NOAA’s Data Debacle …Alterations Ruin 120 Years Of Painstakingly Collected Weather Data

“O, what a tangled web we weave,
When we first practice to deceive.”

Walter Scott

By Michael Brakey, New Gloucester, Maine
Part 2/2

As an energy consultant, I have been implementing energy efficiency improvements over the past six years to help transform our very inefficient log cabin home in New Gloucester, Maine into one of the most energy efficient homes in the United States.

In order to measure the results, I wanted to compare apples-to-apples on heating and cooling demands. Therefore, I have been closely tracking and archiving local heating and cooling degree-day statistics over the last decade.

To do this I have local, unfiltered heating degree-day (HDD) history going back to 1893 from nearby Lewiston/Auburn. Seeing people are more familiar with degrees Fahrenheit (0F), I have converted the HDD to temperatures, and averaged them over running 11-year solar cycles. Those results are shown in the following chart:


While I was continually updating my local data, I also had cause to visit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) website in January 2013 for data on the entire state of Maine. Here I noticed that NOAA’s data indicated that the state of Maine was a total of 1030F colder over the last 117 years compared to local Lewiston data. That worked out to 0.880F per year for “statewide” Maine compared to Lewiston in a southern interior climate.


That seemed reasonable because of the inclusion of northern Maine. I archived NOAA data for Maine, Ohio, Tennessee and the 48 contiguous states, as one entity.

Adjusted dataset twice in 18 months, adjustments totaling of 254°F

In early 2015, I revisited the NOAA website and updated my HDD and cooling degree-day (CDD) data for a local television presentation. Here I was shocked to discover that NOAA had not only rewritten Maine climate history for a second time in the last 18 months, but with all the tinkering they also screwed up southern interior Maine averages. Southern Maine temperatures were now colder than all of Maine as a whole! NOAA had inflated HDD figures so high that they had lowered Fahrenheit temperatures an additional 1510F summed over the years! Southern Maine interior was now 2540F colder over the last 119 years versus original Lewiston data. This means the NOAA rewrote Maine climate history to the extreme of lowering each year the equivalent of 2.120F per year colder. In order to counter Mother Nature’s recent cyclic cooling, the earlier historic years were lowered as much as five degrees while recent temperatures remained almost untouched.


Black line before adjustments. Green line after adjustments.

Past adjusted downward also throughout the USA

Upon comparing NOAA data from other states that I had archived in 2013 to current NOAA data, I found similar discrepancies:

  • Ohio’s historical temps were lowered total of 83.80F.
  • Tennessee’s record had been lowered total of 51.50
  • The U. S. temps for 48 contiguous lowered total of 73.40

Why all the alterations?

Why would NOAA be dramatically lowering temperature records for Maine as well as for other states? A picture is said to be worth a thousand words. In the following illustration I charted the different phases of change by NOAA in 2011 and then in 2014.


  • The black line shows the local data that I collected and archived from local Lewiston, Maine websites (see reference 1).
  • The blue line is data I downloaded in 2013 from NOAA’s website for the entire state of the Maine.
  • The green line is data I downloaded recently from the same NOAA website for the southern interior region of Maine, which includes Lewiston.

There was little if any difference between NOAA and local data in 1998 – until a few years ago. It was only after Mother Nature started cooling local temperatures that NOAA began altering the climate history record. The chart above shows three versions of a rolling 11-year average of historical temperature data since the early 1900’s for the Lewiston/Auburn area.

NOAA confirmed in writing that it’s altering climate data

NOAA was contacted and asked for an explanation. On May 6, 2015, NOAA confirmed in writing the massive changes to Maine’s data. NOAA stated the changes were intentional and justified! NOAA’s written statement included these words:

“…improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”

NOAA’s statement about the need to recently introduce colder Canadian data into Maine’s past temperature history seemed fishy to me. How do they explain similar adjustments to the data for Maine’s southern interior region? 

Worse, they made southern Maine colder than the entire state of Maine! They also revised downward historic temperatures for Tennessee, Ohio, and the United States as a whole. Every U.S. state for which I kept archived NOAA data from 2013 had been adjusted in an almost identical manner.

On June 4, NOAA responded through a general Associated Press statement that they continually readjust thousands of weather data points to account for different measuring techniques through the decades (see part of article to right).

Public deserves facts, not fantasy

My question to NOAA is: Why?

Why does NOAA feel compelled to apply different measuring techniques to climate data? Why not give access to the raw collected data? Why must NOAA apply a master algorithm to the data that not only has been proven to be corrupted, but also whitewash major climate cooling events in recent years. The American public should be given facts not fantasy.

Brakey_110Could NOAA explain the recent climate measuring techniques implemented in the spring of 2014 that have resulted in the CD2 southern interior of Maine (seen in blue area of chart to right) being a third of a degree 0F colder per year when compared to the entire state of Maine?

Again this is fantasy over both fact and common sense. The information below is drawn from NOAA’s most current website. Below is NOAA’s most recent “adjusted data’ for Maine on their website.


NOAA simply ignoring reality

The charts above indicate that southern Maine has on average been 1/30F colder than all of Maine for the last 120 years! NOAA’s recent response to all these questions and observations can be found in their June 4th press release. They reiterated the same mantra; ignore satellite data, ignore facts given by non-scientist (and scientists alike) that disagree with NOAA’s climate data enhancements! We should just trust what NOAA tells us.

Trust is lost

Little wonder recent surveys indicated 76% of the American population does not trust the government to do what is right.

NOAA data cannot be relied on

As stated in yesterday’s post, decision makers in the state of Maine, and across America, cannot and should not rely on NOAA data for setting energy policy. If we are indeed experiencing regional cooling, then we should be encouraging insulation and less expensive sources of heating, such as natural gas, heat pumps, geothermal and future technologies associate with thorium and hydrogen.

However, based on NOAA’s data, which indicates a warming trend, lobbyists are focused on electric generation by means of wind and solar. It is important to gather data from other non-governmental sources to make sound decisions. It appears that we presently live in a nation where an agency of the Federal government has rewritten our climate history. Decisions worth trillions of dollars are being made based on fraudulent climate data.



NOAA Fudging Turns Into A Mess …Bangor 2015 Sets 6-Month Cold Record Amid NOAA Claims It’s Warm!

By Michael Brakey

Brakey_1Unbeknownst to most Mainers, on May 6 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) admitted to introducing Canadian weather stations to dramatically lower Maine’s past temperature averages over a 120-year time period.

In the federal government’s hysteria to preserve the mantra of continuous global warming, NOAA carved out a summed total of more than 2540F from annual mean temperatures of Maine climate past between 1895 and the present.

Shock! NOAA makes southern Maine colder than northern Maine!

NOAA’s computer reprogramming scheme accidentally made southern Maine appear colder than northern Maine. Oops! This serves as yet one more example of fantasy climate manipulation. Common-sense Mainers can verify this at NOAA’s latest website, or see addendum at the end of this report.

Bangor 2015 sees coldest 6-month period on record!

There are several inconvenient truths that fly in the face of NOAA’s altered data. In 2015, Maine’s Penobscot Bay froze completely over for possibly only the sixth time since 1893. The Bangor’s Daily News just reported that Bangor set a record for low temperatures, experiencing a teeth-chattering average of only 340F (approximately 6,023 Heating Degree Days) over the first six months of 2015!

Lewiston likely to break 111-year record

Local Lewiston climate records indicate the southern interior region will likely break a 111-year old climate record established in 1904 of 41.20F.  In the first six months of 2015, Lewiston has recorded 5,368 HDD.  The Lewiston region only requires 3,332 more HDD by December 31, 2015 to break the 111-record old record for cold temperatures.

Recent volcanic eruptions by Iceland’s Bardarbunga (August 16, 2014-March 2, 2015) will continue to have a cooling effect on Maine weather for the balance of 2015 and all of 2016, assuring the likelihood of a climate cooling record this year.  Temperatures could challenge the 1904 Lewiston, Maine record as the coldest year based on local records kept since 1893.

By the spring of 2014, NOAA had eliminated all possibility of Maine establishing cooling climate records (To be explained in an upcoming post). If the Lewiston region were to even hit 41.20F (8,700 HDD), NOAA could proclaim 2015 to be Maine’s 101st warmest year in history.

Mainers urged to dismiss NOAA on energy decisions

Local climate data confirms we have been experiencing regional cooling since 1998. Mainers should be encouraged to insulate and seek less expensive sources of residential and business heating, such as natural gas, heat pumps, geothermal and future technologies associated with thorium and hydrogen.  However, based on NOAA’s revised data, indicating a continuous warming trend, out-of-state lobbyists are encouraging Federal funding of more expensive electric generation with wind and solar.

Corrupted science

In my opinion, NOAA has been corrupted by politicians with expensive climate agendas. Maine decision makers must first verify my claims and upon being proven valid, avoid NOAA climate data for setting present and future energy policy. Until NOAA is purged of corrupted political appointees, it is important to gather climate data from other non-governmental sources to make sound energy decisions.


COLOSSAL oops on NOAA’s part.

The information below was taken from NOAA’s climate website found at:

Brakey_110Below we entered identical parameters for Maine, 2015 with the exception that the left hand column requests “Statewide” Heating Degree Day (HDD) data whereas the right hand option requests CD2 South Interior Maine Heating Degree Day (HDD). Higher HDD values reflect colder temperatures. Over the last 119 years, NOAA data now indicates southern Maine has brought down Maine temperatures by 109 HDD or about 1/3 0F per year.  This is a colossal error that can only happen with computer algorithm errors.  NOAA, just present us raw, unfiltered data.


Former Swiss Minister: Okay To Lie About Climate “If It Is For The Good” …And Germany’s “Heat Wave” Over After Just 4 – 5 Days

Two small stories today.

The first is the “heat wave” that has gripped Europe over the past few days. Europe saw weather patterns that were optimum for producing record heat in Germany and other countries. In Germany although a number of cities set new all-time highs, the country’s record high of 40.2°C set during the heat wave of 2003 did not fall.

UPDATE: Spiegel reports that Germany did see a new all-time high yesterday: here reports that yesterday’s German high was 39.4°C, recorded in Saxony Anhalt, and much to the disappointment of the media and alarmist scientists, who lately have been in the habit of seizing upon any data anecdote as a sign of global warming.

Though many records were set, the heat wave was as short as it was intense, lasting only a few days. For example at a station close to where I live, the temperature rose above 30°C only on three days. The so-called “tropical night” where temperatures don’t fall below 20°C occurred only once here.

Global warming alarmists in Germany have warned that in the future cities such as Hamburg would have to expect more stifling, long-lasting heat waves in the future, with tropical nights become increasingly common. But looking at Hamburg’s temperatures over the past days also shows that the “heat wave” involved only 2 days above 30°C, and not a single tropical night. hardly a heat wave.

Today a cold front with showers and thunderstorms has been sweeping across northwestern Germany, bringing an end to the heat after a mere 4 days. The cold front is expected to continue its sweep across the rest of Germany over the next day, and so end the heat wave there too.

Some locations of course will see the heat linger a little longer, seeing 5 or 6 days above 30°C, but is only a local phenomenon. Overall this heat wave was just a mere midget compared to the 2003 heat wave. And it was certainly nothing compared to what Europe saw back in 1540.

Lying okay if it is for the good

The other short story today comes from the Die kalte Sonne site here, which writes about a former Swiss Minister,  Moritz Leuenberger. The Swiss Tagblatt writes:

“‘The climate conference in Copenhagen just before agreeing to reduce CO2 emissions was disastrous,’ Leuenberger now admits. Yet back then he intentionally did not tell the media this, and thus lied so that the Swiss would vote in favor of it. Leuenberger: ‘Now I believe the lie is legitimate if it is for the good.'”

Consensus Gone: Only 56% Of Nobel Laureates Sign Mainau Declaration 2015 On Climate Change!

The online German flagship daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) conducted an interview with Australian astrophysicist and Nobel Prize laureate Brian Schmidt, revealing that so far only 36 of 65 Nobel laureates attending the Lindau Nobel laureate conference have signed the so-called 2015 Mainau Declaration, a document urging world leaders to act quickly on climate change.

The FAZ interview bears the title: “The evidence that must not be distorted.”

In the interview conducted by Joachim Müller-Jung, Schmidt gives the impression that there is an almost universal consensus and certainty on the science, that the IPCC is 99% sure that humans have been responsible for the recent climate change.

ipcc_fig1-4_models_obsWhen Schmidt is asked by the FAZ directly why he is so sure about the science, Schmidt says he relies on the models…”extremely complex models“, and adds that although they do not know whether things in the future will happen exactly as the IPCC says they will, Schmidt tells the FAZ “we can say that most of the model calculations lead to a serious change in the atmosphere that will be unacceptable. This change puts everything in doubt it leads to perhaps the greatest crisis for mankind. […] I would say that we can be 99 percent certain that a dangerous and man-made climate change is taking place.”

Consensus? Only 56% signed

And it turns out that not many Nobel laureates are as sure as Schmidt. The FAZ asks why “just a bit over half” of the laureates attending the Lindau conference signed the document, i.e. only 35 of 66 Nobel laureates. Schmidt replies first by claiming that there is actually only one person who steadfastly refuses to sign (Ivar Giaever) and that:

Most of the others simply had to leave the conference earlier or had second thoughts about signing because it was beyond their expertise.”

When asked by the FAZ what would happen if it turned out they are all wrong, Schmidt answers: “Then I am the first to admit that I was wrong. But I am 99 percent sure that this will not happen.”

Here Schmidt may want to look at the comparison of the model projects and the real observed data (see IPCC chart above).

At the end Schmidt says that U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Royal Society President Paul Nurse played key roles in authoring the Mainau manifesto.


DWD German Weather Service Says UHI Effect As Much As 10°C! …Judith Curry Puts Heat Waves On Ice

Germany’s and Europe’s first real heat wave (more than 3 days long) of the summer has pushed temperatures well above the 30°C. A so-called omega high pressure system centered over Eastern Europe is pumping hot air from the Mediterranean and Africa up across much of Europe.

Europe temp 07 04 2015Source:

Not about to pass up any opportunity to exploit single weather events for the global warming cause, the online SVZ here cites the DWD German Weather Service, which warns that climate change will further exacerbate summer heat waves in cities, especially because of all the concrete, steel and asphalt that act as heat storage sinks that in turn serve to slow down nighttime cooling and absorb more heat in the daytime on hot days.

The DWD advises cities to find ways to incorporate more green vegetation to help offset the growing urban heat island effect brought on by climate change, the SVZ writes.

Can boost temperatures by 10°C!

What’s interesting here is that in the article the DWD also confirms that the urban heat island effect is real and profound, claiming that it can boost temperatures in cities “by up to 10°C”. The cites DWD Vice President Paul Becker, writing:

Temperatures in the city as a result could be up to 10°C higher than in the surrounding rural areas where we find bodies of water and vegetation.”

So what should this tell us about readings taken from the many weather stations located near airports and cities? Of course they have been generating exaggerated results for years. And worse, the adjustments made to the temperature record over the past years are dubious at best, especially when rural stations of the past are corrected downward and recent urban data corrected upwards.

Data supporting more heat waves weak at best

On the subject of heat waves and their frequency, also read Judith Curry’s latest here.

By the way, Western Europe being on track for a record heat wave, like the media are claiming, is a bit of hyperbole. In Germany, the heat wave is scheduled to be over already over by Tuesday, making the heat wave about a whole 5 days long. That pales compared to the heat wave of 2003.

Naturally the alarmist Potsdam Institute here (also unable to pass up the chance to exploit the hot weather) is sure that heat waves are getting more frequent and intense because of global warming. But then again, the Potsdam Institute also claims that global warming is causing more wintertime cold waves. So you be the judge on whether or not they can be taken seriously.

AWI’s Sloppy Antarctic Peninsula Science…Overlooked GISS Temperature Data, Snowfall Amounts

Record ice melt at the Antarctic Peninsula? Scientists overlooked fluctuations in snowfall

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning / Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Condensed, summarized by P Gosselin)

German journalists, e.g. the Stuttgarter Zeitung’s Roland Knauer, recently reported that ice at the Antarctic peninsula was “melting more rapidly than first thought“, and that “climate change was making its way further south“.

But this seems to be a rather strange claim, especially in light of the fact that the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) recently claimed that ice on the continent would grow over the coming decades as a result of global warming. Somehow Süddeutsche Zeitung’s Knauer never got around to mentioning that.

Calamitous Planning: German Wind Parks Overload Power Grid …”At Its Limits” …Record 50,000 Grid Interventions In May!

Online German NDR public radio here wrote last week how northern Germany’s power grid had suffered a major bottleneck that led to the overload of the Flensburg-Niebüll power transmission line in Schleswig Holstein last week.


North German transformer stations constantly overloaded by wind power. Photo image cropped here (not a German station, for illustration only).

The overload resulted from a power surge from North Sea wind parks when winds picked up a bit. What is unusual in this case, however, is that there was no storm present and the overload was caused by normal wind fluctuations. Thus the incident illustrates the increasing volatility of wind as a power supply, even under regular weather conditions.

At its limits

It turns out that intervening in power grids to avert a widespread power supply breakdown is nothing new in Germany. NDR writes that nowadays power engineer Stefan Hackbusch at the grid’s control center in Northern German increasingly has to intervene even when there are even moderate breezes. The north German public radio media outlet writes: “Because of the strong growth in wind park installations, the power grid up north is at its limits.”

Intervened 50,000 times in May

As winds pick up with little warning, engineers at control centers constantly have to keep a close eye out and be ready to act at a minute’s notice and intervene if the power surges (or drops) to dangerous limits. To prevent overloading of the grid, control centers often have to shut down wind parks until the power supply moves into a safe range. These unplanned wind park shutdowns are occurring more and more often, NDR writes. “Switching off has become much more frequent the workers at the control center confirm. Transformer stations in Schleswig-Holstein had to have their output reduced 50,000 times in May – a record.”

“Waste electricity” skyrocketing

Not only is grid stability a problem, but “waste power” is also growing astronomically, NDR writes, citing the Bundesnetzagentur (German Network Agency), that 555 gigawatt-hrs of renewable power went unused in 2013 because of overloading and the surplus had to be discarded. The trend of “waste electricity” is skyrocketing, NDR writes. According to the provisions of Germany’s EEG renewable energy feed-in act, waste electricity still needs to be paid for, which means that consumers foot a bill for something that is never delivered. Consumers are also required to pay for the electricity that doesn’t get produced when a wind park gets shut down. Wind park operators get paid whether they feed in or not.

Grid bottleneck dampens new installations

One solution for the German grid overloading from the uncontrollable wind and sun sources would be to vastly expand the German national power grid so that wind power produced near the North and Baltic seas power could get transmitted to the industrial south, where demand is big. But here too the costs of building the such transmission power lines are astronomical and permitting entails a bureaucratic mess. Moreover political opposition against these lines is mounting rapidly. Experts say that the earliest, most optimistic completion date for a major power transmission expansion is 2022. This however is now looking totally unrealistic, as pie in the sky.

With the German grid often becoming hopelessly overloaded and with no real expansion in sight, the future looks bleak for wind and solar power systems suppliers. With no place to send the power, there’s no need for new installations. Orders and contracts for new projects have been drying up and wind and solar companies are now being hit hard.

Bill Gates Dismisses Solar And Wind Energy, “Can’t Do The Job” …Cost “Beyond Astronomical”!

Another prominent thumbs down against wind the current renewable energy craze, this one from Bill Gates.

The UK online Register here reports that the technology guru is not impressed by fad renewable energies wind and sun: “Renewable energy can’t do the job. Gov should switch green subsidies into R&D“.

Moreover Gates thinks they “aren’t a viable solution for reducing CO2 levels” and that power coming mainly from solar and wind energy “would be beyond astronomical“.

Gates made the comments in an interview with the Financial Times. The Register reports:

As for a possible solution for energy with low CO2 emissions, Gates thinks the answer lies in technology innovation. The Register writes: In Bill Gates’ view, the answer is for governments to divert the massive sums of money which are currently funnelled to renewables owners to R&D instead.

Gates also believes that divesture from oil and coal companies will have little impact, and that batteries for storing the sporadic supplies of wind and sun energy are not the answer. Part of the answer, Gates believes, is in nuclear power.

Read the whole article and analysis here.

Schellnhuber Boasts Of Having Skeptics Excluded From Participating In Drafting “Laudato Si” Encyclical

 at, a policy-critical site run by leading German publicists, wrote how Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber recently boasted before journalists of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) how he got Pope Francis to swing over to climate alarmism in His most recent encyclical “Laudato Si”. It wasn’t through open debate.

[Read here for more background on Schellnhuber.]

Wendt quotes the climate-alarmist Schellnhuber:

Over ten years ago the Pontifical Academy held a conference on climate change. Back then also a squad of prominent ‘skeptics’ also were invited; the Vatican’s position at the time was much different than it is today. …It was a tough job to prepare the scientific findings so that the problem is now far better understood in the Vatican.“

In response Wendt writes point that for Schellnhuber: “The major progress made at the Vatican is namely that the Church excluded any controversy in the new, latest debate which he influenced.”

According to Wendt, the FAZ journalists anxiously asked Schellnhuber:

The skeptics were invited as well?”

Schellnhuber replied:

No. But a British politician, Lord Monckton, managed to sneak into a conference. Unfortunately he is all caught up in conspiracy theories. In Rome he sat behind me with his iPhone, eagerly recording everything, and later in his blog made fun about how he fooled the Swiss security. It was a performance like in a Tyrolean peasant theater.”

Wendt summarizes what we naturally can gather from all this:

When it comes to how a debate is supposed to be conducted, we now know quite precisely what Schellnhuber’s idea of this is, especially once his Great Transformation becomes successful one day.”

Schellnhuber is convinced he should have the last and final word. Pope Francis likely views him as a prophet of some sort.

Wendt defended Monkton, writing that the high profile British climate critic is not caught at all up in any “conspiracy theories”, and that he in fact shares many common positions with scientists like Schellnhuber, quoting him in his own words: “Yes, there is a greenhouse effect. Yes, CO2 contributes to it. Yes, it causes warming. Yes, we emit CO2. Yes, warming will result. But not a lot.”

So here we see, just as we suspected, that the Vatican never bothered having any real balanced and open discussion on climate science in the run-up to “Laudato Si”. A terrible misstep.

Heartland Institute Now Distributing ‘The Neglected Sun’ …Scientists Say IPCC “Grossly Incorrect”

Neglected Sun HeartlandA reader recently left a comment saying he had been having difficulty getting a copy of “The Neglected Sun“, the best-selling non-alarmist climate science book showing how man-made climate change is nowhere near as serious as the IPCC wants us to believe it is.

Order here now.

Good news! The Die kalte Sonne site here reports that The Neglected Sun, the English version, which sold out a few months ago, will once again be printed and available from the Chicago-based powerhouse think-tank The Heartland Institute, who have purchased the rights to the book.

It is now available at Amazon here, or at the Heartland Institute online shop for US$ 19.99. The Kindle version is available at Amazon for US$ 11.11. Shipping begins July 1, 2015.

The book was also translated in Polish and has been available since October 2014.

IPCC’s “grossly incorrect radiative forcing values”

According to authors Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, the book is up-to-date, cites hundreds of peer-reviewed literature and explains in easy terms why the CO2 climate sensitivity has been totally overblown and how the sun and oceans are the primary climate drivers.

They commented in an e-mail:

Detailed comparison with the palaeoclimatological development demonstrates that the climate change observed over the past 100 years is nothing new, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively. Natural climate variability is much more important than previously thought and solar activity changes and ocean cycles are some of the key drivers. It turns out that the IPCC has made major mistakes in the attribution of the 20th century warming which leads to grossly incorrect radiative forcing values in the IPCC reports.”

The two authors also point to the latest UK Met Office report which shows we may be heading into a new cold phase due to low solar activity.

NASA data are “suspicious”

The two prominent German skeptics are also distrustful of NASA GISS temperature data, claiming the temperature “corrections” are “suspicious” because “they always result in amplification of the warming trend, never the opposite. Artificial cooling of the past and artificial warming of the present-day.”

What to expect from Paris

On what we can expect from Paris later this year, the two co-authors write that there will be some sort of treaty “but likely without a lot of substance and with lots of vagueness and loopholes.”

Also pick up a copy of Climate Change: The Facts:



German Analysis: Near Record Level Antarctic Sea Ice Shows Nothing Climatically Unusual At South Pole!

Yesterday Ed Caryl showed us that the Greenland ice core shows there’s nothing unusual going on with our climate around Greenland. Today geologist Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt tells us the same for the other end of the Earth.

The development of the Antarctic Sea ice before the satellite era in 1979

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

Antarctic sea ice has truly surprised science. Contradicting the models, it has continuously grown since 1979 during a time that the climate models were only able to find scenarios of receding ice.

Today we would like to take a look back before the satellite time. How did the South Pole develop during the time when satellites were unable to continuously and completely monitor sea ice movement?

Information can be gathered for example from old satellite photos made during the pioneering phases of satellites. On 29 August 2014 the University of Colorado Boulder reported on an amazing discovery of old Nimbus photos:

And the Antarctic blew us away,” he said. In 1964, sea ice extent in the Antarctic was the largest ever recorded, according to Nimbus image analysis. Two years later, there was a record low for sea ice in the Antarctic, and in 1969 Nimbus imagery, sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent earliest on record.”

In 1964 Antarctic sea ice was hugely expanded, while to the contrary in 1966 it retreated massively. And in 1969 the sea ice had returned once again close to record high levels. This is an enormous amount of natural variability.

A team of scientists led by Tingting Fan used the premise of growing sea ice since 1979 as a reason for investigating the climatic conditions in the southern ocean. Here scientists found that the oceans had cooled over the previous 35 years, which fits well with the notion of expanding sea ice. During the 1950-1978 period, on the other hand, the southern ocean warmed up. This was the basis for a long-term ice retreat during that phase. The paper appeared in the April 2014 Geophysical Research Letters. The abstract writes:

Recent Antarctic sea ice trends in the context of Southern Ocean surface climate variations since 1950
This study compares the distribution of surface climate trends over the Southern Ocean in austral summer between 1979–2011 and 1950–1978, using a wide variety of data sets including uninterpolated gridded marine archives, land station data, reanalysis, and satellite products. Apart from the Antarctic Peninsula and adjacent regions, sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures decreased during 1979–2011, consistent with the expansion of Antarctic sea ice. In contrast, the Southern Ocean and coastal Antarctica warmed during 1950–1978. Sea level pressure (SLP) and zonal wind trends provide additional evidence for a sign reversal between the two periods, with cooling (warming) accompanied by stronger (weaker) westerlies and lower (higher) SLP at polar latitudes in the early (late) period. Such physically consistent trends across a range of independently measured parameters provide robust evidence for multidecadal climate variability over the Southern Ocean and place the recent Antarctic sea ice trends into a broader context.”

Already in November 2013 a group led by Loïc Barbara published a reconstruction of the sea ice in the area of Antarctic Peninsula in the journal of Quaternary Science Reviews. Between 1935-1950 the ice receded, and after that there is no recognizable trend. Instead the sea ice fluctuated back and forth over years and decades. The paper’s abstract follows:

Diatoms and biomarkers evidence for major changes in sea ice conditions prior the instrumental period in Antarctic Peninsula
The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) has been identified as one of the most rapidly warming region on Earth. Satellite monitoring currently allows for a detailed understanding of the relationship between sea ice extent and duration and atmospheric and oceanic circulations in this region. However, our knowledge on ocean–ice–atmosphere interactions is still relatively poor for the period extending beyond the last 30 years. Here, we describe environmental conditions in Northwestern and Northeastern Antarctic Peninsula areas over the last century using diatom census counts and diatom specific biomarkers (HBIs) in two marine sediment multicores (MTC-38C and -18A, respectively). Diatom census counts and HBIs show abrupt changes between 1935 and 1950, marked by ocean warming and sea ice retreat in both sides of the AP. Since 1950, inferred environmental conditions do not provide evidence for any trend related to the recent warming but demonstrate a pronounced variability on pluri-annual to decadal time scale. We propose that multi-decadal sea ice variations over the last century are forced by the recent warming, while the annual-to-decadal variability is mainly governed by synoptic and regional wind fields in relation with the position and intensity of the atmospheric low-pressure trough around the AP. However, the positive shift of the SAM since the last two decades cannot explain the regional trend observed in this study, probably due to the effect of local processes on the response of our biological proxies.”

In May 2014 a team led by Kate Sinclair published a reconstruction of sea ice from the Ross Sea in the Geophysical Research Letters. Between 1880 and 1950 the ice was apparently stable. From 1950-1990 the ice receded, varied beginning in 1993, but took on an increasing trend, which continues today. The abstract:

Twentieth century sea-ice trends in the Ross Sea from a high-resolution, coastal ice-core record
We present the first proxy record of sea-ice area (SIA) in the Ross Sea, Antarctica, from a 130 year coastal ice-core record. High-resolution deuterium excess data show prevailing stable SIA from the 1880s until the 1950s, a 2–5% reduction from the mid-1950s to the early-1990s, and a 5% increase after 1993. Additional support for this reconstruction is derived from ice-core methanesulphonic acid concentrations and whaling records. While SIA has continued to decline around much of the West Antarctic coastline since the 1950s, concurrent with increasing air and ocean temperatures, the underlying trend is masked in the Ross Sea by a switch to positive SIA anomalies since the early-1990s. This increase is associated with a strengthening of southerly winds and the enhanced northward advection of sea ice.”

We conclude our look at the Antarctic sea ice with an anecdote that appeared in the December 2014 in the Geophysical Research Letters. In the paper authors Jeff Ridley and Helene Hewett claimed that the sea ice trend in the Anatarctic indeed would be irreversible as a result of climate warming. That would of course mean that the increase of the last 35 years would never be reversed. Yet, to the contrary, Arctic sea ice trends are supposed to be reversible. Apparently the authors are anticipating an increase in north polar sea ice. Absolutely curious. Here’s the abstract of the paper:

A mechanism for lack of sea ice reversibility in the Southern Ocean
We find evidence that ocean processes during global warming may result in irreversible changes to the Antarctic sea ice, whereas the Arctic sea ice changes appear to be reversible. Increased forcing gives rise to strong heat uptake in the Southern Ocean, and existing pathways provide an increased transport of heat to the Weddell Sea. As atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are returned to preindustrial levels, the Antarctic ice extent at first recovers, but a rapid change in the position of the an ocean front in the South Atlantic maintains the heat transport into the Weddell Sea. A cooling surface initiates deep convection, accessing the stored heat, resulting in a substantial loss of sea ice, which has not recovered after a further 150 years at preindustrial CO2.”

Flagship German FAZ Assails Pope’s “Distorted Depiction Of Civilization”…Encyclical’s Vision “A Frightening Idea”

Journalist Jan Grossarth of flagship political daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) says it all in just the first sentences of his recent online commentary here:

Where the Pope errs

The Pope’s Encyclical is chock full of criticism and anti-liberal distortions. The good of the industrial present hardly gets mentioned.”

This is quite a comment for Germany’s leading political daily, which has been consistently green and a devoted purveyor of climate alarmism.

Grossarth is not the first to criticize the Pope’s massively one-sided, über-pessimistic position outlined in the Encyclical. Other journalists and observers have done so as well.

Increasingly it is growing clearer with each passing day that Pope Francis has made a fatal miscalculation in allowing certain alarmist, extremist scientists to dictate the Encyclical’s tone. They have rendered it a grotesquely flawed document.

The FAZ’s Grossarth cannot understand why the Pope is coming down so hard on modern society and its many virtues:

For many, and not by a long shot only those in the Northern World, capitalism is a paradise: Hunger is receding, more and more people are going to school, are getting older, and don’t have to work as long or as hard.”

In a nutshell, most things that earlier popes and Catholics requested in former times have been expediently delivered by free market systems. Much misery, squalor and suffering have been alleviated. Ehrlichian visions of doom from just 40 years ago never came to pass – due to modern industrial progress.

Grossarth thinks the Pope is overly “pessimistic” – someone who is way out of bounds in equating “capitalism to greed”. He characterizes Pope Francis as a person who has an incurable, chronic habit of presenting only the very ugly side of things. He writes:

In the Encyclical there are so many examples of one-sided negative perceptions that in summary a distorted depiction of civilization is the result.”

This should not be a surprise as the lead contributor to the Encyclical was German alarmist scientist Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. It’s truly a pity the Pope did not have the wisdom to recognize the document for what it was: a power-grabbing instrument by extreme environmental activists masquerading as scientists. Under John Paul II or Benedict such a polarizing and distorted encyclical would have never seen the light of day.

Grossarth also makes the point that Francis is extremely adversarial to free-market systems, that he is someone who defines them as the world’s evil.

Instead, all the abstract talk is about ‘refraining’, and the ‘common good’, or of ‘irrational trust in progress’. For the Pope, man’s intervention in nature leads to a vicious circle.

Economic liberalism (symbolized by Adam Smith’ s ‘invisible hand’) is named in the same breath along with sickness, forced labor, slavery or child abuse.”

Grossarth also sharply criticizes Pope Francis for making claims “without any evidence”. He writes that the “Pope leaves the facts aside.” The FAZ journalist thinks that the Pope’s vision of an exodus back to an agrarian world of more natural, pre-industrial living is totally misguided. On the Pope’s vision, Grossarth writes:

Thus here the pre-industrial times are revered as a time when ‘man and things’ were still ‘in friendly harmony’. The return to that time is a frightening idea.”

Pope Francis Encyclical Incites The Violation Of 4 Of God’s 10 Commandments

This Vatican site here teaches Catholics the 10 Commandments of God.

Yet, on topics of energy and climate, the Pope’s latest Encyclical arguably serves to incite many of the world’s citizens and powerful institutions to violate 3, if not 4, of these Holy Commandments.

On the subject of climate science and energy, the overall attitude of the Pope with regards to skeptic voices has been a colossal disappointment. Pope Francis has purposely refused to listen to the critics of climate pessimism and alarmism, has outright dismissed them, and, as He communicates in His Encyclical, He now calls for the forced redistribution and reorganization of the world’s goods.

Though the Encyclical gives the appearance of an appeal to alleviate pain and suffering among the world’s most vulnerable, It is in part a deeply rooted and disturbing desire to seize and control the world’s life-sustaining wealth and resources. History threatens to repeat.

Rather than teaching Catholics to voluntarily share their wealth (as many already do), Pope Francis instead proposes that Catholics and all citizens be forced to do so by law, against their will, and to do so to a draconian extent. This is an uncharacteristically harsh and aggressive doctrine. So harsh in fact that executing the Encyclical’s underlying demand would de facto involve the violation of 4 of God’s 10 Commandments:


When you boil down the issue of climate change, it gets down to the confiscation, redistribution and re-ownership of global wealth. Catholic and PIK economist Ottmar Edenhofer even confirmed this in no uncertain terms. It is clear that much of the issue is all about coveting thy neighbor’s goods. It is about inciting the world’s poor to covet the wealth of others, and inciting powerful institutions to seize that wealth on the poor’s behalf. Worse, rightful owners are being coerced by false threats (e.g. computer-generated doomsday scenarios) should they resist going along.


The climate issue and the Encyclical itself demand that a global authority be set up with the purpose of denying and/or redistributing the world’s wealth and energy. Redistribution here means seizing property rights from their rightful owners, and transfering these rights to others, all under the guise of the common good. The confiscation of property through gross acts of scientific deception and computer-generated threats of natural calamities is ‘stealing’.


When it comes to the claimed “consensus” on the science, its funding, the accuracy of climate models, presentation of data, proxy reconstructions, etc. there’s been an over-abundance of false witness. This has been the most unfortunate aspect and the root of the whole issue. The Pope’s characterization of the non-alarmist climate skeptics, one he seems to have hastily adopted from the powerful and well funded, is one that bears false witness against these very skeptics. The skeptics of alarmism and climate science are in fact in great numbers, and most are operating humbly on a shoestring and with no support from the powerful institutions, let alone Big Oil. Moreover there is no consensus whatsoever, and the Pope is spreading a grave untruth here when He implies there is. The skeptics are poor, have had their voices muffled – and yet, rather than showing them compassion as Jesus would, the Pope has callously dismissed them, refused to hear them, even marginalized them, opting to side with the rich and powerful.


Here killing means the premeditated act of taking another’s life. Of course no one believes the Vatican endorses this. But if you know your actions and policies lead to lives being lost in mass, then you are guilty of killing. It is clear that taking affordable energy away from the poor (and even the lower middle class) leads to horrible deaths from exposure – real deaths today that we witness winter after winter. Instead the Pope appears indifferent to the poor’s need of cheap fuel to stay warm and to care for their families, and seems obsessed with the fictitious computer-generated “deaths” 50 years down the road that some see in models, which so far have been proven to be totally flawed. Has he bought into the notion that climate scientists are prophets?

These are 4 Commandments that Pope Francis is sadly neglecting and possibly abusing in his Encyclical. Many of us have already come to realize that this Pope did not even author the encyclical himself, and that he likely was duped into endorsing It. Executing the Encyclical would lead to moral anarchy.

Good Catholics will choose to ignore the Pope’s Encyclical with respect to the still very much unsettled and hotly debated topics of climate science, energy, and especially the calls for the forced redistribution of (coveted) goods.

Pope’s Negligent Rush To Flawed Judgment: ‘Laudato Si’ Based Solely On Alarmist Side

A reaction to the Pope’s encyclical has been published at climate science critical site: Die kalte Sonne.

What does the pope know about our climate?

By Uli Weber
[Translated/edited by P Gosselin]

In his encyclical‚ Laudato si, Pope Francis worries about our “common home”, and fundamentally he is not incorrect here. Under Part I of his encyclical he addresses environmental pollution and climate change. Unfortunately the papal view on the climate question is restricted solely to the strictly alarmist position. Here we present a few excerpts:

20. … Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.”

This statement not only applies to market economy technologies, but rather to a far greater extent to central planning mechanisms. The ecological efforts of using renewable energies for rescuing the climate are creating at the very moment great problems in the third world, and these are being completely ignored. On this point our ecological souls, namely rainforests, are being clear-cut to make way for bioethanol production for our “ecologically precious E10 fuel”. Here a clear position-statement from the Pope on the sale of eco-indulgences at the expense of the third world would have been most desirable. Instead such active environmental destruction is being booked under the alleged climate change, which supposedly will lead to the migration of climate refugees. Quote from the papal encyclical:

25. …this is how, for example, changes in climate, to which animals and plants cannot adapt, lead them to migrate; this in turn affects the livelihood of the poor, who are then forced to leave their homes, with great uncertainty for their future and that of their children…”

For the first time since the Middle Ages the scientific mainstream and the Catholic Church are once again unified. A quote from the encyclical:

23. …a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. … The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system.…“,

… and both agree with the politics:

26. … Therefore it is urgently needed to develop political programs over the coming years which will serve to drastically reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and other strongly polluting gases, … There have been some investment in production methods and types of transportation that require less quantities of energy and raw materials, as well as types of construction or ways of building renovation that increase energy efficiency. However these good practices have by no means been put into practice everywhere.”

We already know the implicit demand to decarbonize the global energy supply from the G7 summit at Schloss Elmau, and from the “Contract for a Great Transformation“ by the German Advisory Council for Global Change (WBGU) of 2011. Precisely this WBGU reported on 17 June 2015 that Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Chairman of the WBGU and Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PIK, would introduce the encyclical “Laudato si” by the Pope together with Cardinal Turkson in Rome on June 18, 2015 . This encyclical on environment declared that man-made climate change is a scientific fact and that committed climate protection for mankind represented a religious and moral imperative. Is the Pope now announcing ‘ex cathedra’ climate science truths?

Our reader Manfred Büchel points out another important point in the encyclical, which we find hidden at the very end of the first chapter:

61. On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views.”

Europe Weather: “Thing Of The Past” Now A Thing Of Summer …Snow At 1500 Meters In Southern Germany

Two days ago I wrote about the cold weather that’s been gripping Germany and Central Europe. Well, things are about to get worse early this weekend, and not better.

The online Munich-based Abendzeiting (Evening News) here reports the latest weather forecast of frost and snow that are set to hit Germany – in June…on the first day of summer!

Snow in Bavaria down to 1500 meters

The online news site writes that this year “summer is starting out wet and cold: Ground frost in the north, snow in the Alps“.

Though snow is not an unusual event in the Alps at higher elevations above 2500 meters, it is unusual when it happens at just 1500 meters in the summertime. The Abendzeitung writes:

Things don’t look better down south. In the Bavarian Alps the snowfall level will drop to 1500 to 1800 meters. On Zugspitze up to 50 centimeters of snow will fall.”

This morning my wife even turned the furnace back on, as many other homes have done in Germany over the past days. “It’s too friggin cold,” she told me.

Climate forecasts of scorching hot Europe summers refuted

In the early 2000s climate scientists predicted Europe would have to get used to scorching hot and parched summers, similar to that seen in 2003. However, more than 10 years later, summers have been cooler and wetter than normal, thus so far defying the climate scientists’ predictions.

And this summer does not appear to be anything different. The Abendzeitung quotes meteorologist Dominik Jung of

I don’t believe we are going to experience an extremely hot July or August. The run-up to the summer this year has been similar to 2013 and 2014. In both of those years the spring was like in 2015: stable, dry and very sunny. In both years variable and only moderately warm summers followed. I anticipate the same for this year.”

The coming cold is just the latest in an extended string of well below normal temperatures. Last week northern Germany saw 5 consecutive mornings with ground surface frost, a “very unusual” event, Jung reported earlier.

Scientists got the science all wrong

Naturally the recent unusual cold weather has nothing to do with a climate trend; it is just weather – something the global warming alarmists like to forget when hot weather hits. Still, it is important to remind them that they once told us such cold events were “a thing of the past”, that children would never know them and that instead we needed to prepare for hot scorcher periods.

Surprise! The cold events have been becoming more frequent in Germany over the past quarter century, thus bluntly refuting the models. The climate scientists need to admit that they got the science on this all wrong.

Swiss ‘Weltwoche’ Magazine Fires At Activist Encyclical …”Somewhere Galileo Is Chuckling”

The latest 17 June 2015 edition of Weltwoche from Switzerland has a commentary on the Vatican and its encyclical on climate titled: “A Matter of Faith“.

The commentary believes the Vatican is out of place with Its recent encyclical on climate science, reminding readers that the Vatican hardly has a stellar record when it comes telling Catholics what true science really is, and that today It is wrong with Its claim there is a consensus on the issue.

“Galileo is chuckling”

The Weltwoche article writes in its introduction:

With an encyclical the Pope is attempting to teach correct climate policy. The Catholic Church has long since always proven its sense for true science. Somewhere Galileo is chuckling.”

Weltwoche recounts the Church’s debacle surrounding Galileo, writing that it took the Catholic Church over 300 years to apologize for having falsely accused the 17th century physicist, who claimed the Church had been wrong in thinking the earth was the center of the universe.

“The Amen to the reporters of the IPCC”

Yet under Pope Francis the Church appears to have learned nothing from its long history of intellectual blunders, and Its Little Ice Age and bad-weather witch-hunts. Weltwoche writes:

Pope Francis is now sending the encyclical “Laudato Si” to his bishops, which reads as the Amen to the reporters of the IPCC and the capitalism critics, such as Naomi Klein.”

Weltwoche describes how Pope Francis claims there is a “scientific consensus” and that as a result “mankind has to change its lifestyle“.

A Hail Mary to reverse crumbling consensus?

Weltwoche also writes how major media outlets such as The Guardian and Reuters have cheered the Pope’s word on the issue, hoping it will finally tip the scales in favor of radical environmental change. But this reaction was expected, writes Weltwoche:

The jubilation can be explained because the consensus in the science has been crumbling: The temperature has not been rising in what will soon be 20 years and it remains below all prognoses as a result. With increasing desperation, instead of abandoning their refuted models and theories, the climate scientists offered more than 50 explanations.”

Stiff opposition

Weltwoche then describes a growing atmosphere of shrillness pervading among climate scientists and activists, but on the other hand emerging countries have been unimpressed by the ever more shrill alarms being sounded. A climate treaty faces stiff opposition from the US Congress, and for this reason Pope Francis plans to visit Washington in September, Weltwoche writes, adding that His Holiness plans to have a talk with Catholic and House Speaker John Boehner:

However the Holy Father will barely be able to teach him much, and not at all the Chinese, and certainly not the Indians, who will first bring their citizens out of poverty, just as the encyclical demands. And to do that they need affordable energy, foremost coal.”


“Very Unusual” Mid-June Cold Surprises Germany…Surface Temperatures Around Hamburg Fall To -3°C!

The year started out on the mild side in Central Europe, but since early May temperatures have been stubbornly on the low side.

“Rarity”: 5 consecutive June days of surface frost

Over northern Germany, for example, the last 10 or so days have been gripped by cold weather. The online Sudkürier here cites meteorologist Dominik Jung, writing how last week there was “a very unusual phenomenon: five days in a row in North Germany there was surface frost. That according to Jung is a rarity for June.”

Ground surface frost is already rare enough over the northern German lowlands in May, let alone June!

In Germany farmers and weather hobbyists often talk of these annual June cold spells, calling them Schafskälte – or “sheep cold”. They often occur in mid June when cold polar air grips the country.

“Record suspect low”

But this year the phenomenon appears to be especially pronounced.


German meteorologist Dominik Jung explains what’s behind this year’s “very unusual” June cold spell. Image cropped from:

Not only last week was cold, but so is this week. In today’s  forecast video, Jung tells viewers how this morning: “…around Hamburg ground-surface temperatures fell to -3°C. Yes, for this time of the year this is a record-suspect low.”

In the video the commercial meteorologist also says that after today’s milder temperatures the “grizzly summer weather” shows no signs of letting up. Daytime temperatures are forecast to stubbornly remain stuck in the 50s and 60s (14 – 20°C) over the rest of the week.

“Numerous days with ground level frost”

The online sachsen-fernsehen (Saxony television) writes that not only was the Hamburg region hit, but the cold was widespread across northern Germany:

“In Lübeck and Hannover, just above the ground readings of down to -2°C were taken. Even in Berlin early this morning the thermometer showed ground level frost with readings around 0°C.

Precisely at Germany’s number 1 beaches, the North and Baltic seas, June has been quite fresh so far. The month’s half in the north has been about 1°C colder than the longterm mean. And with the numerous days with ground level frost that June has seen so far, it’s hardly a wonder.”

Drought also taking hold…

Moreover, large parts of northern Germany are being gripped by a deepening drought. Here as well no significant amounts of rainfall are in sight.

The latest buzz is that Germans should not be expecting any type of “barbecue summer” this year.

Max Planck Society Confirms Warming Pause! …Scrambles To Explain Widespread Model Failure

Max Planck Society: “Temperatures stagnant approximately since 1998, but at high level”

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated/edited by P. Gosselin]

Attempting midterm predictions

The Max-Planck Society publishes the magazine “Max Planck Forschung” on a regular basis. In its 1/2015 issue beginning on page 68 one finds the article: “…and now on the climate of tomorrow”. The German language article is also available (pdf here). The article starts:

How will the climate appear in 10 or 15 years? Scientists have been unable to provide a satisfactory answer to this question – mainly because random changes play a large role in such mid-term time-frames. A natural fluctuation is likely also the cause of temperatures barely increasing over the past 15 years. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and his colleagues all over Germany are working intensively on a system that will deliver reliable prognoses for the coming years.”

Hiatus confirmed

In other words this is about the pause in warming since 1998 and the question of why none of the expensive climate models had correctly forecast the hiatus. Indeed this is a big problem, especially for the fraternity of the climate modellers, who in Germany are led by chief modeler Jochem Marotzke. His favorite excuse: “random changes”, which in his opinion are completely unpredictable. But that’s fatally wrong. His colleagues have long known better and have identified the 60-year ocean cycles as systematic climate drivers. See for example  here, here, here, here.

Scrambling to explain faulty models

First of all the Max Planck Magazine thankfully does confirm what all temperature curves now clearly show, but what a few climate activists clearly refuse to believe:

Another resaon was a phenomenon that at the end of the past decade it was visible that there was a temperature plateau, and this continues to occupy climate scientists today. The global warming that was in high gear during the 1980s and 1990s now appears to have been making a pause since the start of the new millennium. The temperatures have been stagnating since about 1998, but at a high level.”

Jochem Marotzke has recognized that this cannot continue on. Awhile back he launched the Project MiKlip with the aim of making more reliable prognoses. In the Max Planck Forschung (MPF) magazine it is stated:

Today, almost 10 years later, the science regarding decadal climate prognoses has come a long way. From 2011 to mid 2015 the German Federal Ministry for Science has financed the project MiKlip (Midterm Climate Prognoses), that Jochem Marotzke initiated and now coordinates as its director. In the meantime the application for the second phase has been made.”

Cooling Atlantic

We’ve reported on the MiKlip project before. The main result from the initiative so far is hardly known to the media because it is just too inconvenient. See our article “Over the midterm the climate prognoses of the BMBF MiKlip Projects: North Atlantic will cool down by several tenths of a degree by 2020″. Using a Google search, the environmentally activist Süddeutsche Zeitung has yet to report on this amazing prognosis. Activist climate website “” naturally has not done so either. Thus we are very curious on whether the Max Planck Magazine is now perhaps able to talk openly about this. In the article’s  title and introduction we see that this important information is absent. In England however, the University of Southampton recently came up with the same result but was much more transparent and proactive with the cooling finding. See our blog article “University of Southampton: Cooling ocean cycle will cause Atlantic to cool by half a degree Celsius over the coming decades, global warming hiatus continues and hurricanes will become less frequent“.

Max Planck Institute refuses to see ocean cycles

But instead of following the example from England, Marotzke continues to stick to his worn out chaos meme. MPF magazine writes:

Such forecasts however are still in the early stages. ‘There is still a lot of work that remains ahead of us,’ says the Hamburg-based scientist. Over the mid-term climate prognoses are burdened by a fundamental difficulty: the chaos of the climate system. As it is so with the weather, also the climate (the mean of weather) is also subject to natural fluctuations that more or less occur randomly. […] Climate scientists refer to these more or less random fluctuations as spontaneous or as internal variability. Due to such variations the global mean temperature can vary by 0.2 or 0.3°C from one year to the next. For scientists these variations are known as so-called ‘noise’ that superimpose the actual signal of global warming.”

Models’ hopelessly faulty assumptions

Here we would like to advise Marotzke: Try just once to apply the ocean cycles, like your colleagues in England are doing. Natural variability not only contains ‘noise’, but also quasi cyclic behavior that today are empirically well-known. However the sad truth is that climate models are unable to properly represent these known cycles. The problem is not with nature, rather it is in fact in the models. Also the weighting of the individual climate drivers is poorly understood. The IPCC table of radiative forcings for solar fluctuations has assigned a much too low value, one in fact that has absolutely nothing to do with the geological-empirically determined systematic impacts of the sun.

We suspect that Marotzke has painted himself into a corner and so has to continuously find excuses and ignore the ocean cycles that have been at play over the last 20 years, though many have long been aware of them (see our article: IPCCcofounder Bert Bolin had all along been aware of the climatic role of ocean cycles).

Marotzke refuses to acknowledge low climate sensitivity

In the second part of the article the Max-Planck scientists discussed various possibilities as to why a warming pause happened. It was considered that the CO2 climate sensitivity may have been set much too high:

One possibility would be that the climate change drive in the models has been falsely assigned – i.e. the amount of radiative energy connected with a rise in atmospheric CO2 that gets trapped in the climate system or that gets reflected back out into space from aerosols. The values that the various models calculate for this magnitude vary widely. Another possibility is that the models over-estimate how sensitive the climate reacts to a rise in CO2. Some models assume that the global mean temperature will rise only 2°C from a doubling of CO2. Others assume that it will be more than 4.5°C warmer.”

But then a few lines later Marotzke and Co. abandon the possibility and return to their wild chaos theory. The MiKlip recognition of a cooling North Atlantic gets no mention at all. Instead the article concludes with a prognosis that anyone could have conjured up without millions in research money. Eventually someday the stupid temperature plateau will end. But as to when, no one really knows. An embarrassing conclusion. In the MPF magazine we read:

The temperature plateau is going to end sometime in the years ahead, as most scientists are convinced of this. It is likely that the warming of the earth’s surface will then progress even more quickly. At the latest when the trade winds blow over the Pacific more weakly the pause will be over.”

Other research groups here are clearer and more solid on this because they have a better grip on the unpopular ocean cycles than than the scientists in Hamburg do:

German Physics Prof Blasts Climate Science …”Far Too Removed From The Scientific Facts”!

The online North German NWZ daily here has an article on a speech given by University of Konstanz physics professor Dr. Gerd Ganteför on the subject of Germany’s transition to renewable energies, the so-called Energiewende, and on the general irrationalities pervading German climate science.

He says that the country appears to have “a desire for demise“.

In a presentation called “The Energiewende – Vision and Reality“, he reminded the audience of earlier end-of-world scenarios that never materialized, such as “the end of oil, forest die-off from acid rain, ozone hole”. He thinks that the German population “can be convinced of anything, ‘as long as it’s bad!‘” the NWZ reports.

Ice age approaching

Ganteför told the audience that the climate is going to change anyway even without the influence of man. And on a millennial scale: “The current warm phase will end at that we are approaching a new ice age.” He also told the audience that eliminating light bulbs and using smaller vacuum cleaners are not going to rescue any climate whatsoever.

Energiewende will fail

So far in Ganteför’s view the Energiewende has been limited only to a transition in the electricity supply and that this will fail due to the lack of storage technology.

Removed from scientific fact

The NWZ also writes that Ganteför “criticizes the ‘false fear’ in the public discussion: Germany has become far too removed from the scientific facts and is too caught up in the current zeitgeist: ‘Indeed we are all going to die, but not because of the climate catastrophe,’ was his prediction at the end.”

Photo credit:

Gerd Ganteför is also the author of the German language books: Climate, the demise of the world is not taking place and Is everything NANO or what?: Nanotechnology for the curious.