Subsidized Company, Supplying Subsidized Industry (Which Is Based On Subsidized Junk Science) Files For Bankruptcy

“Do we have the next Solyndra at hand?”

I had to shake my head when reading the recently published Fox News report: Another taxpayer-funded energy company files for bankruptcy.

Image cropped from Aquion Energy.

Hat-tip: Indomitable Snowman

According to Fox News, Pennsylvania-based Aquion Energy had received “a $5.2 million stimulus-tied grant” (not a loan) from the U.S. federal government and that the company had once been “touted as a rising star in the energy storage business”. It even attracted “an investment from Microsoft founder Bill Gates“.

On Wednesday Aquion Energy filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

“North American Company of the Year”

Fox News adds:

In January, the company was named ‘the North American Company of the Year Award’ at the annual Cleantech Forum in San Francisco…”

This is a classic example of how a house of cards gets built and begins to collapse. It should remind us of what can happen whenever bureaucrats and politicians get so caught up in a pie-in-the-sky idea that they literally become deaf to technical, scientific and economic reason.

Multi-tiered subsidy debacle

There was certainly no lack of warnings from skeptics that renewable energies (mainly sun and wind) were fraught with daunting technical and economic obstacles, and that the technology for overcoming these obstacles still remained decades out into the future.

But green energy proponents wanted to hear none of it, and so embarked on a blind and reckless money give-away of the sort never seen before. Already trillions have been earmarked worldwide — one trillion in Germany alone.

Today the green energy subsidy folly has since made its way down through multiple supply tiers as the government funds tens of billions of dollars to prop up the junk science that tells us us we need the green energies, which in turn also receive hundreds of billions in subsidies. This in turn has led to billions in subsidies made to companies claiming to have the technologies for overcoming the technical hurdles that the rest of us had long warned about.

What’s next? As expected these companies are now folding. It was a scam all along, as they were never as close to solutions as they led many of us to believe. Now the government will have to subsidize the many workers who are losing their jobs, at least for awhile, as scheme implodes on itself. What a folly.

Driven by rampant cronyism

Naturally almost everyone supports funding for the development of new energy technologies, but there is a huge difference between pitch-forking tax dollars, by the billions, into a huge crony feeding trough, and wisely and strategically allocating precious funds to the right places.

Unfortunately the green industry has been one driven by cronyism, and not technical or scientific merit — and certainly not economics. It has been a huge bonanza for very few at the great expense of the common good. The hundreds and hundreds of billions wasted would have been far better invested elsewhere.

The storage solutions come from the past, not the future

When it comes to efficient energy storage, putting a man on the moon is in fact easy compared to finding a new way that stores energy even a fraction as well as a chunk of coal, a bottle of gas, or can of petroleum does. In fact we find the storage solution millions of years in the past in the form of fossil fuels, and not the shady, over-hyped half-baked technologies of today.

There are all kinds of future energy storage solutions out there. But so far most of them hold little or no promise of even coming close to being economical. It’s going to take years or decades to develop them, and we have to be smart about how we do this. We cannot continue pouring money on something that will never work.

Yet, until bureaucrats wake up to this truth, expect many more Solyndras and Acquion Energy debacles in the years ahead.


German Power Sector In Massive Trauma As Electricity Giant EON Set To Post Colossal €12.4 BILLION Loss!

The ‘Energiewende’ (transition to green energies) risks leading to a complete meltdown of Germany’s power generation sector.

The latest news is that German electricity giant Eon expects to post a massive 12.4 billion euro loss for the year 2016, NTV news site writes here. Careful not to link the loss to Germany’s failing renewable energy bid, NTV blames it on Eon subsidiary Uniper and its write-downs for “spun-off nuclear power plant business” and the “strongly fallen wholesale power prices“.

Photo: Eon

Eon share prices plummeted from €7.57 a share earlier this weak to €6.98 by early Thursday morning, before clawing back up to €7.15 in Friday trading.

The figure is only a preliminary estimate, and the final figure will be released on March 15. But the Handelsblatt writes that the loss could even be higher: “It’s going to be even higher,” say those within the company.

The Handelsblatt reports that “at least 1000 jobs” are planned to be slashed by Eon in an effort to get the cost situation under control.

Massive financial trauma

Just days ago NTZ wrote here that another of Germany’s major power producers, RWE, also posted staggering losses of 5.7 billion euros.

Eon’s latest loss comes in the wake of a 7-billion euro loss the German power giant posted a year earlier, in 2015.

Once steady makers of profits and providers of solid, high-paying technical and engineering jobs, Germany’s traditional power industry has been bleeding profusely since the Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) has really took hold. Jobs have been lost by the thousands.

The German power grid used to be considered as one of the most stable worldwide, providing low-cost and reliable electricity to consumers, but has since deteriorated due to distorted market conditions and the wildly fluctuating wind and solar power that is required to be fed in.


30 New (2017) Scientific Papers Crush The Hockey Stick Graph And ‘Global’-Scale Warming Claims

The Globe Has Not Been Warming . . .

So Why Is It Called ‘Global’ Warming?

There were at least 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2016 demonstrating that  Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.

As of the end of January, another 17 papers had already been published in 201717 New (2017) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Is Not Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable

Within the last month, another 14 papers have been published that continue to cast doubt on the popularized conception of an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.

Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years.  Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time.  And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.  In other words, there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of natural variability.

Goursaud et al., 2017

Wilson et al., 2017

Cai and Liu et al., 2017

“2003– 2009 was the warmest period in the reconstruction. 1970– 2000 was colder than the last stage of the Little Ice Age (LIA).”

Tegzes et al., 2017

The objective of this study was to investigate northward oceanic heat transport in the NwASC [Norwegian Atlantic Slope Current] on longer, geologically meaningful time scales. To this end, we reconstructed variations in the strength of the NwASC over the late-Holocene using the sortable-silt method. We then analysed the statistical relationship between our palaeo-flow reconstructions and published upper-ocean hydrography proxy records from the same location on the mid-Norwegian Margin. Our sortable-silt time series show prominent multi-decadal to multi-centennial variability, but no clear long-term trend over the past 4200 years. … [O]ur findings indicate that variations in the strength of the main branch of the Atlantic Inflow may not necessarily translate into proportional changes in northward oceanic heat transport in the eastern Nordic Seas.”

Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017

“The abrupt climatic transition of the early 20th century and the 25-year warm period 1925–1950 triggered the main retreat and volume loss of these glaciers since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’. Meanwhile, cooling during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s altered the trend, with advances of the glacier snouts.”

Tejedor et al., 2017


Guillet et al., 2017

Köse et al., 2017

“The reconstruction is punctuated by a temperature increase during the 20th century; yet extreme cold and warm events during the 19th century seem to eclipse conditions during the 20th century. We found significant correlations between our March–April spring temperature reconstruction and existing gridded spring temperature reconstructions for Europe over Turkey and southeastern Europe. … During the last 200 years, our reconstruction suggests that the coldest year was 1898 and the warmest year was 1873. The reconstructed extreme events also coincided with accounts from historical records. …  Further, the warming trends seen in our record agrees with data presented by Turkes and Sumer (2004), of which they attributed [20th century warming] to increased urbanization in Turkey. Considering long-term changes in spring temperatures, the 19th century was characterized by more high-frequency fluctuations compared to the 20th century, which was defined by more gradual changes and includes the beginning of decreased DTRs [diurnal temperature ranges] in the region (Turkes and Sumer, 2004).”

Flannery et al., 2017

The early part of the reconstruction (1733–1850) coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age, and exhibits 3 of the 4 coolest decadal excursions in the record. However, the mean SST estimate from that interval during the LIA is not significantly different from the late 20th Century SST mean. The most prominent cooling event in the 20th Century is a decade centered around 1965. This corresponds to a basin-wide cooling in the North Atlantic and cool phase of the AMO.”

Mayewski et al., 2017

Rydval et al., 2017

[T]he recent summer-time warming in Scotland is likely not unique when compared to multi-decadal warm periods observed in the 1300s, 1500s, and 1730s

Reynolds et al., 2017

Rosenthal et al., 2017

“Here we review proxy records of intermediate water temperatures from sediment cores and corals in the equatorial Pacific and northeastern Atlantic Oceans, spanning 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. These records suggests that intermediate waters [0-700 m] were 1.5-2°C warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than in the last century. Intermediate water masses cooled by 0.9°C from the Medieval Climate Anomaly to the Little Ice Age. These changes are significantly larger than the temperature anomalies documented in the instrumental record. The implied large perturbations in OHC and Earth’s energy budget are at odds with very small radiative forcing anomalies throughout the Holocene and Common Era. … The records suggest that dynamic processes provide an efficient mechanism to amplify small changes in insolation [surface solar radiation] into relatively large changes in OHC.”

Li et al., 2017

“We suggest that solar activity may play a key role in driving the climatic fluctuations in NC [North China] during the last 22 centuries, with its quasi ∼100, 50, 23, or 22-year periodicity clearly identified in our climatic reconstructions. … It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations by triggering global temperature variability and atmospheric dynamical circulation

Dong et al., 2017

Nazarova et al., 2017

“The application of transfer functions resulted in reconstructed T July fluctuations of approximately 3 °C over the last 2800 years. Low temperatures (11.0-12.0 °C) were reconstructed for the periods between ca 1700 and 1500 cal yr BP (corresponding to the Kofun cold stage) and between ca 1200 and 150 cal yr BP (partly corresponding to the Little Ice Age [LIA]). Warm periods (modern T[emperatures] July or higher) were reconstructed for the periods between ca 2700 and 1800 cal yr BP, 1500 and 1300 cal yr BP and after 150 cal yr BP.”

Samartin et al., 2017

Thienemann et al., 2017

“[P]roxy-inferred annual MATs[annual mean air temperatures] show the lowest value at 11,510 yr BP (7.6°C). Subsequently, temperatures rise to 10.7°C at 9540 yr BP followed by an overall decline of about 2.5°C until present (8.3°C).”

Li et al., 2017

“Contrary to the often-documented warming trend over the past few centuries, but consistent with temperature record from the northern Tibetan Plateau, our data show a gradual decreasing trend of 0.3 °C in mean annual air temperature from 1750 to 1970 CE. This result suggests a gradual cooling trend in some high altitude regions over this interval, which could provide a new explanation for the observed decreasing Asian summer monsoon. In addition, our data indicate an abruptly increased interannual-to decadal-scale temperature variations of 0.8 – 2.2 °C after 1970 CE, in terms of both magnitude and frequency, indicating that the climate system in high altitude regions would become more unstable under current global warming.”

Krawczyk et al., 2017

Kawahata et al., 2017

“The SST [sea surface temperature] shows a broad maximum (~17.3 °C) in the mid-Holocene (5-7 cal kyr BP), which corresponds to the Jomon transgression. … The SST maximum continued for only a century and then the SST [sea surface temperatures] dropped by 3.5 °C [15.1 to 11.6 °C] within two centuries. Several peaks fluctuate by 2°C over a few centuries.”

Saini et al., 2017

Dechnik et al., 2017

[I]t is generally accepted that relative sea level reached a maximum of 1–1.5 m above present mean sea level (pmsl) by ~7 ka [7,000 years ago] (Lewis et al., 2013)”

Wu et al., 2017

“The alkenone-based SST reconstruction shows rapid warming in the first 1500 years of the Holocenean increase of sea surface temperature from c. 23.0 °C to 27.0 °C, associated with a strengthened summer monsoon from c. 10,350 to 8900 cal. years BP. This was also a period of rapid sea-level rise and marine transgression, during which the sea inundated the palaeo-incised channel … In these 1500 years, fluvial discharge was strong and concentrated within the channel, and the high sedimentation rate (11.8 mm/yr [1.18 m per century]) was very close to the rate of sea-level rise.”

Sun et al., 2017

“[A]t least six centennial droughts occurred at about 7300, 6300, 5500, 3400, 2500 and 500 cal yr BP. Our findings are generally consistent with other records from the ISM [Indian Summer Monsoon]  region, and suggest that the monsoon intensity is primarily controlled by solar irradiance on a centennial time scale. This external forcing may have been amplified by cooling events in the North Atlantic and by ENSO activity in the eastern tropical Pacific, which shifted the ITCZ further southwards. The inconsistency between local rainfall amount in the southeastern margin of the QTP and ISM intensity may also have been the result of the effect of solar activity on the local hydrological cycle on the periphery of the plateau.”

Wu et al., 2017

Park, 2017

Late Holocene climate change in coastal East Asia was likely driven by ENSO variation.   Our tree pollen index of warmness (TPIW) shows important late Holocene cold events associated with low sunspot periods such as Oort, Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder Minimum. Comparisons among standard Z-scores of filtered TPIW, ΔTSI, and other paleoclimate records from central and northeastern China, off the coast of northern Japan, southern Philippines, and Peru all demonstrate significant relationships [between solar activity and climate]. This suggests that solar activity drove Holocene variations in both East Asian Monsoon (EAM) and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In particular, the latter seems to have predominantly controlled the coastal climate of East Asia to the extent that the influence of precession was nearly muted during the late Holocene.”



Pendea et al., 2017 (Russia)

The Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) was a relatively warm period that is commonly associated with the orbitally forced Holocene maximum summer insolation (e.g., Berger, 1978; Bartlein et al., 2011). Its timing varies widely from region to region but is generally detected in paleorecords between 11 and 5 cal ka BP (e.g., Kaufman et al., 2004; Bartlein et al., 2011; Renssen et al., 2012).  … In Kamchatka, the timing of the HTM varies. Dirksen et al. (2013) find warmer-than-present conditions between 9000 and 5000 cal yr BP in central Kamchatka and between 7000 and 5800 cal yr BP at coastal sites.”

Stivrins et al., 2017  (Latvia)

“Conclusion: Using a multi-proxy approach, we studied the dynamics of thermokarst characteristics in western Latvia, where thermokarst occurred exceptionally late at the Holocene Thermal Maximum. …  [A] thermokarst active phase … began 8500 cal. yr BP and lasted at least until 7400 cal. yr BP. Given that thermokarst arise when the mean summer air temperature gradually increased ca. 2°C beyond the modern day temperature, we can argue that before that point, the local geomorphological conditions at the study site must have been exceptional to secure ice-block from the surficial landscape transformation and environmental processes.”

Bañuls-Cardona et al., 2017 (Spain)

“During the Middle Holocene we detect important climatic events. From 7000 to 6800 [years before present] (MIR 23 and MIR22), we register climatic characteristics that could be related to the end of the African Humid Period, namely an increase in temperatures and a progressive reduction in arboreal cover as a result of a decrease in precipitation. The temperatures exceeded current levels by 1°C, especially in MIR23, where the most highly represented taxon is a thermo-Mediterranean species, M. (T.) duodecimcostatus.”

Åkesson et al., 2017 (Norway)

“Reconstructions for southern Norway based on pollen and chironomids suggest that summer temperatures were up to 2 °C higher than present in the period between 8000 and 4000 BP, when solar insolation was higher (Nesje and Dahl, 1991; Bjune et al., 2005; Velle et al., 2005a).”

‘Die Welt’ Article Warns: German “Energiewende Risks Becoming a Disaster” …As Costs Explode!

Normally even the German conservative media have been supportive of Germany’s shift from fossil fuels over to green energies, and most leading conservative media outlets accept that climate change is mostly man-made and thus needs to be taken seriously.

Climate science skepticism is scorned in Germany.

So it’s all the more surprising that one of Germany’s leading center-right dailies, Die Welt, came out with an article seriously challenging Germany’s Energiewende (transition to green energies).

Citing a 20-page report by McKinsey, Die Welt writes that the Energiewende risks becoming “an economic disaster” (it in fact already has) and that the opinions on the Energiewende by McKinsey are totally opposite of those held by the German government. This shows two things: the growing chasm between the German government’s view and reality, and 2) the government’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge that their energy policy has become a dismal failure.

According to Die Welt, a team of McKinsey experts examined 15 criteria and concluded: “The costs will continue to rise“, and thus contradict the German government’s claim of “stable prices”.

In fact 11 of the 15 criteria that were examined had worsened. According to the report:

The current figures available show that the previous success of the Energiewende for the most part has come from expensive subsidies. At the same time goals whose fulfilment do not depend on direct financial support are becoming increasingly more unrealistic.”

Die Welt writes that McKinsey’s conclusion “must be really painful for the government“, which had hoped to see reductions in CO2 emissions. The bitter reality is that CO2 emissions have in fact risen over the past years and today they are more than 13% over the original target.

Green jobs eroding

The Energiewende has also failed on the jobs creation front, Die Welt writes. Proponents claimed earlier that renewable energies would lead to a jobs boom. But that too has not materialized in any way, shape or form. Jobs in the sector have fallen “for the 4th year in a row – falling from 355,400 to 330,000“. The leading German national daily adds that the biggest job losses came from the onshore wind and solar sectors where 15,000 jobs were lost.

McKinsey warns that the number employed in green energy could even fall below 2008 levels!

And not only “green energy” jobs are being slashed. McKinsey also found that for the first time in 2016 jobs in energy-intensive industries were lost. Die Welt reports:

In March 2016 there were in total 15,000 jobs less than a half year earlier.”

Cost of electricity production to jump 40%

The total cost of producing electricity for the country has also surged due to the Energiewende, McKinsey writes:

The cost of supplying electricity in Germany will rise from 63 billion euros today to 77 billion euros annually by 2015. In 2010 the cost was 55 billion euros.”

This means much higher prices for consumers, who have seen their electricity prices rise to 30.38 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour. For the average German household this will translate into 335 euros of more costs every year by 2025.

Meanwhile the average European electricity price has dropped.

47.3 percent more expensive than average European power

Currently German electricity prices are on average almost 3 times more than what consumers in the USA pay.

The McKinsey report found:

In the meantime the price level for German household power is 47.3 percent above the European average.“


WaPo Cherry Blossom Claims Refuted: “Nothing But Lies And Statistical Manipulations”!

Reader David Reich left a comment  in response to Kenneth Richard’s post on grape harvests and climate.

I’ve decided to upgrade it as a post below. Both stories show that today’s climate is well within the range of our climate’s natural variability over the past 100 and 1000 years, and that today’s weather events aren’t unusual.

By USDA photo by Scott Bauer, United States Department of Agriculture, Public Domain

Washington DC Cherry Blossoms, By David Reich

This [Grape Harvest Date Evidence: No Significant Modern Warmth] reminds me of the Washington Post (WaPo) story that ran a story a few days ago about the earlier than normal Washington DC cherry blossoms hitting their “peak day”. It was stated by the National Park Service that the blossoms are now blooming “on average about 5 days earlier than normal” since records have been kept by NPS.

So, I went back and checked the data. Turns out that the data have been kept for 96 years going back to 1921. The average day of hitting “peak” during the decade of the 1920’s was day 93 into the year – April 3 in a non-leap year, April 2 in a leap year. The average in this decade so far is………92 days. So, how does the Park Service come up with “about 5 days”?

If you average all 96 days, you do get close to 94 days largely because during the 1950’s and 1960’s, the peak date in those 2 decades was over 97 days. So, the recent data is only 2 days earlier than the average. BUT, since the 50’s and 60’s decades which many people remember, the average has in fact gone down about 5 days. Of course no mention that the average went up from 93 days in the 1920’s to 97 in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Equally egregious with both the WaPo article and also the NPS claim is the complete ignoring of the fact that the standard deviation of all 96 data points is well over 7 days (1990 was the earliest peak at day 74 while 1958 was the latest at day 108) so the data varies wildly. So, even if a 5 day trend were valid, such a trend is well within the normally expected variation in the “peak” day and is thus no trend. No change.

Nothing but lies and statistical manipulation by the WaPo and the NPS.”


Historical Grape Harvest Dates Show Modern Temperatures No Warmer Now Than Most Of The Last 1,000 Years

Grape Harvest Date Evidence:

No Significant Modern Warmth

Public domain photo. Source here

In a late February (2017) interview on a U.S. news program, mechanical engineer Bill Nye claimed that the settled science says humans have been warming the planet at a rate that is  unnaturally and “catastrophically” fast since the year 1750 .

“It’s a settled question. The speed that climate change is happening is caused by humans.  Instead of climate change happening on timescales of millions of years or 15,000 years, it’s happening on the timescale of decades, and now years. …  Humans are causing it [climate change] to happen catastrophically fast.   [Without human activity], the climate would be like it was in 1750.”

When pressed to identify the signature change affirming this rapid human-caused acceleration, Nye immediately cited viticulture evidence, or grape-growing practices in England and France.

Britain would not be very well suited to growing grapes as it is today [if not for human activity].  French winemakers would not be buying land to the north, as they are now [if not for human activity].”

Apparently Bill Nye believes it is quite unusual to grow grapes in England. Or maybe he believes that this has never happened before given his perceptions of the unprecedentedly fast pace of climate change since 1750. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that grape vineyards have been growing in England for thousands of years, or that grape harvesting occurred 100s of kilometers further north than it does today as recently as during the latter stages of the Medieval Warm Period (~1100 to 1300 A.D).

Considering how very sensitive grapes are to climate conditions, and that grapes can only be harvested successfully after ripening in climates that average a specified number of warm days per year, the use of grape harvest dating as a proxy for temperature has long been thought to be both promising and reliable.

Unfortunately for Bill Nye and those who believe modern warmth is exceptional, or that the climate has changed at a catastrophically fast pace since 1750, scientists who use grape harvest dates to reconstruct historical temperatures have not found that modern warmth is either unusual or unprecedented.  In fact, grape harvest date evidence suggests the opposite conclusion reached by Bill Nye is more accurate: there is nothing unusual about the modern climate and its “well-suitedness” to grape harvesting.  In fact, there were several periods of greater warmth than today (and thus better suitability for grape harvesting) during the multi-centennial (~1400-1900 A.D.) Little Ice Age — which had the coldest temperatures of the last 10,000 years.

In other words, there is nothing unusual, unprecedented, or remarkable — let alone “catastrophically fast” — about either the pace or degree of warmth in the modern climate.

Grape Harvesting 500 Kilometers North Of Present From 1100 – 1300 A.D.

Easterbrook, 2011

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present. Its effects were evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 500 km north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 m, but from about 1100 A.D. to 1300 A.D., vineyards extended up to 780 m, implying temperatures warmer by about 1.0-1.4°C (Oliver, 1973). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting climates about 1°C warmer than present (Fagan, 2000).”

Grape Harvest Dating From 1300s -1500s A.D. Suggest Temperatures Were 1-2°C Warmer Than 20th Century

Pfister, 1988

“In 1420 wine harvest in Western and Central Europe began at the end of August, even on altitudes of 500 to 700 m (Bern, Toggenburg). This is the earliest date ever recorded. …  In 1420 the warm phase started in February. In March summer began already. The vine bloom was two weeks earlier than in 1893- the most advanced year within the instrumental period.”

“The comparison of the phenophases in 1420 and 1540 with the corresponding extremes documented with thermometrical evidence suggests that in 1420 all months from February to August (in 1540 from April to August) may have been 2 to 3 degrees above the 1901-60 average.  … [I]n 1270 and 1304 the early burgundy grapes were ripe at about the same time as in 1540, whereas in 1331 the ripening of the first cherries in Western France and the beginning of the wine harvest in Paris coincided roughly with the corresponding phenophases in 1420.”

“In 1420 the first ‘new wine’ from these grapes was drunk at the beginning of August, in 1540 on August 15, about twenty days before the wine harvest was opened. If this delay was the same in ordinary years, the mean grape harvest date would be around September 1st in the High Middle Ages, which is a few days earlier than in the warmest summers documented with thermometric measurement. From a regression approach comparing the decennial means of wine harvest dates and temperatures from 1370 to 1850 it has been estimated that an opening of the harvest on September 1st corresponds to a mean temperature from April to September that is 1.7 (+ -0.2) degrees above the average for 1901-60.”

In the four years 1774, 1777, 1779, 1781, the only ones documented by thermometrical measurement, temperatures in August and September were 2.0 degrees above the 1901-60 average. From 1269 to 1339 positive anomalies [like these] occurred more than once every decade on average; this suggests that they were part of the “normal” climatic pattern; after 1340 their frequency drops to a level of 5%, after 1400 they became very rare. Not a single occurrence is measured for the seventeenth century. Since 1781 they have not been recorded any more. Undoubtedly the early fourteenth century marks a climatic watershed. The frequent occurrence of high maximum densities before 1330 can be interpreted in the context of a warm climate to which an advance in the beginning of the grape harvest is connected. It may be hypothesized that summers which were outstanding according to the standards of later periods, such as those of 1420, 1473 or 1540 were within the normal range of fluctuations during the High Middle Ages.”

Grape Harvest Dating Only Mildly Different Now Than During The 1600s – 1800s

Chuine et al., 2004

“Figure 1 [below] shows two early warm decadal fluctuations: one in the 1380s (0.72 °C) and one in the 1420s (0.57 °C), both above the 95th percentile. The warm period of the 1420s was followed by a cold period that lasted from the mid-1430s to the end of the 1450s (0.45 °C, under the 10th percentile). Our series also reveals particularly warm events, above the 90th percentile, in the 1520s and between the 1630s and the 1680s. These decades were as warm as the end of the twentieth century. The high-temperature event of 1680 was followed by a cooling, which culminated in the 1750s (under the 5th percentile) — the start of a long cool period that lasted until the 1970s.”

Menzel, 2005

Guillet et al., 2017

20th/21st Century Grape Harvest Dates Have Not Undergone Significant Change

Moreno et al., 2016 

This paper reports a climatic reconstruction approach for the Minho region (NW of Portugal) using grape harvest dates (GHD) as proxy of surface air temperature. … The major external forcing of the climate system derives from the Sun. A solar signature has been found in global mean surface temperatures, with evidence directly related to two noticeably different features of the Sun’s dynamics: its short-term irradiance fluctuations and secular patterns of 22-year and 11-year cycles (Scafetta and West, 2008). … [I]t is recognized that solar forcing manifestations denote a strong spatial and seasonal variability (Usoskin et al., 2006), and this would be the reason why it might be illusive to seek a single global relationship between climate and solar activity (de Jager, 2005). Thus, Le Mouël et al. (2009) stated that a regional approach may allow one to identify specific forms of solar forcing, where and when the solar input is most important. … [S]olar footprints on terrestrial temperatures [are] due to the strong non-linear hydrodynamic interactions across the Earth’s surface, and the accepted longer-term solar activity influence creating temperature oscillations for tens or even hundreds of years (Scafetta and West, 2003, 2007, 2008). … These spectral analysis results appear to support a solar forcing with regards to Minho GHD [grape harvest dates].”


Etien et al., 2008


Leading Renewable Energy Expert Says Germany Sacrificing Nature For “Green” Energies

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt was interviewed by Switzerland-based Basler Zeitung concerning Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ (transition to renewable energies), and energy issues in Switzerland, on February 18, 2017.

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt. Image credit: GWPF

Vahrenholt was once the head of RWE’s renewable energy arm, Innogy, and responsible for the installation of offshore wind parks. However, after years of poor performance, discovering that the climate science was unclean, and learning of the harm wind parks pose to the environment, Vahrenholt has since been calling for a fundamental energy policy course correction in Germany.

Vahrenholt has called the German Energiewende “a disaster” so far, foremost because the supply of wind and sun is far too unstable and that everyone knows by now that it cannot work.

He also thinks Germany is making a huge mistake in the decision to phase out nuclear power, and calls Switzerland’s decision to keep nuclear power online “wise”.

The German professor also reminds that adding more capacity will not solve any of the supply problems: “No, even if we triple wind energy capacity, power generation will remain near zero when the wind stops blowing. The situation is similar for solar energy, especially at night. Solar energy only works full time 8% of the year.”

No viable storage technology

Tripling capacity would also result in chaos on windy and sunny days, Vahrenholt explains. On such days, with a tripled capacity, so much power would surge into the power grid that the surplus power would have to be given away, or “sold at negative prices”:

When too much power is fed in, grid operators order wind parks to shut down — yet they continue to be paid even when they do not produce. That is now costing one billion euros a year, and that is indeed absurd!”

Vahrenholt reiterates that sun and wind will not function until a solution is found for the storage problem. Currently no large-scale solution is anywhere near in sight. Dumping surplus power into the power grids of neighboring countries only wreaks havoc in those countries. Already countries are installing so-called phase shifters to keep surplus energy from the German grid from spilling uncontrollably into neighboring power networks, Vahrenholt explains.

Also a topic of the interview was the rising price of electricity for end consumers, which has seen German power become at near 30 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour among the world’s most expensive.

Vahrenholt says that policymakers made great errors in implementing wind and solar power, stating that storage technology should have been first developed. “We shouldn’t put the cart before the horse.”

For the time being, many energy-intensive industries in Germany have been exempted from having to pay the feed-in tariffs that are passed on to consumers. This leaves the regular private consumers to pick up the tab. But there is the risk that industry will soon be called on to pay their fair share. Vahrenholt adds:

One does not invest in a country when he/she is not sure how energy prices will develop. In addition to the price, supply stability also plays an important role. It decreases with every new wind turbine.”

“Enormous” impact on wildlife

Vahrenholt also points out the wind turbines are a real hazard to endangered wildlife: “The impacts on the biosphere of plants and animals are enormous.”

And why aren’t environmentalists and Green Party politicians being more vocal against wind turbines? Here Vahrenholt says that years ago they made the Energiewende the centerpiece of their platform. “In reality in Germany they were never an environmental party, but rather an anti-capitalist party that dedicated itself to protesting nuclear power and industry.”

Green energy for the urban elite

Yet, Vahrenholt sees “an enormous citizens’ protest potential” that reminds him of the anti-nuclear power industry from decades ago. He summarizes:

The dream of the urban elite of a supposedly clean energy supply is being realized on the backs of the rural population, who are losing their homeland.”

All in all Vahrenholt says green energies have been a real bonanza for rich property owners, and a real financial burden on the poor. He believes that the current development cannot be sustained and that it will need to be corrected: “At the latest when the first power grid failure occurs.” and that, “The longer it takes, the greater the difficulties will be.”

The full interview in German is at the Basler Zeitung.


BASF Executive Calls German Energiewende A “Huge Botch”…Government “Deceiving The Public”

Former Supervisory Board Chairman of German chemicals giant BASF Jürgen Hambrecht has “sharply criticized” the German government for “deceiving the public and giving them the runaround” when it comes to the Energiewende, reports the online N24/Die Welt here.

Former BASF top executive Jürgen Hambrecht says the German government has been deceiving the public when it comes to the real performance by the Energiewende. Photo credit:, CC-BY 4.0

Hambrecht, considered one of Germany’s most influential executives, gave an interview to N24/Die Welt together with FDP politician Volker Wissing.

German government putting out fake information

The German daily wrote in the photo caption that Hambrecht “is furious about government political information being totally disconnected from reality“.

He describes the German political environment as one that has been hijacked by emotional thinking and fear, with facts being left on the wayside.

The 70-year old executive, who recently joined the FDP Free Democrat Party, told N24/Die Welt that German competitiveness “is acutely at risk” — and what is especially irritating is the massive taxpayer-paid disinformation recently put out by the the Ministry of Economics in a brochure claiming page after page that the country’s Energiewende [transition to renewable energies] was a “success story”.

Energiewende in reality a “huge botch”

Yesterday this blog wrote here how in just one year more than 330,000 German households had their power supply cut-off because electricity had become too expensive, and how German energy-intensive companies — like chemicals — were hurting.

On the brochure put out by Ministry of Economics, Hambrecht commented to N24/Die Welt:

‘Our success story’ is its title. Then there many pages of praise over falling electricity prices and stable supply.”

Hambrecht says the brochure in fact “has little to do with reality” and that the truth is:

The Energiewende is a huge botch. The costs continue to rise and the supply stability will be at extreme risk if we phase out coal and gas after ending nuclear. That annoys me a immensely as the citizens are being deceived and given the runaround.”


Germany’s “Silent Catastrophe” …330,000 Households See Power Turned Off In One Year!

The DPA German press agency reported yesterday on the rapidly spreading energy poverty now engulfing the country.

The main driver is Germany’s skyrocketing electricity prices – primarily due to the legally mandatory feeding-in of wind and solar power. Currently regular household consumers are paying nearly 30 cents a kilowatt-hour – almost three times the rate paid in the USA.

Germany’s energy poverty. Over 330,000 German households saw their electric power service cut off in 2015. Photo cropped here.  

Back to the 19th century

Many households are no longer able to afford electricity and are seeing themselves catapulted back to the 19th century. According to here, “More than 330,000 households in Germany have seen their electricity cut off over the past year alone.”

The German site writes that those hit the hardest are households on welfare, i.e. society’s poorest and most vulnerable.

German politician Eva Bulling-Schröter of the Left Party has called it “a silent catastrophe“.

Not only have the poor been broadsided by the high electricity prices, but so have energy intensive industries. This all makes many average workers uneasy. Over the past years a number of German plants have been moving their operations to less expensive locations abroad, especially in the chemical industry. Traditional power companies have also been getting creamed, seeing billions of losses and thousands of layoffs.

6.2 million threats to cut off service were made!

T-online cites the German Bundesnetzagentur, adding that in 2015 also 44,000 households saw their natural gas turned off. T-online adds that millions more have been threatened with the loss of electric power: “Power cut-offs were threatened 6.2 million times. The average outstanding amount that electricity providers demanded from the impacted households was 119 euros.”

According to Bulling-Schröter: “Energy poverty in Germany is a silent catastrophe for millions of people, especially in the cold and dark winter months.” calls letting hundreds of thousands of “children, the elderly, and the sick” go without power while the country posts record electricity exports an “injustice” and that the German government “does not want to see the energy poverty” that is rampant throughout the country.


New Paper Indicates There Is More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years

Solar Forcing Of Modern, Historic Arctic Sea Ice

Only Slightly Less Sea Ice Now Than Little Ice Age

In a new paper (Stein et al., 2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity.

In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice.

The Medieval Warm Period sea ice record (~900 to 1200 AD) had the lowest coverage since the Roman era ~2,000 years ago.

Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice.

Stein et al., 2017

The causes that are controlling the decrease in sea ice are still under discussion. In several studies changes in extent, thickness and drift of Arctic sea ice are related to changes in the overall atmospheric circulation patterns as reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). The NAO and AO are influencing changes of the relative position and strength of the two major surface-current systems of the Arctic Ocean.

The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon, coinciding with major glacier advances on Franz Josef Land, Spitsbergen and Scandinavia.  The increase in sea ice may have resulted from the continuing cooling trend due to decreased solar insolation and reduced heat flow from the Pacific.

The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon as PIP25-based sea ice records from the Fram Strait, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea  display a generally quite similar evolution, all coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.

The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice and surface-water productivity are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation, whereas short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution middle Holocene record was possibly triggered by solar forcing.

Robust substantiation for the trends documented in this new Arctic sea ice record comes from a 2005 paper by Lassen and Thejll entitled “Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea- Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000.”   Shown below is an annotated graph from the paper revealing Iceland’s sea ice cover during the last millennium.  These scientists also link sea ice variations to solar activity, namely solar cycle length.  Notice the direct correspondence between the Arctic trends as a whole (from Stein et al., 2017) and the trends for Iceland.

Lessen and Thejll, 2005

[W]e find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea  may be related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch [sea ice] index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.

The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.

Real President Puts Focus On Real Issues: No Mention Of Climate Change In Hour-Long Speech

Plenty of superlatives have been used to describe President Donald Trump’s speech to the nation on Februrary 28.

Fox News called it “one for the ages” as the newly elected President spoke on a wide range of pressing issues and daunting problems the nation faces, like immigration, drugs, crime, runaway debt, urban decay, economic stagnation, over-regulation, education, terrorism…to name a few.

Not among the pressing issues was “climate change”. Not once did the President bring up the issue, which some on the opposition side have long been calling “the greatest threat to civilization“.

What can we gather from this as the President undertakes to work hard to mobilize and find the scrace resources needed to fix the out of control messes Washington has created over the past couple of decades? Expect the President to (finally) take the chainsaw to government programs promoting the climate hoax.

First place to start is to cut off the money pipeline to the non-problems and to divert it over to the matters that are really pressing, i.e. real problems mentioned above. The President thinks very little of climate change being a problem, and so did not mention it once. Rather, he mentioned coal and growth.

The climate scare and hoax are about to lose their last legs.


2 Recent Papers Further Confirm That Natural Cycles Are Indisputable, Powerful Climate Drivers

Two recent papers dispelling claims often made by global warming alarmists have been presented by the Die kalte Sonne site. here.

No. 1

Insidious preindustrial warm phase: 4000 years ago glaciers in Norway had  almost completely melted away

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

The University of Bergen in Norway reported 14 February 2017 on the climate in Norway 4000 years ago, when in the summertime it was on average two to three degrees warmer than today. Most glaciers in the country at the time had almost completely melted away and gone. Instead of examining these what for many are unexpected warm phases, the team of authors in the press release chose to focus the public’s attention on concern and fear for the future.

And this time – for sure – the glaciers are never coming back again, even though they did so after the last warm phase. Instead the scientists worry about the hydropower business. No glacier, no hydro-power. What follows is the press release:

Norwegian ice cap ‘exceptionally sensitive’ to climate change

How will future climate change affect our glaciers? By looking into the past 4000 years, a new study lead by Henning Åkesson at the Bjerknes Centre finds an ice cap in southern Norway to be ‘exceptionally sensitive’ to climate change.

Blåisen - del av Hardangerjøkulen. foto: Atle Nesje

Hardangerjøkulen is over 300 m thick, but has a flat topography an is vulnerable for rising temperatures. Photo: Atle Nesje, 2015

The team of researchers from the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, the Netherlands and the US took a glance into the past to understand how the ice cap Hardangerjøkulen in southern Norway responds to climate change. The authors simulated the history of the ice cap over the last 4000 years, from a period called the mid-Holocene, when summer temperature at high northern latitudes were two to three degrees warmer than today. Most if not all glaciers in Norway melted away during this period, Hardangerjøkulen included.

Henning Åkesson, a PhD candidate at the Bjerknes Centre and University of Bergen, used a glacier computer model developed at NASA-Jet Propulsion Laboratory and University of California, Irvine to simulate Hardangerjøkulen’s history. To inform model simulations, he used information on past climates and glacier variations from lake sediments receiving meltwater from the ice cap.

Contest between snow and snowmelt

“Present day Hardangerjøkulen is in a very vulnerable state, and our study of its history over the last several thousand years shows that the ice cap may change drastically in response to relatively minor changes in climate conditions”, says Åkesson. Every year, snow covers a glacier in winter, and melts away to a varying extent the following summer. At a certain altitude on the glacier, the competition between snow accumulation and snowmelt is balanced; glaciologists call this the Equilibrium Line Altitude (ELA). “What is special with Hardangerjøkulen and other similar ice caps”, Åkesson explains, “is their flat topography. Anyone skiing up Hardangerjøkulen to celebrate Norway’s national day on May 17th can testify; first it’s steep, but once you’re higher up things get a lot easier.”

A large part of Hardangerjøkulen’s area is close to the present ELA. This means that a small change in the competition between winter snow and summer melt will affect a very large part of the ice cap. Åkesson says “the topography and present climate is such that we soon expect yearly net melt over the entire ice cap. This has already happened a few times in recent years. In the near future we expect this to occur much more often, and with this, the demise of Hardangerjøkulen will accelerate.”  “Today the ice is more than 300 m thick at places, which may sound like a lot. But the implication of our study is that if climate warming continues, this ice cap may disappear before the end of this century. I don’t think most people realize how fast glaciers can change, maybe not even us as scientists,” says Åkesson.

Hydropower from glacier meltwater

“The economic and cultural implications of disappearing glaciers in Norway are considerable for tourism, natural heritage and the hydropower industry”, Kerim Hestnes Nisancioglu at the Bjerknes Centre, co-author of the study, adds. Practically all of Norway’s electricity is generated from hydropower, of which 15 % depend on glacier meltwater. “The hydropower industry needs to plan for these changes, and we need to work together to find out how fast this transition will happen”, Nisancioglu says. What is more, “if Hardangerjøkulen melts away completely, it would not be able to grow back again given today’s climate”, Åkesson concludes. The study was published in the open-access journal The Cryosphere on January 27th. Read the full study here.

Reference: Åkesson, H., Nisancioglu, K. H., Giesen, R. H., and Morlighem, M.: Simulating the evolution of Hardangerjøkulen ice cap in southern Norway since the mid-Holocene and its sensitivity to climate change, The Cryosphere, 11, 281-302, doi:10.5194/tc-11-281-2017, 2017

No. 2

What happened on the sun 7000 years ago?

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

At the end of January 2017 a team of scientists led by Fusa Miyake described in PNAS an unexpected solar event on the sun that ended up being registered in 7000 year old tree rings. What follows is the press release from Nagoya University:

What Happened to the Sun over 7,000 Years Ago? Analysis of tree rings reveals highly abnormal solar activity in the mid-Holocene

An international team led by researchers at Nagoya University, along with US and Swiss colleagues, has identified a new type of solar event and dated it to the year 5480 BC; they did this by measuring carbon-14 levels in tree rings, which reflect the effects of cosmic radiation on the atmosphere at the time. They have also proposed causes of this event, thereby extending knowledge of how the sun behaves.

When the activity of the sun changes, it has direct effects on the earth. For example, when the sun is relatively inactive, the amount of a type of carbon called carbon-14 increases in the earth’s atmosphere. Because carbon in the air is absorbed by trees, carbon-14 levels in tree rings actually reflect solar activity and unusual solar events in the past. The team took advantage of such a phenomenon by analyzing a specimen from a bristlecone pine tree, a species that can live for thousands of years, to look back deep into the history of the sun.

“We measured the 14C levels in the pine sample at three different laboratories in Japan, the US, and Switzerland, to ensure the reliability of our results,” A. J. Timothy Jull of the University of Arizona says. “We found a change in 14C that was more abrupt than any found previously, except for cosmic ray events in AD 775 and AD 994, and our use of annual data rather than data for each decade allowed us to pinpoint exactly when this occurred.”

The team attempted to develop an explanation for the anomalous solar activity data by comparing the features of the 14C change with those of other solar events known to have occurred over the last couple of millennia. “Although this newly discovered event is more dramatic than others found to date, comparisons of the 14C data among them can help us to work out what happened to the sun at this time,” Fusa Miyake of Nagoya University says. She adds, “We think that a change in the magnetic activity of the sun along with a series of strong solar bursts, or a very weak sun, may have caused the unusual tree ring data.” Although the poor understanding of the mechanisms behind unusual solar activity has hampered efforts to definitively explain the team’s findings, they hope that additional studies, such as telescopic findings of flares given off by other sun-like stars, could lead to an accurate explanation.

The article “Large 14C excursion in 5480 BC indicates an abnormal sun in the mid-Holocene” was published in PNAS at:”

Could this solar event also have left climatic traces?

German Electricity Price Projected To Quadruple By 2020, To Over 40 Cents Per Kilowatt-Hour!

Once ballyhooed as a cheap source of energy (“The sun doesn’t send an electric bill”), Germany’s attempted transition to wind and solar energy is rapidly heading towards a full-blown central planning folly of historic dimensions.

The German electricity consumer advocacy group NAEB projects that Germany’s electric power rates will continue to soar, possibly reaching an industry back-breaking 45 euro cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020, and even higher over the years that follow.

NAEB power price projections for 2020. Note that the horizontal scale changes at the year 2010 in order to condense the chart. The upper curve shows German electricity prices in euro-cents per kilowatt-hour, the middle curve shows the price for France and the lower curve for the USA. Source: NAEB.

Currently German power costs about 30 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour, and so are among the highest worldwide. The price is projected to soar another 50% rise to 45 cents by 2020. That would make German power 4 times more expensive than US power, and more than double that of France. This poses a real threat to German economic competitiveness.

Although the growth in German electricity prices have slowed some since 2015, the gap between German prices and other competing countries is as gaping as ever, with no relief in sight. In fact USA’s prices could even soon begin to ease off.

The NAEB writes:

For the Germany curve, one clearly sees the effects of market liberalization starting in the mid 1990s. Since 2000 the Energiewende mercilessly went into action! In 2015 we updated the estimates.”

The trend bodes ill for Germany’s energy-intensive sectors such as chemicals, glass and cement. The growing chasm compared to prices in USA and France risks a severe erosion of Germany’s domestic industry and long-term economic growth.


House Cleaning Wanted! Easy-To-Sign “Investigate NOAA” Petition

Sign the Petition: Investigate NOAA impartially – No Warmist Whitewash!

By Climate Depot

February 27, 2017 1:21 PM

Petition: Investigate NOAA impartially
No Whitewash!


Did government researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tamper with temperature data to boost the global warming campaign?

Dr. John Bates, a climate scientist and former official with NOAA, says they did.

This needs to be fully investigated, but we must not allow climate campaigners to turn this investigation into an exercise in whitewashing.

CFACT is petitioning President Trump to ensure the people investigating NOAA are genuine, impartial outsiders.

Please sign this important petition today and forward it to as many friends as possible.

The climate campaign will use its influence to whitewash improper practices at NOAA, but only if we let them.

Sign the petition and tell the President to find out what’s really been going on at NOAA.
For nature and people too,


Craig Rucker
Executive Director &

20 New Papers Affirm Modern Climate Is In Phase With Natural Variability

Natural Variability Dominates Climate 

Last week, the newly published Gagné et al. (2017) paper received some attention  because the authors pointed out that Arctic sea ice grew substantially between 1950 and 1975, consistent with the in-phase cooling trend during that period.

Gagné et al., 2017     Updated observational datasets without climatological infilling show that there was an increase in sea ice concentration in the Eastern Arctic between 1950 and 1975, contrary to earlier climatology in-filled observational datasets that show weak inter-annual variations during that time period.”

The AARI [Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute] and Walsh & Chapman sea ice data sets used in the paper (see graph above) included exclusively observational evidence  — “climatological infilling were not included … we only used observed data”.   Both observational data sets indicated that Arctic sea ice concentration anomalies were as low or lower in the early 1950s than they have been during recent decades.

During the early 1950s, CO2 concentrations hovered between 310 and 315 ppm.  Today, atmospheric CO2 has reached 400 ppm.  And yet early 1950s sea ice extent was similar to or lower than today.   This would imply that the Arctic sea ice recession observed in recent decades is well within the range of natural variability, or within the range of what has occurred without human interference or high rates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

In the recently published scientific literature, distinguishing between a presumably human-caused influence on climatic trends and natural or internal variability (or “noise”) has not only become more and more difficult, scientists are increasingly pointing out that an anthropogenic signal in climate trends “has yet to be detected above the level of natural climate variability.”

In addition to the more than 20 new scientific papers affirming a robust connection between solar forcing and climate already published in 2017, there are another new 20 scientific papers that indicate natural variability and/or natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations (ENSO, NAO, PDO) dominate as modulators of precipitation, temperature/climate, and sea level/flooding.

Natural Variability, Ocean Cycles Dominate And Modulate Precipitation Patterns

1.  Lachniet et al., 2017     [M]onsoon dynamics appear to be linked to low-frequency variability in the ENSO and NAO, suggesting that ocean-atmosphere processes in the tropical oceans drive rainfall in Mesoamerica. … Climate model output suggests decreasing rainfall as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas radiative forcing (Rauscher et al., 2008; Saenz-Romero et al., 2010). Our data show, however, that the response of the monsoon will be strongly modulated by the changes in ENSO and the NAO mean states … Our data also show that the magnitude of Mesoamerican monsoon variability over the modern era when the anthropogenic radiative forcing has dominated over solar and volcanic forcings (Schmidt et al., 2012) is within the natural bounds of rainfall variations over the past 2250 years. This observation suggests that if anthropogenic forcing has impacted the Mesoamerican monsoon, the signal has yet to be detected above the level of natural climate variability, and the monsoon response to direct radiative forcing and indirect ocean-atmosphere forcings may yet to be fully realized.”

2.  Conroy et al., 2017     “20th century precipitation variability in southern Tibet falls within the range of natural variability in the last 4100 yr, and does not show a clear trend of increasing precipitation as projected by models. Instead, it appears that poorly understood multidecadal to centennial internal modes of monsoon variability remained influential throughout the last 4100 yr. … Until we have a predictive understanding of multidecade to multi-century variability in the Asian monsoon system, it would be wise to consider the risk of prolonged periods of anomalously dry and wet monsoon conditions to be substantial (Ault et al., 2014). Such variability may also explain why the predicted anthropogenic increase in Asian monsoon precipitation is not widely observed.”

3.  Bianchette et al., 2017     “Seven periods of increased water level, varying in duration, occurred during the backbarrier period, with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) likely the main climatic mechanism causing these periodic shifts in the paleo-precipitation levels. We suggest that the deepest water levels detected over the last ~3200 years correlate with periods of increased ENSO activity.”

4.  Clarke et al., 2017     “Corresponding ~4-8 year periodicities identified from Wavelet analysis of particle size data from Pescadero Marsh in Central Coast California and rainfall data from San Francisco reflect established ENSO periodicity, as further evidenced in the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), and thus confirms an important ENSO control on both precipitation and barrier regime variability.”

5. Valdés-Pineda et al., 2017     “This study analyzes these low-frequency patterns of precipitation in Chile (>30 years), and their relationship to global Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs), with special focus on associations with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) indices. … We conclude that a significant multi-decadal precipitation cycle between 40 and 60 years is evident at the rain gauges located in the subtropical and extratropical regions of Chile. This low-frequency variability seems to be largely linked to PDO and AMO modulation.”

6.  Shi et al., 2017     “Five of the six coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models of the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project Phase III (PMIP3), can reproduce the south-north dipole mode of precipitation in eastern China, and its likely link with ENSO. However, there is mismatch in terms of their time development. This is consistent with an important role of the internal variability in the precipitation field changes over the past 500 years.”

Natural Variability, Ocean Cycles Dominate And Modulate Temperature, Climate

7.  He et al., 2017     “As pointed out by Cohen et al. (2014), continental winter SAT [surface temperature] trends since 1990 exhibit cooling over the midlatitudes. The negative trends extend from Europe eastward to East Asia, with a center of maximum magnitude to the west of the Baikal.  As reviewed above, the AO/NAO [Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation] shows an in-phase relationship with the SAT [surface temperatures] over Eurasia. … [T]he negative trend in the AO/NAO might explain the recent Eurasian winter cooling. … Additionally, the relationship between the winter AO and surface-climate anomalies in the following spring might be modulated by the 11-year solar cycle (Chen and Zhou, 2012). The spring temperature anomalies in northern China related to the previous winter AO were larger and more robust after high solar cycle winters. However, spring temperature anomalies became very small and insignificant after the low solar cycle winters. … Numerous atmospheric scientists have documented that the AO could impact significantly the climate over Europe and Far East. …  It is evident that a positive winter AO causes warmer winters over East Asia through enhancing Polar westerly jet which prevents cold Arctic air from invading low latitudes

8.  Muñoz et al., 2017     Temperature and humidity display rapid and significant changes over the Holocene. The rapid transition from a cold (mean annual temperature (MAT) 3.5°C lower than today) and wet Younger Dryas to a warm and dry early Holocene is dated at 11,410 cal yr BP. During the Holocene, MAT [mean annual temperature] varied from ca. 2.5°C below to 3.5°C above present-day temperature. Warm periods (11,410, 10,700, 9700, 6900, 4000, 2400 cal yr BP) were separated by colder intervals. The last 2.4 kyr of the record is affected by human impact [on the pollen proxy record]. The Holocene remained dry until 7500 cal yr BP. Then, precipitations increased to reach a maximum between 5000 and 4500 cal yr BP. A rapid decrease occurred until 3500 cal yr BP and the late Holocene was dry. … The highest rainfall intervals correlate with the highest activity of ENSO. Variability in solar output is possibly the main cause for this millennial to decadal cyclicity. We interpret ENSO [El Niño-Southern Oscillation] and ITCZ [Intertropical Convergence Zone] as the main climate change-driving mechanisms in Frontino.  … From ca. 8000 cal yr BP, climate in both areas was under the dual influence of ENSO and ITCZ, thereby showing existing teleconnections between the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans.”

9.  Park et al., 2017     “According to our results, the central Mexican climate has been predominantly controlled by the combined influence of the 20-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the 70-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). However, the AMO probably lost much of its influence in central Mexico in the early 20th century and the PDO has mostly driven climate change since.”

10. Fan and Yang, 2017     The wintertime Arctic temperature decreased from 1979 to 1997 and increased rapidly from 1998 to 2012, in contrast to the global mean surface air temperature [which] increased between 1979 and 1997, followed by a hiatus … A recent study suggests a possible role of the Pacific Ocean decadal oscillation in regulating wintertime climate in the Arctic (Screen and Francis 2016). … The ‘‘greenhouse effect’’ of water vapor and clouds  may amplify the effect of winds on Arctic winter climate. [CO2 not mentioned as contributing to the GHE] … The objectives of this study are to assess how much natural–internal variability has contributed to climate changes in these [Arctic] regions from 1979 to 2012 … In summary, the correlation analyses presented in this paper shows a natural mode of Arctic winter variability resulting from the Nordic–Siberian seesaw of meridional winds […] is associated with two-thirds of the interannual variance of winter-mean Arctic temperature between 1979 and 2012, and possibly contributed a substantial fraction of the observed Arctic amplification [1998-2012 warming] in this period.”

11.  Reynolds et al., 2017     “Evidence derived from instrumental observations suggest that Atlantic variability, associated with changes in SSTs and fluctuations in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), is directly linked with broader scale climate variability, including Brazilian and Sahel precipitation (Folland et al., 1986 and Folland et al., 2001), Atlantic hurricanes and storm tracks (Goldenberg et al., 2001 and Emanuel, 2005), and North American and European temperatures (Sutton and Hodson, 2005, Knight et al., 2006 and Mann et al., 2009). Furthermore, evidence derived from palaeoceanographic records suggests that a reduction in the meridional heat transport through the surface components of the AMOC was in part responsible for the reductions in temperatures associated with the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA; 1000–1450) to Little Ice Age (LIA; 1450–1850) transition (Lund et al., 2006, Trouet et al., 2009, Trouet et al., 2012, Wanamaker et al., 2012 and Moffa-Sánchez et al., 2014).”

12.  Hao and He, 2017     “Using long-term observational data and numerical model experiments, this study found that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) affects the influence of ENSO-like sea surface temperature anomalies (SSTAs, which contain variability of both El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation) on the interannual change in the East Asian winter monsoon (EAWM). In the observations, the out-of-phase relationship between the ENSO-like and EAWM was significantly intensified when the AMO and ENSO-like were in-phase. Warmer-than-normal winters occurred across East Asia when the ENSO-like and AMO were positively in-phase, with a significantly weakened Siberian High and anomalous anticyclones over the western North Pacific. The opposite patterns occurred under negatively in-phase conditions.”

13.  Reischelmann et al., 2017     “We document that long-term patterns in temperature and precipitation are recorded in dripwater patterns of Bunker Cave and that these are linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).”

14.  Zaitchik, 2017     The Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) is the dominant mode of sub-seasonal climate variability in the global tropics. As such it represents an opportunity for intra-seasonal rainfall prediction and, perhaps, for explaining dynamics that underlie longer term variability and trends. … A number of studies have identified statistical links between MJO [Madden-Julian Oscillation] and sub-seasonal rainfall variability in West, East, and Southern Africa. … On longer time scales, there is evidence that MJO activity both modulates and is modulated by the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Indian Ocean Dipole. The implications of these interactions for MJO connections to Africa require further research, as does the potential for trends in MJO behavior and impacts on Africa under global climate change.”

15.  Wu et al., 2017     “The enhanced warming observed in the Eastern China Coastal Waters (ECCW) during the last half-century has received considerable attentions. However, the reason for this warming is still a subject of debate. Based on four different Sea Surface Temperature datasets, we found that the most significant warming occurred in boreal winter during 1982–1998, although the warming trends derived from these datasets differ in magnitude. We suggest that the rapid warming during winter is a result of the asymmetry in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation teleconnection, through which El Niño events induce significant warming over the ECCW at its peak, whereas La Niña events fail to do the opposite that would completely reverse the trends; in addition, there were more El Niño than La Niña events during the recent decades. All these contribute to the winter warming during 1982–1998.”

Natural Variability Dominates Sea Levels, Flooding … Seas Rising Only 1.7 mm/yr

16.  Parekh et al., 2017     “The rate of sea level rise over the Arabian Sea is about 0.5–3 mm/year, whereas over the Bay of Bengal, it is 0.75–6 mm/year. Major contributors to these changes in the Indian Ocean are steric effect and short-term climate variability such as El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Indian Ocean Dipole. This affirms that sea level trends over north Indian Ocean get modulated by inter-annual and decadal scale natural climate variability. The inter-annual variability is stronger than decadal variability, which in turn is stronger than the long-term sea level trend. Sea level change in the Indian Ocean is about 1.5 mm/year in the past sixty years or so, whereas the global sea level trends are a bit higher [1.7 mm/yr].”

17.  McAneney et al., 2017     “Global averaged sea-level rise is estimated at about 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 (Rhein et al. 2013), however, this global average rise ignores any local land movements. Church et al. (2006) and J. A. Church (2016; personal communication) suggest a long-term average rate of relative (ocean relative to land) sea-level rise of 1.3 mm year. …The data show no consistent trend in the frequency of flooding over the 122-year [1892-2013]  duration of observations despite persistent warming of air temperatures characterized in other studies. On the other hand, flood frequencies are strongly influenced by ENSO phases with many more floods of any height occurring in La Niña years. … In terms of flood heights, a marginal statistically significant upward trend is observed over the entire sequence of measurements. However, once the data have been adjusted for average sea-level rise of 1.3 mm year−1 over the entire length of the record, no statistically significance remains, either for the entire record, or for the shortened series based on higher quality data. The analysis of the uncorrected data shows how the choice of starting points in a time series can lead to quite different conclusions about trends in the data, even if the statistical analysis is consistent. … In short, we have been unable to detect any influence of global warming at this tropical location on either the frequency, or the height of major flooding other than that due to its influence on sea-level rise.”

Modern Climate Trends Are The Result Of Random Internal Processes, Or Noise

18.  Hu et al., 2017     “[I]t was a challenge to predict the evolution of this warm event, especially for its growth. That is consistent with the fact that the SSTAs [sea surface temperature anomalies] in extratropical oceans are largely a consequence of unpredictable atmospheric variability.  [T]he marked differences in both the spatial distribution and amplitude between Figs. 4 and 3 suggest that maybe only a fraction of the observed variability in NEPO was forced by the SSTA while a large amount of the observed variability may have been a consequence of the atmospheric internal variability (noise). That is consistent with the conclusion from some recent works in examining the climate variability in mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, such as Baxter and Nigam (2015), Hartmann (2015), Lee et al. (2015), Seager et al. (2015), Watson et al. (2016), and Jha et al. (2016). … The remarkable amplitude differences between the observations (Fig. 3) and the simulations (Fig. 4) plus the large fluctuation of the pattern correlation (Figs. 5a, 6a), are indicative of the importance of the atmospheric internal variability (noise) in driving the observed anomalies in NEPO [northeastern Pacific Ocean].  [I]t was a challenge to predict the persistent SST anomalies in the northeastern Pacific because the SST anomaly in NEPO [northeastern Pacific Ocean] is largely controlled by unpredictable stochastic [random] atmosphere variability.”
    [CO2 and/or anthropogenic forcing is not mentioned in the paper.]

19.  Reid, 2017     The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the random variation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.”

20.  Stegall and Kunkel, 2017     “These results indicate that there is potential skill in use of GCMs [climate models] to provide projections of hot and cold extremes on the 30-yr timescale. However, it is important to note that natural variability is comparable to the forced signal on this timescale and thus introduces uncertainty.”
[If natural variability is comparable to the forced signal, then attribution becomes highly debatable, uncertain, and closer to guesswork.]

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Calls Claims Weather Events Are Sign Of Climate Change “Looney Bin”

At his most recent Weekend Summary at Weatherbell Analytics, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi looks at recent North American weather events, for example the warm poles (where very few weather stations exist) and the warm North American February.

Arctic sea ice recovers

Soon after global warming alarmists hollered that the Arctic was in collapse, the conditions there have just swung to the opposite direction with Arctic temperature diving back to normal levels and sea ice expanding back to near the mean of the last decade. Once again we see that this is weather at work and does not really have anything to do with climate.

In fact, NCEP predicts sea ice levels to recover back to normal levels later this year, though Joe Bastardi remains very skeptical on that point.

NCEP forecast projects Artic sea ice recovery later this year. Image cropped from Weatherbell Weekend Summary.

Arctic temperature plunges as weather pattern changes

Also at the 7:10 mark Bastardi also points out that the Arctic temperature has cooled to the lowest level so far this winter, and that it is also expected to be cool in late summer. What’s behind it? It’s the fickle nature of weather.

Low Arctic sea ice extents are in fact nothing new. Before the satellite era, Arctic sea ice was also at very low levels, observed back in the 1950s…something alarmists avoid bringing up.

While the poles in total are below the mean with respect to sea ice, Greenland snow and ice mass is “way way above normal”, Bastardi says, citing official data:

Image from Weatherbell Weekend Summary.

At the 11:30 mark, Bastardi slams all the bogus predictions of “permanent droughts” made by alarmists and media. These droughts have all since disappeared due to heavy rains which were never supposed to happen again.  Joe explains that the weather system is self-correcting and comments on those who are now trying to blame the mysterious drought-ending rains on climate change:

And then when that happens, they say, well, it rained so hard that it’s climate change. It’s…it’s just looney bin”.

Recently elements of the fake news media have been trying to pin the blame for the warm North American February on climate change. For example German alarmist and climate activist site Klimaretter here writes concerning the warm February on the US east coast: “The anomaly is one of the many signs of a galloping climate change.”

Of course (showing just how hopelessly confused the writers at Klimaretter are when it comes to distinguishing between weather and climate) they ignore that the same region will be turning wintry again in March — just when spring is supposed to be arriving instead:

Cold forecast to delay spring. Image cropped from Weatherbell Weekend Summary.

More signs of a harsh hurricane season

Later Bastardi also mentions that ocean surface temperature patterns are shaping up to lend to a harsh hurricane season, thus supporting the forecast made last month here by David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations.


Blockbuster Paper Finds Just 15% Of CO2 Growth Since Industrialization Is Due To Human Emissions


CO2 Has Risen By 110 ppm Since 1750

 The Human Contribution Is Just 17 ppm 

Harde, 2017


Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the COincrease over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.


Climate scientists assume that a disturbed carbon cycle, which has come out of balance by the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change, is responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years. While over the whole Holocene up to the entrance of the Industrial Era (1750) natural emissions by heterotrophic processes and fire were supposed to be in equilibrium with the uptake by photosynthesis and the net oceanatmosphere gas exchange, with the onset of the Industrial Era the IPCC estimates that about 15 – 40 % of the additional emissions cannot further be absorbed by the natural sinks and are accumulating in the atmosphere.

The IPCC further argues that CO2 emitted until 2100 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1000 years, and in the same context it is even mentioned that the removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence) (see AR5-Chap.6-Executive-Summary).

Since the rising CO2 concentrations go along with an increasing greenhouse effect and, thus, a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is a necessary prerequisite for all future climate change predictions. In their accounting schemes and models of the carbon cycle the IPCC uses many new and detailed data which are primarily focussing on fossil fuel emission, cement fabrication or net land use change (see AR5-WG1-Chap.6.3.2), but it largely neglects any changes of the natural emissions, which contribute to more than 95 % to the total emissions and by far cannot be assumed to be constant over longer periods (see, e.g.: variations over the last 800,000 years (Jouzel et al., 2007); the last glacial termination (Monnin et al., 2001); or the younger Holocene (Monnin et al., 2004; Wagner et al., 2004)).

Since our own estimates of the average CO2 residence time in the atmosphere differ by several orders of magnitude from the announced IPCC values, and on the other hand actual investigations of Humlum et al. (2013) or Salby (2013, 2016) show a strong relation between the natural CO2 emission rate and the surface temperature, this was motivation enough to scrutinize the IPCC accounting scheme in more detail and to contrast this to our own calculations.

Different to the IPCC we start with a rate equation for the emission and absorption processes, where the uptake is not assumed to be saturated but scales proportional with the actual CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see also Essenhigh, 2009; Salby, 2016). This is justified by the observation of an exponential decay of 14C. A fractional saturation, as assumed by the IPCC, can directly be expressed by a larger residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and makes a distinction between a turnover time and adjustment time needless. Based on this approach and as solution of the rate equation we derive a concentration at steady state, which is only determined by the product of the total emission rate and the residence time. Under present conditions the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012). For the average residence time we only find 4 years.

The stronger increase of the concentration over the Industrial Era up to present times can be explained by introducing a temperature dependent natural emission rate as well as a temperature affected residence time. With this approach not only the exponential increase with the onset of the Industrial Era but also the concentrations at glacial and cooler interglacial times can well be reproduced in full agreement with all observations. So, different to the IPCC’s interpretation the steep increase of the concentration since 1850 finds its natural explanation in the self accelerating processes on the one hand by stronger degassing of the oceans as well as a faster plant growth and decomposition, on the other hand by an increasing residence time at reduced solubility of CO2 in oceans.

Together this results in a dominating temperature controlled natural gain, which contributes about 85 % to the 110 ppm CO2 increase over the Industrial Erawhereas the actual anthropogenic emissions of 4.3 % only donate 15 %. These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the Industrial Era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission.

The results are consistent with the observed lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes (Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a signature of cause and effect. Our analysis of the carbon cycle, which exclusively uses data for the CO2 concentrations and fluxes as published in AR5, shows that also a completely different interpretation of these data is possible, this in complete conformity with all observations and natural causalities.


German Electric Power Giant Loses Staggering 5.7 Billion Euros in 2016 As Renewables Wreak Havoc!

Germany’s second largest power producer, RWE, reported staggering losses of 5.7 billion euros over the fiscal 2016 year, after the company had posted a net loss of near 200 million euros for 2015.

RWE profits up in smoke as renewables crush wholesale prices. Image: RWE.

The latest results continue the growing string of woes occurring since 2013 when RWE posted a net loss of 2.76 billion euros – its first full-year loss since the power giant was founded in 1949.

Marketwatch here also reported that the Essen, Germany-based power company recommends scrapping the pay out of any dividends to shareholders. The scrapping of dividend payments would especially be a blow to stock owners such as municipal shareholders because they often depend on them each year to fund public facilities like schools and hospitals.

RWE scrapped dividend payments in 2015 as well.

The company booked impairment charges of 4.3 billion euros for electricity generation in 2016 “amid weak wholesale power prices“, Marketwatch reported.

Earnings were curtailed significantly through impairments of €4.3 billion. CEO of RWE AG Dr. Rolf Martin Schmitz: “The difficult market environment made impairments necessary. In addition, the nuclear energy fund imposed a substantial one-off burden on us.”

German wholesale power prices have massively eroded over the past years as a flood of highly subsidized wind and solar power has been given the right away into the power grid over fossil fuels. At times so much power is fed into the grid, especially on sunny and windy days, that the wholesale price even dips into negative territory, meaning power producers such as RWE have to pay to unload the surplus power.

Meanwhile many conventional plants must be always kept on standby for the many times wind and solar do not produce. The sub-capacity operation of the conventional power plants make them inefficient and non-profitable. On the consumer side, electricity prices have reached record levels at near 30 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour.

EU Sees Almost No Fossil Fuel Consumption Progress Despite Hundreds Of Billions Of Euros Invested!

The statistics arm of the European Union, Eurostat, has released recent figures on energy consumption. They are a huge disappointment and show that the community has only succeeded at wasting hundreds of billions of euros, while having no impact on the climate.

EU energy consumption fell only a measly 2.5% from 1990 to 2015, eurostat reports.

Also the share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption in the EU remains stubbornly high:

Despite committing an estimated 1 trillion euros in green energies, Europe remains intensively high with respect to fossil fuel consumption. Source: eurostat

For the money, Europe will contribute theoretically only a very few tenths of degree less warming to the global climate by the year 2100.
Though energy consumption in the EU is below its 1990 level, EU dependency on fossil fuel imports is on the rise:

Source: eurostat.

In 2015, gross inland energy consumption, which reflects the energy quantities necessary to satisfy all inland consumption, amounted in the European Union (EU) to 1,626 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe), below its 1990 level (-2.5%) and down by 11.6% compared to its peak of almost 1,840 Mtoe in 2006.

Accounting for nearly three-quarters of EU consumption of energy in 2015, fossil fuels continued to represent by far the main source of energy, although their weight has constantly decreased over the past decades, from 83% in 1990 to 73% in 2015. However, over this period, EU dependency on imports of fossils fuels has increased, with 73% imported in 2015 compared with just over half (53%) in 1990.

In other words, while in 1990 one tonne of fossil fuels was imported for each tonne produced in the EU, by 2015 three tonnes were imported for each tonne produced.

Source: eurostat.

Based on EU 2012 directives, EU renewable energy share is supposed to be at least 27% of the electric power production 2030. And according to an EU 2014 agreement, greenhouse gas emissions is supposed to be 40 percent less, a target that climate protection activists say is too little!

Though statistics showing considerable greenhouse gas reductions since 1990, the vast majority of it happened right after the shut down of the dilapidated, communist run industries in the first years after the fall of the Iron Curtain. There has been little progress since.


Observations Show No Warming Trend, Mostly Stable Glaciers In The Himalayas…Contradicting IPCC’s ‘Fake News’

IPCC Intentionally Uses Catastrophic

Non-Science To Incite Policy Action

“The most striking feature of the present reconstruction is the absence of any warming trend in the 20th century”     — Yadav et al., 1997

Bhattacharyya and Chaudhary, 2003

In 2007, IPCC Claimed The Himalayan Region Has Been Warming So Rapidly Its Glaciers Would ‘Disappear’ By 2035

IPCC (2007)

“Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”

IPCC’s Fake Glacier Melt Claim Came From Activists, Intentionally Put In To Spur Policymakers To Action

David Rose, UK Daily Mail

“The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine [phone] interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental [activist] group WWF. It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.” 

88% Of Himalayan Glaciers Are Stable Or Advancing — With Overall Negligible Change (0.2%) Since 2000

Bahuguna et al., 2014  (Himalayan Glaciers)

Two thousand and eighteen glaciers representing climatically diverse terrains in the Himalaya were mapped and monitored [between 2000-2010]. It includes glaciers of Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions. Among these, 1752 glaciers (86.8%) were observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snoutThe net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2%.”

Only 4 Gt Per Year Of ‘High Mountain Asia’ Glacier Loss For 2003-2010

Jacob et al., 2012 (‘High Mountains of Asia’)

“The GIC [global glaciers and ice caps excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets] rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period. The high mountains of Asia [Himalayan Region], in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr−1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr−1 in previously published estimates.”

[A 4 Gt mass loss per year is the sea level rise equivalent of 0.01 mm per year, or about one tenth of one centimeter per century.]

Contrary To IPCC Claims, There Has Been No Recent Himalayan Warming

Thapa et al., 2015 (Nepal Himalaya)

[T]emperature in Central Asia and northern Hemisphere revert back towards cooling trends in the late twentieth century. Thus looking at all the records we observed that our present study is following patterns of temperature variations observed in surrounding regions.”

Krusic et al., 2015  (Himalaya, Bhutan)

“At multidecadal to multicentennial timescales, summer temperatures during much of the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries were below the calibration period average, containing deep [cooling] departures that coincide with minima in solar energy output [Usoskin et al., 2002, 2003]. The warmest period occurs within the most recent decade, 2004–2013 C.E.; however, this period is not statistically unprecedented compared with earlier warm periods, e.g., in the 1650s and late fourteenth century.”

Yadav, 2009  (Western Himalaya)

The decreasing temperature trend in late 20th century is consistent with trends noted in Nepal (Cook et al. 2003), Tibet (Briffa et al. 2001) and Central Asia (Briffa et al. 2001). The cooling trend in late 20th century mean temperature has been found to be due to cooling trend noted in minimum temperature during the second half of the 20th century in semi-arid western Himalaya.”

Zafar et al., 2016 (Pakistan, Karakorum-Himalaya)

Sano et al., 2005  (Nepal)

“March–September temperature was reconstructed for the past 249 years, which shows a warming trend from 1750s until approximately 1790, followed by cooling until 1810, then by a gradual warming trend extending to 1950, and a notable cold period continuing up to the present. No evidence of a consistent warming trend over the last century or two commonly appearing in higher latitudes was found in the present reconstruction”

Li et al., 2011 (Southwest China)

Fan et al, 2009  (Hengduan Mountains, South China)

Yadav and Singh, 2002  (Western Himalaya)

The 1945–1974 period was the warmest 30-yr mean period of the 20th century. However, this warming, in the context of the past four centuries, appears well within the range of normal limits. The 30-yr mean temperature anomaly for 1662–1691 (0.19°C) exceeds in magnitude (although not significantly, p = 0.23) the 1945–1974 mean (0.05°C).”

Himalayan Region 1-2°C Warmer During Medieval Warm Period

[T]he Caucasus Mountains are technically considered to be a continuation of the Himalayas

Solomina et al., 2016 (Caucasus Mountains)

The climate was warmer and glaciers were likely receding in the beginning of the past millennium CE (the “Arkhyz break in glaciation”). … In this pass, remains of wood radiocarbon dated to 700 ± 80 BP  (1180–1420 CE) were buried in a 1.5-m-thick layer of alluvium (Kaplin et al., 1971; Kotlyakov et al., 1973). Currently, the upper tree limit is located 800–900 m below this elevation. … According to indirect estimates based on pollen analyses, the upper tree limit in the “Arkhyz” period was 200–300 m higher than today (Tushinsky, Turmanina, 1979). The remains of ancient buildings and roads were also found in the Klukhorsky pass at an elevation of 2781 a.s.l. [above sea level] (Tushinsky et al., 1966), and the glacier was still present at this elevation in the mid 20th century. … [I]n Central and East Transcaucasia, there are artificial terraces at elevations where agriculture is not currently possible and that there are remnants of forests in places where forests have not grown since the 16th century CE.”

“Turmanina (1988), based on pollen analysis, suggested that, in the Elbrus area, the climate during the “Arkhyz” time was dryer and warmer than in the late 20th century by 1–2 °C. … Solomina et al. (2014) determined the Medieval warming in the Caucasus to be approximately 1 °C warmer than the mean of the past 4500 years. According to the Karakyol palynological and geochemical reconstructions, the warm period was long and lasted for five centuries. Considering the suggestion of Turmanina (1988) that it was also less humid, the likelihood that many glaciers, especially those located at relatively low elevation, disappeared is very high.  … The maximum glacier extent in the past millennium was reached before 1598 CE.  The advance of the 17th century CE, roughly corresponding to the Maunder Minimum, is recorded at Tsey Glacier. … General glacier retreat started in the late 1840s CE and four to five minor readvances occurred in the 1860s–1880s CE.  In the 20th century CE, the continued retreat was interrupted by small readvances in the 1910s, 1920s and 1970s–1980s.”