Top Automotive Engineer Calls Tesla “A Failure”…Demand For Electric Vehicles “Has Reached An Absolute Low Point”!

UPDATED 13:52 CET

As part of the 35th Vienna Motor Symposium, German online financial daily Handelsblatt here has an interview with leading automotive engine design expert Prof. Fritz Indra, who says that much of the talk about electric vehicles is “hype” and calls the Tesla “a failure”.

Indra, 75, is now retired after a long career in developing engines for BMW Alpina, Audi and General Motors. He now acts as a consultant.

Demand for electric cars reach “absolute low point”

The Handelsblatt writes that internal combustion engines have made huge technological leaps in progress when it comes to efficiency and cleanliness. And when asked about the most recent trend for electric vehicles, Indra tells the Düsseldorf-based financial daily that this year there was not even a single presentation on electric vehicles, and that the demand “has reached an absolute low point.”

Skewed statistics and “environmental fraud”

Indra tells the Handelsblatt that countries like Norway and USA have stopped or plan to curb their generous subsidies for electric cars. He says Germany’s target of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2020 is wildly exaggerated. “In reality it won’t even be 100,000 vehicles.” He then tells the Handelsblatt that they may get the figure to look respectable by skewing the statistics by including hybrid cars and electric bikes in the count.

Indra also calls both plug-in-hybrids and electric cars “an environmental fraud“, adding that the subsidies for electric cars are very expensive and points out that Norway is stopping some of the subsidies and that the USA curbed them after 60,000 vehicles. These are two rich countries!

Moreover he says China ought to impose an “electric car driving ban” as a first step to help clean up its air pollution.

Tesla “a failure”

Indra also believes that the Tesla will be a failure “because every year the company makes huge losses and the market is not big enough.” Moreover he describes how its batteries are technically inadequate, and that Tesla owners face huge replacement costs later on: “The customers are going to wonder.” He calls Elon Muskprobably the best PR man in the world“.

He also believes the electric car market is “almost saturated”.

Indra feels that the future remains in combustion engines due to their tremendous technological progress with regards to fuel efficiency, cleanliness and practicality.

Finally, WUWT reports on how Teslas really get recharged.

Scientist Exposes Grossly Deceptive Science Communication By Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute

What follows is an e-mail sent by geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning to Dr. Roland Neuber of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Potsdam. Dr. Lüning wishes to know why a report issued by the AWI left out more than 80% of the Spitzbergen temperature record.
========================================

To: Dr. Roland Neuber, science coordinator of the research team AWIPEV, Alfred-Wegener-Institute Potsdam
From: Dr. Sebastian Lüning

Sent: 15 May 2015
Reply: still unanswered

Dear Dr. Neuber,

On April 9, 2015, at the web platform “Entwicklungspolitik Online” (epo online) there appeared an article: “Climate change: Arctic air temperature climbs 1.3°C per decade”, which was about a recent visit to Spitzbergen by the German Federal Minister for Education and Research, Prof. Dr. Johanna Wanka. The article quoted the AWIPEV research team which you yourself coordinate as follows:

Since the regular data recording in 1993, the mean annual air temperature at Spitzbergen has increased an annual average of 1.3°C per decade.”

Of course this is true. However in my view it absolutely should have been pointed out that between 1940 and 1970 a cooling of the exact same amount as the warming that followed over the past 40 years occurred at Spitzbergen. Here I cite the GISS temperature dataset for Spitzbergen, see http://www.kaltesonne.de/news1-6/.

Overall today’s temperatures are at the level of 1930, after having gone through a complete warm-cold-warm cycle.

My question to you: Did the AWIPEV delegation advise the Minister and the accompanying media of this important context? How is it possible that this omission was allowed in the epo-online article, which as a result suddenly makes the climate situation at Spitzbergen look completely different?

To be transparent I would very much like to publish your answer at www.kaltesonne.de.

Kindest regards

Dr. habil. Sebastian Lüning
=========================================

Today, almost two weeks later, Dr. Lüning’s inquiry remains unanswered. This leaves us to wonder if AWI is too embarrassed to face the issue.

Scandal: Wind Energy Law Written Directly By German Wind Lobbyists, Enercon and GE!

Though regional, what follows is a scandal that illustrates just how energy laws and policy are formed today in many developed countries: by green activists and lobbyists who have an extreme agenda or narrow, self-serving interest.

German national daily Bild here reports how in Hannover the new energy law for the state of Lower Saxony was not really written by policymakers elected by the voters, but by the Big Green industry lobbyists themselves.

The Bild story bears the title: “Companies write the energy law

Germany’s number one daily by circulation, Bild, tells of Lower Saxony’s Environment Minister Stefan Wenzel of the Green Party coming under heavy fire from the opposition. The FDP Free Democrats accused Wenzel of having parts of the 79-page draft legislation “dictated to him by the wind industry.” In other words, Bild writes:

Instead having the law formulated by employees of the Ministry, lobbyists participated in the formulation!”

According to Bild 12 environmental activist groups worked on the legislation, including companies such as Enercon and GE.

Bild quotes Free Democrat Dr. Gero Hocker, an environment expert:

The Environment Minister must concede that the wind lobby took over the job of drafting the law. That’s an outrage!”

Bild writes that although it is not unusual to get imput from various organizations, an angered Gero Hocker shot back: “Taking over as they are the formulations is a real scandal.”

Increasingly lawmakers have become marionettes of Big Green…democratic representation be damned. It also doesn’t help that a huge share of German lawmakers are investors in fail-safe, get-rich-quick green energy projects.

NASA’s Temperature Data Fibbing … And Thomas Friedman’s Junk Renewable Energy Economics

Good to see that this NTZ site is contributing to articles on climate change and renewable energies by larger media outlets.

For example Charles Battig at the American Thinker here cited NoTricksZone in his report on Thomas Friedman’s editorial on the supposed “success” of Germany’s renewable energies. In his editorial, Friedman stupidly ignores all the glaring reports and data of Germany’s reneable energy failure, and tries to sell the entire mess as a grand success. In Battig’s words, “He knows how to put the proverbial ‘lipstick on a pig’.” And adds:

A recent German government report notes that Germany’s system ‘rewards the most inefficient plants, doesn’t contribute to protecting the climate, jeopardizes the energy supply and puts the poor at a disadvantage.’  A Nobel Peace Prize for this, Mr. Friedman?

Germany is building new coal power plants to replace the energy provided by nuclear power plants being shut down.  They are to be powered by lignite, a brown coal of low caloric content.  German’s newest and most energy-efficient gas turbine plants are forced into an uneconomical standby status as Energiewende  policies mandate the preferential use of wind and solar.  Thus, cheap lignite-powered plants are built and produce high levels of pollutants that are the exact opposite goals of the government’s green policies.

As for Friedman’s ‘stability of our planet and climate’ concern, he might console himself with the fact that the global satellite temperature record of the past 18 years and 5 months shows a statistically flat line, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen about 10 percent.

Three oinks to Friedman’s lipstick report. It is a green porker.”

NASA data alterations

Meanwhile, H. Sterling Burnett at the Heartland Institute here has a story on all the temperature data fibbing going on at NASA lately. Though he does not link to NTZ directly, the source of the information behind the tampering shenanigans going on in Switzerland is NTZ here, a story that was shared or liked more than 2000 times.

Burnett writes:

Science journalist Markus Schär of the Swiss news weekly Weltwoche discovered the Swiss Meteorological Service (SMS) tampered with its datasets as well.

For example, in Sion and Zurich, SMS adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend. Schär notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering. As a result, Schär calls the adjustments a ‘propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.’

In light of significant urbanization resulting in an expanded heat island effect near many temperature gauges, Schär argues the adjustment of raw data to report higher temperatures than are actually measured is unjustifiable. ‘The corrections … appear so massive that they represent half of the entire temperature increase,’ said Schär.

Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists.”

Also reporting on the Swiss data fibbing was Newsmax.

German Scientists Call Matthew England’s Attempt To Declare Climate Models “Robust” A Real Joke

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof Fritz Vahrenholt

It’s rather peculiar: None of the IPCC climate models projected the warming pause of the last 17 years. An real embarrassment.

Scientist Stefan Rahmstorf was devastated, and so publicly disputed that there even was a pause at all. Naturally this strategy cannot be successful over the long run. Then on April 23, 2015, a team of scientists lead by Matthew England published an article in Nature Climate Change, whose title finally and officially conceded the warming pause:

Robust warming projections despite the recent hiatus.”

The abstract reads:

The hiatus in warming has led to questions about the reliability of long-term projections, yet here we show they are statistically unchanged when considering only ensemble members that capture the recent hiatus. This demonstrates the robust nature of twenty-first century warming projections.

A wonderful strategy: 95% of all models are wrong (see the following figure from Roy Spencer), so simply take the remaining 5% of the models and, with them a single stroke of the pen, declare them “robust” and reliable in their ability to forecast. A real joke.

Lancet Medical Journal: Comprehensive Study Shows Cold Waves 20 TIMES MORE LETHAL Than Heat Waves!

Here’s another compelling reason why we should all be hoping that the earth will warm and not cool over the coming decades. (After all, there is no way the temperature is going to stay stagnant).

The print edition of yesterday’s UK Daily Mail has a short report on an international study on the effects of temperature on death rates. The comprehensive study was conducted by the Dr. Antonio Gasparrini of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It examined 74 million deaths in 13 countries.

Also read it at Science Daily (Can’t link because I’m writing from a mobile device – just Google it).

The result, The Daily Mail writes:

7.71 per cent of the deaths were caused by non-optimal temperatures. Cold was responsible for 7.29 per cent of deaths, while 0.42% were attributable to heat, according to the study, published by the Lancet medical journal.”

In other words, deaths from cold were some 20 times than those from heat.

What is interesting is that the study found that most of the deaths occurred when the temperatures were “moderately hot and cold”. This may be due to people underestimating the “moderate” anomalies, and thus failing to take the corresponding precautions. On extremely hot or cold days, on the other hand, the level of awareness is heightened due to media hype, and so people tend to behave accordingly, i.e. drink more fluids, or really bundle up.

Cold is the last thing we need

The study tells us one thing: Cold is the last thing we want to see, and any warming needs to be welcome. Unfortunately recent temperature data and climate trends bode ill, as a number of distinguished scientists are forecasting cooling over the coming decades due to ocean and solar cycles swinging into their cool modes.

Given the results of the study, which are obvious to most normal thinking people, one would need to be a total moron, or just plain mean-spirited,  to be rooting for cooling.

Germany’s Green Party Apologizes For “Massive Sexual Abuse Of Children”, Advocacy of Pedophilia …”Up To 1000 Victims”!

The title may sound stunning, and unbelievable, but it’s true.

It’s also appearing in the main media elsewhere.

Berlin’s leftist daily Online Tagesspiegel here reports comprehensively on the German Green Party’s troubled past involving it’s earlier advocacy of pedophilia and practice by some of its former leading members, see background here, here, here and here.

Green Party Chairwoman Bettina Jarasch has just publicly apologized for what she calls an “institutional failure,” Tagesspiegel writes, as a commission report on the matter has been presented. 

On behalf of the Berlin Greens, we ask for foregiveness,” said Jarasch.

The Tagesspiegel adds:

In the Berlin state association of the Alternativen Liste, the forerunner organization of the Green Party, there was massive sexual abuse of children.”

The Greens’ advocacy of pedophilia rights was part of the party’s platform in the 1980s and early 1990s as it pushed neo-liberal ideas like “free and open relationships”. It still remains unclear as to why the Germany’s top environmental party took so long to issue an apology.

1000 child victims of sexual abuse

The number of victims is not known. However one Green Party Berlin parliamentarian and author of the report, Thomas Birk, in March mentioned “up to 1000 victims”, though he said the figure was “speculative”. The report itself gives releases no figure.

Current Green party official Daniel Wesener said that there were at least two repeat offenders who were tolerated within the party, one was convicted in 13 cases.

Currently the child sex abuse within the Green party is now under investigation by a special commission. The Green Party leaders pledge their full cooperation and to provide compensation to victims who step forward.

According to the Tagesspiegel, the investigation shed light into an “abuse network” within the forerunner of the Green party, Alternativen Liste, which included at least three leading figures who set up a “youth center” in Kreuzberg recreational center.

According to witnesses, they abused numerous youths who had been recruited at elementary schools.”

Today Green Party officials insist that the abuse, however, did not take place within the party structure itself.

Though some media outlets such as the Tagesspiegel reported on the story, much of the German media has been pretty mute on the topic.

Spiegel Describes Circus of “Trickery” In Run-Up To Paris. Russia Wants To Curb CO2 Emissions By Increasing Them!

Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski has an analysis on the Berlin climate negotiations now taking place among the leaders of 36 nations who have the aim of laying the groundwork for a binding climate treaty in Paris later this year.

The title: “They’re tricking; they’re getting creative.”

Bojanowski calls it the “big climate show”. Although big delcarations are being made, behind the scenes “creative steps” and “tricks” are the real order of the day.

Grandstanding

For example rich nations like France and Germany are climate grandstanding and promising to provide even more money to poor countries to help them fight climate change and switch over to renewable energy sources. But Bojanowski describes how no one appears to be really willing to make the hard compromises that alarmists are demanding. As a result countries are resorting to creative trickery to shirk real climate responsibility. For example climate insurances are to be set up in order to cover weather damages in poor countries, but not much else.

Ducking the real questions

Bojanowski writes, however, that the all-important and really decisive questions are being pushed to the sidelines, foremost:

How does the global community intend to curb the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which climate science says will result in considerable warming?”

Here the Spiegel journalist writes that it is still unclear for many EU countries how they will reach their stated targets. He also points out that it is unlikely the US Congress will vote for the government’s plan to curb emissions by 16% compared to 1990 levels. Especially unclear are also the plans for reductions from China, India and other developing countries.

One example of trickery comes from Russia, Bojanowski writes:

Although Russia has announced it wants to reduce emissions 25% by 2030 compared to 1990 – this is in fact trickery. Because of the collapse of its industry during the 1990s, the country is emitting only half as much CO2 as it did in 1990. That means with respect to climate targets, Russia intends to emit more CO2 in the future.”

And not less!

In Paris do expect the signing of a “binding international treaty”, but one that will be chock-full of non-binding requirements. The circus (which no one takes seriously anymore) thus will continue.

“There Are People Who Believe They See Unabated Global Warming In the 1/100°C Range” …Warming Has Ground To a Halt

Stefan Rahmstorf: No pause, anywhere!

[Translated by P. Gosselin)

“No pause, anywhere!” announced Stefan Rahmstorf in his latest article at KlimaLounge. And he added: “As our long-term readers know, there’s been a steady global warming since the 1970s, though it has been superimposed by the usual short-term fluctuations, it has not slowed down or accelerated by any significant means. […] As there has not been any slowdown, there has not been any pause or hiatus of any kind in warming.”

But this is easy to check over. To do this I’ve gotten the data on global temperature from the NOAA, plotted them and added the linear trends for the periods of 1970-2015, 1980-2015, 1990-2015, 2000-2015 and 2005-2015. (By the way, NOAA also uses the NASA GISS dataset for global temperature).

NOAA

What is seen above is that the trend since 1970 has been in decline. The rise in the trend lines is becoming less and less., i.e. flatter and flatter. Meanwhile the global warming scientists have been telling us for year/decades that global warming would accelerate more and more as greenhouse gases increased.

In fact just the opposite has been true.

Here once again is the NOAA data in its original form from the NOAA site for the period of 1998-2015.

NOAA1998-2015

There are actually people who see in it an unabated global warming (in the range of 1/100 of a degree). Hard to believe. Yes, you only have to believe in it, and suddenly you’ll see it. It’s like the blotch images in psychology.

Leading Industry Expert Slams Germany’s Wild Foray Into Green Energies: “Unaffordable” … “Absolute Imbecility”!

The Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) held another conference on climate and renewable energy last March. One of the speakers was Prof. Dr. Dieter Ameling, an expert in heavy industry. EIKE has posted his presentation.

In the presentation Ameling calls Germany’s Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) a real threat to industry, warning that the country faces a de-industrialization.

Already, Ameling reminds us, every day the Energiewende in Germany is progressing and that the damage already done is getting even worse and that “foremost it will soon be irreparable“.

Subsidies’ vast divergence from earlier projections

At the 5:15 mark he calls the German government’s 2022 targets for renewables “economic nonsense” and will result in “electricity getting continuously more expensive“.

His following chart shows a comparison of the German government’s projected green energy subsidies compared to that of reality:

Ameling_1

The gray bars show the government’s projected annual subsidies in billions of euros. The blue bars depict the real skyrocketing subsidies. In 2014 the subsidies rose even further, to 23.6 billion euros. Chart: Dr. Dieter Ameling.

“Unaffordable” and “absolute imbecility”

The big problem, Ameling emphasizes, is the huge supply-volatility in wind and sun, which are totally weather-dependent. At the 9:35 mark the retired professor calls the German state of Bavaria’s energy-mix plan for 2022 as something that “cannot function“…”is unaffordable“, and “is absolute imbecility“.

The chart at the 11:20 mark shows how Germany has one of the highest electricity prices worldwide, more than double the rate found in USA, Canada, or Russia.

At the 13-minute mark another chart shows the huge gap in natural gas prices between Germany (10.7 cents per gas unit) and the USA (only 3.7 cents per gas unit). Thanks to fracking, gas prices in USA have tumbled while in Germany poor households barely can afford to heat their homes.

Germany’s skyrocketing electricity prices

At the 13:34 mark Ameling displays a chart showing Germany’s electricity price development:

Ameling_2

Since 2000 the price of electricity in euro-cents/kwh in Germany has more than doubled! Currently a 4-person household is paying over 366 euros a year just for the green energy feed-in tariffs alone. Ameling warns that figure will continue to rise rapidly.

Exodus of industry leaving Germany, Europe

Later in the presentation Ameling shows how the energy-intensive industries such as cement, glass, steel, chemicals etc. are being hit hard by the skyrocketing energy costs. In Germany alone 3.5 million jobs depend on the steel industry. At the 19:03 mark Ameling warns that the exodus of industry “has already begun” with heavyweight companies such as ThyssenKrupp, Norsk Hydro, BASF, SGL Carbon and Voest moving operations abroad.

1 trillion euros!

How much is Germany’s Energiewende projected to cost? In 2013 former Environment Minister Peter Altmaier told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung it would cost Germans 1 trillion euros!

Ameling 3

At the end Ameling summarizes, announcing that the “Energiewende has failed” because it is simply too expensive and too volatile. The infrastructure that is needed to handle it is not even in place. Unless Germany radically alters the current direction of its Energiewende, Ameling says it will be “bye bye Germany“.

He ends the presentation with the following Friends of Science image, reminding us that CO2 is not even the driver of climate.

Ameling_4

German Government Advisor Calls 2°C Target An Illusion…Climate Science “Led Around By The Nose”…”Reputation Damaged”

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski interviews Oliver Geden, climate expert at the Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs – SWP. He is also an advisor to the German government.

2°C target “an illusion”

In the interview Geden calls the 2°C limit target “an illusion that has been fed by politicians and scientists“.

Geden tells Spiegel that scientists and politicians have calculated how much CO2 is allowed to be added to the earth’s atmosphere before the temperature climbs 2°C, but that they have dithered and dallied so much that theoretically no more CO2 emssions will be allowed globally by the year 2044. Thus the 2°C target is already a grand pipe dream.

“Very dubious” CO2 accounting tricks

In the interview Geden believes Paris will fall far short of what is necessary to reach the theoretical 2°C target, and

As a result the climate negotiators will use many calculation tricks which I think are very dubious.”

He expects policymakers to use tricks like “negative” future emissions from CCS technology, or growing trees. However Geden, a warmist and promoter of ending fossil fuels, calls negative emissions in the interview “political science fiction“.

Geden tells Spiegel that 500 million hectares of forests would have to added to the globe, an area equivalent to one and half times India!

Many developing countries would go into resistance if we demanded they stop using the land for food and to grow trees for stroring CO2 instead.”

The negative emissions calculations being put forth are in fact now so out of touch that Geden sarcastically tells Spiegel:

Scientists might as well just assume in 2070 green martians will land on earth as rescuers and suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere.”

Climate science reputation damaged

Bojanowski then asks Geden if all the carbon accounting tricks are hurting the reputation of climate science. Geden confirms that it is, reminding us that:

Five or six years ago it was consensus that greenhouse gas reductions of three percent annually were not realistic. But then emissions rose like never before – and suddenly the IPCC claims that six percent is doable. Precisely in a phase when CO2 emissions are rising liker never before the optimism is suddenly growing that drastic savings are possible. All this just to keep the 2°C story alive.”

Geden adds that scientists are forced to play along with the nonsense because they see the risk of getting less research funding.

The tendency is that those who supply the policymakers with the desired studies and models are better off.”

Science hubris

Geden also points out that “many climate scientists are idealists who wish to rescue the planet;..”

He believes that many scientists are suffering from “hubris” and actually “believe that the earth’s system is controllable“. He slams Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber’s WBGU which in 2011 “proposed a Great Transformation of Global Society to combat global warming”.

It was the first work since the fall of communism that called for the restructuring of the entire world according to a plan.”

Science being “led around “by the nose”

Joachim Müller-Jung at Germany’s flagship Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) writes a commentary on the “political fever” that has swept through the science community as the Paris Conference approaches.

Müller-Jung writes that “science is allowing itself to be led around by the nose by politicians and economists.”

Müller-Jung describes the 2°C limit as “utopian”.

DWD Weather Service Confirms No Verifiable Rise In German Tornado Activity Or Link To Global Warming!

Tornadoes are normally associated with the famous Tornado Alley of the US Midwest. But they also occur from time to time in Germany.

Nowadays the drama-seeking media are quick to report on any tornado event that gets recorded, and so often there’s the mistaken perception that their frequency is rising (of course due to man-made weather brewing). Moreover the media have no qualms about their readers and viewers making that erroneous leap in thought.

Earlier this month Germany was hit by some relatively severe tornado activity. In Augsburg earlier this week 150 homes were damaged by a twister. The media naturally put the topic on center-media stage.

Flagship daily Süddeutsche Zeitung [South German News], SZ, even conducted an interview with the DWD German National Weather Service on the subject of tornadoes and what might be their cause. Over the recent years the DWD has become a rather avid activist and promoter of the man-made global warming theory. But in the SZ interview, the DWD was refreshingly fully honest, and resisted blaming German tornado activity on climate change.

First the SZ asked DWD meteorologist Lars Kirchhübel about how tornadoes are formed and why they are so dangerous. Then about halfway through the interview the topic switches to the impacts of climate change on tornadoes: The SZ asks, “Are they becoming more frequent in Germany – and are they a consequence of climate change?”

The SZ gives us the DWD’s reply:

Tornadoes are not forming more frequently than earlier, we are simply made more aware of them says DWD expert Kirchhübel. Between 20 and 60 tornadoes are know each year in Germany. It has been only over the last few years that those involved have recorded them with their mobile devices, and so thus enhance the people’s perception.”

And on whether there is a discernible trend linkíng tornado activity to global warming, Kirchhübel tells the SZ that the dataset is too short and that there has been no discernible trend so far. He adds:

Also a clear relationship with climate change is not verifiable.”

About a week ago NoTricksZone posted another report on German tornado activity here, and it found that the trend is actually downward for the past 15 years, and not “no trend”:

DWD_tornado frequency

Number of confirmed tornadoes in Germany since 2000. Trend has been significantly downward over the past 10 years. Source: DWD.

Top Econ Professor Says Germany’s Renewables “Already Reached The Limits”…Country Risks “Gambling Away Its Prosperity”!

German online finanztreff.de here reports on the opinion recently expressed by Prof. Hans-Werner Sinn, Director of the renowned Munich-based ifo-Institute for Economic Research, regarding Germany’s attempted move into renewable energies, primarily solar and wind power.

Currently about 25% of Germany’s energy supply is “green”.

At a conference of experts in Berlin Sinn is quoted by Dow Jones as saying that the installation of “renewable energies in Germany has already reached its limits” because there is just nowhere near enough storage capacity available to balance out the sharp and volatile supply spikes of wind and solar power.

Sinn also ridiculed the idea of using electric cars as a means to store the green energy, calling the notion a “PR gag”. He added that 159 million BMW i3 vehicle would have to be put on the streets, i.e. thus nearly tripling the number of cars currently on the streets. A preposterous solution.

On using green energy to produce gas, Sinn calls it a horribly expensive alternative that would cost about 24 cents per kilowatt-hour; Russian natural gas by comparison is only 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, he says.

It would get expensive very rapidly,” Sinn warned.

Currently Germany’s Ministry of Environment is proposing the investment of 1 trillion euros for a new energy supply system. Sinn calls that idea “a monstrous gamble with an uncertain outcome“, and one that harbors “a real risk” of Germany “gambling away its prosperity“.

So how will German policymakers react to Professor Sinn’s assessment? Well, if they don’t heed his warnings, then there’s really no one left out there who may still be able to talk sense and reason back into the policymakers’ heads.

Should the policymakers ignore the warnings of the renowned Ifo Institute, then the only thing left is to learn it the hard, painful way. Knowing today’s German intellectual obstinacy of the elite class, the odds of that are better than even.

Warming Defied…Data, Studies Show NO WARMING In Antarctica…Southern Ocean Cooling Down!

No warming in Antarctica. Southern Ocean Cooling Down
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated by P Gosselin]

In Antarctica if a single piece of ice breaks off, the media worldwide go into a frenzy: How could it happen? That’s got to be climate change. Yes, global warming is striking Antarctica with full force and is rearing its ugly head. Every iceberg that breaks off at the edge of the ice sheet is a sign of climate catastrophe. Amen.

But also during pre-industrial times chunks of ice broke off regularly. This is how ice sheets work: Snow builds up on the continent and then gradually moves towards the coast. What’s new?

So just how much has Antarctica warmed over the last years and decades? One reads or hears very little about this in the media. Therefore we’d like to take this knowledge deficit as an occasion to look more carefully at the temperature history of the great white continent.

Paul Homewood once posted on the temperature development of the past 35 years, using the satellite measurements:

There’s been no detectable warming. It was cold earlier and it is cold today! No Trend.

Perhaps the thermometer at the Amundsen Scott Base at the South Pole has found warming? Based on GISS data, Paul Homewood generated the following curve:

Also in the region of the South Pole station there has been no detectable warming, and that over the past 50 years.

In the next step we leave the mainland and examine the ocean to see if it may have warmed around Antarctica. Bob Tisdale put together the temperature curve based on the KNMI Climate Explorer data:

Again we find no warming here as well. To the contrary the Southern Ocean has even cooled over the past 35 years.

In June 2014 Marshall et al. confirmed the cooling trend in a Paper in the Philosphical Transactions A. The abstract states:

In recent decades, the Arctic has been warming and sea ice disappearing. By contrast, the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has been (mainly) cooling and sea-ice extent growing. 

In the paper’s main section the authors add:

Over the last few decades, the two polar regions of our planet have exhibited strikingly different behaviours, as is evident in observed decadal trends in surface air temperature shown in figure 1. The Arctic has warmed, much more than in the global average, primarily in winter, while Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased dramatically. By contrast, the eastern Antarctic and Antarctic plateau have cooled, primarily in summer, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and Patagonia . Moreover, sea-ice extent around Antarctica has modestly increased.

Appearing in the same year in the Annals of Glaciology was a paper by Ekaykin et al., where the temperature development of Central Antarctica was reconstructed over the past 350 years. The researchers found characteristic 30-50 years cycles. Interestingly it was warmer than today back in the 1940s than today. The following is the paper’s abstract:

Multiple climate shifts in the Southern Hemisphere over the past three centuries based on central Antarctic snow pits and core studies
Based on the results of geochemical and glaciological investigations in snow pits and shallow cores, regional stack series of air temperature in central Antarctica (in the southern part of Vostok Subglacial Lake) were obtained, covering the last 350 years. It is shown that this parameter varied quasi-periodically with a wavelength of 30–50 years. The correlation of the newly obtained record with the circulation indices of the Southern Hemisphere (SH) shows that the central Antarctic climate is mainly governed by the type of circulation in the SH: under conditions of zonal circulation, negative anomalies of temperature and precipitation rate are observed, whereas the sign of the anomalies is positive during meridional circulation. In the 1970s the sign of the relationship between many climatic parameters changed, which is likely related to the rearrangement of the climatic system of the SH. The data suggest that during the past 350 years such events have taken place at least five times. The stable water isotope content of the central Antarctic snow is governed by the summer temperature rather than the mean annual temperature, which is interpreted as the influence of ‘post-depositional’ effects.

And when we look even further back in the past, we find more surprises. During the last interglacial, the Eem Warm Period of 130,000 years ago, it was 3.5 to 4.0°C warmer than today. This was reported by Parennin et al. in a publication appearing in February 2015 in the Climate of the Past Discussions.

On this matter a paper by Conway et al. appearing in 1999 in Science is interesting. Back then the authors recognized that the West Antarctic ice sheet shrank foremost during the mid Holocene, i.e. some 5000 years ago. The scientists suspect that the melting process started already during the early Holocene some 10,000 years ago and has continued on without any external influences until today:

Past and Future Grounding-Line Retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
The history of deglaciation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) gives clues about its future. Southward grounding-line migration was dated past three locations in the Ross Sea Embayment. Results indicate that most recession occurred during the middle to late Holocene in the absence of substantial sea level or climate forcing. Current grounding-line retreat may reflect ongoing ice recession that has been under way since the early Holocene. If so, the WAIS could continue to retreat even in the absence of further external forcing.

Today we would like to conclude with a curious “discovery” On May 23, 2014. Spiegel Online brought us a frightening climate alarm story:

Ice melt: Irreversible chain reaction feared in Antarctica
[…] “A large piece of the ice cap in West Antarctica finds itself at a stage or irreversible retreat,” NASA scientist Eric Rignot of the University of California, Irvine. In the previous calculations by the IPCC concerning sea level rise the phenomenon was not adequately taken into account. In a study that was recently published in the “Geophysical Research Letters” the scientists lead by Rignot studied the retreat of all six large glaciers.”

Just awful…so, who brings us this terrible news? Does Eric Rignot really know what he’s doing? Hold on to your seat: Rignot is in fact not a climate scientist. He’s an electrical engineer…just in case someone complains later on that a non-Phd does not qualify anyone to participate in the climate discussion…

German Scientists Call Rahmstorf’s Selective Citing Of Literature “Embarrassing …Science-Ethically Very Unclean”

Science-ethically dubious: Stefan Rahmstorf silent on large body of dissenting Gulf Stream results in newspaper interview

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

There was an interview with Stefan Rahmstorf in the German daily Märkischen Allgemeine Zeitung (MAZ) on March 23, 2015:

A tipping element on which the globe’s future hinges
Climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf and his colleagues at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have evidence of a further weakening of the Gulf Stream.”

That’s old hat. As we have already reported here, other teams of scientists unfortunately have been unable to find any such weakening of the Gulf Stream, and so Rahmtorf is pretty much standing all by his lonesome in the middle of nowhere. And that did not did not remain unnoticed by the MAZ, which persisted courageously:

MAZ: Climate skeptics such as former Environment Hamburg Senator of Fritz Vahrenholt characterized the weakening of the Gulf Stream as part of the natural cycles.

Rahmstorf: I’d be curious to see evidence of that – unfortunately Herr Vahrenholt has published practically nothing in the scientific literature. We also looked for natural cycles and have determined that there have not been any significant fluctuations over the past 1000 years.

True, Fritz Vahrenholt did not publish anything on that topic. But others have to a great extent and Vahrenholt quoted them. This is how science works: You do not need to research everything yourself, rather you turn to the large research networks and peer-reviewed literature. Notable here are for example studies from the University of Rhode Island, NASA, University of Heidelberg, University of Hamburg. The scientists in Hamburg have just recently shown natural cycles. It is quite amazing that suddenly Rahmstorf is unable to recall any of these studies and prefers to indulge in some Vahrenholt-bashing. Apparently the MAZ also found his excuse hardly helpful and continued to persist:

MAZ: Climate scientist Mojib Latif also does not believe in the currently diminishing speed of the Gulf Stream.

Rahmstorf: The current weakening has also been confirmed by other studies. We simply track the stream with the help of proxy data further back in time. In a 2004 study fellow scientist Latif used temperature differences from the North and South Atlantic in order to determine the speed of the stream. Here it was not taken into account that we had an aerosol blocking of the sunlight because of air pollution in the northern hemisphere. This effect cannot be so clearly separated from that of a change in the stream; thus we have refined his methods.

Who believes? Rahmstorf here is peddling to a newspaper his very one-sided view as the supposed consensus within the science field. Embarrassing and science-ethically very unclean. That’s a shame.

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

It seems Rahmstorf may have a growing habit of not playing cleanly. -PG

New Paper On Atolls: “There Has Been A 7.3% Increase In Net Island Area Over The Past Century”!

What else can be said about all the doom and gloom nonsense from UN scientists surrounding the atolls and sea level? A new paper that is just out should make them red with embarrassment.

This new paper tells us that the atolls are doing just fine and are gaining in area! Read the paper’s abstract that now follows.

Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atoll

Abstract

The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level. Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations and demonstrate the importance of resolving recent rates and styles of island change to inform adaptation strategies.”

Don’t you just love it when observational data clash with hysterical crystal ball model projections?

Global Warming Scientists Perish In The Arctic …A Lethal Publicity Stunt In Servitude Of Sensationalist Science?

On the folly scale, the following story is right up there with the Antarctic Ship of Fools.

Unfortunately this one ended in a terrible tragedy.

Cornelissen

Global warming researchers Marc Cornelissen and Philip de Roo believed to have perished in the Arctic. Photo Twitter.

The online Spiegel here reports that two Dutch researchers, Marc Cornelissen, 46, and Philip de Roo, 30, are assumed to have died in the Arctic. “They wanted to collect data about the melting ice cover.”

According to Cornelissen’s Twitter site, the pair began their expedition in late March. By early April they has set off on skis across Arctic sea ice accompanied by a husky. They had been posting daily reports at Twitter.

ResoluteAt times Cornelissen tweeted of unusually warm temperatures and even posted audios claiming to be skiing in shorts.

On April 29 things took a turn for the worse and the pair sent out an SOS while traveling near Bathurst Island, approximately 200 kilometers north of Resolute Bay.

On April 30 Cornelissen’s Twitter site posted that the two were missing.

Spiegel writes that it is suspected that one of the pair fell through “thin ice” and that their situation went unknown for a week. A Canadian search party found one body but the other member of the party remains missing. It is assumed that he has perished. Only the husky dog survived.

The site Cold Facts here posted a report stating that the ice conditions there were “very poor”. The two researchers are said to have been experts in their fields. Question: Why were the two trekking on ice conditions described as “very poor”? Shouldn’t experts know better?

Also it needs to be asked if the decision to send out two researchers on foot in dangerous and highly unpredictable conditions was a grossly negligent one. Who approved this? Today modern satellite altimetry and aerial instrumentation can measure ice conditions more far accurately, safely, and efficiently. Why send out two men on foot on thin ice when the Arctic melt season is well under way?

Personally I think the expedition smacks more of a piss-poorly judged publicity stunt by activists, and much less a scientific expedition to explore the unknown. This looks to be highly dim-witted and reckless adventurism in servitude of sensationalist science. There needs to be an independent inquiry into this accident.

Negligence in harsh conditions often carries a lethal price. Unfortunately some of us still have to learn the hard way.

Mean Cosmic Radiation Over Past 8 Years Highest Since 1958 …Current Solar Cycle Weakest In Almost Two Centuries!

The Sun in April
By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

The sole real source of energy for our planet also was also below normal in April: The sunspot number (SSN) was 54.4. Taking the average of the previous 23 cycles, that is only 70% of what is average for this month into the cycle.

Compared to March activity rose some 46%. These short-term changes however are usual noise in the overall signal, which says the entire activity since the current cycle began has been only 53% of the mean value since 1750.

Figure 1: Current solar cycle 24 (red), the mean solar cycle (blue) and the similar solar cycle  no. 7, which took place from 1823 to 1833 and was the last in the Dalton Minimum.

The comparison with solar cycle no. 7 could see increasingly large deviations in the months ahead, as solar activity increased markedly, as depicted by sharp peaks of the black line in Figure 1. Such a development appears highly improbable for solar cycle no. 24. What follows is a comparison of all cycles:

Figure 2: The accumulated solar cycle sunspot anomaly for all cycles 77 months into the cycle. The current cycle began in December 2008.

Figure 3: The speed of the solar wind, which impacts the Earth’s upper atmospheric layers, has fallen off since the early 1990s. It is expressed as the geomagnetic Ap Index. It is a measure of the sun’s impact on the Earth’s magnetic field. Source of the image: Climate4you.

Not only the Earth is impacted by the solar winds, but also the entire sun’s surroundings far out in space. The heliosphere reacts to the stream of particles from the sun. When it is weaker – as is the case during times of solar minima – more cosmic radiation from the Milky Way can penetrate into the Earth’s atmosphere. This is measured here on Earth, e.g. in Moscow since 1958:

Figure 4: Changes in cosmic radiation

During the solar sunspot number maxima (compared to 2000) the solar wind is stronger and thus reduces cosmic radiation by up to 20% when compared to the minima in activity. The current cycle (maximum is already over) is bringing only about an 8% reduction. Over the entire period since 2006 there has been significantly more cosmic radiation than any such period since 1958.

Another factor involved with solar activity is UV radiation. It strongly depends on the sunspot number because the ultraviolet radiation is produced in the areas near sunspots. Unlike the other visible ranges of the spectrum, sunspots in UV images appear brighter than the surrounding areas. Although UV radiation mainly has an impact in the stratosphere, there are top-down effects that lead to impacts to the troposphere.

The signals for solar activity all continue to point to “very low“. We can all wait with suspense to see what impacts the low solar activity will have.

Original German version here.

Energy Physicist Implores NOAA To Return To Credibility… “Get Out Of Adjusting Business”!

Response to NOAA’s claim adjustments are improvements
By Mike Brakey

The email from NOAA’s Derek Arndt confirms that they conducted a massive rewrite of U.S. data in 2014. He also confirmed that the 1913 Maine climate data was indeed lowered a whopping 40F as noted in my article, Black Swan Climate Theory.

My response is based on actual unadjusted temperature data from the Lewiston-Auburn area of Maine, which I secured from a local source and provided in prior emails. (I have attached that data and links to the websites the data was extracted from).  As shown in Chart 1, between 1895 and 1937, the Lewiston-Auburn region (Zone 19 in Chart 2) was typically ¾0F warmer than Maine’s overall state average, based on NOAA data I downloaded in 2013.

Brakey_1

Chart No. 1 & 2.

This data is the black line on Chart 1. I would expect the Lewiston-Auburn area to be slightly warmer than Maine as a whole because it is in southern Maine. Based on the 2013 data, Maine’s average temperatures were about ¾0F colder or less than those for Lewiston-Auburn during the period from 1904 to 1939, and again from 2008 through the present.

The green shaded area shows what the NOAA data would have looked like if that ¾0F difference had remained constant through 2015.  Looking at the year 1913, I might agree with Mr. Arndt that they had an error and I would understand a temperature correction of approximately  ¾0F, but not 40F.

Contradictory data

I am suspicious of the NOAA data, both the original from 2013 and the revised, between 1940 and 2008 because the Maine average temperatures are so significantly less than those for the Lewiston-Auburn region. The other oddity is that there was a downward trend in temperatures for Lewiston-Auburn starting in 1998. However, both sets of NOAA data show temperatures rising for the state of Maine during that same time period.

As well-intended as I believe most NOAA associates likely are, I implore NOAA to please make available the plain, unexciting, unfiltered temperature data (as typified by the green line in Chart 1 above).  If the RAW temperature data is always made available, I would be happy to entertain any theories and projections NOAA or IPCC wishes to make…as long as we all know the true base line (similar to what we have for the green line in Chart 1 with Lewiston-Auburn historical temperature data).

In conclusion, I implore NOAA to return credibility to its website, by getting out of the statistical smoothing and adjusting business and by just providing the scientific community with the basic unfiltered temperature data at all of its site locales. Let’s stay away from all the havoc created between Charts 3 and 4.

Brakey_3
Chart no. 3 & 4.

Watch the entire series of YouTube videos on how I found the NOAA adjustments.

Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research (PIK) Study Finds Natural Factors Are “Underestimated”!

I got a big kick out of the press release that follows below, published by the hopelessly alarmist PIK.

Three times it uses the word “however” to tell readers that things really aren’t like what they just wrote in the sentence before.  The emphasis in the press release is my own.
=======================================

University of Giessen: Natural Temperature Fluctuations in Antarctica Underestimated
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

What follows is a joint press release from the Justus-Liebig-University in Gießen (JLU), the Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the University of Hamburg from 16 April 2015:
============================================

Climate change in Antarctica: Natural temperature variability underestimated – Cold spell superimposes man-made warming
04/16/2015 – The Antarctic ice sheet is one of the tipping elements in the climate system and hence of vital importance for our planet’s future under man-made climate change. Even a partial melting of the enormous ice masses of Antarctica would raise sea-levels substantially. Therefore it is of utmost importance to provide sound knowledge on the extent of anthropogenic warming of the ice-covered continent. A new analysis by German physicists shows that the uncertainties in the temperature trends over Antarctica are larger than previously estimated. ‘So far it seemed there were hardly any major natural temperature fluctuations in Antarctica, so almost every rise in temperature was attributed to human influence,’ says Armin Bunde of Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (JLU). ‘Global warming as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels is a fact. However, the human influence on the warming of West Antarctica is much smaller than previously thought. The warming of East Antarctica up to now can even be explained by natural variability alone.’ The results of their study are now published in the journal Climate Dynamics.

The melting of Antarctic ice shelves is not only influenced by warming air but also by warming oceans, causing ice loss at the coast. However, as there are no sufficient long-term records for Antarctic ocean warming yet, the study focuses on air temperature trends. In collaboration with Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Christian Franzke of the Cluster of Excellence ‘Integrated Climate System Analysis and Prediction’ (CliSAP) of Hamburg University, the physicists of JLU Armin Bunde and Josef Luderer were able to show that there are major and very persistent temperature fluctuations in Antarctica.

‘The climate in Antarctica, just like the global climate, tends to be distinctly persistent by nature – it remains in certain temperature ranges for a long time before it changes. This creates a temporal temperature structure of highs and lows,’ explains Christian Franzke. ‘A low, i.e. a longer cold period, will be followed by a longer warm period, and this natural warming has to be differentiated from the superimposed anthropogenic warming,’ adds Armin Bunde. The scientists did not only analyze data from individual measuring stations but also generated regional averages. The results show a human influence on the warming of West Antarctica, while this influence is weaker than previously thought. However, the warming of Antarctica altogether will likely increase more strongly soon.

For several years temperatures in Antarctica, but also globally, have been increasing less rapidly than in the 1990s. There are a number of reasons for this, e.g. the oceans buffering warmth. The study now published by the German team of scientists shows that man-made global warming has not been pausing – it was temporarily superimposed and therefore hidden by long-term natural climate fluctuations like in Antarctica. ‘Our estimates show that we are currently facing a natural cooling period– while temperatures nonetheless rise slowly but inexorably, due to our heating up the atmosphere by emitting greenhouse gas emissions,’ explains Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. ‘At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.’  In fact, in March 2015 two Antarctic measuring stations registered high-temperature records.

Article: Ludescher, J., Bunde, A., Franzke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J. (2015): Long-term persistence enhances uncertainty about anthropogenic warming of West Antarctica. Climate Dynamics. [DOI: 10.1007/s00382-015-2582-5]

Link to the article: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2582-5″

==============================================
Remarks by Die kalte Sonne editors: An excellent press release which brings up the so far under-estimated importance of natural climate functions. The key sentence:

A low, i.e. a longer cold period, will be followed by a longer warm period, and this natural warming has to be differentiated from the superimposed anthropogenic warming,”

The last paragraph bears the signature of the PIK and was likely a requirement for a mutual press release with the other institutes. The desperate remark concerning the recent Antarctic record levels has little climate relevance. At the South Pole temperatures have been falling for more than 50 years.