Uncontrolled Infusion Of Green Electricity Leads To Record-Breaking NEGATIVE Power Prices

As mentioned here yesterday, Germany saw sunny and very windy conditions last Sunday and the following national holiday Monday –leading to a huge power surge into the German power grid. But because many industries were closed during these two days, demand for electricity was low, see chart below:

German consumption (blue line), wind power dark and light blue shaded area) and solar power (yellow shaded area). Source: Agora here.

The chart above also shows both the very high infusion of solar, onshore and offshore wind into the German power grid on April 30th and early May, and the low overall demand.

The result: Huge supply + little demand = crashing prices.

The huge feed-in of wind and solar energy did not occur without problems, especially in the southern state of Bavaria, the German online BR24 reports here.

BR24 writes that for the first time ever in Bavaria “wind turbines had to be shut down on a large scale – because there was too much power in the grid,” this according to the Bundesverband Windenergie (Federal Association for Wind Energy). There was also criticism that the wind turbines were shut down instead of the state’s nuclear plants.

BR24 adds that “many wind turbines in Bavaria had to stop for hours because no one wanted to take the power” and that this was the first time this had ever happened in Bavaria.

According to the Fraunhofer Institute, “two thirds of Germany’s conventional power production was switched off” on Sunday in order to prevent the grid from turning into a giant toaster.

And because the base load (the grid’s backbone) cannot be adjusted rapidly or taken offline line to meet the rapid changes, the BR24 adds:

But the coal power plants continued to operate – despite the negative power prices of minus ten cents per kilowatt-hour.”

It’s not possible to turn off the coal plants because once you do, the critical baseload disappears and the grid risks becoming an uncontrollable wild bronco.

And when you are forced to sell your very own product at a negative price (minus ten cents per kilowatt-hour) just to get rid of it, then you get a pretty good idea of just how obscenely distorted the market has become because of wind and solar.

Yet the energy masterminds of Germany and Europe intend to double or even quadruple this folly in the future.

So what about the losses incurred from the negative prices? You guessed it! They will be passed along to the German consumers, who already pay among the highest electricity rates in the world.

Engineering PhD Calls Germany’s Renewable Energy Drive “A Disaster” And “A Debacle”

Wild market prices

Firstly, wind energy protest organization vernunftkraft.de posted a chart showing the sheer absurdity of relying on the haphazard electricity supply that wind and solar energies are.

Last Sunday Germany saw windy and sunny conditions, meaning the country’s installed wind and solar systems were running at high capacity. This however led to excess power flooding into the German grid, and thus a plummet in exchange electricity prices.

Market exchange price of electricity on the EEX Leipzig exchange. On April 30 and May 1st 2017, wholesale prices went deeply negative. Source: EEX Marktdaten Strom, by Rolf Schuster. www.vernunftkraft.de/uploads/Ahlborn.pdf

The chart above shows that electricity was in fact sold at negative prices, dipping to an astonishing low of almost 75 euros per megawatt hour.

Unfortunately the money to pay people to “buy” the electricity never gets paid to the consumer. Rather it gets paid mostly to foreign wholesalers. Yet, the German grid operator needs to recoup the money it paid to have the wholesalers to accept the power. In the end, the domestic consumers in Germany wind up with the bill.

How much did the negative prices seen over the past weekend end up costing the German consumers? One reader calculated it and came up with the figure of over 41 million euros! And because May 1st was a national holiday, the demand for German power was low, and there was no use for all the extra power flooding into the grid. It’s like cooking dinner – after everyone has already eaten. And because there is no fridge, the garbage man has to be called and paid to dispose of it. So far electricity cannot be stored on a meaningful scale.

Wild supply variability

Continuing on the folly of Germany’s renewable energy, engineering expert Dr. Detlef Ahlborn authored a post at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), declaring the transition to renewable energies a failure and that it will remain so as long as a solution for storing the energy is not found.

Again the huge problem is the extremely erratic, uncontrolled supply of the power, as the following German wind energy supply chart clearly illustrates:

Figure 3: Wind power production Germany from 2011 to 2016. Installed rated capacity rose from about 27 GW to about 48 GW. However the power that was actually produced (dark blue) is in fact often only a tiny fraction. Overall, Germany’s demand hovers about 70 GW. Source: Rolf Schuster, data from EEX Leipzig.

More variable then rolling a die

Dr. Ahlborn describes the extreme variability of wind power in Germany as follows:

The variability of German wind power production is about 70% greater than the numbers you’d see rolling a die. If German power providers ran their plants like throwing a die, the power would flow more uniformly. [1]”

Of course wind energy proponents like to say that the solution is a European-wide integrated network where if the wind is not blowing in one region, then excess power in another region can fill in the gap. After all, “the wind is always blowing somewhere in Europe” they like to say. However, the following chart plainly illustrates that this is far more a fallacy than a truth.

Wind production by the 15 European countries (dark blue) and by Germany (light blue). Chart by Rolf Schuster

Very often when there’s plenty of wind in Germany (or very little), the case is the same in the rest of Europe. With that kind of supply, good luck trying to balance any grid that is overly dependent on wind energy.

Ahlborn writes that combining the power grids to form one large one only serves to add up the variability and not reduce it.

“Unworthy” for Germany

Summarizing Ahlborn calls the total result of wind energy so far “bitter”:

This Energiewende [transition to renewables] is unworthy for a country with such a tradition in science and technology. We could have known if we had just given it a bit of thought. But who wanted to know?

We’ll find out at the latest when we start looking for those who are responsible for this debacle, and policymakers attempt to run from taking responsibility for this disaster. Our former economics minister has already taken the first step.”

To that, EIKE added: It can only be hoped that the former economics minister (Sigmar Gabriel) will cause less damage in his new position as foreign minister.


New Paper: Greenland Gained Ice Between 1940s-2000s, Added Just 1.5 cm To Sea Levels Since 1900

Greenland’s Ice Melt Contribution To

Sea Level Just 1.5 cm For 1900-2010

As the HadCRUT4 temperature data indicate, there has been no net warming trend in the Arctic for the last 80 years.  In fact, from the early 1940s to the mid-1990s, the Arctic cooled.

HadCRUT Arctic Temperature 1920-2017 (Climate4You)

Due to its Arctic location, Greenland temperatures have likewise followed a similar trend as the rest of the region — warming during the 1920s to 1940s, cooling from the 1940s to 1990s, and then warming (commensurate with the 1930s) since the 1990s.

van As et al., 2016

Climate Alarm Advocates: Arctic Will Contribute 19-25 cm To Sea Levels By 2100

Despite the relatively unremarkable temperature trends in the Arctic in general or Greenland in particular in the last 100 years, the narrative that says man-made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic Arctic ice melt and consequent sea level rise has gained widespread popularity in media circles.

For example, in yet another alarmist headline from this last week it was claimed that some Arctic glaciers will “disappear completely” in the next 83 years and this “extreme” Arctic ice melt will lead to 19 to 25 centimeters of sea level rise by 2100.

“By the end of this century, as some glaciers disappear completely, the Arctic’s contribution to global sea level rise will reach at least 19 to 25 centimeters, according to the report by the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring Assessment Program (AMAP).”

New Paper Concludes Greenland Contributed Just 1.5 cm To Sea Levels Since 1900

A new scientific paper published in The Cryosphere last week indicates that the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) gained mass during much of the 1940s to 2000s period — especially 1961-1990, the common reference period when it was previously assumed the GIS was stable.

In fact, the scientists conclude that the overall GIS melt for the entire 1900-2010 period contributed a negligible 1.5 centimeters (about half an inch) to sea levels during that entire 110-year period.

Fettweis et al ., 2017

Results from all MAR simulations indicate that the period 1961–1990, commonly chosen as a stable reference period for Greenland SMB [surface mass balance] and ice dynamics, is actually a period of anomalously positive SMB ( +40 Gt yr−1 ) compared to 1900–2010. … [T]he ERA-20C forced simulation suggests that SMB [surface mass balance] during the 1920–1930 warm period over Greenland was comparable to the SMB of the 2000s, due to both higher melt and lower precipitation than normal.”

“The period 1961–1990 has been considered as a period when the total mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet was stable (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006) and near zero. However, at the last century scale, all MAR reconstructions suggest that SMB [surface mass balance] was particularly positive during this period [1961-1990] (SMB was most positive from the 1970s to the middle of the 1990s), suggesting that mass gain may well have occurred during this period, in agreement with results from Colgan et al. (2015).”

“Finally, with respect to the 1961–1990 period, the integrated contribution of the GrIS SMB anomalies over 1900–2010 is a sea level rise of about 15 ± 5 mm [1.5 cm], with a null contribution from the 1940s to the 2000s, suggesting that the recent contribution of GrIS to sea level change (van den Broeke et al., 2016) is unprecedented in the last century.”

Between 1920-1930, Greenland Warmed By 2 to 4°C In Less Than 10 Years

Chylek et al., 2004

A significant and rapid temperature increase was observed at all Greenland stations between 1920 and 1930. The average annual temperature rose between 2 and 4 °C in less than ten years. Since the change in anthropogenic production of greenhouses gases at that time was considerably lower than today, this rapid temperature increase suggests a large natural variability of the regional climate.”

Glacier Melt Rapid, Contribution To Sea Level Rise Substantially Higher Before 1950

Gregory et al., 2013

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.”

During the period 1898–1946, the snout of Gljúfurárjökull retreated 635 m, almost two-thirds of the total distance from the LIA maximum (1898–1903) to 2005, at an average rate of 13.2 m yr−1. … The trend in Western Tungnahryggsjökull during the first half of the 20th century was a more rapid retreat, showing the highest average rates of the whole period (19.5 m yr−1). By 1946, this glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the LIA maximum (1868) and 2005. … Just as in the glaciers described above, the retreat of the Eastern Tungnahryggsjökull from its LIA position was more intense during the first half of the 20th century, and in 1946 its snout was only 200 m from its current position.”

Conclusion: Abrupt Arctic Warming, Cooling, Ice Melt Uncorrelated With CO2 Emissions

Implicit in the alarmist projection that rapid Arctic warming and ice melt will raise sea levels by 19 to 25 centimeters during the next 8 decades is the assumption that the Arctic’s post-1990s warming trend and ice melt has been driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions — which are expected to continue to rise without dramatic energy policy changes.  However, this assumption ignores the nearly 100 years (1900 to mid-1990s) of non-correlation between CO2 emissions and the Arctic climate.

Succinctly, during the 1920s to 1940s period the (a)  Arctic warmed rapidly (~3°C per decade), the (b) Greenland ice sheet melted rapidly, and the (c) glacier melt contribution to sea level rise was explosive.  This occurred while anthropogenic CO2 emissions were both flat and negligible (10 times smaller than today’s emissions).

Then, just as CO2 emissions began to rise at an accelerated pace after 1940, the (a) Arctic cooled (for nearly 60 years), the (b) Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance was positive with a “null” contribution to sea level rise (1940-2000), and (c) the Arctic-wide ice melt contribution to sea level rise abruptly decelerated.

For the 110 years between 1900 and 2010, the Greenland ice sheet contributed just 0.6 of an inch (1.5 cm) to sea levels despite a 10-fold increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during that period.  Therefore, the very mechanism (human CO2 emissions) assumed to be driving a projected 19 to 25 centimeters of Arctic ice melt contribution has not been observed to be a driving mechanism previously.

The observational evidence indicates that variations in anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not drive Arctic warming (or cooling), ice sheet surface mass balance, or sea level rise from retreating glaciers.

April Cold Blast Across Central Europe Brings Unexpected Widespread Crop Damage

Official weather offices report that April mean temperatures were colder than normal across Central Europe.


According to the preliminary results for April, 2017, from Germany’s DWD national weather service, the month came in at a mean temperature of 7.5°C for the central European country, or 0.8°C colder than the 1981-2010 mean of 8.3°C. This makes the month completely NOT in line with the warming that Germany’s DWD expects.

After a record warm March, the DWD wrote in its March report that it was all expected as part of climate change. For April they made no mention of global warming, citing weather patterns.

The DWD wrote that in April “drought, snow and reoccurring frosts” placed a “considerable burden on the the plant world“. In the southern Black Forest region, especially in Singen and Buchenbach, new record lows were set for April. Nationwide April’s low temperature was set in Oberstdorf: -10.1 °C.


Meanwhile Alps-dominated of Austria saw it’s coldest April in 9 years – and the coldest in the current decade, according to the preliminary April results form the Austrian ZAMG national weather service.

New cold temperature records for the second half of April were set at the airports in Graz and Innsbruck at -5.5 °C and -4.4 °C respectively.

“Extreme” snow amounts

Although frosty temperatures and snow are not unusual in April, the ZAMG writes that the new snow amounts on April 19 and 20 were in part very unusual, especially in the area im Gebiet of the Ybbstaler Alps and extending to the Wienerwald. For example in Lunz am See (612 m) it snowed 65 cm within 24 hours. That would be an extremely high value even for an entire winter month. On April 20 there was 86 cm of snow on the ground in Lunz am See. This has never happened in the second half of April since measurements began in 1896.

The ZAMG reports that the severe late April cold snap caused “widespread frost damage” to many fruit plants.

Switzerland, Italy

Meteo Suisse has not yet released it’s preliminary April report, as this is done typically around the 10th of the following month. But media reports show that the late April cold and frost did not spare Switzerland or northern Italy.

Bitter cold and crop destruction occurred in hard hit Switzerland. According to the online NZZ here, as a cold wave in the second half of April “caused great damage to fruit and vineyards in large parts of Switzerland“.

“Nightmare” for Italian vineyards

The cold wave also hit Italy’s farmers at a bad time, the NZZ reports, as some regions saw temperatures fall below zero and was accompanied by by icy winds. Frost destroyed the early white budding grape varieties such as the Chardonnay, Sauvignon and Pinot grigio. Also red grape sorts such as Cabernet and Merlot were hit, the NZZ reports.

The NZZ characterized the the vineyard damage as dramatic in the regions of Val d’Aosta and Friuli Venezia Giulia, where it reports that “many crops froze”.

In Piemont foremost in the region around Asti and Barolo there was heavy damage. In Lombardy the provinces of Padua, Mantua and Modena are hard hit.”

Here in the Lower Saxony flatlands of northern Germany, I had to keep sensitive garden plants covered overnight on at least 4 occasions over the second half of April.


Upper Layers Of Atlantic Refuse To Obey Global Warming Orders

Upper Atlantic layers ignore commands to warm

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

We would like to take a look at the oceanic warming of the Atlantic. From the latest Climate4You Newsletter (pdf her) We look at the heat content curve of the last 60 years for the upper most 100 meters of the Atlantic:

Fig. 1: Atlantic heat content curve for the past 60 years (upper 100 meters of the Atlantic water mass). Chart: Climate4You.

Clear to see: Over the past 13 years the Atlantic has not warmed further. The chart shows a large plateau. There was a plateau 1955-1985, followed by a rise, then another plateau starting in 2004.

The current missing warming of the upper layer of the Atlantic was also the subject of publication by Somavilla et al, which appeared in March 2016 in the Geophysical Research Letters. It claims that the heat simply moved from the upper levels to the lower layers of the Atlantic:

Mid-2000s North Atlantic shift: Heat budget and circulation changes
Prior to the 2000s, the North Atlantic was the basin showing the greatest warming. However, since the mid-2000s during the so-called global warming hiatus, large amounts of heat were transferred in this basin from upper to deeper levels while the dominance in terms of atmospheric heat capture moved into the Indo-Pacific. Here we show that a large transformation of modal waters in the eastern North Atlantic (ENA) played a crucial role in such contrasting behavior. First, strong winter mixing in 2005 transformed ENA modal waters into a much saltier, warmer, and denser variety, transferring upper ocean heat and salt gained slowly over time to deeper layers. The new denser waters also altered the zonal dynamic height gradient reversing the southward regional flow and enhancing the access of saltier southern waters to higher latitudes. Then, the excess salinity in northern regions favored additional heat injection through deep convection events in later years.”

And if you take a look at the temperature anomaly chart in the paper’s supplement (Fig. S1), you can see how heterogeneous this trend really is. We’ll have to keep an eye on it.

Heat distribution had been already the topic in a paper by Desbruyères et al 2014 in the Geophysical Research Letters:

Full-depth temperature trends in the northeastern Atlantic through the early 21st century
The vertical structure of temperature trends in the northeastern Atlantic (NEA) is investigated using a blend of Argo and hydrography data. The representativeness of sparse hydrography sampling in the basin mean is assessed using a numerical model. Between 2003 and 2013, the NEA underwent a strong surface cooling (0–450 m) and a significant warming at intermediate and deep levels (1000 m to 3000 m) that followed a strong cooling trend observed between 1988 and 2003. During 2003–2013, gyre-specific changes are found in the upper 1000 m (warming and cooling of the subtropical and subpolar gyres, respectively), while the intermediate and deep warming primarily occurred in the subpolar gyre, with important contributions from isopycnal heave and water mass property changes. The full-depth temperature change requires a local downward heat flux of 0.53 ± 0.06 W m−2 through the sea surface, and its vertical distribution highlights the likely important role of the NEA in the recent global warming hiatus.”

We wish to take another look at the mentioned North Atlantic cooling in an up-to-date chart from Climate4You:

Fig. 2: North Atlantic heat content curve for the past 60 years (upper 700 of the North Atlantic water mass). Chart: Climate4You.


Danish Meteorological Institute Moves To Obscure Recent Record Greenland Ice Growth

A shorter post today, as this afternoon I’ve got to prepare 50 lbs. of chili con carne (and let me tell you, I can taste it already).

German meteorological and climate site Schneefan (snow fan) here writes on the recent changes by the DMI on its Greenland ice mass chart. Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if this were in part due to climate data embarrassment.

Schneefan writes that the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) recently changed the reference period for showing the Greenland ice mass: from the warmer 1990-2013 to the internationally usual but colder WMO climate period of 1981-2010.

The change over to the WMO-recommended older and colder reference period has the effect of making the massive ice growth of the past two years with respect to the new mean look smaller, as the current comparison shows (lower chart).

Top: The total daily contribution to the surface mass balance from the entire ice sheet (blue line, Gt/day). Bottom: The accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red) which had very high summer melt in Greenland. For comparison, the mean curve from the period 1981-2010 is shown (dark grey). The same calendar day in each of the 30 years (in the period 1981-2010) will have its own value. These differences from year to year are illustrated by the light grey band. For each calendar day, however, the lowest and highest values of the 30 years have been left out.Source: http://www.dmi.dk/surface-mass-budget/.

By changing the comparison period in April 2017 from 1990-2013 to the older and colder WMO 1981-2010 climate period, the mean shown by the gray line and shaded area is raised. This is illustrated by the thin black lines I’ve added to the two lower charts showing the old mean peak value.  Using the 1990-2013 period, the mean peak value was about 550 gigatonnes.

Today using the older and colder WMO 1981-2010 the mean yearly peak rises to about 600 gigatonnes. As a result the current curve shown in blue the strong ice growth during September 2016 becomes less apparent. Moreover, the strong 2015/16 ice year year has been left out (brown curve in the old chart, left).

Foremost by leaving out the strong 2012 melt year (red curve in lower chart), which acted to significantly pull down the 1990-2013 ice mass, and by extending the chart out nine years into the colder past (from 1990 to 1981) the new 1981-1990 mean is considerably higher than the old one: Honi soit qui mal y pense… 

Finally, it’s good to remind readers that despite the powerful El Niño, RSS stellite data show no warming in close to 20 years.

Linearer Trend der Abweichungen der globalen Satellitentemperaturen von RSS. Seit 224 Monaten, nämlich von Juni 1997 bis Januar 2016, gibt es trotz eines aktuellen kräftigen El Niño-Ereignisses keinen Anstieg der globalen Temperaturen, der Rekord der Länge der globalen Erwärmungs

Source: The Pause hangs on by its fingernails.

20 More New Papers Link Climate, Weather, Clouds, ENSO, NAO, Sea Levels, Crop Yields…To Solar Activity

Already 58 New 2017 Papers Link

Solar Activity To Climate Changes

Earlier this month, the first installment in the accumulating list of hundreds of new peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting a skeptical position on climate change alarm was made available.

Included on the list were 38 papers linking climate changes to solar forcing: 38 Sun-Climate Scientific Papers, January-March 2017

Just in the last few weeks alone, another 20 scientific papers were identified which link solar variations to climate changes, which means 58 papers have already been published in 2017.

20 New Sun-Climate Papers

High Solar Activity (Warming), High Crop Yields – Low Solar Activity (Cooling), Low Crop Yields

  1. Huhtamaa and Helama, 2017

Throughout the written history of Finland, delayed onset of summer and night frost have been named as the main reasons for crop failure and famine. … Our reconstruction suggests that in the 8th–10th centuries AD, when continuous crop cultivation was established in Finland, the risk of temperature-driven crop failure was notably lower and the crops were generally higher than during the historical period (c. 13th century ad onwards). The continuous period of high crop yields coincides with an episode of multi-centennial summer season warmth, associated with the MCA [Medieval Climate Anomaly] in the region and around north-west Europe (Goosse et al., 2012; Luoto and Helama, 2010; Ogilvie et al., 2000; Sundqvist et al., 2010). The warm climatic regime of the MCA was interrupted by a period of distinctly cold winter and summer temperatures c. ad 1110– 1150 (Helama et al., 2009b; Linderholm et al., 2015; Tiljander et al., 2003). Also on the eastern side of the study area, in North-West Russia, c. ad 950–1100 was marked by a warmer climate and intensive agricultural expansion to the north (Klimenko, 2016).”
The rapid mid-15th century cooling, which followed a major atmospheric circulation change over the North Atlantic (Dawson et al., 2007; Meeker and Mayewski, 2002) and coincided with the culmination of the Spörer solar minimum (Miyahara et al., 2006), has been evidenced in various summer and winter season reconstructions of the region (Haltia-Hovi et al., 2007; Helama et al., 2009b; Klimenko and Solomina, 2010; Luoto and Helama, 2010; Zhang et al., 2015).”
The culmination of the ‘LIA’ [Little Ice Age] in Finland has been commonly dated to the late 17th and early 18th centuries ad (Luoto, 2013; Luoto and Helama, 2010; Tiljander et al., 2003), which is synchronous with the onset of the phase of the lowest yield ratios in our reconstruction. The Maunder solar minima (c. 1645–1715) and several volcanic eruptions preceded the culmination (Shindell et al., 2003).”

Russell et al., 2010 (Solar Activity Graph)

Decadal Variations In Ozone, ENSO, NAO, Mean Sea Level, And Climate ‘Excited By Solar Activity’

2. Chapanov et al., 2017


“But recently, another mechanism of climate variations, due to cosmic rays was proposed (Kilifarska and Haight, 2005; Kilifarska, 2008, 2011; Velinov et al., 2005). According to the new models, the cosmic rays produce a ionization of the atmosphere, changes of atmosphere conductivity, lightning, and an increase of ozone concentration. The ozone plays significant role in climate variations, so the new models of cosmic ray influences on Earth atmosphere may explain the observed correlation between cosmic rays and climate variations.”
“The shape of solar cycles is rather different from sinusoidal form, so they affect geosystems by many short-term harmonics. A possible solar origin of decadal variations of Earth rotation, mean sea level and climate indices is investigated by the harmonics of Jose, de Vries and Suess cycles with centennial periods of 178.7, 208 and 231 years. The common decadal cycles of solar-terrestrial influences are investigated by long time series of Length of Day (LOD), Mean Sea Level (MSL) variations at Stockholm, ElNiño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), temperature and precipitation over Eastern Europe, Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), Wolf’s Numbers Wn and North-South solar asymmetry. A good agreement exists between the decadal cycles of LOD [length of day], MSL [mean sea level], climate and solar indices whose periods are between 12-13, 14-16, 16-18 and 28-33 years.”
“The Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), Wolf’s Numbers (Wn) and North-South (N-S) solar asymmetry expose different spectral peaks, amplitude modulation and phases from these bands. These solar time series represent thermal heating over the Earth, solar wind (space weather) and solar magnetic field variations. The decadal cycles of N-S [North-South] solar asymmetry strongly affect corresponding cycles of El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO).”

3. Helama et al., 2017 (full)

Solar proxy data (Steinhilber et al., 2009) consistently illustrate low activity between AD 400 and 700, with a notable seventh-century solar minimum, the millennial-scale solar changes culminating over these centuries and thus during the DACP [Dark Ages Cold Period] (Scafetta, 2012).  Interestingly, there is multiple proxy evidence showing that reduced solar activity may modulate the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) towards its negative phase (Gray et al., 2010). Since the NAO is a leading pattern of climate variability in the global atmosphere, and the negative NAO phase is generally associated with cooler temperatures particularly over western Europe and eastern North-America for both the winter (Wanner et al., 2001; Hurrell and Deser, 2010) and summer seasons (Folland et al., 2009), a prolonged negative NAO phase could thus result in cold temperatures at least over some parts of the Northern Hemisphere continents. … Recently, a collection of multi-proxy evidence illustrated a cooling phase around the Northern Hemisphere which was tree-ring dated to AD 536-660 and termed the Late Antique Little Ice Age (LALIA) (Büntgen et al., 2016). This event was shown to follow a multitude of large unknown volcanic eruptions in AD 536, 540 and 547, for which evidence was derived from bipolar ice-core timescales and sulphur records (Sigl et al., 2015). The cooling, having once initiated from volcanic aerosol forcing (Larsen et al. 2008), may have been sustained over extended intervals possibly because of the coinciding solar minimum and  through sea-ice/ocean feedback mechanisms (Büntgen et al., 2016; Matskovsky and Helama, 2016), analogous to findings from equivalent proxy data (Gennaretti et al., 2014) and transient climate model simulations(Miller et al., 2012) during the LIA.

4. Yukimoto et al., 2017

A delayed response of the winter North Atlantic oscillation (NAO) to the 11-year solar cycle has been observed and modeled in recent studies. The result of this study supports a previous hypothesis that suggests that the 11-year solar cycle signals on the Earth’s surface are produced through a downward penetration of the changes in the stratospheric circulation. … The importance of the North Atlantic oscillation (NAO) for the European weather and climate conditions has been known for a long time (Walker and Bliss 1932; van Loon and Rogers 1978; Hurrell et al. 2003). NAO is the dominant intrinsic mode of atmospheric variability over the Atlantic sector (Hurrell and Deser 2009). … The present result confirms the previous hypothesis reported by Kodera et al. (2016), which stated that the major solar influence on the Earth’s surface can be produced through changes in stratospheric circulation, and the spatial structure of the solar signal at the Earth’s surface is largely conditioned by atmosphere’s interaction with the ocean.”

5. Wang et al., 2017

The identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.”

’11-Year Solar Cycle…Influences [Surface] Weather And Climate’

6. Gray et al., 2017

There is growing evidence that variability associated with the 11-year solar cycle has an impact at the Earth’s surface and influences its weather and climate. Although the direct response to the Sun’s variability is extremely small, a number of different mechanisms have been suggested that could amplify the signal, resulting in regional signals that are much larger than expected. In this paper the observed solar cycle signal at the Earth’s surface is described, together with proposed mechanisms that involve modulation via the total incoming solar irradiance and via modulation of the ultra-violet part of the solarspectrum that influences ozone production in the stratosphere.”

7. Hood, 2017

QBO/Solar Modulation of the Boreal Winter Madden-Julian Oscillation … The Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), also known as the 30-60 day oscillation, is the strongest of the intraseasonal climate oscillations in the tropics and has significant derivative effects on extratropical circulation and intraseasonal climate. It has recently been shown that the stratospheric quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) modulates the amplitude of the boreal winter MJO such that MJO amplitudes are larger on average during the easterly phase (QBOE) than during the westerly phase (QBOW). A major possible mechanism is the decrease in static stability in the lowermost stratosphere under QBOE conditions resulting from relative upwelling associated with the QBO induced meridional circulation. Here, evidence is presented that tropical upwelling changes related to the 11-year solar cycle also modulate the boreal winter MJO. Based on 37.3 years of MJO amplitude data, the largest amplitudes and occurrence rates, and the weakest static stabilities in the tropical lower stratosphere, occur during the QBOE phase under solar minimum (SMIN) conditions while the smallest amplitudes and strongest static stabilities occur during the QBOW phase under solar maximum (SMAX) conditions. Conversely, when the QBO and solar forcings are opposed (QBOW/SMIN and QBOE/SMAX), the difference in occurrence rates becomes statistically insignificant.”

8. Gan et al., 2017

Temperature responses to the 11-year solar cycle in the mesosphere from the 31-year (1979-2010) … “Atmospheric response to the solar cycle (SC) here refers to atmospheric variability induced by the 11-year solar activity cycle. The SC [solar cycle] response originates mainly from large (4-8%) solar UV spectral irradiance change (in the range of 200-250 nm) from solar minimum to maximum condition, while the total solar flux stays nearly constant (0.1%) [Donnelly, 1991; Lean et al., 1997; Woods and Rottman, 1997; Beig et al., 2008; Gary et al., 2010]. The variability of the solar UV spectral irradiance affects the thermal structure of the atmosphere by directly changing the total energy deposited and indirectly modifying the photochemistry and dynamics of the atmosphere. In addition to the equatorial Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) [Baldwin et al., 2011] and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) [Li et al., 2013], the 11-year SC is also a significant source to the inter-annual variability in the mesosphere and lower (MLT) region.”

Periods Of Low Solar Activity Explain Little Ice Age Cooling Trends

9. Pandey and Dubey, 2017

The Maunder minimum (1645-1715) refers to a period when very few sunspots were observed. During this period, the Earth climate was cooler than normal. This period mimics the solar cycle climate change connections. The particles and electromagnetic radiations flowing from solar activity outbursts are important for long-term climate variations. There is an abrupt and drastic cooling in the climate can be possible in near future due to large scale melting of global ice by global warming, and prolonged sunspot minima. There is a close correlation between variations in the 11-year sunspot cycle and Earth’s climate. Solar activity varies on shorter-time scales, including the 11- year sunspot cycle and longer-term as Milankovitch cycle.”

10. Williams et al., 2017

Reconstructed SSTs significantly warmed 1.1 ± 0.30°C … from 1660s to 1800 (rate of change: 0.008 ± 0.002°C/year), followed by a significant cooling of 0.8 ± 0.04°C …  until 1840 (rate of change: 0.02 ± 0.001°C/year), then a significant warming of 0.8 ± 0.16°C from 1860 until the end of reconstruction in 2007 (rate of change: 0.005 ± 0.001°C/year).” [Sea surface temperatures warmed faster from 1660s-1800 than they did from 1860-2007.]
“In fact, the SST reconstruction significantly co-varied with a reconstruction of solar irradiance [Lean, 2000] on the 11-year periodicity only from ~1745 to 1825. In addition, the reconstructed SSTs were cool during the period of lower than usual solar irradiance called the Maunder minimum (1645–1715) but then warmed and cooled during the Dalton minimum (1795–1830), a second period of reduced solar irradiance. … The Dalton solar minimum and increased volcanic activity in the early 1800s could explain the decreasing SSTs from 1800 to 1850 …  [T]hese data suggest a complex combination of solar irradiance, volcanic activity, internal ocean dynamics and external anthropogenic forcing explain the variability in Aleutian SSTs for the past 342 years.”

11. Didkovsky et al., 2017

“Radiative forcing of the Earth’s atmosphere plays a significant role in its thermal and chemical balance (Haigh, 1994; Haigh et al., 2010). Effects of heating and cooling are influenced by long-term solar-cycle changes. One example of such change compiled from sources that show sensitivity to the changes of solar activity (Hoyt and Schatten, 1998) is the Maunder Minimum of 1645 to about 1715 (Maunder, 1890). These observations demonstrate the effects of solar-activity changes during the Maunder Minimum for which low to near-zero sunspot numbers persisted for about six solar cycles (SC) with a SC-averaged period (for SC 1 to 22) of 11 years (Hathaway, 2010).”

12. Nan et al., 2017

Furthermore, our temperature records, within age uncertainty, coincides with the changes of the solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and climate variability. … The relationship between the solar irradiance and climate change has been demonstrated by lots of studies (He et al., 2013; Kroonenberg et al., 2007; Sagawa et al., 2014; Soon et al., 2014). It was suggested that the solar activity was a primary driving force of climatic variations in the Holocene (Bond et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005). Small solar perturbations can be magnified by different feedback mechanisms and may ultimately lead to climatic oscillations on several time scales, such as annual to decadal and/or centennial scales, as well as millennial scales (Haigh, 1996; Bond et al., 2001).”

‘Marked Association Of Solar Activity With Weather And Climate Change’

13. Xiao et al., 2017

Solar wind and electric-microphysical process is the key mechanism that affects climate … We investigated the influencing mechanism of high-energetic particle precipitation modulated by solar wind on the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). On a day-to-day time scale, Zhou, Tinsley, and Huang (2014) and Huang et al. (2013) found that the minima in AO and NAO indices only lagged 0~2 days of the solar wind speed (SWS) minima during years of high stratospheric aerosol loading, which suggests a much faster mechanism of solar influence on the atmospheric system compared to the ozone destruction process. From the perspective of year-to-year variation, Xiao and Li (2016) and Zhou et al. (2016) showed a robust relationship between SWS [solar wind speed] and NAO in boreal winter. These aforementioned studies indicate that the wintertime Iceland Low in the North Atlantic was very sensitive to solar wind variations and played an important role in the process of solar wind and electric-microphysical effects on climate. Moreover, under the condition of a weak electric field, we have demonstrated the marked impact of cloud droplet electricity on the collision efficiency of cloud condensation nuclei. This, in turn, suggests that the collision in a cloud microphysics process constitutes the core link between atmospheric electricity and climate (Tinsley and Leddon 2013; Tinsley and Zhou 2013, 2014). Furthermore, Tinsley and Zhou (2015) improved the collision and parameterization scheme that varied with electric quantity in a cloud microphysics process and quantitatively evaluated the effects of high-energetic particle flux on cloud charge. This achievement not only supports the marked association of solar activity with weather and climate change on various time scales, but also but also avails the quantitative accession of solar impacts on climate. It is worth noting that the successful establishment development of a theoretical model regarding of the influencing process of solar energetic particles on the atmosphere improves the development of global climate models.”

Hurricane Frequency ‘Is Synchronous With The Solar Irradiance’

14. Vyklyuk et al., 2017

Hurricane genesis modelling based on the relationship between solar activity and hurricanes … There are a number of works concerning the Sun–Earth connections and their influence on atmospheric motions. There are a number of observations which show that within a few days after energetic solar eruptions (flares, coronal mass ejections and eruptive prominences), there are diverse meteorological responses of considerable strength (Gomes et al. 2012). … Conclusion: [T]here are several indications which are in favor that the beginning of violent cyclonic motions in Earth’s atmosphere may be caused by charged particles from the solar wind.”

15. Katsuki et al., 2017

Typhoon frequency in East Asia is synchronous with the solar irradiance. … Several studies documented typhoon pattern changes in response to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). … The fluctuation of the solar activity plays a key role in regulating the westerly jet movement. The multi-centennial scale of the typhoon frequency in mid-latitude East Asia is therefore caused by changes in the solar activity and ENSO conditions.”

‘Climate…Follows Solar Activity Fluctuations On Multidecadal To Centennial Time Scales’

16. Moreno et al., 2017

“Understanding the Sun-Earth’s climate coupling system is both an essential and an urgent issue, with great progress achieved over the last decades (e.g., Haigh, 2007; Soon et al., 2014 for a review). Recently, Brugnara et al. (2013) referred that the Euro–Atlantic sector, in which Portugal is located, seems to be a region with a particularly strong solar influence on the troposphere, finding a significant change in the mean late winter circulation over Europe, which culminates in detectable impacts on the near-surface climate. Jiang et al. (2015) suggested that (i) climate in the northern North Atlantic regions follows SA [solar activity] fluctuations on multidecadal to centennial time scales, and (ii) it is more susceptible to the influence of those fluctuations throughout cool periods with, for instance, less vigorous ocean circulation. Similar results were found by Gómez-Navarro et al. (2012) in the context of climate simulations for the second millennium over the Iberian Peninsula, recognizing that temperature and precipitation variability is significantly affected at centennial time scales by variations in the SA [solar activity].”
Grand Minima and Dalton-type Minimum scenarios are broadly characterized by (i) lower TSI (i.e., lower available PAR) (Lean, 1991, and references therein), (ii) development of cloudiness (e.g., Usoskin and Kovaltsov, 2008), and (iii) decreased global/regional air surface temperatures (e.g., Neukom et al., 2014) in tandem with greater regional precipitation variability.”
The connections between solar phenomena and the lower atmosphere processes can be explained by two kind of mechanisms: (i) “top-to-down”, influencing the pole-to-equator temperature gradient and exerting an impact on the modulation of the atmospheric circulation cells, weakening or strengthening the zonal winds, and (ii) “bottom-to up” that directly impact on the radiation fluxes, energy balance and temperatures on the ground. Both finally impact the atmospheric circulation modes responsible for the global/regional precipitation and temperature patterns (e.g., Gray et al., 2010; Martin-Puertas et al., 2012; Thiéblemont et al., 2015).”

17. Lihua, 2017

The modulation action from solar activity plays an important role in the temperature change, and there is a possible association existing in the global land-ocean temperature and solar activity on decade time scales. … About 11-year period, a remarkable oscillation of solar activity, continually exists in wavelet transform of solar variation. According to the cross wavelet transform, solar activity influences global land-ocean temperature change on ~11-year time scales during 1935-1995 with above the 5 % significance level.”

‘A Large Proportion Of [Recent] Climate Variations…Explained By TSI And Cosmic Rays’

18. Utomo, 2017

“A similar result was also found for the relationship between solar activity and cosmic ray flux with a negative correlation, i.e. 0.69/year. When solar activities decrease, the clouds cover rate increase due-0.61/month and – to secondary ions produced by cosmic rays. The increase in the cloud cover rate causes the decrease in solar constant value and solar radiation on the earth’s surface [cooling]. … The increase in the formation rate of cloud would affect the decrease in the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. The relationship between cosmic rays and solar constant is an “opposite” relationship because of the negative correlation type (r < 0). The phenomenon of “opposite” is in a good agreement with the result by Svensmark (1997) who found a correlation between temperature and global cloud coverage with the cosmic rays. … [T]he climate also depends on variations in the flux of solar energy received by the earth’s surface. Variation in the solar energy flux is caused by variations in solar activity cycle. Thus the climate is a manifestation of how solar radiation is absorbed, redistributed by the atmosphere, land and oceans, and ultimately radiated back into space. Every variation of solar energy received at the earth’s surface and reradiated by the earth into space will have a direct impact on climate change on Earth.”

19. Biktash, 2017

“The effects of total solar irradiance (TSI) and volcanic activity on long-term global temperature variations during solar cycles 19–23 [1954-2008] were studied. It was shown that a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the mechanism of action of TSI [total solar irradiance] and cosmic rays (CRs) on the state of the lower atmosphere and other meteorological parameters. … Recent studies by Pudovkin and Raspopov, Tinsley, and Swensmark have shown that the Earth’s cloud coverage is strongly influenced by cosmic ray intensity. Conditions in interplanetary space, which can influence GCRs and climate change, have been studied in numerous works. As has been demonstrated by Biktash, the long-term CR count rate and global temperature variations in 20–23 solar cycles are modulated by solar activity and by the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field). A possible geophysical factor which is able to affect the influence of solar activity on the Earth’s climate is volcanism. The effects of volcanism can lead to serious consequences in the atmosphere and the climate.”

+2 W m-2 Per Decade Surface Solar Radiation Forcing From 1983-2013

20. Alexandri et al., 2017

“In this work, the spatiotemporal variability of surface solar radiation (SSR) is examined over the Eastern Mediterranean region for a 31-year period (1983–2013). … The satellite-based data from CERES (Cloud and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System), GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment) and ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project) underestimate SSR while the reanalysis data from the ERA-Interim overestimate SSR compared to CM SAF SARAH. Using a radiative transfer model and a set of ancillary data, these biases are attributed to the atmospheric parameters that drive the transmission of solar radiation in the atmosphere, namely, clouds, aerosols and water vapor [CO2 not mentioned].. … The CM SAF SARAH SSR trend was found to be positive (brightening) and statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (0.2 ± 0.05 W/m2/year [2 W m-2 per decade].”

New German Paper On Infrasound Shows Adverse Impacts On Brain Activity!

German wind energy protest site windwahn.com here presents a brand new paper showing that infrasound-induced changes in brain activity is made visible and proven.

The findings thus suggest that the health impacts by the low-frequency sound waves generated by industrial wind turbines in fact do adversely affect human health, a claim that has often been denied by Big Wind.

Fig. 1: The new paper by Weichenberger et al: “Altered cortical and subcortical connectivity due to infrasound administered near the hearing threshold – Evidence from fMRI”

Some lobbyists and proponents even went on to say that it was all in people’s heads. Well it turns out that this is true, but it’s real!

The groundbreaking paper by Markus Weichenberger and scientists at the Charité (Berlin), the PTB (Braunschweig) and the UKE (Hamburg) is comprehensive and was published on April 12, 2017.

The study used advanced brain imaging to compare activity for infrasound near the hearing threshold.

Fig. 2: Results of whole-brain contrast regional homogeneity (ReHo) maps acquired during near-threshold vs. no-tone condition.

The paper’s conclusion is not what the wind industry and green energy proponents want to hear:

To our knowledge, this study is the first to document changes of brain activity across several regions in response to prolonged near-threshold IS using fMRI*. ReHo analysis revealed higher local connectivity of rSTG, ACC and the rAmyg only when IS was administered near the hearing threshold and ICA showed that effects can also be found on the inter-regional level. On the one hand, these results seem to support the hypothesis that (sub-)liminal IS can exert an influence on the organism via a subconscious processing route (which supposedly involves outer hair cell-mediated signal transduction). On the other hand, though clearly audible, prolonged stimulation with IS above the hearing threshold did not lead to changes of brain activity, which could indicate that the signal processed along the conscious hearing route may have been attenuated in a top-down fashion via attentional mechanisms.

Also, since the brain’s response to prolonged near-threshold IS involves the activation of brains areas, which are known to play a crucial role in emotional and autonomic control, a potential link between IS-induced changes of brain activity and the emergence of various physiological as well as psychological health effects can be established. Transient upregulation of these brain areas in response to below- or near threshold IS may thus reflect an initial stress response of the body, eventually promoting symptom formation as stimulation occurs repeatedly and additional risk factor come into play. Nevertheless, further research, in particular longitudinal exposure research, is needed in order substantialize these findings and contribute to a better understand of IS-related health effects.

Expect the pressure to mount to make wind park setback distances from residential areas greater.


Study Finds Burning All Fossil Fuels Would Lead To Only Max. 500-800 PPM CO2 Atmospheric Concentration

Another new study dampens climate alarm even more: “Summary of “Simple model for the anthropogenically forced CO2 cycle tested on measured quantities“.

A new paper by Horst-Joachim Lüdecke and Carl Otto Weiss appearing in the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International has found: “the increase of atmospheric CO2 will gradually come to an end” and that the “the ocean as well as the biosphere will be the primary sinks of future CO2 emissions of mankind“.

Try as hard as mankind may, but according to the results of this paper we may in fact never even succeed in doubling the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The authors found that a maximum of 500-800 ppm will be reached. Today we are at just over 400 ppm. What follows is the abstract:

The carbon dioxide information analysis center (CDIAC) provides a remarkable 163 years of data on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, man-made CO2 emissions, and from 1959 onwards CO2 net-fluxes into oceans and biosphere. Currently, half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere. Predominantly the ocean and the biosphere absorb the second half in about equal parts. We describe the anthropogenically forced CO2 dynamics by a linear model of only two parameters which represent physics and biological laws. Our model reproduces the CDIAC measurements perfectly, and allows thus predictions for the future. It does not deal with the equilibrium exchanges of CO2 between atmosphere, oceans and biosphere, but treats merely the net-fluxes resulting from the perturbation of the equilibrium by the anthropogenic emissions. Details as yielded by tracer measurements or ocean chemistry are not required. We applied the model for a tentative projection of the future CO2 cycle based on prospective anthropogenic emission scenarios from the literature. As a result, the increase of atmospheric CO2 will gradually come to an end and the ocean as well as the biosphere will be the primary sinks of future CO2 emissions of mankind.

The authors devised a model that describes the net flows of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere.

Integration yields the CO2 amounts taken up by these sinks. Since the CO2 content of the oceans is more than 40 times larger than that of the atmosphere, the flow into the oceans can be described by the linear mass action law. This flow is proportional to the difference of partial CO2 pressures in oceans and atmosphere with a proportionality factor. While the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere changes, the CO2 partial pressure of the ocean remains practically constant.

The CO2 flow from atmosphere to biosphere can equally be described linearly. It is assumed to be proportional to the CO2 flow into the atmosphere. This assumption is plausible since increased concentration of CO2 results in linearly increased plant growth.

As the authors state in the abstract, their model reproduces the CDIAC measurements perfectly, and thus allows predictions for the future. The authors summarize that assuming the strongest human emission scenario of burning all global carbon resources the main result concerning the future CO2 content of the atmosphere is that it cannot exceed about 800 ppm.

They conclude:

With regard to the actual discussion about an assumed dangerous climate change by anthropogenic CO2 emissions in future, our most important model result yields the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emission scenarios given in [20] until the year 2100 AD (completed by own tentative continuations from 2100 to 2150AD). For all scenarios, between 2080 to 2140 AD atmospheric CO2 concentrations up to at most 500 until 800 ppm occur. These future turning points of the atmospheric CO2 content take place 30 years after the pertinent emissions maxima. The maximum of 800 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration seems to be safe because the pertinent emission scenario assumes burning a twofold of the actual known coal reserves worldwide. After the apogee of atmospheric CO2 concentration predominantly the ocean and the biosphere will be the sinks of future CO2 emissions of mankind.


7 Gunshots Fired At National Space Science And Technology Center In Possible Attempt To Intimidate Dissenting Scientists


One of the nation’s leading scientists Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama reports at his website that 7 shots were fired at the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville Alabama, all hitting the fourth floor where the office of renowned pioneering climate scientist Prof. John Christy is located.

Target of brazen intimidation, or worse? Huntsville Alabama National Space Science and Technology Center climate science critical researchers Prof. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer may have been the targets of gunshots.

It is suspected that the shots were fired over the weekend during the “March for Science” demonstration. Dr. Spencer’s office is located in another part of the same building.

“I think this is more than a coincidence,” Spencer wrote at his site.

Both Spencer and Christy have been outspoken critics of the climate science alarmism often spread by alarmist scientists, militant environmental activists and mass media.

For years they and a number of researchers have claimed that the models have severely exaggerated the projected warming by greenhouse gases emitted by man and that observations over the past 20 years for the most part refute the theory.

A shaken Spencer writes at his site:

A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at UAH over the weekend.

All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building).

Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence. When some people cannot argue facts, they resort to violence to get their way. It doesn’t matter that we don’t “deny global warming”; the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvment in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy.

Our street is fairly quiet, so I doubt the shots were fired during Saturday’s march here. It was probably late night Saturday or Sunday for the shooter to have a chance of being unnoticed.

Maybe the “March For Science” should have been called the “March To Silence”.

Campus and city police say they believe the shots were fired from a passing car, based upon the angle of entry into one of the offices. Shell casings were recovered outside.

This is a developing story. I have no other details.”

If indeed targeted, the level of violence aimed at shutting down scientific dissent and open debate reaches a whole dimension. Scientists with dissenting views on climate must now fear life-threatening hostility and psychological intimidation that up to now has been unprecendeted in the USA — a nation that has traditionally prided itself in its freedom of speech, open debate and alternative ideas.

Skeptics of alarmist scientists have long been the target of harsh rhetoric from hostile climate alarmist parties, who often refer to scientists such as Spencer and Christy as “climate deniers”, a thinly veiled reference to Holocaust deniers.

Harvard astrophysicist Prof. Willie Soon, also an otspoken critic of climate science alarmism, has also felt firsthand vicious attacks from both colleagues and militant alarmists. In an e-mail comment, he like Dr. Spencer also called the shots more more than just a “coincidence”, and characterized last weekend’s March for Science” demonstration as a political charade.

“The whole ‘March for Science’ movement during the weekend proves how ill climate science has become today,” Soon wrote. “This incidence of shooting into Professor John Christy’s and Dr. Roy Spencer’s office building is an act of violent intent and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. Those anti-science cowards have not only lost their grounding in science, but clearly have also bankrupted their moral currency.”

Not long ago a University of Graz Professor called for the death penalty for scientists who did not agree with the visions of alarmist climate scientists, who have dominated the media and public scene with scare stories of super-storms and Biblical sea level rise for 15 years. While the professor’s harsh rhetoric was viewed as bizarre, it now totally pales compared to the 7 gunshots in Huntsville.

Joe Bast, spokesman of the U.S. think tank Heartland Institute in a comment by e-mail: “We should take this threat seriously, and all of us should take precautions in our professional and personal lives.”

New Paper Attributes 24% Of Temperature Changes To CO2 … Ignores Dominance Of Water Vapour, Clouds

Scientists Exclude Water Vapour & Clouds

As Contributors To Recent Climate Change

The IPCC has long acknowledged that water vapour is the Earth’s most influential greenhouse gas.

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The contribution of water vapour to the natural greenhouse effect relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2) depends on the accounting method, but can be considered to be approximately two to three times greater.”
— IPCC AR5 Chapter 8, page 666

In the 2007 report, the IPCC reported an increasing water vapour trend during the 1980s to 2000s.

Utilizing the IPCC’s own figures and models (from the 4th report), water vapour’s proportional contribution to the total planetary greenhouse effect reaches a dominating 96%.

In contrast, CO2’s proportional radiative forcing contribution to the greenhouse effect is just 2.7% regardless of the CO2 concentration level.

“Calculation of Radiative Forcing (Warming Effect)   

of Carbon Dioxide At Any Concentration”

Lightfoot and Mamer, 2014

“Figure 7 is FAQ 1.1 Figure 1 from page 96 of AR4 [IPCC, 2007]. It shows the radiation balance for the earth and that the back radiation of all of the greenhouse gases is 324 W m-2. This is the value used to calculate the RF [radiative forcing] of CO2 at 378 ppmv as (8.67/324)/100 = 2.7% back radiation of the total of all of the greenhouse gases. … From Table 1, CO2 accounts for 2.7% of the global warming while all of the other gases [i.e., methane] account for approximately 0.7% for a total of approximately 3.4%. It becomes evident that, on average, water vapour accounts for approximately 96% of the current global [greenhouse effect] warming. This is an important finding because it leads to the conclusion that the factors controlling the average level of water vapour in the atmosphere also control atmospheric temperature.”
“[O]n average, each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by approximately 23 molecules of water vapour at ground level [i.e., water vapour is 23 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2]. …  If the warming effect of water molecules and CO2 molecules were the same, then the contribution of CO2 would be (1/22.7) = 4.4% of that of water vapour. But from the previous section, water molecules are 1.6 times more effective at warming than CO2 molecules. Using this value and the ratio of 22.7:1, the contribution of CO2 to warming of the atmosphere is approximately (1/22.7)/1.6 = 2.8% of that of water vapour. As water vapour is approximately 96% of the total RF of all of the GHG, the contribution of CO2 is approximately 4% less than this, i.e., 2.69%. If the average RH were 60%, the contribution of CO2 would be ((1/27.4)/1.32) x 0.96 = 2.65%. For practical purposes, these values are the same as the 2.7% obtained by the quadratic model.”

Cloud Radiative Forcing

In a seminal paper (currently 1,440 citations) published in the journal Science entitled “Cloud-radiative forcing and climate…”, Ramanathan et al. (1989) conclude that the cloud contribution to radiative forcing (both shortwave and longwave) is ten times greater than doubled CO2.

Ramanathan et al., 1989     “The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.”

Cloud cover changes are significant determinants of the Earth’s top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation imbalance, or how much solar radiative forcing is absorbed by the Earth’s surface (oceans).

Wielicki et al., 2002     “It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.”

More cloud cover on a net global scale means less solar radiation penetrates the surface, which leads to a net cooling, and less cloud cover means more solar radiation penetrates into the (ocean) surface, which ultimately leads to net warming trend.   In other words, clouds significantly determine global warming (or cooling) trends.

Graph from Page, 2017

McLean, 2014     The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% [between 1984 – 2009] means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere… To put this [5.4 Wm-2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report…states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 Wm−2.  The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone [from 1750 to present].”

Goode and Palle, 2007     The decrease in  Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 … translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of the nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.”

New Paper Excludes Water Vapour, Clouds As Climate Contributors

Despite the widely recognized prominence of water vapour and clouds in models of greenhouse forcing, a new paper published in Climate Dynamics fails to even identify either factor as a contributor to global temperature changes during the 1984-2005 period.

Instead, the 5 authors have decided that carbon dioxide (24%) and methane (19%) are the dominant greenhouse drivers of recent temperature variations, and water vapour and clouds apparently no longer assume any role.  Meanwhile, the authors do recognize natural solar forcing factors (17% combined), natural ENSO variability (12%), and volcanic aerosols (23%) as assuming slightly more than half of the responsibility for temperature changes combined since the mid-1980s.

“Quantitative Assessment of Drivers of

Recent Global Temperature Variability”

Bhaskar et al., 2017

Quantitative assessment of drivers of recent [1984-2005] global temperature variability … Measurements of greenhouse gases: CO2,  CH4  and  N2O; volcanic aerosols; solar activity: UV radiation, total solar irradiance (TSI) and cosmic ray flux (CR); El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) made during 1984–2005 are utilized to distinguish driving and responding signals of global temperature variability.”
Estimates of their relative contributions reveal that  CO2 (24%),  CH4 (19%) and volcanic aerosols (23%) are the primary contributors to the observed variations in GMTA [Global Mean Temperature Anomaly]. While UV (9%) and ENSO (12%) act as secondary drivers of variations in the GMTA, the remaining play a marginal role in the observed recent global temperature variability. Interestingly, ENSO and GMTA mutually drive each other at varied time lags. … [A]ll the constituents of natural forcings together seem to make contributions equal to the greenhouse gases in the context of recent global temperature variability.”

Methane: A Primary Driver Of Recent Temperature Change?

It would appear rather odd that Bhaskar et al. (2017) would wish to claim, for example, that methane gas has been a significant driver of warming, but at the same time reject water vapour and cloud cover changes as factors affecting global temperatures.

It is likely, though, that the main reason why these authors chose to aggrandize the influence of methane emissions on climate is because it is not currently acceptable to claim that human activity plays only a small role (<25%) in temperature variations.  Therefore, adding methane emissions to the list of anthropogenic  dangerous “greenhouse gases” could bolster the perceived human influence percentage to within “acceptable” ranges (near 50%).

However, recently published scientific papers contravene this approach and indicate that (a) we just don’t have substantial observational evidence yet to attribute cause to a the rise in methane, (b) methane emissions may not have increased recently after all, and (c) human activity (fossil fuel consumption) has not been the “dominant factor” driving the (assumed) increase in methane.

Turner et al., 2017   [press release]  ” We conclude that the current surface observing system does not allow unambiguous attribution of the decadal trends in methane without robust constraints on OH variability, which currently rely purely on methyl chloroform data and its uncertain emissions estimates. … [M]ethane emissions might not have increased dramatically in 2007 after all.  … When atmospheric concentrations of methane increase, it may not be correct to chalk it up solely to an increase in methane emissions”

Ruppel and Kessler, 2017     [T]here is no conclusive proof that the released methane is entering the atmosphere at a level that is detectable against the [natural] background of ~555 Tg yr−1  CH4 emissions. The IPCC estimates are not based on direct measurements of methane fluxes from dissociating gas hydrates, and many numerical models adopt simplifications that do not fully account for sinks, the actual distribution of gas hydrates, or other factors, resulting in probable overestimation of emissions to the ocean-atmosphere system.”

Nisbet et al., 2016     The isotopic evidence presented here suggests that the methane rise was dominated by significant increases in [naturally occurring] biogenic methane emissions … [T]he sustained shift to more 13C-depleted values and its significant interannual variability, and the tropical and Southern Hemisphere loci of post-2007 growth, both indicate that fossil fuel emissions have not been the dominant factor driving the increase.”

 A Skeptical Conclusion

CO2’s alleged 24% contribution to temperature changes since the 1980s (Bhaskar et al., 2017) is substantially smaller than most estimates.  NASA’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt, for example, claims that the human contribution to climate changes since the mid-20th century is 110%.

As suggested above, the dubious inclusion of methane as a driver of planetary temperatures may have been added to expand the (perceived) anthropogenic contribution to climate change.

Likewise, Bhaskar et al. (2017) may be tendentiously excluding variations in natural factors like clouds and water vapour in their attribution analysis because they wish to avoid having to explain why the contribution from human activity is modest to negligible for recent decades.

When the results don’t fit the narrative, change the results.

UN Policy Farce …Toothless Paris Switched From “Binding Agreement” To “Pledge and Review”!

What follows are two new papers that once again throw the policy paths promoted by climate activists into question. Hat-tip Kenneth Richard.

Paris Agreement China pledge irresponsible

The first by Harris, 2017, calls China’s Paris pledge on climate change “inadequate and irresponsible” and “little more than business as usual“.

Today China is the largest national source of greenhouse gas pollution and thus to solve the “problem” of climate change, China is the country that needs to do the most.  But the paper writes that the Paris Agreement “disregards such obligations“. The paper adds:

The inadequacy and irresponsibility of China’s Paris pledge exposes some fundamental flaws in the international climate change negotiations and agreements, demonstrating that science and environmental studies cannot be disconnected from ethics and justice.”

The Paris Agreement is not going to accomplish anything. China is on board because its leaders know they won’t be obligated to do anything differently. It generally gets a free pass. Under the bottom line, there is no agreement in place that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, it isn’t going to happen.

Climate change will be “slightly positive”

The next paper is by Tol, 2017, where he clearly reminds us that climate change is not only bad, like many “experts” like to have us believe it is. An excerpt from page 2:

Research has shown that climate change would bring both positive and negative impacts (Arent et al. 2014, Schneider et al. 2007, Smith et al. 2001, Pearce et al. 1996). Positive impacts include a reduced demand for energy for winter heating, fewer cold-related deaths, and carbon dioxide fertilization which makes crops grow faster and reduces their demand for water. Negative impacts include sea level rise, the spread of tropical diseases, and increases in storm intensity, droughts, and floods. Adding up all these impacts after having expressed them in welfare equivalents, the impact of initial climate change is probably slightly positive. This is irrelevant for policy, because initial climate change cannot be avoided. More pronounced climate change would have net negative effects, and these impacts would accelerate with further warming. Even so, the impacts would be moderate: The welfare impact of a century of climate change is comparable with the welfare impact of a year of economic growth (Tol 2015). Uncertainties are large, though, but even the most pessimistic estimates show that welfare loss due to a century of climate change is comparable to that of losing a decade of growth (Stern et al. 2006).”

Concerning the negative impacts some may not be the problem they are assumed to be (tropical diseases, storm intensity), or the problem will take decades and centuries to show up (sea level rise). The author also mquestions the merits of fighting climate change, noting that it “cannot be avoided”.

From binding agreement to “pledge and review”

Moreover, the international community appears to have given up on pursuing a binding treaty. The paper states on page 7:

There are no sanctions for missing targets – indeed Article 15 explicitly states that the ‘mechanism to […] promote compliance’ is ‘non-punitive’. Article 28 stipulates that a country may withdraw from the Paris Agreement without sanction.
In other words, after 20 years of trying and failing to negotiate a treaty with legally binding emission reduction targets, the Paris Agreement switched to pledge and review.”

Believe It! Global Warming Hiatus Real, Chinese And Japanese Scientists Affirm

Slowdown: The braked warming of the last one and a half decades and its reasons

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning und Prof. Fritz Vahrenhholt
(German text translated by P Gosselin)

Stefan Rahmstorf is against the notion of a warming hiatus. In his eyes it doesn’t exist. Instead he prefers to live in his Rahmstorfian world, where every thing is the way it’s supposed to be: warming is galloping along. It’s a strange parallel world that has nothing to do with reality.

The rest of the scientific community, fortunately, see things somewhat more realistically and are busily publishing papers on the reasons for the hiatus or slowdown. The Institute for Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has even issued a press release on the subject:

New Study Reveals the Atmospheric Footprint of the Global Warming Hiatus

The increasing rate of the global mean surface temperature was reduced from 1998 to 2013, known as the global warming hiatus or pause. Great efforts have been devoted to the understanding of the cause. The proposed mechanisms include the internal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system, the ocean heat uptake and redistribution, among many others. However, the atmospheric footprint of the recent warming hiatus has been less concerned. Both the dynamical and physical processes remain unclear.

In a recent paper published in Scientific Report, LIU Bo and ZHOU Tianjun from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences have investigated the atmospheric anomalous features during the global warming hiatus period (1998-2013). They show evidences that the global mean tropospheric temperature also experienced a hiatus or pause (Fig. 1). To understand the physical processes that dominate the warming hiatus, they decomposed the total temperature trends into components due to processes related to surface albedo, water vapor, cloud, surface turbulent fluxes and atmospheric dynamics. The results demonstrated that the hiatus of near surface temperature warming trend is dominated by the decreasing surface latent heat flux compared with the preceding warming period, while the hiatus of upper tropospheric temperature is dominated by the cloud-related processes. Further analysis indicated that atmospheric dynamics are coupled with surface turbulent heat fluxes over lower troposphere and coupled with cloud processes over upper troposphere.

Figure 1. (a) Global mean temperature anomalies from 1950 to 2015 and (b) linear trends of global mean temperature for near surface (i.e. the lowest atmospheric layer), and the vertical average of the whole (surface to 100hPa), lower (surface to 500hPa), and upper troposphere (500hPa to 100hPa). Red (black) bars are for the warming period. Blue(white) bars are for the hiatus period. (Liu and Zhou, 2017)

As to why the surface latent heat flux, atmospheric dynamics and cloud-related processes showed such large differences between 1983-1998 and 1998-2013, LIU, the first author of the paper, explained, “They are dominated by the Hadley Circulation and Walker Circulation changes associated with the phase transition of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO).” According to LIU, the IPO is a robust, recurring pattern of sea surface temperature anomalies at decadal time scale. During a positive phase of IPO, the west Pacific and the mid-latitude North Pacific becomes cooler and the tropical eastern ocean warms, while during a negative phase, the opposite pattern occurs. The IPO has shifted from the positive phase to negative phase since 1998/1999, and this transition has led to the weakening of both Hadley Circulation and Walker Circulation, which served as a hub linking the three processes mentioned above.

 “Though the heat capacity of the atmosphere is nearly negligible compared with the ocean”, said ZHOU, the corresponding author of the paper, “understanding the atmospheric footprint is essential to gain a full picture of how internal climate variability such as IPO affects the global climate from the surface to the troposphere. The new findings also provide useful observational metrics for gauging climate model experiments that are designed to understand the mechanism of global warming hiatus”.

Citation: Liu, B. & Zhou, T. Atmospheric footprint of the recent warming slowdown. Sci. Rep. 7, 40947 (2017). http://www.nature.com/articles/srep40947

In other words: The hiatus was triggered by ocean cycles. This by the way was already discussed in 2012 in our book “Die kalte Sonne” (The Neglected Sun). Perhaps this message will eventually reach Potsdam.

Then on 15 April 2017 yet another paper appeared on the subject. Oka and Watanabe explained in the Geophysical Research Letters how the braked warming had to do with ocean cycles in the Pacific:

The post-2002 global surface warming slowdown caused by the subtropical Southern Ocean heating acceleration
The warming rate of global mean surface temperature slowed down during 1998–2012. Previous studies pointed out role of increasing ocean heat uptake during this global warming slowdown, but its mechanism remains under discussion. Our numerical simulations, in which wind stress anomaly in the equatorial Pacific is imposed from reanalysis data, suggest that subsurface warming in the equatorial Pacific took place during initial phase of the global warming slowdown (1998–2002), as previously reported. It is newly clarified that the Ekman transport from tropics to subtropics is enhanced during the later phase of the slowdown (after 2002) and enhanced subtropical Ekman downwelling causes accelerated heat storage below depth of 700 m in the subtropical Southern Ocean, leading to the post-2002 global warming slowdown. Observational data of ocean temperature also support this scenario. This study provides clear evidence that deeper parts of the Southern Ocean play a critical role in the post-2002 warming slowdown.”

New Study Finds Renewable Fuels Are Dirtier Than Fossil Fuels!

Today we look at two new papers that reveal renewable energies don’t deliver what their proponents like to have us believe they do, i.e. clean, affordable and reliable energy, and another telling us that the Paris Agreement is a joke.

Biofuel blends are more polluting

The first paper by Emery et al., 2017, looks at biofuel and found:

Life-cycle non-GHG air pollutant emissions, particularly NOX [nitrous oxides] and PM [particulates], are higher for corn ethanol and other biofuel blends than conventional petroleum fuels.”

Other findings include 1) emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) increase by 9–50% per 100 km traveled for high-ethanol blends from corn grain and combined grain and stover feedstocks; 2) NOX, PM [particulates], and SOX [sulfur dioxides] increase by 71–124% from corn grain and 56–110% from combined grain and stover, relative to conventional gasoline; and 3) The total social costs of ethanol blends are higher than that of gasoline, due in part to higher life-cycle emissions of non-GHG pollutants and higher health and mortality costs per unit.

In Germany many people are apprehensive about putting fuels blended with ethanol or biodiesel into their tanks because it is long known that these fuels are more aggressive with the vehicles’ fuel burning systems. I never put the stuff in my car.

Renewables cannot compete

Another paper shows that renewable energies are non-competitive on yet another front. Vass, 2017 here concludes that they “cannot compete with forest carbon sequestration to cost-efficiently meet the EU carbon target for 2050″.

The paper writes:

[T]he average cost per unit emissions reduction is more than twice as high for renewables as for forest carbon sequestration. Hence, the results indicate that renewables are unable to compete with forest carbon sequestration unless they receive continued government support.”

Paris Agreement is a “toothless deal”

And finally another study by Mahapatra and Ratha, 2017 finds that the Paris Agreement “is a relatively toothless one, which does not bind countries to actual emission limits, and has no mechanisms to impose actions. No sanctions will fall on any country that fails to come up to these intentions.”

The paper goes on to quote Professor James Hansen, the so-called father of climate change awareness:

the deal is worthless words’ (Wente, 2015).  The final text contains only bland platitudes. There is no necessary connection between the legally binding nature of an international agreement and its effectiveness in producing outcomes (Lake, 2015). The agreement delineates an aim for reducing temperatures to a 2°C above pre-industrial levels, but does not commit.

Yes, this is what all the climate activists and politicians were celebrating in December, 2015, in trying to have us believe they had accomplished something really big and unprecedented.

And there have been rumors that Ivanka Trump is pushing for the deal’s ratification by the US. Don’t be surprised should President Trump sign it. But it won’t matter, because the treaty is toothless and only a show. On the other hand, the President should keep his campaign promise and not sign the farce treaty.


New Paper Asserts ‘Biased’ Climate Models Underestimate Natural Variability And The Warmth Of The Past

Climate Models Fail To Simulate

Past & Present NH Temperatures

Reconstructions Of Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Indicate Medieval Period Was As Warm As Recent Decades

Abrantes et al., 2017 

Otto and Roberts, 2016

Other NH Reconstructions Indicate Pre-Industrial Temps Were Highly Variable, 1940s As Warm As 2000s

Schneider et al., 2015

Stoffel et al., 2015

New Paper: Models Need ‘Forcing’ Adjustment…Underestimate Past Warmth, Internal Variability…Instrumental Record ‘Biased’

Büntgen et al., 2017

Spanning the period 1186-2014 CE, the new reconstruction reveals overall warmer conditions around 1200 and 1400, and again after ~1850. The coldest reconstructed summer in 1258 (-4.4°C wrt 1961-1990) followed the largest known volcanic eruption of the CE. The 20th century is characterized by pronounced summer cooling in the 1970s, subsequently rising temperatures until 2003, and a slowdown of warming afterwards. Little agreement is found with climate model simulations that consistently overestimate recent summer warming and underestimate pre-industrial temperature changes.

[W]hen it comes to disentangling natural variability from anthropogenically affected variability the vast majority of the instrumental record may be biased. … Although the causes of the recently measured slowdown in global and regional warming during the last decade are still debated (Karl et al. 2015; Fyfe et al. 2016), our study provides the first long-term proxy evidence for this temperature decline over the western Mediterranean basin. This finding is in line with local, regional and sub-continental meteorological observations, and consistent with the observations by Gleisner et al. (2015) that the post-2003 pause in rising mean surface temperatures is most strongly expressed at mid-latitudes.

The reconstructed long-term variability exceeds the pre-industrial multi-decadal to centennial variability in four state-of-the-art climate model simulations. This mismatch between the proxy reconstructions and the four model simulations is in line with a general tendency of state-of-the-art climate model simulations to underestimate the amplitude of reconstructed natural low-frequency temperature variability during the last millennium (Bothe et al. 2013; Fernández-Donado et al. 2013; Phipps et al. 2013; Luterbacher et al. 2016; Ljungqvist et al. 2012). Such disagreement might indicate that the role of internal unforced variability is greater than expected (Goosse 2017; Matsikaris et al. 2016), and/or that the climate sensitivity to the prescribed forcings needs adjustment. … [S]tate-of-the-art climate models are usually driven by a relatively dampened amplitude of long-term changes in solar activity (Schmidt et al. 2011,2012).

Meteorologist Bastardi Blasts NOAA For Naming “Eyesores” In The “Middle Of Nowhere”!

After a record of more than 10 years without a major hurricane strike on the US, the NOAA must be getting hurricane desparate. The US climatology agency perhaps is demonstrating once more that records are not made by natural events occurring but rather by counting them differently.

At yesterday’s WeatherBell Daily Update, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi accused the NOAA of going out in the “middle of nowhere” to name anything that moves. Joe also discusses this further at today’s Daily Update.

It used to be that the NOAA stayed within certain Atlantic regions to count hurricanes – regions that positioned the hurricane for a possible US strike, or having an impact along the coast,  and with water surface temperatures 26°C and higher. But now Joe notes that they are looking at “eyesores near the Azores”, which have no chance of ever impacting the US coast and where water temperatures are just over 20°C.

Image cropped from Weatherbell Daily Update, April 18, 2017.

The veteran meteorologist suspects the NOAA may have abandoned the conventional hurricane counting standards, perhaps in order to sex up the statistics. Joe calls it “climate paranoia where every little thing that goes on turns into something bigger than it actually is.”

One could speculate: perhaps the NOAA wants to produce an awesome hurricane statistic this year in the hopes putting political climate science pressure on Washington. Politicized science unfortunately is something that has been going on quite some time at the US climate and weather agencies, critics say.

Bastardi calls the naming of a disturbance way out “in the middle of nowhere” over water that is 5°C under traditional hurricane-temperature waters “ridiculous”.

If the agency is just going to throw convention out the window, it might as well just start naming every North Atlantic storm that occurs every fall and winter off Europe. Why wait until April and stop at the Azores? Might as well include the North Sea and its heavy storms, too.

While the NOAA scurries to name any wind anomaly it can find, the situation in Europe continues to be bitter cold and nothing of sort you’d expect from global warming.

Some say that yesterday was the coldest April 18 on record, as snow and freezing temperatures gripped wide swaths of Central and Eastern Europe and Scandinavia.

The 5-10 day forecast shows no let-up in the frigid conditions.

Joe adds that the Alps will continue to be pounded my heavy snowfalls, thus defying predictions of the end of skiing at European ski resorts due to global warming. This year they’ll be skiing well into May.


Current Solar Activity Resembles Dalton Minimum…Weakest Month 75-100 Period Recorded!

The sun in March 2017

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

Our source of energy continued to be especially quiet last month. The mean sunspot number (SSN) was 17.7 and the sun was completely blank for 16 days.

It is important to recall once again that the SSN is not simply the sum of the observed sunspots, rather it is generated by the number of spots multiplied by the 10-fold of the observed sunspot regions. When one single spot is observed in an active region, this yields an SSN of 11.

The mean SSN for all cycles recorded so far, up to month 100 into the cycle, is 48.6, which means that the current cycle has seen a solar activity that is only 36% of the mean. It’s a weak cycle.

Fig. 1: The current solar cycle (SC) 24 is shown in red and is compared to the mean of the previous 23 cycles (blue) and the similar SC 5 (black).

What follows is a comparison of all cycles observed thus far:

Fig. 2: The accumulated sunspot anomaly between each cycle and the mean (depicted in blue in Figure 1).

As the chart above shows, the current cycle is the 3rd quietest overall since observations began in the 17th century. Overall only SC 5 and 6 (Dalton-Minimum) were quieter (so far). What is especially remarkable is that the 75 – 100 month period of the current cycle is the quietest of the such ever.

A real drop off in activity

Compared to the 1930 – 2000 period, the current cycle in fact represents a real drop off in activity. If we smooth the curve over 4 cycles, this is what activity looks like since systematic sunspot observations began:

Fig. 3: 44-year smoothed sunspot curve using Loess filter 44 SIDC (orange) and the mean value since 1700 (brown). In amplitude and time period, the 1930-2000 years were the most active of the past 300 years. The current drop-off has a strong similarity to that seen during the Dalton period.

We are of course keeping an eye on the solar polar fields. At this point into the cycle, its strength is an indicator of the activity may be in the upcoming SC 25. Since December not much has changed, and so we will continue to stick to our prognoses from last month: The coming cycle will be approximately 1/3 weaker than the current SC 24.

The next few billion years

Over large timescales, the sun’s thermonuclear furnace strengthens at its core as the sun ages. The “solar constant” is currently ca. 1362 W/m², but is in fact not constant because it is increasing. There are a number of publications about this, and one recent study has come to the following result: Over the next 1.3 billion or so years, it is gradually going to get warmer as the sun will gain about 12% more strength compared to today. For the climate system that will result in about 41 W/m² in effective greater forcing (compared that to about 3.8 W/m² for a doubling of CO2, according to scientific literature). This will lead to a new modus for the earth’s climate, as temperatures will rise about 20°C. Naturally this is nothing to worry about, as by then we’ll be long gone.

That of course will not mean the end of life on earth as water will continue to exist and the earth will stabilize at its new plateau. And as the sun gains another 10% in strength, water will rapidly be lost into space. That will be the case in about 2.1 billion years. Later after that life as we know it will cease to exist on earth. And another 4 billion years later the sun will engulf the parched earth as it expands into a red giant.

But as far as we are concerned today, there is no need for pessimism! And don’t forget: there will continue to be an ice age every 100,000 or so years – just as this has been the case over the recent geological past (2 million years). And even if man should succeed in doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the earth will not turn into Venus. For that an additional forcing of 72W/m² would be necessary.

New Paper: 100% Renewable Energy Not Feasible, ‘Unsupportable And Reckless’ – Keeps Poor Impoverished

Comprehensive Analysis Crushes

100% Renewable Energy Fantasy

While fully accepting the perspective that fossil fuel energy production and consumption must be dramatically reduced to save the planet from dangerous CO2-induced global warming, four Australian researchers have compiled a comprehensive rebuke of the premise that renewable energies (wind, solar, biomass, etc.) can feasibly supplant fossil fuels to become the dominant power source for the world.

The authors’ analysis zeroes in on the devastating conclusion that each and every one of the 24 previous attempts to substantiate the claim that a 100% renewable energy grid is achievable have failed to satisfy even the most basic feasibility criteria.

Further, a commitment to all-renewable energy sources means there will need to be a massive and unprecedented increase in grid extensions (for new power distribution systems), as well as realized plans for extreme and unrealistic land-use expansion (for biomass production especially) that would threaten ecosystem preservation, biodiversity, and land conservation efforts.

From a humanitarian standpoint, it is conceded that attempts to “decarbonize” energy sources seriously hampers efforts to provide electricity generation to the world’s most impoverished people. In fact, Heard and colleagues conclude that a commitment to renewable-only energy supplies “appears diametrically opposed to [the] eradication of poverty … and social justice for indigenous people.”

Again, these damning conclusions have been advanced by researchers avidly committed to reducing or eliminating fossil fuel energy production for the sake of mitigating global warming.  And yet even staunch renewable energy advocates cannot find a way to substantiate the claim that 100% renewable power generation is feasible.

A very brief summation of the highlights from the analysis — as well as the link to the full paper — is provided below.

Heard et al., 2017

Burden Of Proof: A Comprehensive Review Of The

Feasibility Of 100% Renewable-Electricity Systems

Of 24 Analyses Of The Prospects Of Achieving 100% Renewable Energy, Zero Met Basic Feasibility Criteria

While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible. Of the studies published to date, 24 have forecast regional, national or global energy requirements at sufficient detail to be considered potentially credible. We critically review these studies using four novel feasibility criteria for reliable electricity systems needed to meet electricity demand this century. [N]one of the 24 studies provides convincing evidence that these basic feasibility criteria can be met. Of a maximum possible unweighted feasibility score of seven, the highest score for any one study was four. … On the basis of this review, efforts to date seem to have substantially underestimated the challenge and delayed the identification and implementation of effective and comprehensive decarbonization pathways.”

Reducing Fossil Fuel Consumption Will ‘Raise Problems’ For ‘Poverty Alleviation’

“Our review of the 100%-renewable-scenario literature raises substantial concerns. The widespread assumptions of deep cuts in primary energy consumption defy historical experience, are generally inconsistent with realistic projections, and would likely raise problems for developing countries in meeting goals of poverty alleviation.”
“[E]conomic growth and poverty reduction in developing countries is crucially dependent on energy availability. A reduction in primary energy is an unlikely pathway to achieve these humanitarian goals. To move beyond subsistence economies, developing nations must accumulate the necessary infrastructure materially concentrated around cement and steel. That energy-intensive process likely brings with it a minimum threshold of energy intensity for development. Across a collation of 20 separately modelled scenarios of primary energy for both India and China, Blanford et al. found a range of energy-growth pathways from approximately +50 to +200% from 2005 to 2030. None of those scenarios analyzed for these two countries — with a combined population of almost 2.5 billion people — suggested static or reduced primary energy consumption.”

100% Renewable Energy Demands Unrealistic Grid Extensions, Land-Use Commitments

“The remaining feasibility gaps lie in the largely ignored, yet essential requirements for expanded transmission and enhanced distribution systems, both to transport electricity from more sources over greater distances, and to maintain stable system operations. Fürsch et al. suggested that a cost-optimized transmission network to meet a target of 80% renewables in Europe by 2050 would demand an additional 228,000 km of transmission grid extensions, a +76% addition compared to the base network. … Rodríguez et al. [83] concluded that to obtain 98% of the potential benefit of grid integration for renewables would require long-distance interconnector capacities that are 5.7 times larger than current capacities. Becker et al. found that an optimal four-fold increase in today’s transmission capacity would need to be installed in the thirty years from 2020 to 2050. An expansion of that scale is no mere detail to be ignored.”
“Perhaps our most concerning finding relates to the dependence of 100% renewable scenarios on biomass. The British scenario is a typical example; even with the assumption of a 54% reduction in primary energy consumption, biomass requires 4.1 million ha [hectares] of land to be committed to the growing of grasses, short-rotation forestry and coppice crops (17% of UK land area). … The WWF scenario demanded up to 250 million ha [hectares] for biomass production for energy, along with another 4.5 billion m3 of biomass from existing production forests to meet a scenario of an absolute reduction in primary energy from today.”
“[I]n applying so many assumptions to deliver changes far beyond historical precedents, the failure in any or several of these assumptions regarding energy efficiency, electrification or flexible load would nullify the proposed supply system. As such, these systems present a fragile pathway, being conceived to power scenarios that do not exist and likely never will.”

Wind-Watch.Org Image “Steel Winds

Summarizing Statements:  Proposition Of 100% Renewable Energy Must Be…’Discarded’

1.      “To date, efforts to assess the viability of 100% renewable systems, taking into account aspects such as financial cost, social acceptance, pace of roll-out, land use, and materials consumption, have substantially underestimated the challenge of excising fossil fuels from our energy supplies. This desire to push the 100%-renewable ideal without critical evaluation has ironically delayed the identification and implementation of effective and comprehensive decarbonization pathways. We argue that the early exclusion of other forms of technology from plans to decarbonize the global electricity supply is unsupportable, and arguably reckless.”
2.      “The realization of 100% renewable electricity (and energy more broadly) appears diametrically opposed to other critical sustainability issues such as eradication of poverty, land conservation and reduced ecological footprints, reduction in air pollution, preservation of biodiversity, and social justice for indigenous people.”
3.     “The evidence from these studies for the proposition of 100% renewable electricity must therefore be heavily discounted, modified or discarded.”


Antarctica Record High Temp Of 19.8°C In Fact Set 35 Years Ago – When CO2 Was Low

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

On March 1st Arizona State University reported on Antarctica’s record high temperature. Surprisingly the record was set not this year, or even this decade, rather it was set in the year 1982:

World Meteorological Organization verifies highest temperatures for Antarctic region
ASU climate expert, WMO rapporteur talks about importance of such verification

The World Meteorological Organization announced Wednesday new verified, record high temperatures in Antarctica, an area once described as “the last place on Earth.” The temperatures range from the high 60s (in Fahrenheit) to the high teens, depending on the location they were recorded in Antarctica. Knowledge and verification of such extremes are important in the study of weather patterns, naturally occurring climate variability and human-induced change at global and regional scales, said Randy Cerveny, an Arizona State University professor of geographical science and urban planning and the Rapporteur of Climate and Weather Extremes for the WMO. “The temperatures we announced today are the absolute limit to what we have measured in Antarctica,” Cerveny said. “Comparing them to other places around the world and seeing how other places have changed in relation to Antarctica gives us a much better understanding of how climate interacts, and how changes in one part of the world can impact other places.”  Because Antarctica is so vast (it is roughly the size of the United States) and varied the WMO committee of experts, convened by Cerveny, provided three temperature measurements for the Antarctic.

The highest temperature for the “Antarctic region” (defined by the WMO and the United Nations as all land and ice south of 60-deg S) of 19.8 C (67.6 F), which was observed on Jan. 30, 1982, at Signy Research Station, Borge Bay on Signy Island. The highest temperature for the Antarctic Continent, defined as the main continental landmass and adjoining islands, is the temperature extreme of 17.5 C (63.5 F) recorded on Mar. 24, 2015 at the Argentine Research Base Esperanza located near the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. The highest temperature for the Antarctic Plateau (at or above 2,500 meters, or 8,200 feet) was -7 C (19.4 F) made on Dec. 28, 1980, at an automatic weather station site D-80 located inland of the Adelie Coast.

The Antarctic is cold, windy and dry. The average annual temperature ranges from -10 C on its coasts to -60 C (14 F to -76 F) at the highest points in the interior. Its immense ice sheet is about 4.8 km (3 miles) thick and contains 90 percent of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea levels by around 60 meters (200 feet) if it were all to melt. Cerveny said that observing the extremes of what the Polar Regions are experiencing can provide a better picture of the planet’s interlinked weather system. “The polar regions of our planet have been termed the ‘canary’ in our global environment,” Cerveny said. “Because of their sensitivity to climate changes, sometimes the first influences of changes in our global environment can be seen in the north and south polar regions. Knowledge of the weather extremes in these locations therefore becomes particularly important to the entire world. The more we know of this critically important area to our environment, the more we can understand how all of our global environments are interlinked.”  Cerveny said an additional benefit is understanding how those extremes were achieved. “In the case of the Antarctic extremes, two of them were the result of what are called ‘foehn’ winds — what we call Chinook winds — very warm downslope winds that can very rapidly heat up a place. These winds are found even here in the United States, particularly along the front range of the Rockies. The more we learn about how they vary around the world, the better we can understand them even here in the United States. Full details of the Antarctic high temperatures and their assessment are given in the on-line issue of Eos Earth and Space Science News of the American Geophysical Union, published on March 1, 2017


PS: Happy Easter everybody! -PG

Post-Easter Frost And Snow To Grip Central Europe As Temps To Fall 12°C Below Normal!

Some years ago German warmist climatologist Mojib Latif complained over our changing climate, reminding us how in Germany we used to get snow sometimes for Easter.

Well this year, in mid April, Easter is relatively late, and the forecast is now calling for snow to hit large parts of Europe as a low pressure system (OTTO) centered over the Baltic sea will pump polar air across the continent — thus ushering in a nasty and possibly protracted spell of winter.

Germany’s DWD forecast for April 15. Otto’s cold front will pump in cold and moist polar air to kick off an unusual wintery April cold wave: Source: www.wetteronline.de/wetterfronten/europa.

German weather and climate site wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de here provides a good analysis of the situation. Ahead for the coming days are frost and snow. What follows are the GFS snow forecast charts from wetteronline.de for April 17, 18 and 19, which show widespread snowfall across Central Europe, even reaching down to the Mediterranean by Wednesday:

Chart sources: wetteronline.de

According to the WBDE site, temperatures in Europe will plummet by up to 12°C below normal.

NOAA caught by surprise, revise forecast

The April cold wave took the NOAA by surprise. The US weather and climate organization had predicted an outright balmy April back on March 22, 2017:

CFSv2 April temperature prognosis of March 22, 2017. Source: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Mon.html

Obviously the NOAA weather models had some major blind spots back in March (which is understandable), as much of Europe was projected to be 2°C warmer than the long-term mean.

But later on when the cold became obvious, the NOAA was forced to update its April 2017 forecast:

CFSc2 temperature forecast for April 2017. Much of the forecast was corrected significantly downward. Source: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Mon.html

On the other hand March 2017 across Central Europe was very warm, and had a number of media outlets blaming it on global warming. Germany even saw a new warm record set for the month of March. Perhaps that skewed the forecasters into thinking the warmth would continue, all in line with their global warming beliefs.

Trend: spring in fact coming later and later

The German DWD then added that spring was starting earlier and earlier – due to climate change, but did not mention that you have to go back some 60 years to get an overall warming trend line. However over the past 30 years, German springs have in fact been starting later and later – a reality that the DWD conveniently omitted.

This year it appears winter will be pushing spring back to May. Midterm forecasts show the cold wave will persist at least another week.

Warmists will naturally be quick to point that late-April snow in Central Europe is really nothing that unusual, which is true — if the cold spell lasts only a matter of days. However, as Wetter24 here notes, what is about to hit the continent will persist and thus be indeed unusual. It writes of April weather in Germany:

On the other hand what is unusual is a longer-lasting phase with significantly below or above normal temperatures. And it is such a phase that is now approaching with an anticipated long period of below normal temperatures.”

The bottom line: “thing-of-the-past” snow and frost are still ignoring “global warming” and are still showing up in April. Earlier predictions that they wouldn’t are wrong.