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:

Facts

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

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 “Klimaretter.info” 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:

Surprise! Orbiting Carbon Observatory Shows Models Have Little Resemblance To Reality

By Ed Caryl

On 1 July 2014, NASA launched OCO-2, the second attempt at orbiting a global carbon dioxide observatory. In December, the first global map was released.

mainco2mappia18934

Compare this map with a frame from a previously released video showing a model of what the CO2 distribution was thought to be for roughly the same time period in 2006, the 1st of November.

Screen Shot 2015-06-10 at 9.04.51 AM

Note the differences. There is much more CO2 coming from the tropical rainforests than the model predicts, and there is a sink, where CO2 is taken up, over Russia that the model does not have.

Since January, there has been no public disclosure of any further maps from OCO-2 on the OCO-2 website, except for a slide (their figure 5, shown below) from a webinar presentation that took place in February. This covers the period from late November to late December.

F5aImage_print

Compare this with a corresponding frame from the model video.

Screen Shot 2015-06-10 at 9.26.46 AM

The reality measured by OCO-2 hardly resembles the model. The map released by NASA also seems to cut off CO2 sinks in the North Atlantic and Pacific. This may be excused by the sun angle in the Northern Hemisphere in December. NASA is surely learning a lot from OCO-2, but the findings may not be “politically correct”. We must await further data releases.

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

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof Fritz Vahrenholt

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

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

Robust warming projections despite the recent hiatus.”

The abstract reads:

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

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

Natural Cycles In A Random World Are Unmistakable…Future Holds Nothing To Fear

By Ed Caryl

Recently, Roy Spencer posted a graph that appeared to be a data record of some kind for the last 100 years. Then he revealed that it was generated in Excel with a simple random number function. The graph showed details that resembled things like El Niño’s and La Niña’s, pauses, and sudden warming and cooling.

I decided to repeat his graph introducing cycles into the mix. We know that the climate follows ~60 (AMO ocean cycle), ~210 (de Vries or Suess solar cycle), and ~1000 year (un-named) cycles (approximately). The following is a graphic of what happens if these cycles are introduced into the random number generator. The graph extends to 1014 simulated years by month. The random number generator is constrained to + and – 0.5, and each month adds 0.9 of the value of the previous month. The cycles use the sine function (SIN()) with input from the fractional year value, multiplied by 0.1 to produce a 62 year cycle, 0.029 to produce a 215 year cycle, and 0.006 to produce a cycle just over 1000 years. For this last cycle the COS function was used to shift the cycle phase by 90 degrees. Each month, 1/40th of each cycle value is added along with the 0.9 of the previous month. This produces a graph that roughly resembles earth’s climate over the last 1014 years with extension to the next 200.

Simulated Climate 1014 years

Figure 1 is a simulation of the last 1014 years, with the applied climate cycles shown.

Zoom on last 214 years

Figure 2 is a magnification of the last 214 years from Figure 1. Blue is monthly data, black is the annual average, the red trace is the simulated AMO 62-year cycle.

Each re-calculation will completely change the data, but similar features always appear. In this iteration, an El Niño appears at 1999, that looks just like the real El Niño of 1998. We see a warming trend in the early twentieth century, and another in the late twentieth century, just like the real warming trends.

In figure 1, we see a Medieval Warming period and two periods of Little Ice Age. A minimum is seen that resembles the Dalton Minimum of the early 1800s, and the cool 1910s and 1970s appear. Even the cool Maunder Minimum appears in the correct place. Most of this result is not coincidence because the 62-year cycle is timed to match the real AMO, and the 204-year and 1000-year cycles roughly match real solar activity.

In this simulation, two successive warming periods very like the actual twentieth century warming periods, can occur from natural cycles alone, no extra “forcing” from CO2 is required.

So, what will the future bring? Now that we have this model, that reflects the past, as we know it, with general accuracy, can we project that into the future? Sure…this is just an Excel spreadsheet after all. I pasted on 200 more years. As I did so, Excel of course recalculated the whole table. So here is a second example of the last 214 years that it came up with, in case someone accuses me of “cherry-picking”. Note that we get much the same pattern of warming and cooling, with a couple of El Niño’s in approximately the right place in the last 20 years.

Zoom #2

Figure 3 is another calculation of the same period as in figure 2. The black trace is an annual average of the monthly data. All three cycles are shown.

Note the resemblance between figures 2 and 3. Each is a different calculation using different random numbers, yet the small addition of non-random sine wave cycles pushes the output into shapes that resemble the climate that happened in this period.

The next 200 years

Figure 4 is the future, as projected by our model. The black trace is an annual average of the blue monthly data. All three cycles are shown.

As you can see, the future holds nothing to fear. There will be a few El Niño’s in the next ten years, then a moderate cooling as we come off the peak of the 62 and 204 year cycles. There will be more of those in mid-century, as the AMO rises again, then more cooling for a period at the end of the century as both of those cycles bottom out. No extensive warm periods will appear until late in the twenty-second century, as both peak again.

This model is not new. On the side-bar of this blog, an illustration from Nicola Scafetta’s model is similar, with the addition of some shorter cycles. An earlier post on this blog from a paper by Prof. H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss (cited above) also used a similar model. The chief addition is random “weather”.

No CO2 molecules were harmed in the generation of these graphs. Nor, for that matter, were they considered.

For those with Excel expertise, I have posted the file to Dropbox here.

Björn Stevens’ New Paper In Nature Has Kevin Trenberth Trembling…Lindzen’s Iris Sees Vindication

NOTE: I upgraded to the latest version of WordPress this morning. But now it appears readers are unable to leave comments because no “Reply” button is appearing. Will work on this….please be patient… -PG

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

Change in the climate debate? Climate models start converging towards reality
By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, condensed by P. Gosselin]

On many occasions we have brought up the discrepancies between observed global data and the values of the latest IPCC climate models (CMIP5) – see here and here. The model values simply diverged well above the observations. A chart by Roy Spencer made this clear:

Figure 1: The deviation of model values from satellite observations up to 2013, Source: Roy Spencer.

Recently Thomas Mauritsen and Björn Stevens, a clouds and aerosols modeling expert of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, examined the matter. In a very recent paper appearing in Nature Geoscience (hereinafter MS15) titled “Missing iris effect as a possible cause of muted hydrological change and high climate sensitivity in models“, they took up the actual situation (a somewhat difficult to understand press release on this can be read here).

1) Apparently the models overreact to the greenhouse gas effect. Recent papers also have found from the observations a significantly lower value for forcing. The climate sensitivity (ECS) for a very long-term period after an increase in greenhouse gas is determined to be on average 3.3°C of warming while the observations indicate a value of about 2°C.

2) The global hydrological cycle is not taken correctly into account in the models (too small).

There’s also another phenomenon: According to the models, the troposphere in the tropics was supposed to warm up much more than at ground level. But this is not being observed, and we’ve written about this in an earlier post “Houston, we have a problem: We can’t find the hot spot“.

Here the authors searched for an explanation for the discrepancies. Perhaps a cooling effect was missing in the models. They found an explanation: an old hypothesis from Richard Lindzen and his colleagues from 2001: The earth has an “iris”, a negative feedback where more heat is released when there is more warming than when the temperature is cool. This mechanism, according to Lindzen, acts in the tropics and in the subtropics. It is illustrated as such in the paper:

 

Figure 2: At higher temperatures there are more thunderstorms over the ocean and the area without high level clouds (dry and clear) expands further and thus allows more heat to radiate off into space (strong OLR) than when temperatures are lower, i.e. when the iris is smaller. Source: Figure 1 from MS15.

This “self-regulation” of the earth’s temperatures proposed by Lindzen of course was rejected by “mainstream” climate science. Chambers et al. wrote in the Journal of Climate 2002:

As a result, the strength of the feedback effect is reduced by a factor of 10 or more. Contrary to the initial Iris hypothesis, most of the definitions tested in this paper result in a small positive feedback.”

Kevin Trenberth and colleagues rejected the iris-theory in the Geophysical Research Letters in 2010:

…and their [Lindzen et al.] use of a limited tropical domain is especially problematic. Moreover their results do not stand up to independent testing.”

The authors of the latest Nature article obviously had not been impressed by Trenberth’s claim, and made the effort of integrating Lindzen’s iris effect into an advanced model. The result is somewhat surprising.

The Tropical Hot Spot

Figure 3: The temperatures in the atmosphere according to the models, Source: Figure S7 from MS15.

The increase in the tropical temperature trends between 7 and 14 km elevation in the model without the iris (Figure 3 left) and with the iris (right). The modeled hot spot with profound effect at about 10 km and above has disappeared…which is very much like what the observations have been telling us:

Figure 4: The hot spot in the models without the iris and the observations. Source: “Climate4you“. The 300 hPa atmospheric pressure corresponds to an elevation of approx. 8 km, the 200 hPa approx. 10 km above sea level. The measured trend (dark red or blue), the modeled trend in the model mean without iris is dotted red.

The impact of the iris effect on EC

Figure 5: Crossplot of the ECS with negative effect of iris as temperature rises. The red point is the ECS of the model without iris. The blue plots are the values for the ECS in various strengths of the Iris. Source: Figure 3a of MS15.

The iris shifts the ECS of the used models from 2.81 to 2.21. That’s 22% less sensitivity with respect to the warming effect by greenhouse gases. Also the discrepancy in the hydrological cycle (basically the increase in precipitation due to warming) could be resolved by taking the iris into account.

Even when the impression has been given here from time to time that we distrust models, we point out that precisely in climatology models can be very useful when they are fed with all the right information. We are not able to experiment with the atmosphere and so we have to rely on computers. It is essential that the models accurately reflect reality and do not produce a fictitious world that supplies catastrophe scenarios.

Climate models are extremely complex, and thus it is all the more critical that their programming be clean and that all the possible physical factors be correctly taken into account. The latest paper shows that modeling has taken a step in the right direction. It shows 22% less climate sensitivity due to the iris component.

Not everyone was happy to hear this news. Kevin Trenberth was quoted saying the following words (translated from the German):

The paper is poorly written and misleading. It wasn’t necessary to blow the iris horn.”

Trenberth seemed almost infuriated:

The authors even wrote it in the damn title.”

What fear has suddenly gripped the “climate establishment”? Could it be that among policymakers the word is out that the climate catastrophe has been called off?

Björn Stevens’ research results may go down as being the turning point in the history of climate science debate.

 

What Caused the Global Warming Pause or Why Hate the Hiatus?

Depending on which global temperature data one looks at, temperatures have not increased in the last 18 or so years. The reasons proposed have been various, ranging from natural cycles to increased aerosols, to heat escaping to space or the deep ocean.

Perhaps there are some other reasons that have not been considered. The following is a simple list, with illustrations. The list is divided into two sub-lists. Things that are natural and things that are anthropogenic or man made.

SOME NATURAL REASONS

 1. It’s The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)

AMO
The AMO has been at the top of it’s warm phase since 1998. The index doesn’t get much higher than it is now. It can only go down from here. It was at a similar peak during the warm 1930s through the 1960s. It was negative during the cool 1970s. The peaks of the AMO tend to be flat for a couple of decades before flipping cool. We don’t know what drives the AMO. Data here.

2. It’s The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

PDO
The PDO has been trending down since the early 1980s. It also was up during the 1930s and negative during the 1970s. The AMO and the PDO are the natural ocean cycles that climate scientists talk about. The PDO reached a peak in the 1980s and has been declining since. This index is volatile. The PDO has a huge effect on weather on the Pacific Coast of North America. Data here.

 3. It’s The AMO and PDO together

AMO+PDO
They are sometimes roughly added together. (Even though they are not measuring the same thing.) If one adds them together, it can be seen why the late 1930s were warm and the 1970s cool. The sum (green trace) reached a peak in 2000 and is now declining because of the declining PDO. (Computed by author.)

4. It’s the sun

SSN Average

The sunspot number (SSN) average has declined since the mid-1990s. One can see a cause for the 1970s cooling in the SSN, but not for the 1930s warming. The early 20th century cooling may have been caused by the low SSN around the turn of the century. The sun is excused for the recent pause because the total solar index (TSI) changes only by a fraction of a Watt/m2 over large changes in SSN. But other factors may be in play. (Source: WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels.)

Oulu Neutron Count

5. It’s cosmic rays

The neutron count is an indicator of the cosmic ray flux at the top of the atmosphere. Here is the neutron count at Oulu, Finland since 1965. It is thought that cosmic rays seed cloud formation. Therefore high recent count is providing cooling clouds. Graphic downloaded from here, the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland.

SST & Albedo

6. It’s clouds and earth’s albedo

Albedo and cloud cover reached a peak in the 1998-2000 era, at the beginning of the pause. Clouds, especially high clouds, reflect solar energy. Each 1% of albedo change translates to 1 W/m2. There is another graphic of albedo from the EarthShine project, here. All the albedo data show a significant rise in albedo after 1998. The cosmic ray/neutron count may not match the albedo/cloud cover, but cloud cover really did increase. Graphic used by permission of Dr. J. Floor Anthoni, and seen here.

PAUSE IS ANTHROPOGENIC

I mean by anthropogenic that man may have caused the pause by manipulating the temperature data. These manipulations seem to enhance the warming trend in support of politics, though the stated intent for many was to enhance accuracy. Here are some examples:

TOBs adjustments

7. It’s the time of observation (TOBs) adjustment

Observing times have been gradually changed from afternoon to morning hours. The bias from this adjustment was about 0.2°C for TMax and 0.25°C for TMin. This impacts the historic data, but also, this adjustment is now finished. Most measurement sites now use morning observing times and no more changes will be made, hence the pause. No more warming will come from this source. The TOBs adjustment is clearly visible in the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RAW AND FINAL USHCN DATA SETS graphic below, though it is only half of the total. Figure from here.

Difference between raw and final

8. It’s all adjustments including TOBs

This graphic shows the result of all adjustments: homogenization, sensor changes (CRS vs MMTS), and TOBs. Note also that the warming due to all these changes is about 0.5°C, much of the warming that is supposed to have taken place since 1950. Note that these changes went flat during the 1990s decade.  Note the similar shaped curve to the TOBs adjustment with a flat shape in recent times. There should be no more warming from this source. Figure from NOAA/NCDC here.

9. It’s the number of stations

Number of stations

Since 1980, the number of stations reporting temperature data has declined by half. Some of the decline was due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. This resulted in loss of data from the Russian high arctic and Siberia, among the coldest land stations in the Northern Hemisphere. Some of these stations have resumed reporting in recent years, but most have not.

Other stations in Africa and Asia were closed by newly independent former colonies. World-wide, many stations closed instead of being upgraded. On average the remaining stations are at lower elevations and in warmer, populated areas. This situation has now stabilized. Figure from NASAGISS here. A discussion of this problem is here.

These are nine possible reasons for the pause. One or two are sufficient. Nine is overkill.

 

Georgia Tech Climatologist Curry: “No Sign Of Slowdown” In AMOC…Sees Atlantic “Arctic Sea Ice Recovery”, Hints Of Greenland Cooling

Michael Mann’s and Stefan Rahmstorf’s recent AMOC paper has been promptly and widely discredited since it came out, see here WUWT, WUWT, and NTZ. The sharp criticism has since picked up.

Veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi for example blasted the paper in a comment at WUWT, calling the claims “nonsense” and reminded that renowned climatology expert William Gray had predicted what is now happening already 40 years ago.

Bastardi wrote that it is all part of the natural end-game of the Atlantic’s warm cycle. The veteran meteorologist rated the paper’s claims:

This idea borders on delusional, an attempt to self verify the idea that co2 is actually influencing the oceans, laughable since the heat capacity of the oceans is 1000x air, and co2 is only .04% of the air.”

Curry calls the paper’s methodology “remarkable”

The latest high profile climate scientist criticizing the work is Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry at her Climate Etc. site here. First she is unconvinced of the paper’s methodology of using climate model simulations and “Mannian proxy analysis” of decadal to millennial scale ocean circulations and internal variability in place of direct measurements, calling it “remarkable”.

She poses the rhetorical question:

So, who you gonna believe? Climate models and Mannian proxies, or direct and satellite observations of ocean circulation?

AMO is behind the changes

Curry says that the cooling of the high latitude North Atlantic can be traced back to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which now appears to be at the start of its descent into its cool phase. She writes there is some evidence that the warm phase of the AMO already peaked circa 2007. Moreover she hints that the transition could be sharp, as was the case in the late 1990s.

Curry scoffs at the notion that climate change is likely behind the cooling of the North Atlantic. In her summary she writes (my emphasis).

What we are seeing in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic is natural variability, predominantly associated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Based open observational analyses, there is no sign of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream or the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

Now, I am very interested in the AMO, since it strongly influences Atlantic hurricanes, Arctic sea ice, and Greenland climate.  We are already seeing a recovery of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic sea ice, and some hints of cooling in Greenland.”

German Meteorologist Says Climate Models Have Gotten 11 Of The Past 12 European Summers Wrong!

German meteorologist Dominik Jung writes at wetter.net that the first preliminary forecast for Central Europe for the upcoming summer issued by the NOAA does not look very favorable. Expect a “grisly summer”, he writes.

He writes that over the last 10 years spring has generally been on the warm and sunny side, but that Central Europeans have had to pay a price for that by having to put up with wet and variable summer weather.

Models wrong 11 out of 12 years!

Jung then reminds us that the climate models have been very wrong with their 2003 predictions that Central Europeans in the future would have to expect hot, barbecued summers like the one seen in 2003. Back then climatologists warned the public to get used to such summers, as it was all consistent with global warming. Turns out that prediction has been a complete flop. Jung writes:

Do you recall the climate prophets after the hottest and driest summer of all time in the 2003 prophesizing more drought summers? None of that has occurred. Of the 11 summers that followed, 7 were wetter than the long-term mean, i.e. too much rain. Moreover predictions of sustained heat waves failed to come true. Four summers turned out to be almost normal and only one single summer was about 15% too dry. The majority of the past summers saw no large heat waves. It was hot only for a few days, with really cooler days with thundershowers in between.

That could be again the case this year. According to the long-term trend of the US weather service, March and April could turn out to be warmer, sunnier and drier than normal. A few days ago the first trend for the months of June, July, August was calculated by the US colleagues and things don’t look better than the past – in fact it looks a little worse!

This year could be a grisly summer. The US long-term model sees no summer month that will be warmer than the long-term average. All three summer months should be at near normal temperatures and accompanied by more precipitation than normal. August is forecast to be especially wet.”

But Jung warns that these are only long-term projections and that one should not put too much stock in them. Many readers here are aware that the seasonal forecasts made by the US weather services (and those of the UK Met Office) often leave much to be desired.

In fact assuming the opposite would likely be a better prediction.

 

Spiegel: NOAA “Embarrassment” Over “Four Years Of Failed El Niño Forecasts” …”Numerous Buoys Have Ceased To Function”!

We keep hearing that the climate and weather forecasting tools are gaining in sophistication, and correspondingly in reliability. Climate model simulators claim to be able to see decades, even centuries, into the future!

Yet Spiegel Science journalist Axel Bojanowski has an analysis here which looks at the recent spate of failed El Niño predictions by the NOAA, and shows that these forecasting tools are still terribly lacking. His latest piece: “Change in global weather: El Niño embarrasses meteorologists“. (Here I’m not sure why Bojanowski (or his editors) chose the term ‘meteorologists’ because much of the work is arguably done by climate scientists.)

It is an accepted fact that the El Niño cyclic changes in the equatorial Pacific surface temperatures have major impacts on the global weather, especially the northern hemisphere. Thus it would be useful if scientists were able to predict them with some degree of rough accuracy.

Unfortunately accuracy is still a long way off as forecasters falsely predicted an El Niño four years long, and only now has it finally begun to take hold. Bojanowski writes:

Seldom have meteorologists been made to look so foolish. Four years long they published the same prognosis: Soon an El Niño would be taking hold in the Pacific.”

The Spiegel journalist describes how last June experts were “80% sure” a powerful El Niño was in the works, and how in 2013 “a peer-reviewed paper in a well known science journal” boasted of new forecasting methods for El Niños. Sadly, these experts aren’t anywhere near getting it right. So, as a result, Bojanowski writes, they have recently become “considerably more cautious” with their forecasts. Embarrassment does that.

Bojanowski describes how the ENSO’s impact on global weather patterns, wildlife, and even regional sea levels, and how NOAA experts have had to admit the latest El Niño has been an unexpectedly tame one – in stark contradiction to forecasts made earlier. He writes: “The inaccurate forecasts of the past year has forced the scientists to rethink their methods, said NOAA expert Gabriel Vecchi in the journal ‘Nature’.”

Numerous buoys out of order!

Bojnowski also writes that the biggest problem is reliably predicting the weakening of the tradewinds, and says this has become difficult because “numerous buoys have ceased to function over the years” and so are no longer able to measure the changes in sea surface temperature.

That is certainly an interesting revelation presented here by Bojanowski. Still, NOAA El Niño forecasters should not feel too bad about their measurement and forecasting woes because it could be much worse. For example their climate colleagues haven’t gotten their global temperature forecasts right in over 18 years!

And concerning what can be done in place of the “numerous” out-of commission buoys, perhaps the NOAA El Niño scientists could consider using the “filling in the data” method and simply apply the measurements made by the closest functioning buoy (even if it is 1000 kilometers away). After all the global surface temperature scientists seem perfectly satisfied with that particular method. The data-fill-in method would surely allow the NOAA El Nino experts to make forecasts that are just as spectacularly accurate as those of the global warming climate scientists.

Flashback: wattsupwiththat.com/el-nino-sea-monitoring-half-dead-already/

 

Spiegel Demolishes Syria War-Climate Change Paper By Kelley et al. …”Hardly Tenable” … “Distraction From Real Problems”

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski here looks at the new paper Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought,” PNAS, March 2, 2015 by Kelley et al, which claims the 2007−2010 drought contributed to the war in the region.

A number of major news outlets, such as the New York Times and the AP were quick to uncritically dispense it as gospel truth.

Anthony Watts provides good background here.

Spiegel’s view is much more critical and skeptical of the paper’s findings and overall methodology when compared to the New York Times or AP. The online German magazine writes:

An alarming study has created a commotion worldwide. The authors claim that climate change contributed to the drought and civil war in Syria. However this claim is hardly tenable.”

Models in wide disagreement

Bojanowski writes that the decisive evidence in the paper is based on climate models, which show drier conditions for Syria as the greenhouse effect intensifies. However Bojanowski later points out that the climate system in Syria is highly complex and that even the IPCC questions the capability of models reliably simulating the climate system of Syria and that the models are in wide disagreement:

The region lies on the boundary of three climate regions where the weather patterns are hardly understood, the IPCC report says. Foremost the climate simulation models diverge widely from each other when it comes to precipitation. It thus appears unwarranted to use the results of models as a way of confirming the effect of greenhouse gases, believes [William]Briggs.”

Sparse data

Another problem with the study, Spiegel reports, is that the data used were way too sparse, and quoted climate scientist Tim Brücher of the Max Planck Institute for Meterology: “The data should have been handled more critically.”

“Renders a poor service on behalf of climate science”

Probably seeing the paper more as an embarrassment rather than a contribution to science, even warmist institutes were unable to refrain from critique. Bojanowski quotes Thomas Bernauer, a conflict researcher at ETH in Zürich: “The entire paper is problematic as it renders a poor service on behalf of climate science.”

“Study is problematic at a number of levels”

In total Bojanowski says scientists criticize the paper on five aspects, saying that after the criticism, nothing is really left of the paper. According to Spiegel, University of Hamburg expert Tobias Ide says, “The study is problematic at a number of levels.” Peace scientist Christiane Fröhlich of the same university says the civil war “had more to do with wealthy citizens provoking it“.

“A distraction” from the real causes

Francesca De Châtel, Syria expert at Radboud University in Nijmegen, called the paper “a distraction” from the real causes of the war, and pointed out that drought periods are more the norm for the region. The problems stem foremost from land mismanagement and shoddy agricultural practices. Bojanowski quotes De Châtel: “The role of climate change is not only irrelevant, emphasizing it is even damaging.”

No evidence linking drought to civil war

Also Norwegian doctoral candidate Ole Magnus Theisen states that there is no evidence of a relationship between drought and conflict, Spiegel writes.

Bojanowski adds that “the climate argument allows politicians to blame others outside of the country for the hunger.” The Spiegel journalist sums up the science of tying climate change to war in general:

The main causes of civil wars are political. The future security of Africa does not depend on climate, rather on political and economic development.”

In summary one would not be wrong in concluding that the PNAS was definitely asleep during the review of the paper. Hard to get any shoddier.

Spiegel report here.

 

“Stunning Development” … EPA Chief Doesn’t Even Know If Climate Projections Are Rights Or Wrong!

It is indeed stunning. A must-watch. It’s as damaging a performance on behalf of a cause that you will ever see.

EPA chief Gina McCarthy also says she doesn’t even know whose models policy is being based on.

She says that the models diverging from actual observations “on the whole makes no difference to the validity in the robustness of climate science that is telling us that we are facing an absolute challenge that we must address …blah blah blah…”

Sorry, but it makes all the difference in science. McCarthy thus confirms observational data mean nothing and that climate science is a religion at the EPA.

“Whose models? What projections?” she asks – as if she has no idea what’s going on at all. This is as incompetent as you will ever see.

 

Solar Cycle Weakening…And: German Analysis Shows Climate Models Do Overestimate CO2 Forcing

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt

In February the sun was very quiet in activity. The observed sunspot number (SSN) was only 44.8, which is only 53% of the mean value for this month into the solar cycles – calculated from the previous systematic observations of the earlier cycles.

Figure 1: Solar activity of the current Cycle No. 24 in red, the mean value for all previously observed cycles is shown in blue, and the up to now similar Cycle No. 1 in black.

It has now been 75 months since cycle No. 24 began in December, 2008. Overall this cycle has been only 53% of the mean value in activity. About 22 years ago (in November 1992) Solar Cycle No. 22 was also in its 75th month, and back then solar activity was 139% of normal value. The current drop in solar activity is certainly quite impressive. This is clear when one compares all the previous cycles:

Figure 2: Comparison of all solar cycles. The plotted values are the differences of the accumulated monthly values from mean (blue in Figure 1).

The solar polar magnetic fields have become somewhat more pronounced compared to the month earlier (see our Figure 2 “Die Sonne im Januar 2015 und atlantische Prognosen“) and thus the sunspot maximum for the current cycle is definitely history. It’s highly probable that over the next years we will see a slow tapering off in sunspot activity. Weak cycles such as the current one often follow. Thus the next minimum, which is defined by the appearance of the first sunspots in the new cycle 25, may first occur after the year 2020. The magnetic field of its sunspots will then be opposite of what we are currently observing in cycle 24.

The radiative forcing of CMIP5 models cannot be validated?

A recent paper by Marotzke/ Forster (M/F) is in strong discussion here at climateaudit.org with more than 800 comments. Nicolas Lewis pointed out the question: Is the method of M/F for evaluating the trends infected by circularity?

There is not only a discussion about the methods, but also about the main conclusion: “The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.”

Is the natural variability really suppressing our efforts to separate the better models of the CMIP5 ensemble from not so good ones?

Here I present a method to find an approach.

Step 1

I investigated the ability of the 42 “series” runs of “Willis model sheet” (Thanks to Willis Eschenbach for the work to bring 42 anonymous CMIP5 models in “series”!) to replicate the least square linear trends from 1900 to 2014 (annual global data, 2014 is the constant end-date of these running trends). I calculated for each year from 1900 to 1995 the differences between the HadCRUT4 (observed) trends ending in 2014 and the trends of every “series” also ending in 2014. The sum of the squared residuals for 1900 to 1995 the differences between the HadCRUT4 (observed) trends ending in 2014 and the trends of every “series” also ending in 2014.

The sum of the squared residuals for 1900 to 1995 for every “series”:


Figure 3: The sum of the squared residuals for the running trends with constant end in 2014 from 1900,1901 and so on up to 1995 for every “Series” in “Willis sheet”. On the x-axis: the series 1…42.

Step 2

We describe the same procedure described in Step 1, but this time with the trends up to 2004, only 10 years before the end of the trend series:

Figure 4: The sum of the squared residuals for the running trends with constant end in 2014 from 1900, 1901 and so on up to 1995 for every “series” in the “Willis sheet”. On the x-axis: the series 1…42. The ordinate scale is the same as in Figure 3.

Here one sees that the errors for the trends until 2004 on average are much smaller (Figure 4) than they are for the trends up to 2014 (Figure 3). That is no wonder as the parameters of most models for the time period up to 2005 were “set“. Thus the depiction of the trends of the models up to 2014 are also well in agreement with observations:

Figure 5: The trends of the model mean (Mod. Mean, red) in °C/ year since 1900, 1901 etc. up to 1985 with the constant end-year 2004 compared to observations (black).

Obviously the setting of the model parameters no longer “hold” as the errors up to the year 2014 rise rapidly.

Step 3

We calculate the quotients of the errors for the 2014 trends divided by the errors for the 2004 trends (See Figure 4) for every single series and make a 2-dimensional check:

Figure 6: The single series as plotted points. The coordinates are determined by the trend error der until 2014 (X axis) and the ratio of the error up to 2014/2004 (Y axis). The red rectangle marks the “boundaries”, the “good“ series are inside, the “bad“ are outside.

The borders are represented by the standard deviations of both series.

The y-axis in Figure 6 above is the quotient of failures in trend estimations to 2014 (see Figure 5) divided by the trend estimations to 2004 (see Figure 4) with a standard deviation of 3.08; the x-axis is the accuracy of the series in trend estimation for the running trends with the constant end year 2014 (see Figure 5) with a standard deviation of 0.0038. The big differences of many series (up to a factor of 11) between the trend errors compared of 2004 and the trend errors to 2014 is impressive, isn’t it? The stability of the series with great differences seems to be in question, that’s why they are “bad”.

Step 4

Now comes the most interesting part: From the 42 runs of different series, I selected the “good” ones which are within the borders of the red rectangle in Figure 4 and calculated their average. The same procedure was done with all the “bad” ones.

Figure 7: The selected “good” series (see step 1-3), the series mean of all 42 series, the “bad” ones and the observations for rolling trends with constant end-year 2014 in K per annum.

The “good” (blue) series produce a remarkably better approach to the observations than the model mean (red) and the “bad”( green) show the worst performance.

Up to this point we didn’t know what model was behind what “series” in the “Willis sheet”. Thanks to the help from Willis Eschenbach and Nic Lewis we just learned the assignment and the properties of the models behind the “series”, also their corresponding sensitivity with respect to forcing by GHG. The mean value of the transient climate response (TCR), which is the expression for the calculated greenhouse gas effect, is approximately 1.6 for the “good“ models, the model mean (all models) is 1.8 and the “bad” model mean is 1.96.

As one observes is Figure 7, the selection of the “good” models “improves” the convergence towards the observations. For this a TCR of approximately 1.3 is assumed, compare to our blog post “Wie empfindlich ist unser Klima gegenüber der Erwärmung durch Treibhausgase? (How sensitive is our climate with respect to warming from greenhouse gases)“.

Conclusion

The mean of the models overestimates the radiative forcings in the global temperature to 2014. The objectively better models have a lower mean of TCR. The “bad” models have a higher mean of TCR. Many models are perhaps “over tuned” for the trends to 2005. The result is a dramatic loss in forecasting quality beyond the tuning period. Are Marotzke and Forster wrong? Will we ever hear them admit it? There are reasons for doubt.

Climate Models Turn Out To Be “Fairy Tales” … Long-Term Central Europe Winters Show Distinct COOLING Trend!

Josef Kowatsch and Stefan Kämpfe at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) analyze the winter data from Germany’s DWD Weather Service an conclude that winters have been cooling.

The two authors present a lengthy analysis of German winter trends and what factors impact them the most. Today I will focus on the first part of their article, i.e. winter trends in Central Europe – mainly Germany. What follows is an abbreviated summary version.

Because of Western Europe’s proximity to the Atlantic, mild winters are nothing unusual and have occurred many times in the past. Two mild winters in a row occurred from 1909/10 to 1912/13, 1918/19 to 1920/21, 1934/35 to 1936/37, 1947/48 to 1949/50, 1987/88 to 1989/90. The article by Kowatsch and Kämpfe looks at if German winters are really getting warmer and less snowy, as is frequently claimed. They are not.

Now trend in snow coverage

An important indication for the character of a winter in Germany is the number of days with a snow cover on the ground that is at least 1 cm. That can be traced back thanks to the records of the Potsdam station, which goes back to 1893/94. There snow can fall already in October and well into April, and so it makes sense to look at the seasonal snow coverage days, where by the season goes from October 1 to April 30:

Figure 1: The number of snow coverage days – which fluctuates wildly – has been unchanged over the long-term. There’s no indication of reduced snow coverage days for Potsdam. The low snow year 2014/15 in the German lowlands is not included in this chart; yet it will show significantly more snow coverage days than the extremely low snow winter of 1974/75. (Source: PIK).

When one considers only the meteorological winter (DJF), no trend is detectable for snow coverage. However there are periodic fluctuations (Figure 2):

Figure 2: In the 1910s to the 1930s 1910er as well as at the end of the 20th century, there were generally fewer snow coverage days, instead the winters were wetter, milder. (Data source: PIK).

Over a large regional scale (entire northern hemisphere) reliable data on snow cover are available since 1967. During this almost 50-year period snow coverage fluctuated strongly, yet there is no declining trend:

Figure 3: Since 1967 there has been no reduction in wintertime snow cover days over the northern hemisphere (Source: NOAA).

German winter temperatures – cooling!

Next we will look back at German winters over the past 28 and 18 years, and do so without considering the urban heat island effect despite the ongoing landscape alteration by man: Every day some 108 hectares are being built upon in Germany and thus creating growing heat islands around temperature measurement stations.

Germany’s winter of 2015 is currently pegged by the German DWD Weather Service as being 1.8°C above normal. Thus it’s the second warmer than normal winter in a row. However, the German DWD neglects to tell the public one thing: Over the long-term winter temperatures have dropped. It’s getting colder. See Figure 4. Data come from the German DWD Weather Service in Offenbach.

Figure 4: Winter temperatures have been falling in Germany for almost 30 years. The two recent mild winters have not changed that trend.

Result: Despite the alleged “global warming”, which is supposed to make itself evident especially in the winters, German winters are ignoring the forecasts made by the so-called climate scientists. It’s going to take an impressive series of mild winters just to flatten the trend.

This is proving to be terribly inconvenient for climate scientists who banked on warming. In the meantime cooling phases are being ignored, or data are even being falsified.

With the German winter temperature, the trend downwards would be even steeper if the UHI were properly accounted for. Yet, already some scientists are seizing upon the fact that the last 2 winters have been mild as “proof of warming”.

Next the single winter months (DJF) are examined individually (all data come from the DWD). Here’s December for the last 30 years:

Figure 5a: The trend is slightly downward, mainly owing to the especially cold December of 2010.

If one factored in the UHI, then the trend would be even more pronounced.

What follows is the 28-year trend for January:

Figure 5b: January has gotten markedly cooler over the years.

January also shows no warming in sight. One finds warming only in the climate models, and nowhere else. The next chart depicts the trend for February:

Figure 5c: Here the downward trend is unmistakable.

The February trend tells us one thing: Springtime is not arriving earlier. February 2015 in Germany was just a bit above normal.

Fairy tale models – truth being covered up

Kowatsch and Kämpfe summarize: “Winter in Germany is taking on a course of its own and is ignoring the forecasts made by the IPCC and the PIK. Warming? Where? In any case they are not to be found in German winters.” The two authors ask:

Where is the global warming which we are supposed to be massively combatting in Germany over the last ten years? Foremost the winter months were supposed to especially warm up. We were warned that there would be no more snow in the flatlands and that winter sports would be possible only at high elevations. […] It turns out these were forecasts from the category of Germany fairy tales. However, what’s worse is that this truth is being covered up and hidden from the German public. Not a single one of our charts is being shown by the media.”

No warming in Central England in 30 years

Kowatsch and Kämpfe also show the same is true in Central England; no temperature rise in 30 years:

Figure 6: No increase in 30 years, which is a climate-relevant period.

Tomorrow I will post on the factors that Kowtsch and Kämpfe say drive western European winters: Ocean cycles (and not Arctic sea ice).

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.

 

German Experts: New Paper By Gleisner Shows 2013 Cowtan And Way Arctic Data Hole Paper Was A Lemon

German experts Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt tell at their Die kalte Sonne site us why the 2013 Cowtan and Way paper has proven to be a flop.
========================================

Failed spectacularly: Arctic data hole theory for the warming pause collapses
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

For quite some time climate scientists have been desperately seeking an explanation for the unexpected warming pause. On November 15, 2013 in the Süddeutsche Zeitung Christopher Schrader declared that the solution had been found: There was no pause; the data had only been missing from the Arctic.

Climate change without pause
According to the data, the earth had not warmed over the past years. However, this impression is likely related to missing data from the Arctic. And there the temperature appears to have risen much more strongly than the global average.[…] These [temperature] measurements have large holes: Approximately one sixth of the earth is not covered. Foremost in the Arctic there are not enough thermometers. But according to all signs it is warming considerably more quickly than the rest of the planet. An English and a Canadian scientist now show how this hole can be closed up with estimated values and how the supposed warming pause practically disappears. Kevin Cowtan of the University of York and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa refer to satellite data. […] Thus ultimately Cowtan and Way arrived at the result that the Arctic warmed eight times faster than the rest of the planet. Before that it had been thought that it was warming three times faster.”

Unfortunately Schrader did not mention that the two scientists were climate activists who were close to the IPCC-friendly Internet platform Skeptical Science. Yet, he still was unable to let slip out a couple of critical words about the two authors:

However the process is too complicated in order to find widespread recognition. Doubt will be stirred up among many because both authors have no name in climate science. Kevin Cowtan is a theoretical physicist and computer specialist at the Department of Chemistry at his University. Robert Way is still busy writing his doctorate dissertation.

It’s been a full year since the appearance of the dubious paper by Cowtan and Way, one that was highly praised by Stefan Rahmstorf. So just how was this pioneering paper received by the science community? On January 29, 2015 the answer from their colleagues appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters. The dodgy Arctic data fill-in model has failed spectacularly and has been soundly rejected. The answer to the pause is not to be found in the Arctic as Cowtan and Way suspected, rather it is to be found at the lower geographical geographical latitudes, as a team of scientists of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen led by Hans Gleisner reports in a new publication. What follows is the paper’s abstract:

Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low-latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends. Recent studies have attempted to attribute this so called temperature hiatus to several causes, amongst them incomplete sampling of the rapidly warming Arctic region. We here examine zonal mean temperature trends in satellite-based tropospheric data sets (based on data from (Advanced) Microwave Sounding Unit and Global Navigation Satellite System Radio Occultation instruments) and in global surface temperatures (HadCRUT4). Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes cannot explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the prehiatus period. Instead, the dominating causes of the global temperature hiatus are found at low latitudes. The combined use of several independent data sets, representing completely different measurement techniques and sampling characteristics, strengthens the conclusions.

The Sun And Ocean Cycles Drive Global Temperature…Natural Factors Bringing Cooling For Next 30 Years

It has been clear for a long time to those who simply observe climate that temperatures are driven by, in the long term, orbital and Earth tilt cycles, the Milanković cycles, in the medium term by solar cycles with ocean cycles. like the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO), and in the short term, by ocean and atmosphere cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

A few researchers have used this information to project the future. An example can be found on the sidebar of this blog. A problem with these projections is that factors such as volcanoes cannot be predicted. Due to the chaotic nature of most ocean cycles, these also cannot be used to predict the future. Only the AMO is regular enough to extend into the future, and then only for one or two cycles.

The sun is our source of energy, and it also has cycles. The 11-year sunspot number cycles (SSN) are regular but seem not to affect climate in any cyclic way. Only the integrated energy over whole cycles seems to push temperatures, and this affect seems to be delayed by about one whole sunspot cycle. Here is a history of the last 150 years and a simple projection to 2050.

Global Climate Model

 

Figure 1 is a chart of the main influences on global temperature over the last 150 years. The red trace is based on the SSN processed with an 11-year trailing average. The purple AMO trace has been smoothed with a 9-year centered average. These were then combined with the annual average central Pacific El Niño 3.4 to produce the orange trace. The orange trace is a model of global temperature before volcanic cooling. The vertical green lines are named volcanic eruptions, the height of the lines is the volcanic eruption index (VE) using the right side scale. The blue trace is the global annual temperature average as published by GHCN.

For over a hundred years, the orange model follows the GHCN temperature closely except where perturbed by volcanic activity. Volcanoes can warm the atmosphere if they are primarily ash eruptions, or cool the atmosphere if they loft large amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The Askja eruption and caldera collapse in Iceland in 1875 produced primarily ash. That eruption plus a Grand El Niño the following year produced a warm year in 1876. The VE6 eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 and Tarawara three years later, produced five years of cool climate.

Santa Maria and Novarupta were two more VE6 eruptions, that along with a cool sun and a negative AMO sent temperatures plunging in the early 20th century. From 1918 until 1975, temperatures followed the ocean cycles and the sun very closely. Smoke and soot from WWII, along with a strong El Niño in 1942, may have caused the warming from 1939 to 1945. In contrast, a strong La Niña in 1975 that lasted for two years produced a pronounced cooling. This was the “ice age scare” of the late 1970’s.

After 1978 a serious divergence began between this model based on sun and ocean cycles and the GHCN measurements, leading to the current 0.6°C difference. For UAH satellite measurements this difference is less, from 0.3°C to 0.45°C, depending on the level set for the 1979 record beginning relative to GHCN.

To account for this difference, the reader is urged to note the changes over the years to the global temperature records as found by the following reporters:

– Steven Goddard: Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS and about a thousand other posts on the same subject.
– Paul Homewood: Posts Tagged Temperature Adjustments, and Another GISS miss: warming in the Arctic – the adjustments are key
– Ira Glickstein: The PAST is Not What it Used to Be (GW Tiger Tale)
– Willis Eschenbach: The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero.
– MS at The Hockey Stick: Paper finds more smoking guns of temperature data tampering in Northern Australia.
– Ed Caryl: A Light In Siberia. This was also posted here. And Is GISS Also Cheating In The Arctic?
– Jennifer Marohasy: Corrupting Australia’s Temperature Record, along with here, here, and others.
– Michael and Ronan Connolly: Global Warming Solved

These adjustments can account for the whole difference between the model and the GHCN temperature record. It is not necessary to invoke any CO2 warming. If it is there, it is very slight, on the order of 0.1°C.

The model indicates that it has been cooling since 2010, and that the cooling will continue as solar output declines and the AMO goes negative. Yes, the years from 1998 to 2010 were warmer than the 20th Century average because the globe was at the peak of all the natural cycles. But it is all downhill from here.

Cooling next 30 years

Solar activity is going into a decline as well. We don’t yet know if this decline will be to a Dalton Minimum-like level or a Maunder Minimum level. The model projection into the future does not contain ENSO or volcanic data as that data cannot be predicted. But it will get cooler for the next thirty years. The AMO will turn positive some time in mid-century, and solar output may not decline as much as indicated, so another full-blown ice age is not beginning, but a Little Ice Age may be starting. See here for further projections into the future based on the deVries 230-year cycle and the 1000-year Suess cycle.

 

German Analysis: “Current Warm Period Is No Anthropogenic Product” – Major Natural Cycles Show No Signs Of Warming!

Climate cycles and their extrapolation into the future

By Dr. Dietrich E. Koelle
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

As the reconstruction of the climate’s development in the past by proxy data shows, there’s a series of temperature cycles that appear to be unknown, or ignored by many climate scientists. Among these are the larger climate cycles of 150 million to 180 million years (see Part 1 and Part 2), but also the shorter and for us the more important following cycles:

1000 years (900-1100)    Suess cycle with +/-  0.65°C
230 years (230-250)        deVries cycle with +/-  0.30°C
65  years (60-65)              Ocean cycles with +/- 0.25°C

In principle these cycles are sinusoidal in behavior as depicted in Figure 1. Bob Tisdale has also shown how the temperature increase of the 65-year cycle from 1975 to 1998 led to the assumption that it is due CO2 emissions because they too happened to be parallel. This has been naively extended all the way to the year 2100 and forms the basis for the climate models and the invention of the so-called “climate catastrophe”.


Figure 1:  Sine wave characteristic of the 60/65-year ocean cycle (Source: Bob Tisdale at WUWT).

In this analysis we will attempt to see how the temperature development could be over the next 700 years, assuming of course that the mentioned climate cycles of the past will continue on into the future. This should not be (mis)understood as a forecast for the future climate. Up to now there is only the IPCC forecast that the global temperature will rise by 2 to 5°C by the year 2100 – based only on the expected CO2 increase. However that theory has failed to work over the last 18 ears because the various natural climate factors and cycles never got considered, or they were not allowed to be considered in the climate models. Included among these factors are the mean cloud cover (albedo) and the resulting effective solar insolation (watts per sqm) at the earth’s surface, or the sea surface, which is decisive for the temperature development.Next Figure 2 below depicts the 1000-year cycle and the 230-year cycle, which have been reconstructed from historical proxy data. They stem from a combination of results from various publications in the field of paleoclimatology over the last years. The diagram of the last 3200 years distinctly shows a 1000-year cycle; the last 2000 years of which are confirmed by historical documents. In fact this cycle goes back all the way to the end of the last ice age, i.e. some 9000 years. The reason for the cycle is still unknown today, yet its existence is undisputed.

The current warm period is no “anthropogenic product”, rather it is the natural result of a repeating 1000-year cycle that goes back far into the past. Today’s warm period does not even reach the temperatures seen in the past warm periods, which at times were 1 to 2°C higher. Moreover it is important to note that during both of the past temperature maxima of 1000 and 2000 years ago, the CO2 values were at 280 ppm while today they are at 400 ppm. This indicates that the earlier warmer periods likely were related to natural solar activity and not to a rise in CO2 because there was no CO2 rise during those warm phases.

Figure 2: Global temperature over the last 3200 years shows a distinct 1000-year cycle along with the 230-year cycle.

Of historical significance is the fact that over the course of human history warm periods were always times of economic and cultural prosperity. The cooler periods always led to serious problems that led to starvation and huge waves of human migration in Europe. Here it becomes undeniably clear that the alarmist claims that “the earth has a fever” made by politicians such as Al Gore are patentedly preposterous.

The “ideal” 1000-year cycle is varied by the 230-year cycle, which in turn gets varied by the 65-year oceanic cycle, which is depicted in Figure 1. Added to these cycles are the various typically non-cyclical events such as the ENSO, volcanic eruptions, etc. Figure 3 shows the temperature curve for the last 165 years along with the 230-year cycle and the effect of the 65-year ocean cycle. The current temperature values fluctuate by plus/minus 0.2°C due to the effects of ENSO, sunspot activity, volcanic eruptions, etc.

Figure 3:  The 230-year cycle over the last 165 years has been superimposed by a 65-year cycle as well as by other effects like the irregular ENSO events and large volcanic eruptions.

The temperature rise of 0.6°C during the 1975-1998 period, which has triggered all the current climate hysteria, was of the same magnitude as the previous increase that occurred in the 1910 to 1940 period, which in turn had nothing to do with CO2 because back then the concentration in the atmosphere rose by only some 10 ppm (from 297 to 308 ppm). Also the temperature increase of 1.5°C over the last 150 to 250 years is also nothing “out of the ordinary” or “dangerous”, as we are often told in the media. Instead it is only the natural recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) that had gripped the planet from 1400 to 1750. The LIA not only led to the Thames River and Baltic Sea freezing over, but resulted in severe hunger in Europe and caused a mass migration to America.

The figures also show that all three climate cycles reached their maximum shortly after the end of the last millennium. With that in mind, we actually should have expected even higher temperatures than those seen in previous warm periods. Here perhaps the fact that the global temperature has seen a negative overall trend since the Holocene Maximum plays a role. That means that the global temperature has fallen by 2°C over the past 8000 years.

Based on historical climate fact, it is possible to extend the trend into the future to form a possible climate scenario. Figure 4 depicts the extrapolation of the 1000-year and 230-year cycle along with the generally expected trend. Added to this are the fluctuations of the 65-year ocean cycles, the impacts of the ENSO-events, sunspot cycles and volcanic eruptions, which result in additional fluctuations of a few tenths of a degree – just as they have in the past.

Figure 4:  Extrapolating the 1000-year and 230-year cycles 700 years into the future.

Figure 4 shows the real global temperature development of the past 1000 years and its theoretical continuation over the next 700 years. This is not a forecast, but rather it is the extended possible course of the over all temperature trend, which over the mid-term in the next 100 years could see a drop of approx. 0.3°C  and a 2°C drop in global temperature in 350 years – which would mean conditions just like those seen in the Little Ice Age from 1450 to 1700. In about 1000 years the 1000-year cycle will again take on its warm phase and temperatures like those of today can be expected.

In the next 50 years there would be no temperature increase, but rather a slight temperature decrease is expected. In the decades before and after the year 2300 a powerful temperature drop could occur because both the 230-year cycle and 100-year cycle would be dropping rapidly together in parallel.

References:

1 J.R.Petit et al.: Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420 000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica, Nature Vol.399, June 1999

2 Th.Steuber et al.: Low-latitude seasonality of Cretaceous temperatures in warm and cold episodes, NATURE Vo.437, 27 Oct.2005

3 W.S.Broecker and G.H. Denon: What Drives Glacial Cycles ? Scientific American, Jan.1990

4 H.Kawamura et al.: Antarctic Dome C Temperature Reconstruction, Nature, 23 Aug.2007

5 J.Veizer et al.: Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon, NATURE Vo.408, 7 Dec.2000

6 K.Kashiwaya et al.: Orbit-related long-term climate cycles revealed in a 12-MYr continental record from Lake Baikal, NATURE Vol410, 1 March 2001

—————

Note from the Die Kalte-Sonne editors: The main point of this post is to provide any analysis of natural cycles and their logical extension into the future. Unaccounted in the projection shown in Figure 4 is the climate impact of CO2, whose role in climate today is hotly disputed. In our book “The Neglected Sun” we presented two CO2 climate sensitivity scenarios: 1.0°C and 1.5 °C warming for a CO2 doubling. Current studies have corrected the original IPCC value of 3°C strongly downwards (see our articles “Studies from 2014 provide hope: warming effect of CO2 is considerably over-estimated. Official correction is imminent“). It will be exciting to watch how research will develop with respect to climate sensitivity over the coming years.

 

Last Ditch Clinging Effort…Scientists Plainly Have Struck Out On Short and Mid-Term Climate Model Reliability

The German media are reporting on findings of a study appearing in Nature coming from the Jochen Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) in Hamburg and Piers Forster of University of Leeds, who both insist the climate models continue to be correct –  despite having been wrong for 18 years.

Warming not showing up

The DPA, via Die Welt here, has an article titled: “Why the crass global warming is not showing up” and writes:

The earth’s temperature over the past 15 years has not warmed as much as the climate models projected. In the opinion of scientists this not due to poor climate modeling, but rather because of ‘random climate fluctuations’. “

Modelers blame “spontaneous climate variability”

The MPI-M press release claims there is “no evidence for systematic model error” and blames “spontaneous climate variability” arising from “chaotic processes in the climate system” for the growing divergence between observations and simulations since the conception of the climate models.

The MPI-M press release obviously concedes the climate models do not understand the short and mid-term natural factors at play in climate, saying that the 1998 to 2012 period “witnessed some extreme regional climate trends, such as a strong cooling in central Siberia during winter and an unparalleled strengthening of the trade winds in the Pacific causing cold ocean water to reach the surface. Such random extreme events are very rare and are hard to reproduce with models.”

Modelers have struck out on short and mid-term reliability

Clearly the modelers are rapidly abandoning any earlier claims made of short-term and mid-term model reliability, where they have plainly struck out, and are now left asking us to believe in their long-term reliability.

For years skeptics have warned alarmist scientists that they were making grave mistakes in ignoring the climate’s natural cyclic behavior and that the generally chaotic climate system was not predictable. Predictably, they scoffed and insisted that their models were “tweaked”, “fine-tuned” and as good as gold. But it turns out they have not been okay since the very start, and now the climate scientists are insisting the models are okay so long as you ignore all the short and mid-term factors that make them not okay.

The DPA German news agency writes:

In a first step the scientists compared the 114 simulations with the actual observations. The question was whether the simulations are too sensitive and certain factors too heavily weighted and as a result forecast too much warming. If that were the case, then the most sensitive models would have to forecast the most warming, explains Marotzke. That is not at all the case. Foremost they did not in principle react too sensitively to an increase in atmospheric CO2. Moreso it was chaos and random events in weather that make the work of climate scientists difficult.”

And that difficulty has been a huge thorn in the models’ side for about 17 years now. It’s panic time.

Variablilty? Or an inconvenient climate cycle?

The MPI-M press release insists that 15 years are too short because here “the differences between simulated and observed trends are dominated by spontaneous climate variability and that the sensitivity of climate in the models plays no role.”

The real question that needs to be asked is: Have the models been wrong for 15 years really because of weird random weather events, which is what the MPI-M seems to be hoping, or are these “random events” part of a powerful climate-driving, natural cycle that the warmist scientists are refusing to acknowledge?

How much longer before they throw in the towel?

Unfortunately the MPI-M failed to tell us how much longer the current divergence can continue on before their latest explanation falls apart. Kevin Trenberth told us 17 years was already enough to make the call. The MPI-M charts suggest it’s around 20 years. The MPI-M paper may buy the warmists a little bit more time, but convincing it is not.

Yet, MPM-M director Marotzke stubbornly continues his desperate cling to the models, and is quoted by the DPA:

Over the long term we can rely on the models,’ says Marotzke. ‘And they tell us that the warming is coming at us.'”

We’ll be watching, and I suspect waiting…and waiting…and waiting.

 

German Scientist Calls For Founding And Funding Of Independent Climate Research Institute To Counter Alarmist Climate Claims

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning believes it’s high time for the skeptic side to respond more forcefully to the often hyper-exaggerated claims launched by the government funded global warming alarmists and is calling for the founding of an independent Germany-based climate research initiative.

Lüning DkS

Dr Lüning co-authored together with professor Fritz Vahrenholt the leading skeptic book, Die kalte Sonne, which subsequently was translated in English as The Neglected Sun. Their book clearly provides overwhelming scientific evidence of governing natural factors like the sun and oceans driving climate change throughout history.

Lüning’s idea is dubbed the KlimaForschungsInitiative (KFI) – Climate Research Initiative – which he feels is necessary because the criticism of the apocalyptic end-of-world visions is coming from only a few courageous shoulders and citizens who have recognized the “faulty development” in climate science. The debate is completely lopsided, Lüning writes.

These climate realists as a rule receive no financial support for their work. To the contrary it is highly risky to challenge the IPCC line because positions outside the political mainstream are punished by scientific and societal marginalization. Inconvenient criticism of the climate alarmism line is undesirable. The German Federal Ministry of Environment even published a blacklist of [German and American] climate realists. It’s a real career blocker for scientists at the state-supported research institutes. A University of Graz music professor even suggested the death penalty for people who do not tow the IPCC line.”

Under such a hostile and intolerant climate, who on earth would want to raise a finger?

Climate of political intimidation and fear

Lüning says the pressure is in fact so strong that also western industry is visibly intimidated: “Too large is the fear of upsetting those with political power by presenting inconvenient facts.” Rather than rocking the boat, industry has opted to play along –  and to ship jobs overseas instead, or to shut down complete parts of their company, as is the case with German power giant E.On, Lüning says.

Recently the media reported that lawyers are gearing up to sue the major fossil fuel companies for causing extreme weather, like tropical storm Haiyan“ in the Philippines. Such claims, Lüning writes, are fully based on junk science which he describes as resembling superstition and Medieval witch-hunting.

Lüning comments that the world seems to have gone a bit hysterical. The Philippine tropical storm is a good example. From s scientific view it can be excluded that Haiyan resulted from climate change, a view that is supported by scientific literature. Yet, there are plenty demands being made for industry to pay for the damage.

Too often, Lüning writes, false scientific arguments and outright tricks are allowed to go insufficiently challenged. The German geologists says it is essential that an independent climate research initiative be founded by qualified climate-related scientists who are skeptical of the alarmist scenarios in order adequately to respond to the “wild climate claims” through the use of factual and scientific arguments.

Lüning writes that the main activities of an independent Climate Research Initiative would be determine:

1) The real value of CO2 climate sensitivity.

2) The real role of ocean cycles for the 1977-1998 warming phase.

3 If the correlation between solar activity and the temperature development over the last 10,000 years is just a coincidence, as the climate models like to suggest.

4) If extreme weather events are part of natural variability.

The German maverick geologist writes that here more climate-historical scientific studies are needed in order to better document natural climate variability over the past decades, centuriesand millenia. Important: “Which trends and cycles are really detectable and could they be useful for making climate forecasts?”

Lüning envisions a climate research initiative supported by private individuals and the business sector who are truly interested in finding out what really drives the climate. Lüning proposes the six main responsibilities:

1) Identifying the open, disputed climate issues.

2) Targeted support of research projects, publication of results in peer-reviewed journals.

3) Systematie evaluation of existing climate literature on natural variability and compilation of results.

4) Intensive communication with institutes and media concerning the results. Internet communication with the public.

5) Participation in German and international scientific conferences and workshops.

6) Training seminars for non-scientists, advising.

Lüning is convinced that what is required for a sustainable and rational debate is a “structured cooperation with an independent team of experts with a solid financial foundation” in order to address what the real fears are and which scenarios are unrealistic.

Parties interested in working for or supporting an independent German climate research initiative should contact Sebastian.Luening@kaltesonne.de or Sebastian.Luning@gmx.net.