Fools Exposed, Climate Science Humiliated …2008 Predictions For 2015 Totally Wrong!

What follows is something that should make anyone who makes dramatic predictions that ends up being totally wrong blush with embarrassment, and feel like a real fool.

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt, Die kalte Sonne
[Translated by P Gosselin]

In 2008 US broadcaster ABC News had a show on the climate danger. The most important news at the time: Already in just seven years, 2015, the climate will have gone crazy and climate catastrophes would be piling up.

All wrong, as we now know today.

This debacle aside, also today such clips continue to be produced. And when the predicted year arrives, everyone will have forgotten the crazy stories and predictions.


Milk $13 a gallon?
Gas $9 a gallon?
How much longer are we going to listen to these nuts?

Also watch the following:

And yet another spectacular fail here.

Mid-July Frost Surprises Central Europe This Morning!

After the European heat wave of last week, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme.

Currently the weather pattern dominating Central Europe is bringing unusually cold air over the continent, and early this morning regions in a number of countries were hit by ground surface frost.

Parts of Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic saw surface frost – even down to the lower elevations (Belgium is hardly a mountainous region).

German site Wetter24 twittered here a map depicting the frosty areas gripping this 10th of July, 2015. Also see map here.

Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann here writes and supplies a link showing a German video reporting conditions that the German Eifel region woke up to early this morning. At the 1:50 mark the video reports:

We saw fields that were snow-white. That on the tenth of July I have never seen before. My colleague Fabian had also never seen this before. It just looked wonderful. We just thought that indeed we are not in autumn or spring; we are actually in July. These pictures impressed us, and that we found this frost.”

Apparently the “greenhouse effect” of atmospheric CO2 was unable to trap the heat and prevent frost from forming at ground level.

Yesterday Aonach Mor and Strathallan in Scotland saw frost. So did Blackpool and Exeter in England!

Central Europe and Great Britain were not the only places at the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere that saw frosty conditions. ABC News here reports that “Tioga Pass was closed from 4 miles west of Jct 395 to the Yosemite National Park entrance gate, due to snow.”

Also the southern hemisphere has seen cold weather as well. The forecast for Australia is calling for below normal temperatures.

Woman Who Ignored CONSENSUS “Nutritional Guidelines For Good Health” Turns 116!

I can hear it already. Like the climate activists who now deny there was a global cooling scare 40 years ago, in 10 years time or so we’ll be hearing the media and all the proponents of the low-fat/high carb diet claiming that this too was never a consensus.

Remember how eating saturated fats was supposed to cause artery-clogging, dangerous cholesterol and hence had to be avoided at all times? Day after day we were indoctrinated to follow the government’s and doctors’ guidelines of eating high carb, low fat foods. The science was fully endorsed for decades by the AMA, AHA, etc.

The food industry responded by filling store shelves with Twinkie and Cocoa Puffs-quality “foods”. Today tens of millions are afflicted with horrendous ailments like diabetes, heart disease and malnutrition.

Fortunately a few people ignored the totally bogus consensus nutritional recommendations and continued consuming high fat diets that included real butter, chicken, beef, cheese, eggs, fat-dripping bacon …and more eggs, along with their vegetables. The Telegraph here writes about how one person ate bacon and eggs every day almost her entire life and has just turned 116! In her kitchen she has a sign with a what I’d call a really sensible nutritional guideline:

Bacon makes everything better!

On the other hand we could continue corroding and oxidizing our bodies with carbs, or even follow the example of tech guru Steve Jobs, who had top chefs cooking a strict vegan diet for him daily. Jobs wound up dead at only 56. His “healthy” diet may have been deemed responsible, and friendly to the environment. But it certainly was not healthy or friendly to him.

South Polar Ice Age: Stations Show “Dramatic” Antarctic Peninsula Cooling Since 1998, Sea Ice Surge

[Sticky post…new articles follow after this one.]
By Ed Caryl

This is a follow-up to the article AWI’s Sloppy Antarctic Peninsula Science…Overlooked GISS Temperature Data, Snowfall Amounts. The reality is that the situation at the South Pole is worrisome.

Ocean around Antarctica markedly colder since 2006…

It is difficult to believe that global warming/climate change is doing anything to the glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula and the Western Antarctic. Here is why: The ocean around Antarctica has been getting markedly colder since 2006; sea ice is increasing, especially since 2012; and land temperatures have been cooling since the El Niño of 1998.

0 – 100m ocean temperature plummeting:

Sea temp 60 - 70°S

Figure 1 is the upper 100 meters of ocean south of 60°S. There’s been a rapid cooling since about 2007. Negative numbers are used to select latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. The source is KNMI, link.

Sea ice skyrockets…

SH Sea Ice Extent

Figure 2 is the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area anomaly. The source is KNMI, link.

Sea Temp and Ice plot

Figure 3 is a plot of the annualized ocean temperature and Southern Hemisphere ice extent using the KNMI data from figures 1 and 2. Ocean temperature is inverted to show that the ice extent matches the cooling ocean. Note the correlation between the two curves.

Antarctic Peninsula sees dramatic cooling…

Antarctic Peninsula Stations

Figure 4 is a plot of the temperature anomalies at 13 Antarctic stations on or near the Antarctic Peninsula. The baseline is the 1998 to 2014 average for each. Antarctic peninsula has been cooling since 2000. Data source: GISTemp, link.

There is a lot a variation in the annual average temperatures for these stations, especially in the years where there were only two stations reporting, Esperanz and Faraday. For that reason, the average in figure 5 begins in 1963 when O’Higgins began reporting.

Larsen Ice Shelf

Figure 5 is the average anomaly for the stations in figure 4.

There were two peaks in temperature, one in 1989 and a second during the El Niño year of 1998 which caused a steep upward in temperature world-wide, and especially in Antarctica. But since then there has been a dramatic cooling. There is no “hiatus” on the Antarctic Peninsula, there is marked cooling.

Larsen Ice Shelf station cooling at a rate of 18°C per century

Cooling is especially true of the very location everyone is concerned about, the Larsen Ice Shelf. There is an automated weather station (AWS) there that has been reporting continuously since 1995.

Larsen Ice Shelf

Figure 6 is the annual average temperature at the Larsen Ice Shelf. The source is GISTemp.

Figure 6 shows the step in temperature in 1998 at the Larsen Ice Shelf. The trend in cooling after 1998 is 1.8°C/decade, the second fastest cooling on the Peninsula. Butler Island is cooling faster, at 1.9°C/decade. (Of course 18°C/century cooling is meant as sarcasm, and is only a trick that warmists like to use.)

Result: exploding sea ice

It is easy to see why the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The average ocean temperature from the surface to 100 meters dropped below the freezing point in 2008 and has stayed there. It is hard to melt ice when the water it is floating on is below the freezing point of fresh water, and seldom rises above that temperature.

The Southern Ocean around Antarctica has similar warming and cooling cycles as the North Atlantic, just not as strong. The cycle is now going negative, and temperatures on land and in the ocean are going sharply cooler, with ice increasing. There is no warm ocean water melting ice shelves from below. The ocean is getting colder and is below freezing most of the time. Any increase in ice calving off the glaciers must be from increased snow feeding those glaciers or geothermal heating from volcanism under the ice.

Welcome to reality.

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

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

Walter Scott

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


Black line before adjustments. Green line after adjustments.

Past adjusted downward also throughout the USA

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

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

Why all the alterations?

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


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

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

NOAA confirmed in writing that it’s altering climate data

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

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

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

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

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

Public deserves facts, not fantasy

My question to NOAA is: Why?

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

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

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


NOAA simply ignoring reality

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

Trust is lost

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

NOAA data cannot be relied on

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

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



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

By Michael Brakey

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

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

Shock! NOAA makes southern Maine colder than northern Maine!

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

Bangor 2015 sees coldest 6-month period on record!

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

Lewiston likely to break 111-year record

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

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

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

Mainers urged to dismiss NOAA on energy decisions

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

Corrupted science

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


COLOSSAL oops on NOAA’s part.

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

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


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

Two small stories today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lying okay if it is for the good

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus? Only 56% signed

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Europe temp 07 04 2015Source:

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

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

Can boost temperatures by 10°C!

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

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

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

Data supporting more heat waves weak at best

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

At its limits

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

Intervened 50,000 times in May

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

“Waste electricity” skyrocketing

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

Grid bottleneck dampens new installations

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

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

Are Glacier Earthquakes Shaking Greenland? Scientists, WaPo Seeing Only What They Want To See

By Ed Caryl

The Washington Post just published an alarmist article titled: Giant earthquakes are shaking Greenland — and scientists just figured out the disturbing reason why. The article claimed that earthquakes were caused by icebergs calving off the Helheim Glacier, and that these were increasing because of increased outflow from this glacier. Here is the glacier in question, on the East side of Greenland opposite Iceland.

Helheim Glacier

 Figure 1 is the location of Helheim Glacier. Source: Apple maps.

Here is a map of all the earthquakes that have occurred in this region since January 1st, 1980.

Greenland Earthquakes

 Figure 2 is a map of the earthquakes that have occurred in this region since 1980. Source link.

Earthquakes vs Years

Figure 3 is a date versus magnitude plot of all those earthquakes.

Only one of these 15 earthquakes is directly associated with Helheim Glacier, the last one. All the others were scattered all over the region, a few under or at the edge of the ice, most at sea or on land away from the ice.

They also occurred in two clusters, four in the early 1990s, then an eight year pause, then the rest in the eight years between 2002 and 2010. None have occurred since. There is nothing unusual to be seen here. Move along…

This is an example of scientists seeing what they wish to see. Instead of a full investigation, they just assumed that any earthquakes in the region were originating at Helheim Glacier, and because they stopped looking in 2010, they assumed that the earthquakes were continuing.

Instead of investigating a longer time period, they assumed that the period of their study was significant. None of their assumptions were true.

Greenland Temperatures Weaken Theory CO2 Drives Climate

By Ed Caryl

In my last article, we discussed the Greenland ice core temperature record. In this article we will discuss the Greenland thermometer record. All the long record thermometer readings are from villages and stations on the coast. Some of these records go back to the early 1800’s, though GISTemp only posts records going back to 1880.

Here is plot of seven stations. Annual averages were downloaded from GISTemp and converted to annual anomalies using the 1951 to 1965 average for each as the baseline, the only years all seven stations had in common.

Greenland Temperature

Figure 1 plots seven Greenland temperature records, their average (the thin black trace), and a five-year centered average of the average (wide bright blue trace).

This result agrees with other papers that were found, for example Box et al 2009. Considering that land surface station records warm an average 40% greater than the global land-ocean average, and that Northern Latitude stations warm an average 40% higher than the global land-ocean average, with Arctic stations averaging higher than that, it makes sense that this combination of surface stations in the northern latitudes will warm at twice the rate of the global average.

Box Fig 11

Figure 2 is from Box et al 2009, figure 11.

Jason Box’s paper shows that temperatures before 1880 were generally warmer than the decade after 1880, only about one to one and a half degrees colder than at present. The interesting thing is the step-change in temperature between 1920 and 1930. Greenland temperatures stepped upward by two degrees in this decade, the same step as in the 1990 to 2000 decade. But there was no rise in CO2 in those years. Both intervals are preceded by volcanic activity, as shown in Box’s figure 11. The volcanic activity is blamed for the cooling.

But there was cooling for four decades after 1930 without any major volcanoes. If the lack of volcanic activity is to be blamed for the steps upward in temperature, but temperature declined for four decades without volcanoes, what is left for CO2?

There are several logical twists and turns illustrated here. If volcanic eruptions are blamed for the cooling periods, especially in Greenland, with lack of eruptions blamed for warming, only some of the cooling dips are explained. The other cooling episodes are presumably because of ocean current/temperature cycles or the sun. This leaves only a single one decade warming period, from 1995 to 2005, that can possibly be blamed on CO2, though it still could be from those other reasons. That period is really a step at 1998 which we know was due to the El Niño of that year. This is pretty thin gruel on which to float climate calamity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the whole article and analysis here.

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

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

[Read here for more background on Schellnhuber.]

Wendt quotes the climate-alarmist Schellnhuber:

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

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

According to Wendt, the FAZ journalists anxiously asked Schellnhuber:

The skeptics were invited as well?”

Schellnhuber replied:

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

Wendt summarizes what we naturally can gather from all this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order here now.

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

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

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

IPCC’s “grossly incorrect radiative forcing values”

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

They commented in an e-mail:

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

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

NASA data are “suspicious”

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

What to expect from Paris

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis Shows Current Warming Is NOT Unprecedented …It Is Not Even “Unusual”!

UPDATE: New paper:

By Ed Caryl

The climate calamity crowd claims that the warming we experienced in the Twentieth Century is unprecedented… it has never happened before in human history. Because we didn’t have thermometers until about 300 years ago, and even then records exist from just a few locations, it is difficult to prove that this is not so.

The only reliable temperature record we have with continuous reasonable resolution data is the ice core oxygen isotope data from Greenland. I downloaded the GISP2 data and did a point-by-point difference calculation, computing the warming and cooling trend between each data point, and produced this plot.

GISP2 change rate

Figure 1 is a plot (blue) of the GISP2 temperature data and the calculated warming or cooling (red) between each point expressed as change (warming or cooling) per decade. The horizontal scale is in years before present. Because Excel places zero on the left side and counts up to the right, the present is on the left.

There have been 73 warming periods…

Temperatures in the Holocene have been quite volatile. Excel counts in this data 73 warming periods of at least 0.1 degrees per decade, and 80 cooling periods of that same amount. The time resolution of the points in the data are from about six years to about twenty years, so many of these warming and cooling periods are short. But some span a century or longer as we will see in figure 2.

I processed the HADCRUT4 data set to six year resolution to simulate the ice core data here. The highest warming was in the six year period from 1975 to 1981, a rate of 0.27°C/decade. There were two periods in the ice core data with higher warming rates, one was in 1370 BCE where in a 12 year period the warming rate was 0.357°C/decade. This period was bracketed by similar length periods with 0.25 and 0.16°C/decade warming periods. This 34-year period saw a warming of nearly a degree (0.98°C) far exceeding the warming in the late Twentieth Century.

Another period 8200 years ago (6200BCE) saw a 1.667°C warming in 71 years. The people around at that time must have been truly panicked at the rapid climate change and probably blamed it on the invention of beer.

Here is a chart of the ice core temperature and HADCRUT4 together as an anomaly plot using the same baseline period, spliced at 1850-55, the only years they have in common.

GISP2 & HADCRUT4 Anomalies

Figure 2 is a plot of the ice core (GISP2) and HADCRUT4 as an anomaly plot. The vertical scale is in degrees C. The horizontal scale is calendar years with the present on the right.

HADCRUT4 is the thermometer-measured, small, red, “Hockey-stick” at the right side. All the excitement is about half of that red uptick. The big question: Is it natural, or CO2?

In Figure 2, many heating and cooling periods with high magnitude and longer duration than the current warming are seen. The two periods described above are seen at 1400BCE and 6200BCE, but there are others scattered across the plot. The current warming appears puny in comparison and only half of that is in any way attributable to CO2.

Greenland tells a lot

Some detractors have tried to make the point that Greenland ice core data only reflects Greenland temperatures. This isn’t quite correct on several counts. Oxygen isotope fractionation acts at three places: the area of evaporation and the points of condensation and precipitation. These phenomena are latitude dependent and the evaporation area is diffuse. So the ice core data reflects temperature at Greenland’s latitude.

Another point (though it only applies to the first 3000 years on this chart) is that during the Ice Age, the ice sheets removed so much fresh water from the oceans that it increased the salinity of the remainder, affecting surface oxygen isotope levels. This is also factored into the temperature calculation (link). Also, the ice core temperature data is averaged over the years represented at each section of core. This temperature represents climate over those years and not weather. The last point is that heat exchange between Greenland latitudes and the oceans, and thus the rest of the globe, insures that Greenland temperature cannot be far from reflecting global temperature.

A larger point is that the current warming is not unusual. Even greater warming has occurred many times in the last 11,000 years. It has been as much as two degrees warmer than now three times in the last 10,000 years. More important, warming episodes are followed by cooling episodes that can be disastrous for mankind. The long-term trend for the last 3000 years of the Holocene has been cooling. We are slowly sliding into the next long cold at about half a degree C per millennium.

The Excel spreadsheet used to generate the figures and calculations is here.

Live Footage…Pope Francis, Neo-Catholics Holding Sunday Mass


“Bring me to this rock that has the most incredible life.”

I guess all the mental institutions are full.

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

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

Where the Pope errs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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