Everything was explained using terms that lead easily impressionable readers to believe that the warming, which had started in 1975, was continuing on as usual.

The DWD mentioned not a word about how the temperature trend has been falling since 1998. That means it’s getting colder in Germany, and not warmer.

Including the mean temperature for 2012, Germany’s temperature curve over the last 15 years appears above.

For 20 years now Germany has been issuing grave warnings and spreading fear of the growing threat of climate change. Year after year, self-anointed “climate experts” and highly paid climate scientists have been outbidding each other in coming up with the biggest catastrophe scenarios. Cities and communities have been asked to begin the battle against the already started and supposedly unstoppable global warming, or else face the threat of a a climate collapse soon. “Fight climate change” was the rallying cry to mobilize citizens to battle against the enemy: man-made CO2.

The reality, however, is totally different. In nature, and particularly with the temperature trend, we do not see any sign of the claimed strongly rising temperatures from a greenhouse effect caused by man-made CO2. The climate does what it wants, just as it always has.

The real temperature chart, absent of any warming cosmetics, plainly shows one thing: Temperatures in Germany over the last 14 years have fallen, and more than what is shown if you consider the urban heat island effect.

It is indeed high time to put environmental and nature protection back into the focus and not the business model of climate protection.

Edited by EIKE
Written by: Josef Kowatsch, Hüttlingen.
Translated/edited in English by P Gosselin


Ehrlichian Catastrophe-Obsessed Potsdam Climate Institute Claims 12 Times More Heat Records By 2040!

The PIK has issued a press release on another one of its patently alarmist, statistically selective and manipulative studies, BASED ON MODELS, claiming the end of the world is near.  I’m sure this study will be shown to be preposterous in just a matter of days. No matter, the German media can hardly contain itself.

80 percent of observed monthly records would not have occurred without human influence on climate, concludes the authors-team of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Complutense University of Madrid. Monthly temperature extremes have become much more frequent, as measurements from around the world indicate. On average, there are now five times as many record-breaking hot months worldwide than could be expected without long-term global warming, shows a study now published in Climatic Change. In parts of Europe, Africa and southern Asia the number of monthly records has increased even by a factor of ten.

Global warming has increased monthly heat records by a factor of fiveRecord-breaking hot months have become much more frequent. (For full graphic see Fig. 4 in the study) Graphic: PIK       
“The last decade brought unprecedented heat waves; for instance in the US in 2012, in Russia in 2010, in Australia  in 2009, and in Europe in 2003,” lead-author Dim Coumou says. “Heat extremes are causing many deaths, major forest fires, and harvest losses – societies and ecosystems are not adapted to ever new record-breaking temperatures.” The new study relies on 131 years of monthly temperature data for more than 12,000 grid points around the world, provided by NASA. Comprehensive         analysis reveals the increase in records.

The researchers developed a robust statistical model that explains the surge in the number of records to be a consequence of the long-term global warming trend. That surge has been particularly steep over the last 40 years, due to a steep global-warming trend over this period. Superimposed on this long-term rise, the data show the effect of natural variability, with especially high numbers of heat records during years with El Niño events. This natural variability, however, does not explain the overall development of record events, found the researchers.

Natural variability does not explain the overall development of record events

If global warming continues, the study projects that the number of new monthly records will be 12 times as high in 30 years as it would be without climate change. “Now this doesn’t mean there will be 12 times more hot summers in Europe than today – it actually is worse,“ Coumou points out. For the new records set in the 2040s will not just be hot by today’s standards. “To count as new records, they actually have to beat heat records set in the 2020s and 2030s, which will already be hotter than anything we have experienced to date,” explains Coumou. “And this is just the global average – in some continental regions, the increase in new records will be even greater.”

“Statistics alone cannot tell us what the cause of any single heat wave is, but they show a large and systematic increase in the number of heat records due to global warming,” says Stefan  Rahmstorf, a co-author of the study and co-chair of PIK’s research domain Earth System Analysis. “Today, this increase is already so large that by far most monthly heat records are due to climate change. The science is clear that only a small fraction would have occurred naturally.”

The paper unfortunately ignores the siting issues of modern temperature stations, most now located next to airport tramacs and within urban sprawl. The horror scenarios also contradict observed temperature trends and projections of further stgnation or even cooling in the next decade.

All climate models have been exposed as exaggerated

Joe Bastardi shows how observed temperatures over the last 30 years have been below all 38 model projections put out by a variety of “climate institutes.” The consensus of the models has been revealed as being dead wrong. Bold blue dots represent the observed trend:

38 Models_ Joe BastardiObserved temperature trend over the last 30 years now below all 38 model projections. Chart source: Joe Bastardi, photo/1.

And it was just 2 years ago when PIK famously predicted global warming would lead to a cooling of the northern hemisphere.