Fluctuating Atlantic … German Experts Say “Things Could Become Very Bitter For The IPCC Forecast Models”!

The latest post by Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt looks at solar cycle 24 in January, and the climate impacts of the North Atlantic. The two authors write that the IPCC models may be in for a bitter surprise.

The sun in January 2015 and Atlantic prognoses

By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

Solar report January 2015

Last month the sun reached a sunspot number of 67.0 and thus was once again below normal in activity: It reached 85% of what is normal for the particular cycle month.

Fig. 1: The mean activity of the sun since systematic observations have been conducted is shown in blue and the current cycle (24th cycle, red), along with the relatively similar Cycle No. 1 of 260 years ago.

The red curve shows that the sunspot maximum is now over. Up to now that was not so easy to identify because instead of the usual pronounced maximum (compared to the mean curve in Fig. 1), there have been two peaks with a pronounced dip between them.

Observation of the sun’s polar magnetic fields brings certainty rather than guesses. We reported on this in detail before the end of the year. In short the polar fields have a zero polarity during the solar sunspot maximum. The difference of north polar field and south polar field is zero, yet it can occur often when the fields do not reverse at the same time. During the current cycle the fluctuation about the zero line was quite intense:

Figure 2: The difference between the polar fields of the sun, source: leif.org.

The zero value was first approached in fall 2012, in early summer 2013, and again at the beginning of 2014. The maximum dragged on for some 15 months. But now the trend appears to be clearly away from zero and the maximum to be behind us for good. The month with the highest activity was month no. 63 of the cycle, February 2014, with a SSN= 102.8.

We are seeing an unusually weak cycle with a delayed start and delayed maximum. Another thing is noteworthy: The polar fields are building up only very slowly, especially the solar north pole is dipping as before close to zero. Could that be an indication of an even weaker cycle to follow? It is still too early to determine this, but we will know in a few years. What follows is a comparison of all the cycles:

Fig. 3: The summed deviations from the mean value (blue in Fig. 1) for all cycles for all months up to the current one. The right bar in Fig. 3 is growing deeper into negative territory. This indicates a strongly reduced solar activity since approx. 2006.

North Atlantic harboring a bitter surprise?

As some readers may recall, we reported earlier here on the North Atlantic and we suspected that a relatively significant reduction in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could be in the pipeline. Since then there have been additional mesurements of this near surface warm current, which impacts the Atlantic part of the Northern Hemisphere and to some extent other large regions of the Northern hemisphere. Our earlier prognoses are now confirmed:

Fig. 4: The AMOC strength between 2004 and spring 2014. Source: climate-lab-book.ac.uk.

It is the decisive element that controls the AMO, and probably the approximately 65-year temperature oscillation. Earlier it had been positive, the transition from negative to a positive phase precisely coincides with the time frame that most climate models were parameterized: between 1975 and 2004.

Fig.5: The AMO since 1870, Source: climatedataguide.ucar.edu. The signal is determined by measuring surface temperatures of the entire North Atlantic and the deviation from the linear long-term trend. The AMO thus expresses an internal variability.

The additional added heat from the variable oscillation may have led to the models having calculated an excessive forcing from greenhouse gases, just as the AMO will also not be accounted for in the newest CMIP5 models when it comes to the global and northern hemisphere temperatures.

Getting back to the AMOC, if it weakens, it will lead to a falling heat content in the North Atlantic at depths from 0 to 700 meters and so less heat getting conveyed towards the North Pole. This is precisely what has been observed since 2007:

Fig. 6: The heat content of the upper 700 meters in the region of impact of the AMOC, Chart source: Climate Explorer.

It is highly likely that the focus of the AMOC-effect can be found in the sub-polar gyre, which is a relatively small area of the sea in the North Atlantic located off the southern tip of Greenland: 45°N…60°N; 50°W…20W°. Here we are seeing truly dramatic events:

Fig. 7:  The heat content of water between 300 meters depth and 125 m of the sub-polar circulation. The depth limit was chosen in order to exclude falsifications from the effects of atmospheric processes. (Image source: Argo Marine Atlas)

Beginning in the spring of 2014 (after the end of the available direct measurement in Fig. 4) we see the occurrence of a steep drop. Also the forecast of the British Met Office for the next years is now taking this development into account and foresees with some certainty for the next ten years global temperatures at the lower end of the models’ ranges. It is also stated very carefully that a temperature stall could occur over the next 10 years, which for the models would be a real large-scale catastrophe. Just as we wrote back in January, 2014:

The AMO] is not accounted for in the IPCC models and would limit the trend rise in global temperatures since the beginning of the impact of greenhouse gases to about 1°K/ century.  How much longer will we have to wait before the IPCC finally accepts the multidecadal oscillations, as it already has here and is shown in other works?”

The North Atlantic is indeed a special region and could contribute much to understanding our climate. Also a greater impact by the sun than what has been considered up to now would be possible. A new paper by authors in China and Scandinavia examined high resolution proxy summer temperature data from northern Iceland and came to the result that the fluctuations there over the last 3500 years correspond to solar activity, and do so significantly over long time frames (centuries and millennia).

Fig. 8: The coincidence between North Atlantic summer temperatures and solar activity in the gray range over the last 3500 years (top), with the correlation (middle) and significance (bottom – the lower the p -value, the greater the certainty) of the relationship . Source: Figure 5 of the above-mentioned paper.

When one looks very closely at Fig. 8, one sees a time delay in temperature with respect to solar activity characteristic numbers. And when one now looks at Figure 3 of post and notice the especially high activity until the end of the 1980s and the rather dramatic drop afterwards, what do you think the solar drive will do to the Atlantic temperatures?

Things could become very bitter for the IPCC forecast models! With much excitement we look forward to how the climate unfolds.


Government (Junk) Science Advances 100 Million Funerals At A Time

According to University of California pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, the US had 6 million “seriously overweight” kids in 2001. Since then that number has skyrocketed to over 20 million.

Worldwide there are 366 million people with diabetes. By 2030, if trends are not curbed, 165 million Americans will be obese and by 2050 100 million will have diabetes. Lustig calls it “a standard pandemic” The related health costs will be astronomical – and unaffordable. No modern civilization can survive that.

Tragically these are the numbers that were necessary to finally get the US government to concede that its longstanding dietary guidelines (once solidly and irrefutably confirmed by the “vast consensus of scientific experts”) had been severely flawed for decades. Read here and here.

Why did it take so damn long for the government to wake up? It gets down to obstinate egomaniacal scientists, greedy food and pharmaceutical industries, and governments corrupted by the same industries. See here.

Because established scientists have a long habit of insisting their pet theories are right and scoff at those who challenge them, renowned German physicist Max Planck once wisely remarked, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” he noticed that false theories don’t die until their founders do. Sadly, as the case of nutritional sciences shows, hundreds of millions of people have gotten or are about to get early funerals. Hence, government science advances 100 million funerals at a time. Such is now the case with the science concerning saturated fats and human health.

The very same tragedy has begun in earnest in climate science today. Just as the saturated fat theory was founded on the junk science and phony 7-Country chart of Ancel Keys, the CO2 global warming theory was founded on the junk science of NASA scientist James Hansen and the dubious hockey stick graph of Michael E. Mann. And just as dissenters were ignored, marginalized and cut off from funding in the nutritional sciences, so are skeptic global warming scientists experiencing the same today. And just as a consensus among all scientists was claimed endorsing the saturated fat theory (fully backed by the National Academy of Sciences and virtually every American medical association), an illusionary 97% consensus is also being claimed in climate science today. And just as the American Dietary Guidelines were promoted and made official by a Democrat Presidential loser candidate (George McGovern), the global warming science and proposed energy dietary guidelines are being promoted today by Democrat Presidential loser candidate Al Gore. The parallels between the two sciences indeed could not be more stunning.

It would be nice if the parallels ended there, but it is unlikely they will. Just as the case has been with the saturated fat theory, the CO2 climate change theory now risks killing hundreds of millions in the future – thanks to energy poverty and starvation. Without energy, people die horrible deaths from exposure.

All of this could be avoided, of course, if only governments were honest in their interpretation of climate data and stopped making up excuses for colder and colder  winters, and 18 years of zero warming. Unfortunately that does not appear likely to happen anytime soon. Tragically it’ll probably take tens of millions of unnecessary premature deaths resulting from energy deprivation to get the governments to realize they have made a horrible mistake. Instead of making a course correction on the climate issue, the US government, led by NASA, is now altering the historical temperature data in a manner that would even make Ancel Keyes blush.

People can argue about the impacts of faulty science on human life. But one thing cannot be argued: Truth leads to life; lies lead to death.

Clearly the US policy will likely have to see another 100 million or so early funerals before it allows climate science to advance.


Spiegel Dumps Cold Water On “Record Warm Year” Significance … Sees Science Fraught With Widespread Uncertainty

Now that a couple of surface temperature data sets are showing 2014 was a “record warm year,” people are wondering if it means the warming pause is over, and if so, how much climate sensitivity to CO2 there really is.

Online Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski (a geologist) has an analysis of 2014’s “record warm year” and asks if it means global warming has resumed after “a pause since the end of the 1990s”. He describes how climate scientists have been dumbfounded by the “unexpected warming pause”. A number of scientists blame the oceans for absorbing the heat out of the atmosphere. Japan’s meteorological services report that global surface temperature has risen 0.7°C in one hundred years, he writes.

On the significance of the warm year, the Spiegel science journalist quotes the German Climate Consortium: “The following years will allow us to judge the extent global warming at the surface of the earth has resumed.” And even the most alarmist organizations are conceding the global warming pause is real. For example the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) indirectly admits to Spiegel that the global temperature has paused, but reminds us that the 14 warmest years on record occurred over the past 15 years.

On the future of warming, Bojanowski describes a science fraught with uncertainty when it comes to future projections:

The UN IPCC continues to predict a hefty global warming should carbon dioxide emissions not be drastically reduced. But there are major uncertainties in the calculations and for this reason short-term fluctuations will remain unexplainable.”

Readers should note at this point that this too also has to apply for “short-term” warm fluctuations, such as the one from 1980-1998. That one too must have been in large part due to natural factors.

Bojanowski sums up his analysis by pointing out there is also uncertainty not only at the earth’s surface, but in the troposphere as well, writing that “satellite meaurements are astonishing” researchers:

Moreover satellite measurements for upper air levels, which have been taken since the mid 1990s, show hardly any warming. Because of this, scientists are debating if the sensitivity of air temperature with respect to greenhouse gases is possibly less than assumed.”

Bojanowski also points to conflicting scientific literature and papers when it comes to the stability of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. He adds, “The uncertainties show that the decisive questions about the future cannot be answered using short-term fluctuations.” And:

A warm record here, a warming pause there – the concerns and questions surrounding climate change remain the same.”


Lima’s UN Climate Conference The Most Disgraceful, Destructive Ever…Time To Disband The Traveling Parasitic UN Circus

It’s clear: none of the intended aims were reached during the two-week UN mega climate conference in Lima.

Some baby steps were made. And of course they are being sold to the public as important progress on the road to a binding treaty in Paris next year. No one believes it.

What was achieved, unfortunately, were some real tangible and permanently visible negative results: 1) another huge junket bill for the taxpayers, 2) one large carbon footprint from the hundreds of international flights, and 3) worst of all, one forever-ruined historical treasure, the Peruvian Nazca lines – all thanks to the IPCC emboldened environmental activist group, Greenpeace.


Lima’s permanent result: a trampled, ruined Peruvian historical treasure during a Greenpeace publicity stunt. Image: Greenpeace.

That’s the sorrowful result of this year’s climate conference. And no other has gone down as having been more destructive as this one. The ruin of the more than 2000 year old Nazca lines site was the icing on the IPCC cake.

Politically Lima finished with the same familiar result as usual – for the 20th time. The tens of billions of dollars that the UN and the IPCC have wasted on the climate issue, which is now unraveling as a grand hoax, could have done a heck of a lot more good for the environment had the money been invested directly in environmental protection technologies for smokestacks, clean water supplies, sanitation, medicine, and education in the third world. Instead, all the money is gone and the useless climate circus continues on its global tour.

The UN has failed miserably, abjectly. It’s time to disband the IPCC. The UN’s leadership performance and its trail of destruction, all punctuated by the Nazca lines, are an international civic disgrace that needs to be ended for good.

Regarding results on a climate treaty, they were almost non-existent. As I predicted here yesterday, the only result was an illusionary agreement with lots of intentions and back doors. Twenty conferences should be enough to tell any sane person that this is all a cynical charade by parasitic bureaucrats.

German Federal Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks, obviously fed up with the conference, left already on Friday.

WWF official Regine Gunther said: “The Lima Conference was a waste of time and energy.”

On the climate treaty results of the Lima Conference, what follows are some reactions from the German language media.

Axel Bojanowski at Spiegel:

Thus the Lima Conference failed to reach its decisive target: Actually a precise outline of a world climate treaty was supposed to be drawn up. It was supposed to become clear which measures could lead to a peak in CO2 emissions by the year 2030.”

The Austrian Der Standard writes:

The 195 countries agreed on a final text in Lima during the night into Sunday. It defined only vague criteria for national climate commitments, which are to be introduced in the Spring of 2015. Environmental groups spoke of a ‘dangerously weak text’.”

The Swiss Tagesanzeiger:

Climate conference with only a minimal target

The treaty countries have produced a document of about 40 pages that contain all the important elements that an effective climate treaty needs. However the document contains a long series of options that will lead to days of debate. At the forefront of the conflict points fairness, new order and trust, everything is indeed open as to whether or not an acceptable treaty will be reached in Paris.


Lima Conference Close To Collapse? German Enivironment Minister Already Departed Lima Yesterday…”Hangover Mood”

The Lima Climate Conference has been extended another day as countries are still unable to reach an agreement on how much to cut emissions and who has to pay how much. But there are mounting signs that the talks may have fallen apart.

This morning NTV German public television writes that German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks already left Lima Friday evening, even leaving an hour before the official end. The title of the NTV article: “Sobriety in Lima – Hangover mood at the climate conference.”

The NTV first reports on all the hope and optimism that had led up to the Conference, but that the realities of clashing national interests and responsibilities quickly dampened the mood as the conference wore on during the second week.

NTV writes:

In Lima it was already clear on Friday that important questions still could not be resolved. ‘The road to success in Paris remains remains long,’ German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks observed. The Treaty’s bindingness will first be decided in Paris in any case.”

Already it appears that negotiators in Lima may be headed only to a watered down document full of intents, declaring that the parties agree to try to agree in Paris next year.

Hendricks’s early departure

There are no details as to why the German Environment Minister left already on Friday with the business unfinished. NTV writes:

The German negotiation leadership is now in the hands of State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth. The environmental protection organization Greenpeace criticized the Minister’s departure. ‘I find it already remarkable that the German Environment Minister has departed early, after Germany had played a spirited and progressive role,’ said Stefan Krug, head of the political representative in Berlin. ‘At such moments, when the negotiations are so precarious, it is extremely important that ministers remain engaged with their colleagues behind the scenes in order to strive for a solution.'”

NTV also writes of disappointment by German socialist EU Parliamentarian Jo Leinen: “Unfortunately it looks like we will be going home with a document that will contain many vague and soft formulations.”

That may very well be the case. But don’t expect the coming UN press releases to say so. Expect them to declare a breakthrough and success.

UN Climate Circus no. 20.


Goal Post Migration Alert! Father of 2°C Target Schellnhuber Postpones CO2 Emissions Peak 10 Years: From 2020 To 2030!

Reader Kurt in Switzerland points out that Germany’s Climate Pope John Schellnhuber, Director of the end-of-times Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), has just postponed the timepoint when man’s CO2 emissions must reach a peak and start their (rapid) downward trend.

Two days ago I quoted Professor Schellnhuber, who said:

At the latest by 2030 Co2 emissions must reach their peak and start downward.”

That deadline appeared to be new, so Kurt in Switzerland checked if that was the deadline Schellnhuber had given in the past. Kurt writes:

In 2011, Schellnhuber insisted that the emissions curve needed to peak no later than 2020 in order to meet the 2 degree warming target. http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2011_ZfE.pdf (See p. 7 of 34).”

Indeed in 2011 here Prof. Schellnhuber wrote:

The global emissions trend reversal must occur no later than 2020 [in order to assure compliance to the 2-degree C limit].”

Three years ago Schellnhuber was warning we had to turn things around by 2020 at the latest, or else we would be doomed. Now suddenly we’ve just been given 10 more years?

Now what could have possibly compelled Prof. Schellnhuber to recalculate a new peak time? Perhaps it was the sudden the realization that his expectation of a possible trend change by 2020 was one of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? Global CO2 emissions have not even yet started to slow down, and a trend reversal point is nowhere near in sight. Major emerging industrial countries like China and India are still seeing rapid, accelerating CO2 emissions growth.

Even Schellnhuber’s home country of Germany, supposedly a model for cutting CO2 emissions, has not managed to reduce CO2 emissions since 2000 – despite more than tripling its renewable energy capacity at a cost of hundreds of billions of euros, as EIKE shows here today:


 CO2 emissions from electricity are depicted by the red line. Renewable energy capacity by the blue line. It’s not working! Source: BDEW

 The story is the same in neighboring Austria. Die Presse here quotes Austrian Green Party spokeswoman Christiane Brunner:

According to an evaluation by participants of the UN Climate Conference in Lima Peru, Austria has not ‘saved a single gram of CO2.’ […]

In 1990 Austria saw CO2 emissions of 78 million tonnes; in 2005 it was 82 million tonnes. ‘When one calculates the EU2020 taregts, Austria will end up once again at only 78 million tonnes in the year 2020 – and that only if additional measures get implemented,’ Brunner criticizes.”

We can certainly expect Professor Schellnhuber to make yet another recalculation in the year 2018 or so, pushing back yet again the deadline for a trend change to 2040 or even 2050. This of course is as remote from science as one could possibly get. Professor Schellnhuber and his scientists in Potsdam are rapidly making themselves to a laughing stock.


German Climate Institute Frets Media Are Showing So “Little Interest” In Latest IPCC Report!

Payback for blind climate alarmism: Media interest in the latest IPCC Report is small
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

The climate alarm narrative just isn’t working anymore. People have seen through the blind climate alarmism and have had enough. The profiteers of climate fear are now becoming seriously worried about the future. Climate institutes are fearing research budgets will be cut in the future. Newspapers are all too reluctant to lose their exciting climate alarm stories. And insurance companies are fretting over their extreme weather policies.

The Deutsche Klimakonsortium (DKK) [German Climate Consortium] recently set up a workshop in order to discuss the waning public interest in their own subject matter. In its newsletter, the DKK summarizes the results of the event:

DKK Workshop: ‘How is climate communication (still) doing today?’
On September 16 [2014] the public relations working group of the DKK convened in an internal workshop on today’s possibilities and challenges in climate communication. The background was the observation that the media attention has shifted away from the analysis of climate change and over to solution possibilities and the societal challenges of climate change. This was clearly visible by the weak media interest in the latest IPCC Climate report (AR 5) compared to the AR 4 of 7 years earlier, directors of the press and public relations of various research institutes have determined. Suggestions on the perspective of press and public relations work from Ute Kreis, University of Hamburg, Dr. Annette Kirk, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Dr. Dirk Notz, Research Group leader at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and a journalist (Christopher Schrader, Süddeutsche Zeitung) provided for a lively discussion.”

So interest in the 5th IPCC Report was scant. For this the IPCC likely only has itself to blame because it is no longer able to come to terms with the new research findings and the fact that CO2 climate sensitivity must be reduced in accordance to newest scientific results. Insteresting is that Christoph Schrader of the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper is apparently well integrated in the IPCC circle. Almost regularly we have to report on his climate-alarmism-tainted reporting at this blog. And also Dirk Notz is a die-hard IPCC-man whose dubious studies we’ve come across (see “Hamburg Max Planck Institute with questionable evidence on Arctic sea ice“).


Alarmists’ Accusations Aimed At Discrediting IPCC-Critical Spiegel Journalist Found To Be Absent Of Merit

About three weeks ago Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski wrote a highly critical piece of the IPCC’s recently released 5th Synthesis Report, claiming that the report IPCC misled the public and needlessly sounded the alarms, background here.

Also at Twitter Bojanowski pointed to “gross problems” that “need to be discussed”. The Spiegel journalist in the article wrote that the IPCC final report suppressed central scientific findings”.

Bojenowski’s harsh criticism immediately drew heavy fire from some of Germany’s leading political climate alarmists, such as the climate alarmist website Klimaretter and leading green politicians such as Hermann Ott at Twitter, and the IPCC itself.

So who is right? At the German Science Skeptical site, Dr. Peter Heller closely examined the claims made by Bojanowski point-by-point and the counter claims launched by the climate activists surrounding Klimaretter and the IPCC itself.

Heller lists the accusations that the Klimaretter activists fired at Bojanowski in attempt to discredit him and to exert pressure on Spiegel editors:

  • Careful selection of formulations by the IPCC were imprecisely translated.
  • By shortening the IPCC quotes, he leaves out such details that could damage the central thrust of his article.
  • He uses passages from the technical chapters that the Synthesis Report does not at all contradict – when examined closely. The passages in the technical chapters that do support the Synthesis report do not get quoted.
  • Sources to the (supposed) evidence are not given, so that all the accusations cannot be verified, or done so only with great difficulty.

Peter Heller investigated to see if the climate activists surrounding Klimaretter had any merit. Here’s what he found.

  • Bojanowski does not “translate” at all. He concisely summarized passages from the Reports for the regular online speed-readers. The problem here are by far more the requirements by his chief editors with respect to article length and the complexity of the formulations, to which he must yield.
  • The main thrust of his article is not that there is not risk of a climate-change dependent species die-off. The main thrust is that the IPCC fails to mention the known uncertainties in its summary of the long reports. And he provides proof of this with passages from the reports. It#s not about contradictions, but it gets down to incompletenesses.
  • In the meantime the sources have been provided. But also without the page numbers one quickly finds the corresponding passages when one looks closely enough. A look at the table of contents suffices. As I have shown above, everything can be verified.

In summary, the accusations by the Klimaretter activists fired at Bojanowski have no merit. Heller also adds, at the very end of his article (for those who are too lazy to search a little):

One may object that the criticism of the IPCC is excessive because a summary is precisely just that, and thus it cannot give the full content of the main reports. However: people should at least be aware of this. And their position on climate policy should not be derived from summaries, but rather from the complete, comprehensive literature. Bojanowski’s text here fulfills an important function in that he exposes for the first time, to many people, the one-sided selection of content the summaries have. When people at Klimaretter, when the signatories of the petition against Bojanowski, and when someone like Herrmann Ott recognize reprehensible “climate skepticism ”, then as activists they expose themselves as something more than fanatics. For fundamentalists not only is the message sacrosanct, but so is also its proclaimer.”

What can we take home from all this?

Any journalist who actually investigates and researches, instead of blindly believing everything told by the one being investigated, risks getting smeared and discredited. Luckily we have diligent and open-minded people like Peter Heller to make sure this does not go unchallenged.


German Climate Alarmists Deflated By GOP Election Sweep: “Could Not Have Come At A Worse Time”

Germany’s formidable green/climate movement is deeply deflated over the GOP’s grand midterm election success.

Especially the many German greens and socialists are struggling to fathom what happened and are only left to conclude that Americans must be just too stupid to appreciate all that President Obama and the Democrats have done and to understand the climate risks that threaten ahead.

For the reaction of Germany’s formidable climate alarmism movement, a good one is presented by klimaretter.info, an online alarmist site on climate and energy policy run by a motley crew of activist journalists with no scientific background.

“It could not have been any worse”

For the analysis of and reaction to the US midterm election results, klimaretter.info presents an interview with Liane Schalatek, climate and energy expert at the North American Office of the Heinrich Boll Foundation. The title of the interview: “It could not have been any worse“. Klimaretter.info writes in it’s introduction:

The election debacle by the Democrats in the USA is a catastrophe for climate protection. The outlook for a global climate treaty has dropped considerably.”

Well, that is indeed good news for the many and growing number among us who equate climate protection to climate swindle.

In the interview Frau Schalatek thinks it is likely the US Congress will move to cut EPA funding.

$85 million “a drop in the bucket”

On the $85 million spent on the election campaigns by environmental and climate protection organisations, klimaretter.info asks if perhaps that money could not have been better spent. Schalatek responds:

That amount of donations is only a drop in the bucket when you look at how much money flowed into the elections in total: over 3 billion dollars. Foremost from people with an anti-environment agenda. It’s a good thing that the environmental organisations stood up. The political weighting however clearly was against the environmental organisations.”

Don’t you love the smell of the enemy’s money burning? The 85 million probably hurt them more than it helped. Nothing like putting kookiness on display for the whole country to see.

Global climate treaty “to be a lot harder”

klimaretter.info asks if the chances of a binding climate treaty have now fallen. Schalatek:

Yes. It is now going to be a lot harder for Obama to advance ambitious national obligations.”

Schalatek also believes it is going to be a lot tougher for Obama to make commitments to the green climate funds because Congress has a say on the matter. She also believes that a GOP controlled Congress at best would agree only to an “extremely watered down” climate treaty that would have “little legal power and obligation“.

“…could not have come at a worse time”

Klimaretter comments that the election result “thus could not have come at a worse time“, just one year before Paris. And for advancing real climate policy, Schalatek thinks that “it’s a very negative signal” and confirms it indeed could not have come at a worse time.

Thank you, democracy!


EIKE: IPCC Synthesis Report “In Crass Contradiction To Almost Every Measurement And Trend In Nature”

The Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) presents a detailed analysis on the IPCC’s recently published final 40-page Synthesis Report released earlier this month.

Image source: IPCC

EIKE, however, concludes that the IPCC report is fraught with error and distortion. Author Klaus-Eckart Puls writes:

Not only does it contain major contradictions, simplifications and even falsehoods with respect to the earlier comprehensive partial reports, it is a stark contraction to almost every measurement and trend in nature. This is being noticed by event the alarmist tending media [3] : ‘Indeed while the previous climate reports [The 3 comprehensive reports of 2013/14] for the most part provided the science and the contradictions, the new Synthesis report suppresses most of the scientific findings.'”

Puls then provides a list contradictions, falsehoods and distortions stemming from the new Synthesis Report, all of which are refuted by measurements and facts which Puls provides:

1. air temperature
2. sea level rise
3. ocean temperature
4. storms
5. polar ice
6. extreme weather
7. crop yields
8. species extinctions
9. man is responsible

Puls summarizes (reiterating some of what he wrote in his introduction:

In the 40-page Summary for Policymakers [1] published in early November, the IPCC in large part contradicts the depictions and data in its own(!) comprehensive reports (several thousand pages) it released at the end of 2013 and early 2014. The summery-statements stand also in crass contradiction to almost every trend-measurement found in nature over the past 150 years.

For example the online SPIEGEL [3] writes: ‘Final IPCC Report: At the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change, Alarmism Comes before Accuracy’ … ‘The document is supposed to rationally inform on the science – instead it suppresses the central contradictions.’ … ‘Indeed while the previous climate reports [The 3 comprehensive reports of 2013/14] for the most part provided the science and the contradictions, the new Synthesis Report suppresses most of the scientific findings’.”

Thanks – that suffices!”

Spiegel Slams: “At IPCC Alarmism Comes Before Accuracy”…IPCC “Gross Problems”…”Suppresses Important Findings”

A heated exchange has just taken place at Twitter between Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski and some of Germany’s leading climate alarmism politicians and ideologues who are pushing for a fast-track green coup d’état.

The row swirls around a critical opinion piece written by Bojanowski – on the roadmap-for-politicians IPCC final Synthesis Report. The Spiegel piece is titled: “Final IPCC Report: At the IPCC alarm comes before accuracy“.

In it Bojanowski identifies a number points where the IPCC misleads the public and needlessly sounds the alarms. At Twitter Bojanowski calls these points “gross problems” that “need to be discussed”.

In summary, the ever inquisitive Spiegel journalist writes that the IPCC final report “should rationally inform of the science  – rather it suppresses central contradictions“. He also adds that “the new synthesis report suppresses important scientific findings“.

Bojanowski brings up some gross examples of IPCC factual suppression and how the UN body made glaring contradictions. The first concerns the subject of species extinction. In the 2013 IPCC main report, no predictions were made on to what extent species were threatened, demonstrating that too little is known to make reliable forecasts. But the latest synthesis report claims species have already began dying off due to climate change.

Bojanowski also points out that the latest synthesis report writes of numerous species having been forced to relocate because of climate change. But the main 2013 report writes: “There’s very little confidence in the conclusion that already some species may have gone extinct due to climate change.”

Another misleading claim by the new synthesis report is that today’s climate change is happening faster than at any time from natural causes over the last 1 million years – thus stressing out species. But learned-geologist Bojanowski cites the main IPCC report’s real findings:

At the end of the ice age, as the first part of the UN climate report shows, in large parts of the world climate fluctuations of 10°C in 50 years, i.e. 20 times faster than in the 20th century, took place and large climate-caused species extinctions are not documented.”

The Spiegel journalist also writes how the IPCC is not really being truthful with its predictions for the future. In the new synthesis report for policymakers the IPCC warns of a 4°C warming by the end of the century, and that this will be a formidable threat to species. Here the IPCC even asserts “high confidence”.

However, Bojanowski reminds Spiegel readers what the experts wrote in the main IPCC report (translated from the German):

Climate models are unable to illustrate key processes with respect to species development which foremost impact the susceptibility of species with respect to climate change.”

In a nutshell Bojanowski comes down hard on the IPCC report – for blatantly putting alarmism ahead of scientific accuracy.

Some German activists and Green politcians have reacted irritably to Bojanowski’s article. Green Party honcho Dr. Hermann Ott tweeted:

…sad! Dear, we have discussed so often about climate change – for what?

Data Contradict Warming Hypothesis: Relative Emissivity Is Not Declining As IPCC Models Predicted!

An Empirical Review of Recent Trends in the Greenhouse Effect

By Robin Pittwood, Kiwi Thinker


The core of the human caused global warming proposition is that an increasing level of greenhouse gases acts to reduce heat loss from the planet making the atmosphere here warmer. The amount of warming anticipated by the IPCC models is from about one to several degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentration.

But a conundrum has arisen lately:  While CO2 has continued rise significantly the temperature has not.  There has been no global warming since about 1997. Scientists on both sides of the debate have noticed this and have offered something like 55 explanations as to why this could be so. Some of those explanations lock into the dogma built into the IPCC models, taking for certain that the greenhouse effect is increasing, but because there is no atmospheric temperature rise, they then have to explain the retained heat is somewhere else.

Is the greenhouse effect occurring as the IPCC models propose?

This study analysed two important factors directly associated with the greenhouse effect, atmospheric temperature and outgoing radiation and finds that outgoing radiation has not declined. The missing heat has gone back to space as usual.  But more importantly the (lack of a) trend observed in an empirical derivation of the Stefan Boltzmann relative emissivity factor directly contradicts the greenhouse theory built into the IPCC models.


Regular readers at any of the main climate change blogs will be aware that since about 1997 there has been nearly no global temperature rise. And they will know too, that this is despite atmospheric CO2 concentration continuing to rise. To date there are some 55 ideas to explain this slowdown in global warming. Some of the ‘explanations’ presume the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ must still be increasing as the IPCC models calculate; it’s just that the heat has been hidden elsewhere, maybe deep in the ocean.

This study, based on 34 years of satellite data; outgoing long-wave infrared radiation (OLWIR) and temperature, demonstrates otherwise.

I used three data sets, OLWIR from NOAA, and the average of both UAH and RSS for global temperature.

I obtained monthly average OLWIR (W/m2) for each 2.5 degree latitude by 2.5 degree longitude area of the globe. After converting the netCDF files to Excel, I scaled each 2.5*2.5 area’s OLWIR to account for the varying size of its area, resulting in a global average OLWIR.  (There was some missing data mid 1994 to early 1995. I populated this by a linear interpolation).  The resulting annual average OLWIR is shown in the graph below for the years 1979 to 2012. A linear regression fit shows a generally increasing trend in OLWIR over this period.


The temperature data is also plotted on the graph below. A linear regression fit shows a generally increasing trend for the years 1979 to 2012.

The relationship between temperature and emitted radiation follows a universal law of physics, Stefan Boltzmann’s law states the emitted radiation is the product of the fourth power of absolute temperature and an emissivity factor. A reduction in the emissivity factor means less outgoing radiation for a given temperature.  That would indicate a stronger greenhouse effect.  An increase in the emissivity factor means more outgoing radiation for a given temperature.  That would indicate a more transparent atmosphere.  The study derived earth’s emissivity factor for each of the 34 years and the results displayed.

Using an average global temperature of 287 Kelvin added to the temperature anomaly, the relative emissivity has been derived for each year using the formula:

j / (k*T^4)

where j is OLWIR, k is the Stefan Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature.

If the greenhouse effect was increasing, relative emissivity should be declining. A quick look at the graphs shows clearly this is not the case.


Our planet’s relative emissivity has been flat-lining, despite increasing CO2 concentration over the study period. The derived emissivity factor, being basically constant, directly contradicts all of the IPCC models. No increased greenhouse effect is observed.


The two primary findings of this empirical study are:

    • Outgoing radiation has not declined over this period as expected by IPCC models. The missing heat has gone back to space – as usual and as per Stefan Boltzmann’s law, via OLWIR, and,
    • The increasing greenhouse effect expected by IPCC models, has not exposed itself. There has been no increased greenhouse effect over this period. [A closer inspection of the relative emissivity trend shows the atmosphere is even becoming a little more transparent – though little should be made of this given the variability of the data].


The core of the human caused global warming proposition is that an increasing level of greenhouse gases acts to reduce heat loss from the planet making the atmosphere here warmer. But is the greenhouse effect occurring as the IPCC models propose? This study analysed two important factors directly associated with the greenhouse effect, atmospheric temperature and outgoing radiation and finds that outgoing radiation has not declined. The missing heat has gone back to space as usual.

But more importantly the (lack of a) trend observed in an empirical derivation of the Stefan Boltzmann relative emissivity factor directly contradicts the greenhouse theory built into the IPCC models.

The original post on this study may be found here.

Data Table:

Robin 3


Spiegel: False Extinction Claim “A Problem For British Royal Society”…IPCC “Credibility In Question More Than Ever”!

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski writes here about the grave error committed by the British Royal Society’s in its false claim that the Rhachistia aldabrae snail had gone extinct and that it had been due to global warming. Full story here in English.

Hat-tip: Reader DirkH.

Bojanowski calls the news of the extinction being false “good news”, but says that it has become “a problem for British Royal Society” and that the re-appearance of the alleged climate change victim has put the Royal Society “in difficulty“.

The story, first reported by the Times, is now catching some of the attention of the German mainstream media, which have been reluctant to report the good news. Bojanowski describes how scientists declared the snail extinct and how subsequent rebuttals were rejected.

Eventually a red-faced Royal Society admitted that the reviewers of the rebuttal were the very same who reviewed the 2007 paper which had declared extinction.

IPCC credibility questioned more than ever

Not only the Royal Society has been embarrassed by the snail’s re-appearance, Bojanowski also writes that “the case is also inconvenient for the UN IPCC“, which claimed global warming was threatening to make a number of species extinct and that the snail’s alleged disappearance was a sign of this happening.

On the IPCC Bojanowski writes:

Now credibility is in question more than ever”.

At the end Bojanowski tells readers, however, that the snail’s re-appearance is no reason to call off the alarm:

The number of snails at the Seychelles coral atoll has shrunk considerably since the 1970s. Reason unclear.”

The science is as murky as ever. But one thing is clear: some scientists were in quite a rush to declare it dead and to use it as a poster-child for global warming.



Swiss News Weekly Calls IPCC Lead Author Thomas Stocker “A Butler For Politicians”! Scientists Grow Shriller

As climate observations continue their now obscene divergence from the earlier IPCC model projections, some media outlets are becoming harsher in their criticism of a science that increasingly appears corrupt and politicized. Moreover climate scientists are looking ever more shrill and desperate.

Hat-tip: hajo.

A recent feature story by Markus Schär in the print edition of Swiss news weekly Weltwoche even goes so far as to call IPCC lead author Thomas Stocker a “butler for politicians”. Weltwoche’s introduction reads:

Climate scientists, foremost some from Switzerland, are issuing increasingly louder warnings of catastrophe. This is because next year the global community should obligate itself to a strict treaty on protecting the climate. Despite the alarm, hardly anyone desires to keep playing along.”

Weltwoche adds later in the article that the way things stand now, the chances that of a new binding treaty getting ratified “are close to zero“.

As a result global warming alarmists are mounting another scramble to salvage a hypothesis that is increasingly looking unsustainable.

With the next large climate conference in Lima, Peru in December, more than ever scientists are coming under pressure to explain why warming has stopped and the models have been so embarrassingly wrong so far. The steam (science) that is supposed to be powering climate policy forward has blown a major gasket. Ironically science is beginning to act as a brake.

Weltwoche writes that the final (up-to-now confidential) Synthesis Report scheduled for release in October is designed to salvage the movement and supply the necessary urgency to get the binding climate treaty process to replace the expired Kyoto Protocol back on track. Here Weltwoche writes: “Dramatic proclamationS are in demand in order to wake up the global public.” It adds:

The authors of the Synthesis Report, among them as always are environmental activists, have to threaten with an apocalypse.”

Clearly among those involved in the effort, Weltwoche writes, are Swiss scientists Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern and Reto Knutti of the ETH Institute, a leading climate modeling center.

As part of the effort to rescue the alarmism, Weltwoche describes how Reto Knutti, once a student of Stocker, was the lead author of a recent paper that systematically analyzed the reasons behind the global warming pause. The paper concluded that it was due to ocean cycles and solar activity, and that these factors merely needed to be adjusted in the models, and so there was “no reason to doubt the newest climate models“.

But Weltwoche writes Knutti’s paper got “more ridicule than praise worldwide“. Weltwoche quotes the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP):

“Unwittingly the study only proves once again that the IPCC got it all wrong with its claims of 95% certainty.”

Weltwoche then informs how there have been a number of recent papers showing that the sun is a major driver in climate change, citing papers by Joos, Beer, and even Stocker himself. The Swiss weekly also sharply criticizes the “method” used by climate scientists who rather than applying the scientitfic method, stubbornly insist their theory can’t be wrong:

The climate scientists, on the other hand, have been working a quarter century using all means to prove their theory. When they fail to do so, they instantly conjure up – like Reto Knutti – a new hypothesis.”


German Scientists Ridicule New York Climate Conference As Major World Leaders Decline To Show Up

German scientists Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning ridicule the New York climate conference nobody is going to. Enjoy!

Imagine there’s a climate conference, but no one goes

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

Imagine there’s a climate conference, but no one goes. Already months ago South Korean UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon busily sent out invitations to world leaders, kindly requesting them to appear at the Climate Change Special Conference in New York on 23 September 2014. The aim of the conference is to agree on concrete actions for a CO2 reduced world in order to curb a menacing climate catastrophe. At the German Huffington Post Ban Ki-moon set forth his underlying motivation for September 2014 conference(translated from the German):

I have travelled the world in order to see the impacts with my own eyes. From the Arctic to the Antarctic, from low-lying islands of the Pacuífic, which are threatened by rising sea levels, to the melting glaciers of Greenland, the Andes and the Alps. I have seen expanding deserts in Mongolia and in the Sahel Zone, and threatened rainforests in Brazil. Everywhere I have spoken with the affected people who are deeply worried about the threat to their way of life and their future because of climate change.”

Dear Mr General Secretary: If you really wish to cut back on CO2 emissions, then you should NOT jet around the globe in your UN jet to supposedly see climate change with your own eyes. Perhaps you have heard that the Pacific Atolls are living corals that are growing along with sea level rise. The glaciers already melted before, 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period when it was as warm as today. Currently the Sahel desert regions are not expanding as you claim, rather they are becoming greener. Moreover the rainforests of Brazil are threatened foremost by deforestation thanks to palm oil and biofuels. That is something to be really worried about, and not about climate change.

As opposed to the UN General Secretary, many world leaders have obviously realized that the science is overheated. An increasing number of scientists are distancing themselves explicitly from the catastrophe mindset. After 16 years of no global warming, the basis for trust between policymaking and the IPCC scientists is sustainably disturbed. We believed you and you’ve disappointed us, the scathed politicians bemoan behind closed doors.

So it is little surprise that hardly anyone has the desire to attend the Climate Summit Circus. Already in May, 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel respectfully declined -she had other more important appointments. What could they possibly be about? Even today there is still no entry in Merkel’s Online  appointment book for the 23rd of September. Perhaps an appointment with the hairdresser that can no longer be put off? Crochet evening with good friends? Let’s keep it a surprise for now.

In the middle of August 2014 India Prime Minister Narendra Modi also declined the invitation to attend. India today is the world’s third largest CO2 emitter. Perhaps someone in New Delhi got cold feet over the requested “concrete measures”. Or perhaps they simply looked at the latest global temperature charts.

Also in Peking they were not amused. Suddenly the world’s largest CO2 emitter, China, no longer has much desire to show up in New York. Chinese Prrsident Xi Jinping wasted little time in canceling his flight ticket. Nothing will result from all the negotiations anyway, the UN needs to know.

No German Chancellor, no Indian Prime Minister and no Chinese President. Consequently the UN General Secretary became visibly nervous and had to make late nominations. He was able to find a person -in the political little leagues: Bonn’s Lord Mayor Jürgen Nimptsch cordially expressed his willingness to travel to the Conference. Ban Ki-moon was most pleased, and the conference was saved. Now if all citizens of Bonn made massive efforts, then they would be able to offset the Indian and Chinese CO2 surpluses of the next few years in about an estimated 2 billion years.

And things don’t look all that rosy when it comes to a climate agreement. The famous Kyoto-Protocol expired at the end of 2012. At that climate conference in Doha, 144 countries promised to vote to extend the treaty by 2020. So far today 11 countries have signed the extension document. In the meantime, have the other 133 countries reconsidered? So far not a single one of the 28 EU countries have signed on, also not Germany. But already Mauritius and Micronesia are on board (they would be beneficiaries of climate protection payments).

The climate alarmism-driven US-President Barack Obama also has realized that it no longer makes sense to strive for a large, new international climate treaty. Realistically it would never work anyway. In Paris at the end of 2015 there preferably will be a non-binding treaty. World leaders would more likely sign that. After all, they would not have to fulfill it…especially when they lose desire to do so…


Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning are the authors of CO2-skeptical book The Neglected Sun, which correcty downgraded CO2 climate sensitivity and forecast the the modest cooling that is now taking place.


IPCC’s Latest Super-Flop: Scientists Say Aerosol Impact On Clouds “Almost Double That Estimated in Latest IPCC Report”


According to Science Daily, NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory has rediscovered the aerosol factor in climate (yet again). Those familiar with climate science know that aerosols are the preferred wild card used by embarrassed climate scientists whenever their models fail to properly account for unexpected cooling periods…which incidentally is more than 97% of the time.

The cooling clouds

Today Science Daily here reports that NASA’s jet Propulsion Laboratory in California has a paper out that examines the major role aerosols play on climate, especially cooling-effect cloud formation: Well, maybe we got it all wrong after all…and forget what the IPCC has said up to now.

The not-so-surprising statement:

they found that the total impact from the influence of aerosols on this type of cloud is almost double that estimated in the latest report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Doubling! I thought this was all settled. How could they have been off by 100%?

What other factors were they 99% sure about, but now will soon revise 100% in one direction or the other? I think it’s safe to say that as observations continue diverging glaringly from the models, many climate factors will have to undergo similar profound adjustments, and some even introduced for the first time.

Rather than narrowing it down in the models, scientists clearly appear to really have meandered way off into the woods and swamps with their models. The big repair work still lies ahead.

Clouds have the biggest impact on the albedo, cool our planet

According to Science Daily, a “new, comprehensive global analysis of satellite data” led by Yi-Chun Chen of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a joint team of researchers from JPL and the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena “have quantified how changes in aerosol levels affect low-level clouds over the ocean, ‘which cover about one-third of the ocean’s surface, have the biggest impact on the albedo, or reflectivity, of Earth’s surface, reflecting solar energy back to space and cooling our planet’.”

To me this is a back door that opens the way to admitting that water vapor has a negative feedback after all. Never mind the aerosols, which are always in ample supply. More water vapor from higher global temps means more cloud formation, which cool the earth. Now if they’ve underestimated this so much that they now have to double it, then the models can be scrapped – and policymakers should be fuming. Taxpayers too!

According to John Seinfeld, professor of chemical engineering at Caltech:

These results offer unique guidance on how warm cloud processes should be incorporated in climate models with changing aerosol levels.”

That would be just a start. How about incorporating other major well-known factors into the models: like cosmic radiation regulated by the sun’s magnetic field, ocean cycles, and expanding global sea ice?


German Meteorologist Dominik Jung: Climate Experts’ Forecasts Changing As Fast As The Weather!

Jung_TwitterMeteorologist Dominik Jung is sort of Germany’s (younger) version of America’s Joe Bastardi. Like Joe, he also runs his own private weather forecasting company and site, wetter.net, which serve agriculture, industry and the public.

Photo: Twitter

And as any serious meteorologist knows, success depends almost entirely on product quality, i.e. forecast accuracy. There’s absolutely no room for politicized science here.

Jung is quoted and featured regularly by Germany’s mainstream media.

This summer Germany and much of Central Europe have seen a spate of severe thunderstorm activity, and as a result many are asking if this might not be an ominous sign of global climate change.

Again Dominik Jung reminds us that the recent weather is nothing new, and even implies that the prognoses made by “climate experts” seem to change as quickly as the weather itself (translated with permission):

Weather: Storms in Germany: Is that the climate change?

Wiesbaden (wetter.net), 30 July 2014 – Storms in the summer are nothing unusual. The same is so with variable weather during Central European summers. This is entirely typical.

In 2003 scientists announced droughts for summers

There is also no data confirming that the number of storms has increased over the past years. However we have been able to determine that the single storms have become a little more severe with regards to their strength.

That there have been storms so often this July is pure coincidence. July 2013 was the exact opposite; it was too dry and rarely were there thunderstorms. Now after having seen the thunderstorms of the past few days, we are already once again hearing the first climate prognoses announcing that extreme downpours will continue to rise over the next years.

That’s weird: After the driest and hottest summer of all time in 2003, the climate experts all assumed summers would become drier and drier – the talk was even about drought.

Slowly we have to start asking ourselves what follows what: The climate follows the prognoses, or the prognoses the climate? The current stormy weather appears to be a welcome opportunity for some climate experts to shift the focus back to climate change – with the aim of acquiring more research money.

Dominik Jung
Meteorologist and chief editor at wetter.net”


Leading German Alarmist Scientist Mojib Latif Turns Cool: “Climate Sensitivity Is Too High”!

Geomar scientist dares to go public, criticizes publication censorship: criticism of IPCC models unwanted!
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Vladimir Semenov is a scientist at the Geomar Institute in Kiel, Germany. In 2009, together with colleague Mojib Latif and other colleagues, he submitted a manuscript to the Journal of Climate in which the authors feared that the CO2 climate sensitivity in the climate models was possibly pegged too high. During the peer-review process the reviewers requested that all passages containing doubt over Co2’s impact on climate be deleted, otherwise the paper would not get published. And so it happened: An entire section had to be removed before the study finally got published in 2010:

Semenov, V., Latif, M., Dommenget, D., Keenlyside, N., Strehz, A., Martin, T. und Park, W. (2010) The Impact of North Atlantic-Arctic Multidecadal Variability on Northern Hemisphere Surface Air Temperature Journal of Climate, 23 (21). pp. 5668-5677. DOI 10.1175/2010JCLI3347.1.

In the wake of the mobbing affair concerning the former director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute, Lennart Bengtsson, Mr. Semenov gathered the courage to take the issue to the public. He criticized that deleting the part challenging the IPCC model in his paper was a form of censorship.

The respected British daily The Times prominently reported on the matter on 8 July 2014 on the front page of its Environment section:

Voices of dissent drowned out by climate change scientists
Research that questioned the accuracy of computer models used to predict global warming was “censored” by climate scientists, it was alleged yesterday. One academic reviewer said that a section should not be published because it “would lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community”. Another wrote: “This entire discussion has to disappear.” The paper suggested that the computer models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were flawed, resulting in human influence on the climate being exaggerated and the impact of natural variability being underplayed. The findings could have profound implications. If correct, they could mean that greenhouse gases have less impact than the IPCC has predicted and that the risk of catastrophic global warming has been overstated. However, the questions raised about the models were deleted from the paper before it was published in 2010 in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. The paper had been submitted in July 2009, when many climate scientists were urging world leaders to agree a global deal on cutting emissions at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December that year. Vladimir Semenov, a climate scientist at the Geomar institute in Kiel, Germany, said the questions he and six others had posed in the original version of the paper were valid and removing them was “a kind of censorship.”

Continue reading at GWPF.

Also a presentation made by the Geomar team in July 2013 in den USA fits nicely (see our blog article “Mojib Latif in presentation in the USA: Climate sensitivity is set too high by the IPCC CO2“). With one exception (T. Martin), all the authors took a position that is identical to that in the publication in the Journal of Climate of 2010. In the conclusion of the presentation, the scientists state on slide no. 30:

(1) ‘MOC variability appears to be predictable about a decade ahead.’

(2) ‘The most recent decades contain a strong contribution from the AMO (MOC) even on a global scale,’ see also slide no.16.

(3) ‘This raises questions about the average climate sensitivity of the IPCC models,’ see also slide no. 21: ‘Implication: Climate sensitivity is too high’.


Leading German Private Commercial Meteorologist: “No Statistical Basis” Showing Winters Are Getting Warmer

Jung_TwitterPrivate commercial meteorologist are always under pressure to produce reasonably accurate forecasts for their clients and to stick to the best available science. If their models and work consistently produce false results, then it is not long before they find themselves looking for a new line of work. There’s no room for politics in their trade.

Photo: meteorologist Dominik Jung, Twitter

No trend to anything unusual

One of Germany’s leading private commercial meteorologists, Dominik Jung of wetternet.de, gives an interview at the online Hessische/Niedersächsische Allgemeine Zeitung (HNA). Jung says storms and variable weather are nothing new in Germany, and that there is no trend pointing to any unusual changes.

So far this summer Germany has seen a fair amount of variable weather, with several periods of a few hot days followed by cooler rainy days. HNA asked Jung if this was unusual and if spells of sunny, hot summerlike weather had not been longer in the past. The HNA gives us Jung’s answer: “No. Weeks-long warm periods with long-lasting heat are not typical for our region.”

Summers getting wetter, contradicting climate models

On whether German summers are becoming drier, as many climate scientists once projected: “In the past years six were wetter than the long-term average. The summer of 2013 was a bit too dry.”

Winters are not getting warmer

The HNA also brings up the often mentioned claim that German winters are becoming warmer, and that snow and frost will soon become “a thing of the past”. It writes: Also the suspicion that winters are getting warmer cannot be statistically asserted. Over the past seven years many of the winters were very cold with long periods of snow and ice.”

Increased storm activity in Germany?

The HNA also asked Jung about storm frequency and severity. Here as well the high-profile meteorologist sees no statistical basis. The HNA writes : “According to Jung, there is no detectable increase. The UN IPCC report also comes up with the same result. … statistically there hasn’t been any more such storms than there was 100 years ago.”

On rising insurance claims due to storm damage, Jung says that the rising trend has much more to do with the higher number of people insuring their assets, and is not a measure of storm activity.

Jung also says that spring on average is arriving about one or two weeks earlier than it did 3o years ago. Here Jung does not mention that 30 years ago some importanct ocean cycles were in their cold phases. Climate is changing, but that change is due in most part to natural cycles, which even alarmist scientists have been conceding lately every time they claim “the warming is being masked by natural variations.”

Climate change is natural

When asked if the fluctuiations are a tell-tale sign of climate change, Jung dumps cold water on that claim as well. The HNA reports: “For meteorologist Jung there is currently no acute effects of a climate change. Climate has been changing since the earth was created, and it will continue to do so in the decades and centuries ahead.”


German Geologist Sebastian Lüning Slams IPCC Climate Science: “A Lot Of The Claims Are Just Not True”

Bill Jasper of the New American interviews with geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. See the following video:

Video by The New American

Models are faulty…no coming catastrophe

In Lüning’s view, the dire climate warnings are all based on models and the history of climate needs to be taken much more into account for extrapolating into the future. He thinks it’s no surprise many of the predictions are turning out wrong, and he reminds us that the earth’s climate has always seen wide fluctuations and that today’s climate is not unprecedented. “It’s not a catastrophe we are headed to.”

Hockey stick has been discarded

On the manipulation of past data, Dr. Lüning thinks the hockey stick was an error involving poor statistics and methods, with a “wish” for a certain outcome, reminding us that even Michael Mann has revised his charts. The Medieval Warm Period has also been put back in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

IPCC claims “not true”

He agrees there have been political efforts to push through false scientific data. “That’s true. And a lot of the articles that are proposed or published by IPCC affiliated scientists; one really has to look twice and three times at them to understand what has happened. And a lot of the claims are just not true.”

Germany’s renewable energy program in chaos

Lüning agrees there should be development in alternative energies, but describes Germany’s renewable energy push as being “in complete chaos“, and is a system where everyone is crying for subsidies and that the system is now on “shaky grounds”. He says some media are already backtracking. “The tide is changing, I think.”

Climate issue way beyond its best-before-date

In Lüning’s view the climate movement reached it’s peak in 2007, and that more and more people are taking a closer look at his own views. He credits his high profile co-author of the book ‘The Neglected Sun‘, Fritz Vahrenholt, for getting the climate science skepticism ball moving. “Step-by-step we are winning them over and a realism is beginning to take place“. He then describes how moderate scientists in Germany and in Europe are becoming more receptive to their non-alarmist message and states that more and more papers on the natural cycles have been coming out.