Movement! German Media Reopen Climate Discussion – Concede Warming Has Stopped, Other Factors At Play

If Germany had recorded a record 5 warmer winters in a row, people would be reading and hearing about it for days without end. However, just the opposite has occurred: Germany has now experienced 5 colder than normal winters in a row – “a record” – now made official by the German Weather Service (This winter 0.6°C below 1981-2010 average). Yet, hardly a peep from the media on this.

But the media peeps are beginning!

At least one arm of the German mainstream media has reported this. In its Panorama section, German online daily Die Welt has an article about the recent trend, written by Ulli Kulke. The introduction reads:

Spring is just around the corner, at least from a meteorological point of view. However Germany is stuck in a record winter without sun and warmth.”

According to meteorologists, since daily sunshine measurements began in 1951, no DJF German winter has been so cloudy and dreary in Germany as this 2012/13 winter. Moreover the DJF mean temperature for the country was 0.6°C cooler than the 1981 – 2010 average. That makes it the fifth winter in a row this has occurred – a record.

Kulke quotes meteorologist Dominik Jung:

In this regard Jung says: ‘The earlier climate projections, i.e. the climate prognoses of the 1980s and 1990s, have, at least for Germany, more or less massively faltered over the last years.'”

The models have not only been wrong for the winters but also for the summers, Kulke writes, citing Jung on prognoses made for hotter and drier summers:

…of the last 10 summers only one was too dry, and that was the summer of 2003, […] otherwise all other summers were normal or too wet.”

What’s worse for the climate models the Met Office forecasts the cooler weather to continue at least through 2017, Kulke writes. Even IPCC chairman and ultra-warmist Rajendra Pachauri recently conceded the cool trend might last “30 or 40 years“.

Die Welt writes that the recent trend may provide “a tailwind in the climate discussion” for those who claim that “the impact of the sun on climate change over the last decades has been underestimated far too much, and that the role of CO2 exaggerated – which by and large has been supported by two new peer-reviewed studies in journals this year.”

Die Welt adds on the cosmic ray – cloud formation – cooling theory:

Theoretically this relationship has been known a long time. The parallelism between global temperature and solar activity over the past 1000 years appears to confirm it.”

Indeed the theory is so compelling that even CERN and the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen are conducting large scale, extensive experiments and studies on it. Die Welt now appears to be opening up to a new climate theory:

“…the results could deliver new explosive material for the climate discussion.”

This truly marks a change in direction for Die Welt.

No matter what is claimed, one thing is certain: The climate discussion is now progressing ahead in Germany with the massive, unstoppable inertia of a glacier, grinding to a pulp every false claim in its path.

Observe how the mainstream German media is coming around and conceding the discussion is indeed far from over, acknowledging that the solar theory is real and gathering in strength, and that warming has unexpectedly stopped.

 

Vermont, New England Begin Sobering Up…Public Support For Ridgeline Windparks Erodes!

And if they can’t put the wind turbines up on ridgelines, there aren’t too many other places they could be put in Vermont. I guess developers could try putting them “offshore” on Lake Champlain – yeah, right. That would be as stupid as putting them on mountain ridgelines.

Mount_mansfield_20040926

Vermont; photograph taken by Jared C. Benedict, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

Lukas Snelling brings a bit of good news about the public mood regarding wind turbines in the state at Energize Vermont. Normally, I write about news in Germany, but I hope readers will forgive me for sometimes meandering off to Vermont, my native state.

Vermonters are beginning to sober up. Perhaps some of that fine Scotch has finally made its way to the Green Mountains and instilled a little sanity in the Yankee culture after all.

The latest numbers released today from the Castleton Polling Institute show support for ridgeline wind in Vermont continues to erode. Support for wind on Vermont’s ridgelines reached a high of 74% in favor in Vermont’s deliberative polling back in 2008 to only 66% of Vermonter’s declaring their support for ridgeline wind today.

“Poll questions are overly simplistic and theoretical. Asking people if they like something without explaining the pros or cons doesn’t really give you a meaningful result. Polls with a low sample size and a high margin of error poll are not reliable gauges of the status of the issue across the state,” said Lukas Snelling, Executive Director of Energize Vermont. “However, from these polls a clear trend has emerged. The more Vermonters know about these projects and their impacts, the fewer people support them.”

In 12 town votes from the last decade over 58% of voters have opposed the projects in their communities, with only 41% supporting them. The most recent votes in Hubbardton and Brighton were even stronger against with 94% opposed in Hubbardton and 62% opposed in Brighton. Additionally, Select Boards of the four Rutland County towns around the proposed Grandpa’s Knob project recently voted to oppose utility-scale wind in their communities. Three of the four town boards did so unanimously.

“Citizens investigating this technology’s impact on their communities are deciding wind projects don’t make for good neighbors. With four projects operating in Vermont and accumulating noise complaints, and another three communities with active developments, Vermonters are examining this technology more than they ever have before. We predict support will continue to erode as developers continue to push this technology on our communities,” continued Snelling.

“Vermonters are seeing that ridgeline wind in Vermont is less about the environment and more about generating revenue for the developers. We see interest in smaller-scale solutions and solar technologies growing everyday. We are actively building a renewable energy future for Vermont that is firmly within our legacy of environmental protection,” concluded Snelling.

The coming months will bring another benchmark of public opinion in the wind debate. Like last year, this year’s Town Meeting Day Doyle Poll will ask for Vermonter’s opinions on ridgeline wind in the State. Although unscientific, comparing this year’s results to last years will give another barometer of the trend. Last year 64% of respondents support wind turbine construction on our ridgelines statewide, with lower numbers in communities where projects were operating or proposed.

Energize Vermont was created to educate and advocate for establishing renewable energy solutions that are in harmony with the irreplaceable character of Vermont, and that contribute to the well-being of all her people. This mission is achieved by researching, collecting, and analyzing information from all sources; and disseminating it to the public, community leaders, legislators, media, and regulators for the purpose of ensuring informed decisions for long-term stewardship of our communities.

Sanity is returning (though there’s still a way to go, i.e. solar). Time for a toast with a little Bruichladdich.

 

Von Storch Blasts Climate Scientists: Not The “Keepers Of The Truth” – Says They “Oversold” The Science

This week’s newsstand, print-edition of FOCUS magazine (February 25, 2013, No. 9/13) has a 2-page interview with leading German climate scientist Professor Hans von Storch (HvS) titled: Climate Scientist Against Panic Spreading.

HvS

Hans von Storch

The sub-heading of the FOCUS article on page 92 reads:

Scientist Hans von Storch goes hard in his own way: He accuses climate science of hype and ‘methodical failure’.”

Here he is speaking about the IPCC scientists. The interview coincides with the official release of his latest book “Klimafalle“, which will hit the bookshelves tomorrow.

HvS says the focus of the climate issue is too much on the alarmists and those who claim it’s all humbug. His book attempts to move the discussion to the centre.

There’s little doubt that man-made CO2 emissions have caused the globe to warm since the industrial revolution, he tells FOCUS, but not all scientists say sea levels are going to rise 2 meters by the year 2100 and that hurricanes are getting more frequent.

He says the climate issue needs to be debated, and warns scientists against acting like they are the “keepers of the truth”.

At the center of the magazine’s 2-page spread are two juxtaposed images: the left one shows the divergence between the observed global mean temperature and the IPCC projections; the right image shows Chancellor Angela Merkel with Prof Han-Joachim Schellnhuber standing in the background. The text under the juxtaposed images reads “indeed the global mean temperature has stagnated for years” and that HvS’s book Die Klimafälle “criticises the alarmist view of the PIK” (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research).

HvS has always been critical of scientists interfering in the political process. FOCUS asks HvS if Chancellor Merkel ought not have a climate advisor, to which HvS replies:

Just a single advisor? No.”

FOCUS then asks HvS about efforts by scientists to intimidate any media critical of alarmism, a practice Stefan Rahmstorf is infamous for:

That is a not taking one of the most important institutions seriously, namely the media. Anyone who behaves like that obviously views himself as the judge who knows how media reporting is supposed to be.”

FOCUS then describes the IPCC’s embarrassing Himalayan error, asking HvS how it is that some scientists can claim to be infallible? HvS attributes it to a “circle-the-wagons mentality” within the climate science community, and even blames the political discussion in the USA “which has a very aggressive skeptics’ scene that extends all the way into Congress and has influence on policy-making.”

On the 15-year temperature stagnation, HvS still does not believe it disproves in the AGW theory, but concedes:

As the scientific community, we were just not prepared for the temperature not rising for a decade as CO2 concentrations rose. We had not thought enough about the possibility of falsification. […] We concentrated too much on looking ahead and said: Great! Everything fits our explanation. For many colleagues asking questions was frowned upon because this ‘could provide the climate skeptics with ammo‘. And that is a methodical failure.”

On Mojib Latif’s prediction that Central Europe would soon hardly see snow, HvS says criticism of the models here by skeptics is “completely legitimate” and adds:

Us climate scientists oversold. We said we had to announce the basic truth, and not to overload the people with too many details. Thus the problem arose because climate science did not understand its own role.”

In summary, HvS, a warmist, is calling for a fundamental correction in the way climate science goes about its business.

But one ought not think that HvS criticizes only the alarmists, he has plenty of criticism for the skeptics in his book as well.

Hans von Storch photo credit: European People’s Party, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

 

Collapsing Consensus – Another German Meteorology Site Wonders About The Global Temperature Stagnation

Brandt_donnerwetter.deLast week German meteorologist Dominik Jung openly wondered what had happened to all the warming, pointing out that Germany was suffering from its fifth consecutive colder than normal winter – a record!

Earlier this month renowned meteorologist Prof. Dr. Horst Marlberg announced that global warming was finished, and that cooling was ahead for the next decades.

Last month German meteorologist Dr. Karsten Brandt (photo above) dismissed (again) global warming catastrophism.

And just days ago, yet another German meteorology site questioned global warming in a piece titled: “Global Warming Stagnates – Guessing The Causes“. The report begins:

Since 1998 the global mean temperature has not risen significantly. While the global temperature rose by about 0.5°C from the 1970s until the end of the 1990s, it has stagnated for the last 15 years, though at a high level. […] The stagnation surprised a lot of experts, who are now searching for possible causes for this development.”

Wetteronline.de then explains the various theories, writing that the stagnation may be due to weakened solar activity, or because of huge emissions of aerosols over Asia – global dimming – or perhaps because of ocean currents.

Wetteronline.de ends its report with:

The climate system of the Earth is very complex. There are still many interrelationships, factors, and feedbacks affecting the climate that are not known or still not adequately researched. Thus a combination of the above factors is possible for explaining the stagnation in worldwide temperature. But also a completely unknown phenomenon that climate science knows nothing about is possible. Even a natural variation of the climate cannot be excluded.”

The author of this report is getting warmer, and warmer. He’s on the right path, and really only needs to pick up a copy of Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’sDie kalte Sonne“. The book lays it all out on what’s behind climate change. Read it, and decide for yourself. It’s great reading, especially for meteorologists.

One thing is sure: the science of climate change is no longer an open and shut case – not by any means. The consensus that humans are driving the climate is more shattered than ever in Germany, and is crumbling at an increasing velocity.

If Professor Schellnhuber and his PIK wish to implement their “Great Transformation” of global society, they’d better hurry up!

Photo credit: Karsten Brandt, http://www.donnerwetter.de/.

 

Germany’s Renewable Energy Efficiency Falls To Just Over 20% – Threatening To Ruin Country’s Competitiveness

Every good manager knows that economic success and environmental protection only get achieved when resources are used efficiently and wisely. It makes little sense to buy a huge machine that can run only 20% of the time when you can get the job done using a much smaller machine that runs 100% all the time.

EEG Auslastung

Capacity utilization (economic efficiency) of the energy feed-in power production systems in percent. Data source: http://goo.gl/GqJuy. Chart source: Wilfried Heck/.

Biomasse – biomass
Wasserkraft – hydro
EEG-Erzeugung – all combined
biogener Abfall – bio-waste
Windkraft – wind power

As the graphic above from Winfried Heck’s website shows, Germany’s overall green power efficiency, depicted by the bold “EEG-Erzeugung” curve, is approaching only 20%.

In the early 90s, biomass and hydro were the bulk of Germany’s renewable energy, and so the overall capacity utilization of its green energy back then was close to 50%. But massive subsidies lead to the large-scale installation of the far less efficient wind power and photovoltaic systems, which today are Germany’s main producers of green energy, overshadowing hydro and biomass. Thus inefficient solar and wind have since dragged the overall efficiency of Germany’s green energy supply down to just over 20%.

That’s horrendous from a technical and economic point of view. At that level, it’s only a question of a very short time before you find your competitors running circles around you.

Note in the chart that photovoltaic systems barely reach 10% of their capacity, wind barely reaches 20%. No wonder electric bills in Germany have been skyrocketing and companies are saying “auf Wiedersehen”.

Although the amount of green energy produced in Germany has gone up, it has become very inefficient overall.

Worse, the more wind and solar systems get installed, the more intermitently the conventional systems end up running, thus making them far less efficient and costlier. Result: Germany’s entire energy production system is rapidly becoming sub-par. That’s bad for the environment, the consumer’s pocket book, and for the country’s global competitiveness.

Call it communist power management. In the communist days it took 10 men to the job of one man in a free market. On the energy market, it takes 5 green generators to do the job of a single conventional generator.

Little wonder that Environment Minister Peter Altmaier says Germany’s transition to green energy is going to cost $1.3 TRILLION dollars if the madness isn’t stopped soon.

 

East African Drought Due To Natural Cycles – Not Man-Made, Study In Nature Shows

Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt’s Die kalte Sonne site recently posted an article about the East African drought, which, as it turns out, is all part of a natural cycle.
================================================
New Study in Nature: East African Drought Trend Part of a Natural Cycle
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

Figure 1: Moisture development of East Africa over the past 700 years. Source: Tierney et al. 2013.

East Africa has gotten drier over the last decades, suffering from drought. Those responsible for this misery were quickly found: It had to be man. His rising CO2 emissions must have irreversibly damaged the East African climate, and driven the rains off for good. This is pretty much how many environmental and aid organizations have been arguing, e.g. Aktion Deutschland Hilft or Greenpeace. Of course, you don’t have to be a marketing expert or psychologist to see the real intentions of these accusations. With feelings of guilt, donations come pouring in.

Now a new publication in the journal Nature casts serious doubt on the supposed man-made East African drought assumption. US scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, led by Jessica Tierney, have taken a closer look at moisture trends in East Africa and have uncovered a surprise. Using geological reconstructions, the scientists were indeed able to confirm that East Africa has dried out during the past decade. However, the group also succeeded in reconstructing the data all the way back to the year 1300 (See Figure 1 above).

As Figure 1 shows, the drought of the last decade is simply all part of a broader natural cycle that has been occurring over hundreds of years. Contrary to what was assumed earlier, the drying out did not first begin in the second half of the 20th century, but already at the end of the 18th century. A pronounced wet period prevailed in East Africa between 1680 and 1765 (Figure 1), which corresponds to the Little Ice Age – a time when global mean temperature was more than 1°C colder than today. Interestingly, East Africa was just as dry back in the 14th and 15th centuries as it is today. Clearly CO2 could not have been responsible for that.

Therefore Jessica Tierney and her team started looking for a natural driver for East Africa’s moisture development. They compared the drought data with the temperature development in the Indian Ocean. Lo and behold: both curves showed a high degree of similarity. Obviously the rain in East Africa is driven significantly by the Indian Ocean. Whenever the India Ocean is cool, the rains in East Africa increase. And when the Indian Ocean is warm, the rains become more seldom (see Figure 2):

Figure 2: Moisture in East Africa (blue curve) and sea surface temperature of the Makassar Strait (red curve; cold up, warm down). Source: Tierney et al. 2013.

In turns out that the temperature curve of the Makassar Strait near Indonesia also closely reflects global mean temperature (Figure 3). During the Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period, drought conditions prevailed in East Africa. But wet conditions ruled during the Little Ice Age. We also know that this climatic behavior over decades and centuries happens to follow solar activity. Thus moisture development in East Africa is mainly driven by solar activity.

Unfortunately the authors of this Nature study “forgot” to mention it – even though it’s made obvious by the data. The results are no surprise because numerous other studies from different parts across the world show the same distinct patterns, for example: here, here, here, and here, just to name a few from many.

Figure 3: Temperature development of the northern outer tropic hemisphere. Source: Ljungqvist 2010. RWP = Roman Warm Period, DACP = Dark Ages Cold Period, MWP = Medieval Warm Period, LIA = Little Ice Age, CWP = Current Warm Period.

Reports Of All-Time Record Low Northern Hemisphere Temperature, But No Official Confirmation

UPDATE: This story has only been confusion. It appears the new record was never set. Now it seems the source has been the Daily Mail, a story they wrote in January. Other outlets picked up on it, and information seems to have gotten lost and changed along the way. The Mail writes the -71.2°C reading was taken in 1924. But I guess it never became official, or something.

My conclusion: Nobody knows what the record temperature in Siberia really is. Someone else can work on it. I’m finished with this story!
==============================

Russia is a country filled with mystery and tales. Yesterday I wrote here there were reports that a new record low temperature had been set for the northern hemisphere, in Oymyakon, Siberia: -71.2°C.

However that record remains unconfirmed so far. But media outlets have been reporting on it, examples:

Public Post.ru/:

Село Оймякон — самая холодная точка на планете. На днях тут похолодало до минус 71 градуса — это самая низкая температура за всю историю измерения. Предыдущий рекорд был в 1933 году, когда ударил мороз минус 67,8 градусов.

In English (Bing translation):

The village of Oymyakon is the coldest point on the planet. The other day here it became colder to minus 71 degrees is the lowest temperature ever measured. The previous record was in 1933, when the frost hit minus 67.8 degrees.”

borlife.de reports here:

Oymyakon: Coldest Town in the World – 71 ° Celsius

It was just a few days ago that Oymyakon became famous. With -71° Celsius, it recorded a new record cold temperature, which until then had been unique to 2 villages. Until then the record of -68°C had to be shared with the town of Werchojansk – however, this is now history.”

Meteo Portale Italia:

Un nuovo record di freddo è stato stabilito nella giornata di oggi in Siberia. Nella città di Oymyakon è stato raggiunto l’incredibile valore di -71°C! Battuto il precedente record di -68°C che resisteva ormai dal lontano 1933. Tutta la Siberia e la Russia stanno sperimentado una fase di gelo intenso, con -50°C toccati anche nella regione di Dzalinda.”

In English, that’s something like:

A new record cold was recorded today in Siberia. In the town of Oymyakon the incredible value of -71.2°C was reached, beating the record of -68°C set in 1933. All of Siberia and Russia are in a phase of intense frost. with -50°C in the region of of Dzalinda.”

Germany’s Die Welt:

The Siberian location of Oymyakon has broken the record for the lowest temperature of all time. With -71°C it is the coldest town in the world. Even the traffic signs are iced over.”

Record? So far no one has been able to confirm it officially.

 

Northern Hemisphere Sets New, All-Time Record Cold Temperature: -96.1°F In Oymyakon Siberia

UPDATE 2: No official confirmation of this record is available. Read here. Now it looks like it’s a bogus story.

UPDATE 1: Russian media seems to confirm the new record: http://publicpost.ru/theme/id/3284/oymyakon/! Here it writes:

Село Оймякон — самая холодная точка на планете. На днях тут похолодало до минус 71 градуса — это самая низкая температура за всю историю измерения. Предыдущий рекорд был в 1933 году, когда ударил мороз минус 67,8 градусов.

In English (Bing translation):

The village of Oymyakon is the coldest point on the planet. The other day here it became colder to minus 71 degrees is the lowest temperature ever measured. The previous record was in 1933, when the Frost hit minus 67.8 degrees.”

But others point out that Weather Underground, for example, shows no temperatures being close to that. So the mystery remains. For the time being, there is no record until otherwise officially stated.

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

That’s -71.2°C, and it shatters the previous record of -68°C (-90.4°F) set in 1933! Hat-tip DirkH.

There’s been a lot of confusion over the last couple of days concerning a record low temperature allegedly just recorded in Siberia.

It appears that the record was actually set on February 19, in Oymyakon, Siberia.

News website borlife.de/ reports here. It writes near the end:

Oymyakon: Coldest Town in the World – 71 ° Celsius

It was just a few days ago that Oymyakon became famous. With -71° Celsius, it recorded a new record cold temperature, which until then had been unique to 2 villages. Until then the record of -68°C had to be shared with the town of Werchojansk – however, this is now history.”

This Italian site also reports that the new record was just set days ago, on February 19, smashing to pieces the old record of -68°C set in 1933, 80 years ago:

Un nuovo record di freddo è stato stabilito nella giornata di oggi in Siberia. Nella città di Oymyakon è stato raggiunto l’incredibile valore di -71°C! Battuto il precedente record di -68°C che resisteva ormai dal lontano 1933. Tutta la Siberia e la Russia stanno sperimentado una fase di gelo intenso, con -50°C toccati anche nella regione di Dzalinda.”

My Italian isn”t the best, but I’d translate that as follows:

A new record cold was recorded today in Siberia. In the town of Oymyakon the incredible value of -71.2°C was reached. It beat the previous record of -68° C that which stood since 1933. All of Siberia and Russia are in a phase of extreme frost. The area of Dzalinda is hit with -50°C.”

Italian readers may want to improve that translation for me.

Die Welt kept it off the front page, confirmed the temperature reading, but doesn’t call it a “record”, read here.

 

 

East African Drought Due To Natural Cycles – Not Man-Made, Study In Nature Shows

Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt’s Die kalte Sonne site recently posted an article about the East African drought, which, as it turns out, is all part of a natural cycle.
================================================
New Study in Nature: East African Drought Trend Part of a Natural Cycle
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

Figure 1: Moisture development of East Africa over the past 700 years. Source: Tierney et al. 2013.

East Africa has gotten drier over the last decades, suffering from drought. Those responsible for this misery were quickly found: It had to be man. His rising CO2 emissions must have irreversibly damaged the East African climate, and driven the rains off for good. This is pretty much how many environmental and aid organizations have been arguing, e.g. Aktion Deutschland Hilft or Greenpeace. Of course, you don’t have to be a marketing expert or psychologist to see the real intentions of these accusations. With feelings of guilt, donations come pouring in.

Now a new publication in the journal Nature casts serious doubt on the supposed man-made East African drought assumption. US scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, led by Jessica Tierney, have taken a closer look at moisture trends in East Africa and have uncovered a surprise. Using geological reconstructions, the scientists were indeed able to confirm that East Africa has dried out during the past decade. However, the group also succeeded in reconstructing the data all the way back to the year 1300 (See Figure 1 above).

As Figure 1 shows, the drought of the last decade is simply all part of a broader natural cycle that has been occurring over hundreds of years. Contrary to what was assumed earlier, the drying out did not first begin in the second half of the 20th century, but already at the end of the 18th century. A pronounced wet period prevailed in East Africa between 1680 and 1765 (Figure 1), which corresponds to the Little Ice Age – a time when global mean temperature was more than 1°C colder than today. Interestingly, East Africa was just as dry back in the 14th and 15th centuries as it is today. Clearly CO2 could not have been responsible for that.

Therefore Jessica Tierney and her team started looking for a natural driver for East Africa’s moisture development. They compared the drought data with the temperature development in the Indian Ocean. Lo and behold: both curves showed a high degree of similarity. Obviously the rain in East Africa is driven significantly by the Indian Ocean. Whenever the India Ocean is cool, the rains in East Africa increase. And when the Indian Ocean is warm, the rains become more seldom (see Figure 2):

Figure 2: Moisture in East Africa (blue curve) and sea surface temperature of the Makassar Strait (red curve; cold up, warm down). Source: Tierney et al. 2013.

In turns out that the temperature curve of the Makassar Strait near Indonesia also closely reflects global mean temperature (Figure 3). During the Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period, drought conditions prevailed in East Africa. But wet conditions ruled during the Little Ice Age. We also know that this climatic behavior over decades and centuries happens to follow solar activity. Thus moisture development in East Africa is mainly driven by solar activity.

Unfortunately the authors of this Nature study “forgot” to mention it – even though it’s made obvious by the data. The results are no surprise because numerous other studies from different parts across the world show the same distinct patterns, for example: here, here, here, and here, just to name a few from many.

Figure 3: Temperature development of the northern outer tropic hemisphere. Source: Ljungqvist 2010. RWP = Roman Warm Period, DACP = Dark Ages Cold Period, MWP = Medieval Warm Period, LIA = Little Ice Age, CWP = Current Warm Period.

German Climate Movement, Catholic University Paper Warns Of Growing Climate Skepticism In Germany

BrunnengräberA new working paper titled Climate Skeptics In Germany And Their War Against The Energy Revolution by the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Vienna, written by Dr. Achim Brunnengräber of the University of Berlin Department of Political Science, has just been released.

What’s a bit surprising is that the Catholic Theological Private Institute of Linz contributed to this hate-tinged, highly confrontational, intolerant working paper, which is designed to further demonize those with a different opinion. Obviously elements of Catholicism have regressed back to the good old Galileo days when doctrine was not to be challenged. You could view it as a Redeclaration of War on Skeptics.

Moreover, what is especially frightening is that Brunnengräber appears to be totally unaware of the massive body of recent scientific research and data refuting the IPCC climate science.

Indeed, a stunning blow was delivered to the author, and the overall renewable energy movement, just days ago when Angela Merkel’s Environment Minister Peter Altmaier announced that the German transition to renewable energy would end up costing citizens a spectacular 1 trillion euros by the end of the 2030s, de facto confirming the project is a colossal flop that threatens the existence of the nation. He is now working to put the brakes on.

The paper’s introduction (p. 7) states that the public is getting increasingly unsettled about the burdens coming from Germany’s energy revolution, and writes that “people who deny man-made climate change, play down its impacts, or fundamentally question climate policy appear to be gaining ground in this atmosphere. In Germany, their voices are becoming increasingly louder and are getting greater attention from politics, media, and the broad public.”

Paper’s “surprising results”:

The introduction presents the paper’s three main results:

1. There are more and more signs that the climate skeptics in Germany are gaining political ground and attention.

2. The denial of climate change is, however, no longer the central issue. The skeptics are focussing their criticism increasingly on the political consequences that resulted from climate change.

3. This leads to questioning the transition to renewable energy. Thus the positions of the climate skeptics are gaining acceptance and are finding support – also from prominent figures.

The report then asks if a similarly strong debate like the one that has long been found in the USA could appear in Germany. Brunnengräber advises that the skeptics should not be taken lightly, and suggests the possibility of that happening is real, and that there are “substantial reasons against ignoring them“.

Brunnengräber begins by defining and fingering out the skeptic forces, putting focus on The Heartland Institute, CFACT and Fred Singer in USA; and the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), Fritz Vahrenholt, journalists Dirk Maxeiner, Ulli Kulke and Günter Ederer in Germany, and claiming that climate skepticism is based on the findings of “dubious” scientists, all designed to spread doubt and uncertainty among the public. The report drags out the old, worn-out claims that skeptics are being massively funded by “the oil industry, its think tanks, and massive financial resources“.

Brunnengräber accuses the skeptics of defamation. In section 7.5 on page 44, he describes the skeptic network in Germany as:

…”a colorful heap of blogging amateur climatologists (most being retired professors), a handful of lobbyists, politicians and hobby scientists. Singer here plays an important role at the EIKE events in Germany, and is always a welcome guest. Among the speakers are Christopher Monckton, a conservative politician from Great Britain and Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.”

Through the conferences…

…with the international guests – the network of climate skeptics in Germany is spreading more and more. Moreover, there is contact with the Global Warming Policy Foundation.”

Skepticism in Germany “increasingly a problem”.

The report writes at the end of section 7.5:

Climate skeptics are being viewed by many German politicians and scientists increasingly as a problem (Hornschuh 2008: 149). Yet, there is little or no direct contact between climate deniers and their opponents. The conflicts are playing out via the media. The one exception confirms the rule: In May 2011, there was a meeting between EIKE members and representatives of the Potsdam Institute (PIK), but whose content was not released to the media. An open discussion appears to be impossible because the “absolute skepticism of the climate skeptics immunizes against counter-arguments.”

Here, Brunnengräber forgets to mention that it was the PIK who requested that the meeting’s content not be released, and that it is the PIK’s scientists who refuse to debate in public.

In the paper’s summary, Brunnengräber concludes (concedes) that the skeptic movement in Germany is now “well-embedded institutionally” with groups like EIKE, the Manhattan Institute, TvR media Publishing, the blog Achse des Guten, and some professors at various universities. One expert team suggests that “the strength and success of the skeptics does not come from prominent, renowned scientists or experts, but from a network of climate skeptics that connects protagonists from science, media, private industry, and politics“.

Brunnengräber also points out that presence of skeptical positions in the media has increased since the 2009 Copenhagen conference. Stefan Rahmstorf once ostracized (p. 43) the German mainstream media, e.g. Spiegel, FAZ, Die Welt, RTL, etc., for giving the skeptics attention, accusing them of “unfiltered presentation, poor quality control, and referring to skeptics as “experts”.

Brunnengräber’s paper claims to welcome scientific debate (so long you don’t disagree) p 11:

Here a healthy measure of skepticism is essential for every scientific step forward and for the process of gathering knowledge. Doubt belongs to human thinking […] without which science is unimaginable. However, criticism must be factual, sound and based on science. But here this appears not to be always the case. The German science skeptical debate on climate change is not only an unhealthy skepticism, but it is characterized by an absolute negation and rejection of all data showing an anthropogenic, i.e. man-made climate change.”

The source of that quote used here by Brunnengräber is radical environmental group Germanwatch.

Merkel fears a planet with 9 billion people…

Even Angela Merkel shows hints of being unconvinced by the climate science, and supports the transition to green energy moreso because of an irrational fear she has of a planet inhabited by 9 billion humans all wanting to be prosperous, which she recently revealed at a WBGU meeting. Page 10 of the report quotes Merkel:

I always lump climate change and resource efficiency together as one issue because I have no desire to argue with doubters on whether or not climate change is so bad or if it will be that bad. Just the fact that we are approaching 9 billion people on the planet shows that those among us who don’t believe in climate change have to change their thinking.”

Stunning. Based on that, for Merkel, the discussion is over.

Her big worry seems to be the 9 billion people we will soon have on the planet, and making sure there is enough Lebensraum…a seemingly incurable, neurotic obsession among many Germans in power.

Finally on the author, Brunnengräber, one Dutch expert wrote in an e-mail to me: “These Austrian authors (political scientists and sociologists, I
presume) have still not understood that climate scepticism is based on evidence and science.”

It’s what one calls: expertise based on ignorance.

 

Tiny Denmark Bans Oil And Gas Furnaces in New Homes In A Bid To Rescue The Planet

Effective January 1, 2013, oil-burning and natural gas furnaces in new homes are forbidden in Denmark. And beginning in 2016, homeowners will not be allowed to replace their old, existing gas or oil burning furnaces with a new one. Hat-Tip: Readers Edition.de/. Read here, in English.

If you think the green movement has gone off the rails in Germany, just look at neighboring Denmark. Reader’s Edition writes:

The ban of a certain type of heating impacts everyone who is planning to build a new home, which is 1-2% of all homes. But at the latest in 2016, owners of older homes will also be affected.”

As is often the case with bureacrats, they failed to think out the possible consequences. Readers Edition reminds us:

This approach is not without risk. The question arises concerning the safety of an existing heater that goes on the blink just after the 2016 deadline. Will there be a huge temptation to continue running the risky furnace?”

It’s not clear on how Danes plan to stay wwarm in the future. District heating is more common in the Nordic country than in other European countries. Yet district heating accounts only for 35% of all Danish homes, and the heat is generated mostly by gas and oil.

There’s no mention how the other 65% of Danes will keep warm after 2016.

If you’re surprised by Denmark’s radicalism, don’t be. This is the same activist country that imposed a tax on fat back in 2011. Danish bureaucrats obviously thought their citizens were too stupid to know how to properly feed themselves, and so needed the nanny hand of a bureaucrat to spoon-feed them. So it really isn’t a surprise they also have to be taught how to stay warm.

Obviously, the Danes believe that their tiny country cutting back on their share of the world’s CO2 emissions (something like 0.2%) and thus theoretically preventing 0.0000001°C of warming by the year 2100 will rescue the polar bears and immunize people against bad weather.

Their fat tax, by the way, was abolished just a year later.

 

Danish Meteorological Institute Records Lowest Arctic Temperatures In 9 Years!

Looking at the temperature chart of the Danish Meteorological Institute, we see that the Arctic above 80°N has turned quite frosty. The polar bears are probably the only ones enjoying it.

DMI

Chart above shows the years 2004, 2010, and 2013. Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php.

Checking the charts from the years before, we see that today’s Arctic temperature is a hair lower than the low of 2010 (it’s very close), and is thus the lowest since 2004. At Twitter a couple a days ago I think it was Ryan Maue who said that the Arctic was in for a cold snap, and so it’s possible temperatures above 80°N may even drop further before this ends.

Will be interesting to watch in the days ahead. I wonder if they’ll blame it on warming.

 

Germany’s Climate-Warming CO2 Emissions Rose In 2012 – Despite 1 Trillion Euro Renewable Energy Transition

Preliminary figures show that Germany’s CO2 emissions for 2012 increased 1.5% – due to a cold winter and higher consumption of coal for producing electricity, writes Germany’s FOCUS magazine here.

Altmaier_WFES_AbuDhabi_2013

Environment Minister Peter Altmaier says Germany’s CO2 emissions are rising, and his country’s renewable energy transition will cost 1 trillion euros by 2039. Photo credit: Peter Altmaier, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

The final figures are still not in, and FOCUS writes that they may be as high as 2% more CO2. German Federal Environment Minister Peter Altmaier commented, “We must not be indifferent about this because it puts the fulfilment of our climate targets at risk.“ Germany has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 27% since 1990. But it is rarely mentioned that most of those reductions resulted from the shutdown of dilapidated, filthy, communist East German industry after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The jump of 2012 will surely make reaching the 40% reduction target by 2020 more difficult, if not all but impossible. Currently the EU is seriously contemplating an intervention in the CO2 permit trading to increase the price and thus produce an incentive for companies to save energy (or to move offshore).

Worst, Peter Altmaier is quoted in the flagship daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung here saying that Germany’s transition to renewable energy may end up costing a stunningly spectacular one trillion euros by 2039. The FAZ writes:

For the first time Environment Minister Peter Altmaier speaks publicly about the total costs of the transition to renewable energy: 1000 billion euros. That’s reason enough for the CDU party politician to pull the ‘electric power brake’.”

But as Altmaier admits, “pulling the brakes” is only going to reduce the bill by a fraction. Altmaier tells the FAZ:

That would mean that we would save 200 billion in feed-in subsidies over 20 years.”

Altmaier expects an additional 100 billion euros in savings from reduced energy back-up systems. So instead of costing 1000 billion euros, Germans are going to end up paying 700 billion euros. For what? Answer: Read here! (That is, of course, if the AGW theory is correct. So far the climate has been cooling, meaning Germany’s foray into green energy will be it’s latest super folly to follow WWI and WWII).

As was the case in last century’s kook-driven movements, there are powerful kook-forces behind Germany’s current green revolution, and Altmaier’s attempts to rein it all in faces fierce opposition. Once again it looks as if another historical, violent cardiac arrest is in the works for the heart of Europe.

 

European Institute For Climate And Energy Warns Germany’s Feed-In Act “Will Lead Country To Economic Ruin”

Countries considering implementing green energy feed-in schemes may want to look at what is going on in Germany.

Limburg private photo

Michael Limburg warns that Germany’s EEG renewable energy act is driving the country to ruins. Photo source: Michael Limburg

Few countries have moved as aggressively as Germany in promoting renewable energy. Some tout the German system as a model for the rest of the world.

But in an interview with DIE FREIE WELT, Michael Limburg, Vice President of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), called Germany’s EEG renewable energy feed-in act “ideological and expensive” and warns it threatens to economically ruin the country.

My time is a little short today, and so I’ll present only the main points of the interview.

Limburg on why people are becoming increasingly agitated by Germany’s EEG feed-in act

It’s obviously the new, real experience that the falsely named ‘renewable energies’ are nothing what the politicians promised they would be. Not only are they not free, but they really do burn a hole in your pocket. […] Especially low income households feel the pain. […] The reality is that it’s the state that initiated this expensive mess, and it is now asking the consumer to cough it up. Up to the end of last year, it had already cost € 98 billion euros ($130 billion). That’s 10 times the amount the Federal Department of Transportation is allowed to spend this year for investment and repairs for our roads and highways.”

Limburg’s criticism on photovoltaics and wind turbines

Of all the alternative energies available, these two are the most expensive, the most volatile, and thus the most useless. In Germany we get as much sun as Alaska does. That’s why PV systems here operate at only 8% of their rated capacity in the middle of the year.

Wind is the same when it comes to volatility and quality. It is useless. But with a subsidy of 9 – 15 cents per kwh, it’s a bit cheaper. Like biofuels, the problem is the vast amounts of area that are needed. Their low energy density means you need huge areas in order to collect and concentrate the energy. Conventional energies are infinitely superior.

For example, to replace one conventional 1400 MW power plant with wind, you’d have to erect onshore approx. 3000 2.3 MW class wind turbines. Offshore, you get double the yield, but the investment costs are much higher and the wear and tear is far greater. Producing 1400 MW offshore with wind would cost € 13 billion, and then you would need a conventional back-up power plant for windless times costing another € 2.6 billion. That comes out to a total of € 15.6 billion for power that could be generated simply by running the conventional plant full time. And never mind the power transmission lines for now.

The result: a cost that is 6 times higher for a lower quality product. Only the state is capable of making such a ridiculous economic decision.”

Limburg on the role fossil fuels in Germany

After the senseless shutdown of nuclear power in Germany, their importance has once again increased. Because of the shale gas revolution on the global market, fossil fuels will now get even cheaper. Moreover, Germany has huge reserves of lignite and their conversion to power is on the rise. Because of the feed-in of green energies, only lignite remains economical. We should be grateful to have such large reserves at hand.

Limburg on the current risks to the power grid and generation

The danger is not only that the whole green energy infrastructure is expensive and massively burdens citizens, but that the high costs are driving out the industry, and the entire supply chains that feed them. This will lead the country to economic ruins, and the people along with it.”

Limburg on what needs to change

The energy feed-in act must be abolished immediately and the subsidies eliminated. Moreover, green energy producers must be paid only for the power they actually deliver. This would force them to install storage systems at their own expense.”

Limburg on how expensive it is going to get

By the year 2015 the costs arising from the renewable feed-in act will amount to € 570 billion.”

Wow – all this to delay the theoretical global warming on the planet by a whole 23 hours over the next 100 years. Only the state is capable of such a bargain.

 

German Scientists Vahrenholt and Lüning: PIK Greenland Meltdown Scenario Handily Refuted

AWINot long ago the catastrophe-obsessed scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research claimed that another 1.6°C of warming may be enough to melt all of Greenland’s ice and cause global sea levels to rise catastrophically.

Keep in mind that the PIK is probably the biggest producer of catastrophe stories in the world after Hollywood.

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning now say this fringe scenario has been handily refuted, citing a new, recently published international study authored by scientists of the Alfred Wegener Institute and others. They write:

Good news coming out of Greenland. A new study involving the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) of Bremerhaven has refuted earlier horror scenarios of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), which claimed that a warming of 1.6°C possibly could lead to a complete meltdown of Greenland’s ice mass.”

The AWI study contains a surprising conclusion, say Vahrenholt and Lüning, who write at their Die kalte Sonne blog:

The surprising conclusion of the study, which appeared in the journal Nature: At air temperatures that were as much as 8°C higher than those of the 21st century, the ice mass melted far less then when compared to what was recently suspected. Back then the Greenland ice sheet played a far smaller role in the global sea level rise during the Eem interglacial than what was previously assumed. Should the current temperature rise in Greenland continue, then the reactions of the ice sheet in the wake of the Eem warm period apply as possible future scenarios for the ice mass on the island.”

Such is the difference between fishy models and reality. Lüning and Vahrenholt therefore now see a considerably diminished danger of an Greenland ice meltdown. Greenland was far from being ice-free during the Eem interglacial of 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. Lüning and Vahrenholt add:

To the contrary: From the peak in the glacial period prior to the Eem, about 400 meters were lost in size, and it was 130 meters lower during the Eem 130.000 to 115.000 years ago than it is today. In the same time period it’s volume shrank a maximum of one quarter.”

Vahrenholt and Lüning conclude:

The good news of the study was that the Greenland ice sheet did not react as sensitively to this temperature rise as previously thought.”

Photo credit: Alfred Wegener Institute.

 

Meteorologist Dominik Jung Turns Skeptical After Germany Sets Record 5 Consecutive Colder-Than-Normal Winters!

Jung Dominik_TwitterBig, embarrassing news for German climate scientists.

With 11 days remaining, Germany this year is set for its 5th colder-than-normal winter (DJF) in a row (a record), this according to high-profile German meteorologist Dominik Jung at www.wetter.net here (photo left). Jung is an often-quoted meteorology expert of the German media.

I’m really quite (pleasantly) surprised because I recall sharply criticizing, even berating, Jung in a post about a year or two ago for believing all the warmist rubbish. I guess five cold, snowy winters in a row have been enough to get Jung to take closer look. His tone and music have changed completely.

Jung begins his post with:

Just a few years ago climate experts prophesied that Germany would no longer experience winters with ice and snow in the future. In the 1990s there had been an entire series of milder and stormier winters. […] However, this trend has not been observed over the last years. To the contrary: winters have again gotten considerably colder and the huge storms like those in the 1990s have more or less disappeared. […]. Climate experts prophesied in the year 2000 that winters with snow and ice in Germany would cease to exist.”

Jung then presents the data for Germany’s last 4 winters and that of the current winter, and compares them to the 1980-2010 mean winter temperature, which was 0.8°C above the 1960-1990 mean.

– 2008/2009: 1.0 °C cooler
– 2009/2010: 2.0 °C cooler
– 2010/2011:  1.3 °C cooler
– 2011/2012: 0.1 °C cooler
– 2012/2013 (so far): 0.4°C. cooler

We should recall that whatever applies for Germany, also applies for much of Central Europe. Moreover, Jung mentions that the results are the same if you compare the five winters to the 1970 -2000 period. Jung summarizes the results:

With the current winter, we now have 5 winters in a row that have been colder than the long-term average! Crafty scientists at first explained that climate warming was just taking a timeout. Strangely, this timeout has now been going on for 5 years without interruption. Accordingly things have gotten very quiet in the climate warming debate.”

Yes indeed it has. Germany’s prestigious research institutes and leading climatologists, such as “internationally recognized” Prof. Dr. Mojib Latif, Head of both the Research Division Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics and the Research Unit Marine Meteorology of the IFM-GEOMAR of Kiel, Germany, and “renowned” Prof. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf of the influential Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research (PIK), or Prof. Dr. Jochem Marotzke of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg are now stumped, baffled and confused by this unexpected development, which completely contradicts their earlier super-computer models. Indeed, most of the German warmist modellers have since gone back and revamped their models, and are now suddenly claiming that the colder winters are actually a sign of global warming! But for much of the remaining German science community, these once prestigious scientists are beginning to increasingly look like laughing stocks of the new century.

Jung did his homework, and also checked to see how the earlier models have been doing for the summers (JJA). Jung writes:

By the way, according to many climate projections, also summers in Germany were supposed to get increasingly drier and hotter. Over the last 10 summers, only one summer was too dry, and that was the summer of 2003. Otherwise all summers were either average or much too wet.”

The models got the summers wrong 9 consecutive years in a row! So expect the Latif and the other hapless scientists to roll out new models soon. Jung continues:

The earlier climate projections and prognoses of the 80s and 90s are more or less way off, at least for Germany and Europe. Because of the current situation with the facts, they simply no longer fit and must be urgently revamped, otherwise we will wind up with credibility problems here.”

Too late. As mentioned above, the scientists are already laughing stocks and many of us have been rolling on the floor with laughter for quite some time. Jung:

People aren’t stupid and they recognise what the facts are. So let’s look and see just how much longer this timeout is supposed to go.”

If he hasn’t done so already, Jung ought to pick up a copy of Die kalte Sonne. It’ll remove any remaining doubts he may have.

There you have it. The climate models have been wrong in the winter 5 years in a row, and wrong in the summer nine years in a row. That’s even far worse then random guessing. This is an incredible performance.

Send thanks for this report to Wetternet.de e-mail address: info@qmet.de.

Photo credit Dominik Jung: https://twitter.com/WetterExperte

 

Conclusive Study: Most Scientists Have Serious Doubts About The Claimed Extent Of Man-Made Global Warming

Reader Aetheress left a comment, which I’ve upgraded to a post. Here it is:
============================================

Post by Aetheress:

I’ll try to keep this short –

While all of the following scientists believe the globe is warming, the vast majority of them do NOT believe in the theory of “Anthropegenic” GW.

Survey: “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis” 02-13-2013

Highlights:

‘We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action (as outlined in Figure 2). On this basis, we find five different frames, each of them summarized in Table 3. Eight percent of respondents did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized.’

‘The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.’

‘The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth. Their focus is on the past: ‘If you think about it, global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on nature.’

”Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’’

‘Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable.’

‘The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.’

99.4% say that the climate is changing. No ‘climate change’ deniers here. NONE.

There IS NO CONSENSUS.

2010 ‘Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports. The survey results contradict the oft-repeated assertion that a consensus of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis.’

‘The survey was conducted by the congressionally funded National Environmental Education Foundation and vetted by an advisory board of climate experts from groups such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change.’

‘Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project and first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel, is not surprised by the survey results.’

‘AMS has tried very hard to brainwash broadcast meteorologists by forcing them to attend conferences and teleconferences with one-sided presentations where global warming evangelism is preached,’ D’Aleo said. ‘Broadcasters send me notifications they get from AMS telling them they must attend these conferences where only the alarmist point of view is preached. This survey shows that broadcast meteorologists are not swayed by these one-sided presentations.’

Now in 2013- ‘In an AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight.’

www.climatechangecommunication.org/report preliminary-findings-february

‘According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.’

‘This sharp contrast between the large majority of meteorologists who believe global warming is happening and the modest minority who are nevertheless very worried about it is consistent with other scientist surveys. This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis.’

‘Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.’ ”

 

How Germany’s Climate Scientists Suddenly Changed Their Predictions Of Warm Winters…To Cold Snowy Ones

Sebastian Lüning and Klaus-Eckart Puls write the story of how renowned German climate scientists had for years predicted warmer winters with snow becoming increasingly more rare – before they turned on a dime and suddenly claimed global warming would cause colder winters.
===========================================

Germany – A Winter Fairy Tale

By Klaus-Eckart Puls and Sebastian Lüning (translated, edited by P Gosselin)

Currently this 2012/13 winter in Germany and over large parts of Europe we’ve been finding lots of cold, snow and ice –  the fifth winter of this type in a row. Who can still recall the prognoses and claims of some alarmists of the established climate science community, like this one [1]?:

‘Winter with strong frosts and lots of snow like 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes,’ said scientist Mojib Latif of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg.”

This quote comes from an interview with SPIEGEL in the year 2000. The headline: “Good-bye winter: No more snow? In Germany bitter cold winters are now a thing of the past.”

However, perhaps Professor Latif meant this as a joke because the article appeared on April 1, 2000! In this regard, one could simply dismiss the comment – had that claim by Latif not been repeated by other climate scientists, e.g. [2]:

“The very mild winters of the last decades can be attributed mainly to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. As a consequence, we are for example seeing a reduction in snowfall. When every 50-year-old was able to go skating as a kid almost every winter, kids today often have to wait many years for larger amounts of snow.”

Well, kids haven’t had to wait at all for the last 5 winters! If that weren’t enough, in 2005 Mojib Latif spoke out once again [3], this time making a 50-year prediction:

In 2050, no more snow in the lowlands; Mainz (dpa). According to climate scientist Mojib Latif of Kiel, winters in Germany will become warmer. Without future climate protection, ‘In 2050 there will no longer be snow in Germany – at least not in the lowlands,’ said the professor of the Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel on ZDF television. The observed trend to warmer winters will continue on.”

So are we allowed to ask, where has this trend been for the last 5 winters? In a conference report of the Dow Jones News GmbH [4] the “…renowned climate scientist of Kiel Prof. Mojib Latif…” is quoted:

‘The scenarios discussed by scientists see a further warming of 1.4 to 5.8 °C on average by the end of the century. In Germany there will be no longer frost or snow by then; in hot climate zones there will be ‘desolation’.”

In the meantime, all these statements have since been contradicted: Nature is doing something completely different…the exact opposite! The first climate warmists to scramble to make a major forecasting adjustment already in 2010 were from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) –  and did so through BILD tabloid [5]:

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research sees the hard winters as being the result of global warming: Icy Arctic winds will be triggered by it and reach all the way to Europe unhindered due to climate change in the Arctic.”

‘Could be,’ may have been the first reaction of a BILD reader. However they likely immediately followed up with the question: Why do scientists always come up with such explanations after the fact? The alarmists used a sleight of hand, and magically and rapidly came up with a rabbit from a hat. [6]:

A new study shows the relationship between Arctic sea ice cover in the summer and winter weather in Central Europe. […] The probability of cold, snowy winters in Central Europe increases when the Arctic summer has little sea ice.

Did they ever have such a climate model before the cold winters of the last years? NO! This is precisely the point that WELTWOCHE magazine couldn’t help but notice [7]:

‘…are three cold winters… a coincidence?’… ‘Such winters are inconvenient not only for those who freeze in them, but also for those had announced warmer temperatures because of the CO2 emissions.’ … ‘The reality is, writes American climate scientist JUDAH COHEN, that we are not freezing despite climate change, but because of it.’ … ‘Such an explanation would be convincing only if it had not come afterwards. Indeed just the opposite had been announced for decades. We can recall DAVID VINER of the British Climate Research Unit. In the year 2000 VINER said that snowfall in Great Britain soon would be rare and a sensation. Children will not know what snow is.”

Former television meteorologist Wolfgang Thüne takes apart the entire matter by using factual meteorological aspects [8]:

“The AWI hypothesis published here [AWI press release] now says:

‘The available model calculations show that the air pressure difference when there is less summertime Arctic sea ice cover is less in the following winter, and thus allow cold Arctic air to plunge to the mid latitudes.’

If that were the case, then we should have had cold winters for the last 20 years because this is about how long we’ve been having relatively minimal sesa ice cover.

If this AWI hypothesis were indeed scientifically conclusive, then the North Atlantic Oscillation Index would have to have been negative for the last 30 years – but the opposite is true as the following graphic depicts: positive 22, negative 7, +/- zero 1! Even in the last 10 years it’s only fifty-fifty.”

 

Figure: North Atlantic Oscillation Index [9]

 

Whether it’s the cold winters in Europe or the global temperature development, climate scientists now find themselves with their models up the creek without a paddle. Global warming has stagnated for 15 years [10]:

….however it has long been known that the climate has developed differently than what was predicted: Warming has stalled for 15 years, the rising trend of the global mean temperature hasn’t continued since. The stagnation leads to the assumption that global warming has stopped.’ NASA concedes.”

This fact has been discussed a long time already in the English speaking media, and has now reached the German public [11]. This is very inconvenient because for a long time we had been hearing [12]:

“The warming is developing as predicted. The models were also tested in climates of the past. There’s no reason not to trust the models.”

That obviously can now be perceived in another way [13]:

‘The climate models are not consistent with the currently observed climate development’, said Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Hamburg Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology.”

And Marozke [14]:

According to our first calculations, it would have to warm up a lot and abruptly in the coming years. But we do not trust these prognoses along the way. The simulations should have also seen the temperature increase stagnation – and that didn’t happen.”

Kevin Trenberth [15] wrote on 11 October 2009 [16] of hockey stick inventor Michael Mann:

The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”

What did our colleague in Kiel say?

“…kids today often have to wait many years for large amounts of snow.”

So children, as you can see, also professors make mistakes – sometimes even 5 years in a row. Just look out the window!

Summary:

Neither the winters nor the global temperatures are doing what the climate alarmists and models predicted. This is an embarassment for the established climate science community. However, malice is not warranted because scientific history has always been connected to being on the wrong path. Errors are permitted, but they must be corrected as quickly as possible when they are detected.

Now we have to look ahead and bring the proportion of the man-made and natural climate factors back into balance in the models. One thing is already clear: The sworn climate catastrophe is not taking place.

Figure: Winter temperatures in Germany over the last 25 years (DJF). Source: Josef Kowatsch. Data from the DWD German Weather Service.

Quotes:

[1] http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,71456,00.html; 01.04.2000

[2] DIE ZEIT, 27. März 2002, Nr. 14, DOSSIER, Das große Schmelzen hat begonnen: Abbrechende Eisberge, schwere Überschwemmungen und andere Folgen der globalen Erwärmung / Von Mojib Latif

[3] Leipziger Volkszeitung, 1./2. October 2005

[4] Dow Jones News GmbH Frankfurter Beratungsunternehmen 3c Climate Change Consulting GmbH, Bericht über die Konferenz am 28. und 29. März 2006 “Fachwelt entdeckt Klimahandel als Quelle für Investment und Finanzierung”

[5] BILD, 23.12.2010, S.7

[6] AWI, Presse-Mitt. 26.01.2012,

[7] WELTWOCHE, Frostbeulen der Erderwärmung, 1/2011, p.40

[12] Leipniz-Inst. Kiel, Mojib Latif, in : BILD , 20.09.07, p.13

[14] J. Marotzke, MPI HH, in: DER SPIEGEL, 27.02.2012, p. 113

[15] National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Co., USA

[16] Trenberth-Email, uncovered in the ClimateGate scandal 2009, email 1255352257*,  here quoted from: DIE WELT, 03.12.09, p.3

 

Sanity In Scotland…Country Shoots Down Plans To Build Three Major Windparks In Highlands

While Vermonters in my homestate aren’t proud enough of their beautiful mountains to preserve them, and so have decided to install wind-parks on ridgelines, see here and here, Scotland has decided they want no part of such lunacy.

Must be the fine whisky Scots produce and drink there. They ought to send some of those spirits over to Vermont.

Loch Maree

Loch Maree. Photo credit: Roger McLachlan, Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0.

Renewable energy website Recharge here writes that the “Highland Council planners shot down three high-profile projects totalling nearly 80 turbines in a two-day rout for developers”. It’s good to see there is still some environmental sanity left on the planet.

According to the press release at the Mountaineering Council of Scotland website (Feb 12):

The MCofS welcomed the news today that The Highland Council North Planning Committee decided to reject 2 massive onshore wind farm planning proposals.

The section 36 proposals which were determined today are:

· Glemorie Wind Farm: to the north of Dingwall with a proposed 34 turbines and 35 kilometres of access track. The MCofS originally objected to the proposal because it contravenes The Highland Council’s own policy on onshore wind farm locations.

· Dalnessie Wind Farm: 13 km North East of Lairg comprising 27 wind turbines and associated infrastructure, including 20 km of new access track. Each turbine would be up to 121 metres high to blade tip. The MCofS originally objected to the development because it would not be in accordance with the Highland Council’s Development Plan

David Gibson, MCofS Chief Officer stated:

‘We objected to these industrial-scale proposals on the grounds that they were inappropriate developments which contravened Highland Council planning policy; they would have a significant visual impact on the mountains and other wild land, and adversely affect a broad swathe of Scotland’s finest landscapes.’

‘We believe that members of the Planning Committee have acted in the best interests of their constituents, and in the broader public interest, as custodians of some unique and very special landscapes. However, we still fail to understand why Highland Council planning officials originally recommended that the Council should ‘raise no objection’ to Glenmorie and Dalnessie given their own policy and the obvious and intrusive impact on recognised and designated landscape areas.’

‘The MCofS is not opposed to onshore wind farms and we have objected to only 6% of the onshore developments tracked by Scottish Natural Heritage.’

‘We seek protection for the mountains through changes to Scottish Government planning policy. We have called repeatedly for the introduction of a national spatial planning policy for onshore wind farm developments which would give protection to precious mountain landscapes and at the same time offer developers guidance on where wind farms could be located.’

‘The present planning free-for-all, which encourages inappropriate and speculative developments, and in which the Scottish Government is placing unreasonable pressure on local authorities to process and approve developments, is not a recipe for success. The Scottish Government, despite their repeated and empty assurances that such protection exists, must act to provide protection for our superb landscapes. Given this is the Year of Natural Scotland, we believe that is the minimum they should do.’”

This is a refreshing development that hopefully will spread to other regions of the planet. Blasting mountain ridge lines and gouging miles of access roads though forests and landscape in order to soothe environmental paranoia and alleviate irrational fears of a climate catastrophe is environmental lunacy of an unprecedented scale. Unfortunately, places like Vermont have become psychological basket cases in that respect.

Germany has hardly been immune to the insanity. It’s 130 billion in renewable energy investment will theoretically postpone global warming a whole 23 hours, read here. At that rate it would cost the world $4,745,000,000,000,000.00 (4.745 quadrillion) to delay global warming 100 years, provided the dubious theory were true. That’s a million dollars for every family on the planet (if I didn’t lose or gain any zeros in that big number calculation).

It’s truly mind-boggling how easily some people can get carried away by madness. When a few dumb cows start running, the whole herd often follows.

Hats off to Scotland. Maybe I’ll break open that bottle of Doublewood Balvenie I got for Christmas and give a toast.

PS: Sanity also in Vermont’s sister state, New Hampshire: www.sentinelsource.com/antrim-wind-farm-rejected.html. People are waking up! (H/t: David L.)

 

Malicious Web Attack Shuts Down The European Institute For Climate And Energy (EIKE)

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) has been the target of an Internet attack.

The German climate science skeptic site was shut down earlier this morning by a “bot attack”. EIKE has issued the following statement:

Dear Readers,

Our website http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu has been shut down since this morning by a very specialized Internet attack. The breach of safety has been identified and works to solve the problems are now proceeding at full speed. However, our budget is very limited and they are burdening our weak financial situation. We are supported only through contributions from members and private donations. This is why we are issuing an urgent request: Please support us with a donation via Paypal using the button on the right side of our website or via a bank transfer (see details below), or visit here:  http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/impressum/.
EIKE is an official charity organization and is thus able to provide you with a tax-deductible receipt. We hope that we will be back online tomorrow to provide you further with interesting news.

Yours,

Michael Limburg
Vice President EIKE (European Institute for Climate and Energy) e.V.
Tel: +49-(0)33201-31132
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Please help support our work with a donation:
Bank: Volksbank Saaletal Rudolstadt
Bank account holder: EIKE e. V.
Account No. 42 42 92 01
Bank Routing No. 830 944 54.”

A few months ago, NTZ also had a similar problem. Some people just can’t stand hearing other opinions.