German Scientists: Solar Cycle 24 On Track To Be 3rd All-Time Weakest …And McCarthy Paper Points To Tame CO2 Climate Sensitivity

The Sun in May 2015, and Atlantic Waves

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

Our primary “fusion reactor” remains in a weak phase in its current solar cycle, number 24 since systematic observations began in the year 1749. In May sunspot activity was below normal. The observed sunspot number (SSN) was 58.8. The mean of all previous cycles for the current 78th month into the cycle is SSN=79. Thus May saw 75% of the usual activity.

Figure 1: The current cycle 24 (started in December 2008) is shown in red and is compared to the mean cycle (blue) and to cycle no. 5 (black).

A pronounced lull

Figure 1 shows that current solar cycle 24 has never exceeded the mean (blue) at any time since it began. In the 78 months since the it began, SC 24 has always been below normal. This has never been observed for any previous cycle.  The low solar activity since December 2008 is unique when it comes to its consistency when compared to the other cycles since observations began!

Even when activity reached a maximum in October 2011 in the sun’s northern hemisphere, and in February 2014 for the southern hemisphere, it remained just below the mean value. Together with the delayed start of the cycle we now have a record 10 years of quiet solar activity.

Figure 2: The accumulated sunspot anomaly of all cycle up to the 78th solar cycle month.

Figure 2 depicts a comparison of all the cycles with respect to solar activity. So far the current cycle is in 4th place in terms of low activity. But 3rd place is very reachable because SC 7 saw high sunspot values in its last third of the cycle, and so the chances are good that the total activity of SC 24 will be quieter than the last cycles of the Dalton Minimum.

Atlantic waves…

…are really high when it’s stormy. In early May off the coast of Portugal one of the co-authors of this article came to realize this in a 14-meter long sail boat. But the Atlantic also created other types of waves in the past month. A team of scientists led by Gerard D. McCarthy of the University of Southampton went on the search for internal North Atlantic variability, see www.nature.com/nature/journal.html. They determined that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) not only has ups and downs in sea surface temperature (SST) in the extratropic Atlantic region, but that these temperature variations lead to changes in sea level (SSH) along the east coast of the USA. The pattern appears as follows:

Figure 3: The “circulation series” shown in blue. In the paper the SSH variation is determined by comparing the sea level south of and north of Cape Hatteras. The AMO is black. Source: Figure 3 of the cited McCarthy publication.

The relatively long time series of tide measurements at the East Coast is thus a proxy for the ocean heat content (OHC) of the North Atlantic. Its direct measurement since the 1950 entails large uncertainty. But beginning in 2004 it has been much more precise thanks to the submerged ARGO measurement buoys and the RAPID network.

What implications does this study have? First of all, the existence of natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations is confirmed, and not only as a variation in sea surface temperature (SST) as it was previously defined. It is now sure that the AMO is a large-scale North Atlantic water mass circulation pattern. It is an independent internal natural variability of our climate system, and not just one involving global temperature.

Already in January 2013 we pointed to falling North Atlantic ocean heat content (OHC) since 2007. What follows is the data plot:

 Figure 4: The ocean heat content (OHC) of the extratropical North Atlantic since 1979. Source: Climate4you.

In the paper and its accompanying press release it is explained that the current decline in the OHC means it is announcing that the probability of the North Atlantic cooling more than 10 years is very high. The AMO’s impact on temperatures in the northern hemisphere was major in the past, as the following plot shows:

Figure 5: The AMO (green) compared to temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere (red).

If the AMO exists as an internal variability, as the McCarthy paper tells us, then that could imply that 0.5°C warming seen in the northern hemisphere since 1975 was due to the AMO and that the remaining 0.5°C of warming was due to impacts from greenhouse gases and other factors, such as varying solar activity.

For estimating climate sensitivity from greenhouse gases, this has far-reaching implications: Up to now we were not able to completely exclude the impact of aerosols on the cooling of temperatures between 1945-1975, but now it is appearing as increasingly improbable. Indeed it is becoming more evident that the cooling was due to the weakening AMO during that time period (see Figure 3).

If indeed aerosols have a lesser cooling effect than previously assumed, then the climate sensitivity with respect to greenhouse gases must be less.  Since 1975 for the northern hemisphere it was not 0.26 °C / decade increase, but rather only 0.13. This is close to being identical to the southern hemisphere. We’ve often discussed this 50:50 order here …and once again we are confirmed.

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

By Ed Caryl

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

mainco2mappia18934

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

Screen Shot 2015-06-10 at 9.04.51 AM

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

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

F5aImage_print

Compare this with a corresponding frame from the model video.

Screen Shot 2015-06-10 at 9.26.46 AM

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

A Reader Rejects The Old Consensus On Medical Science, And Immediately Finds Vastly Improved Health

My father used to say that medical doctors were really gangsters in white coats. I used to think he was just being cynical, and so I pretty much dismissed it. Well it turns out his attitude allowed him to live beyond 90, and today I realize he was right all along.

What follows below is a reader comment by MJSnyder that really made my day. A couple of days ago I posted here on the consensus-led disaster of the lipid hypothesis. One reader got all upset about it and attempted to discredit the doctor whom I was citing with the aim of discrediting the science.

Of course one doctor doesn’t make science. But over the past years an entire chorus of doctors have emerged, and they are sharply criticizing the at times fraudulent science underpinning the lipid hypothesis. Even the government, having seen tens of millions of diabetics over the recent decades, has finally begun accepting the new results that fat and cholesterol are not killers after all and that they are actually healthy. Longstanding dietary guidelines are being amended.

I’ve switched to a high-fat, low-carb diet with vegetables and have seen amazing results when it comes to weight and examination test results. No more medicines for me. Of course this really bothers evil Big Pharma. But I’m not the only one who has seen success…

Here’s what one reader sent:

Pierre – Last year you had a posting on your life-style changes that intrigued me, so I followed the links, that lead to more links, that lead…..
I became convinced that the low carb diet was the way to go. So I switched to high fat, low carb. I’m now down 43 lbs, my blood pressure has normalized (now 5 pills less per day), my type II diabetes is controlled (7 pills less). I’ve also dropped Lipitor (cholesterol statin) and no longer have excruciating leg cramps.
My original goal was a loss of 80 lbs, but this has been so easy to attain that I’m thinking of extending it to 100 lbs.
I’m feeling so good about myself again that I’m seriously planning another cross-continent bicycle tour. That would the 3rd. I’m 71 years now.
Thank you Pierre – I’m very grateful for you sharing your personal experiences.

I’m convinced that the Climate Science industry and the Pharmacological industry are fraternal twins.

What’s incredible is that the cure is so simple and only involves nutrition adjustments – nothing more. Tens of millions have the opportunity to get better soon, in less than a year!

I’ve posted a couple of times on nutrition, and I think the reader means this post: http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/10/the-greatest-nutritional-and-pharmaceutical-swindle-of-all-time…

Or perhaps here: http://notrickszone.com/-how-consensus-science-may-have-almost-killed-andrew-revkin/

Again! 2nd Baltic Sea Report, Hans Von Storch, Show Medieval Warm Period 0.5°C Warmer Than Today!

How many times must a hockey stick be broken, before alarmists stop wetting their beds? … The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.
======================================

Second climate status report on the Baltic Sea Region: Medieval Warm Period was Half A Degree Warmer Than Today
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

In mid-May 2015 the second Climate Status Report on the Baltic Sea region was released. It was coordinated by the Helmholtz Center in Geesthacht, Germany. In a press release the institute explained:

The Second Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin (BACC II), a recently published report, serves as a revision and expansion of the 2008 edition of the BACC book. ‘The current publication for the Baltic Sea area is a regional variant on the global report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),’ says Prof. Hans von Storch, Director of the Institute of Coastal Research at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht and initiator of the report. The comprehensive scientific survey includes work from 141 scientists from twelve countries. The project team was coordinated by the International Baltic Earth Secretariat at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht and consists of meteorologists, hydrologists, oceanographers and biologists.

Warming continues

The current study takes into consideration observed climate changes for approximately the last two hundred years as well as possible changes that might occur by the year 2100. These projections are obtained from computer models. Warming air temperature in the Baltic Sea region has already been verified based on measurements, but the increase is seasonally and regionally different. The most drastic recorded increase in warming to have occurred in the northern Baltic Sea region was 1.5 degrees Celsius between 1871 and 2011 during the spring seasons. This number is well above the global warming estimates of up to one degree Celsius documented in the last IPCC report.”

The folks in Geestacht indeed forgot to mention a small detail in the press release, as you will soon see. The first two chapters of the report deal mainly with the climate development of the last 12,000 years and the last 1000 years:

Pages 25-49: Climate Change During the Holocene (Past 12,000 Years)
Irena Borzenkova, Eduardo Zorita, Olga Borisova, Laimdota Kalniņa, Dalia Kisielienė… Download PDF (1004KB)

Pages 51-65: The Historical Time Frame (Past 1000 Years)
Tadeusz Niedźwiedź, Rüdiger Glaser, Daniel Hansson, Samuli Helama, Vladimir Klimenko… Download PDF (912KB)

Obviously the Baltic Sea study goes far beyond the claimed 200 years. So out of curiosity, we examined the first two chapters. In the abstract of the 12,000-year chapter we discovered something interesting (emphasis added):

The Holocene climate history showed three stages of natural climate oscillations in the Baltic Sea region: short-term cold episodes related to deglaciation during a stable positive temperature trend (11,000–8000 cal year BP); a warm and stable climate with air temperature 1.0–3.5 °C above modern levels (8000–4500 cal year BP), a decreasing temperature trend; and increased climatic instability (last 5000–4500 years). The climatic variation during the Late-glacial and Holocene is reflected in the changing lake levels and vegetation, and in the formation of a complex hydrographical network that set the stage for the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age of the past millennium.”

The pre-industrial climate of the Baltic Sea region was everything but stable. According to the study during the period of 8000-4500 years before today, it was about 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today. This corresponds to the so-called “mid-Holocene climate optimum”. This is a warm period that is practically unknown to the public and not very well-liked by the media outlets. Suddenly we find a completely new meaning in the press release’s subheading “Warming continues”. It is getting warmer – but nowhere near as warm as it was during the 8000-4500 year before present period.

At the end of the abstract the attention shifts to the Medieval Warm Period, which is a part of the subsequent chapter by Tadeusz Niedźwiedź and colleagues. In the text describing the last 1000 years we find the well-known climate cycle that the IPCC tried to discard: the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Modern Warm Period. The chapter writes:

According to the scientific literature, there are four climatic periods of the past millennium: the Medieval Warm Period (MWP 900-1350), the Transitional Period (TP 1350-1550), the Little Ice Age (LIA 1550-1850), and the Contemporary Warm Period (CW after 1850).”

Just how warm was it during the Medieval Warm period in the Baltic Sea region? Also here with this inconvenient question the authors do not shy away (emphasis added):

Recent investigations of Fennoscandia by Ljungqvist (2010) showed that the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] occurred between 800 and 1300. At that time, warm-season (May-September) temperatures exceeded the contemporary warming of the end of twentieth century by about +0.5°C. The start of the warming was noted between the ninth and tenth centuries, and the peak temperature appeared at the beginning of the second half of the twelfth century. In a winter temperature simulation over the Baltic Sea region (Schimanke et al. 2012) during that time anomalies reached their highest value of+0.8°C for the MWP.”

The text above is a clear statement. The Baltic Sea region was 0.5°C warmer 1000 years ago.

No one wanted in any way that this important condition get mentioned in the press release. How could it have been warmer 1000 years ago than it is today at a time when atmospheric CO2 concentration was extraordinarily low?

Disastrous Scientific Consensus Finally Crumbles After 60 Years Of Deadly Failure!

Update: To the sheep of David Appell: http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/09/disastrous-scientific-consensus-finally-crumbles-after-60-years-of-deadly-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-1029797
====================================

Science has a way of calling itself the art of enlightenment, yet historically it has a nasty habit of taking us deep into dark dead-ends. Human history is filled with examples.

Whenever new theories get prematurely accepted as hard fact, policies usually follow and mislead society into new and ultimately disastrous directions. Dissidents are cast into academic exile. Eventually society gets led deep into a dark dead-end, light-years from the truth. Society wakes up and mends its ways only when real science is allowed to function once again.

So it was with the lipid theory, where cholesterol from high fat diets was claimed to be a major killer. Today, after 6 decades, it is turning out to be strikingly false.

That lipid theory was propelled in the 1950s by Dr. Ancel Keyes and his infamous, phony 7-country chart, which purported to show a direct link between heart disease and fat intake. Six decades long western societies were led to adopting the low-fat high carb diet for healthy living as a result. Today, after tens of millions having died horrible deaths from diabetes, heart disease and cancer, the science is only now finally beginning to admit it had gravely erred. The consensus science had been wrong.

Must read

Disclose.tv here has an article by Dr. Dwight Lundell, a veteran heart surgeon, who tells why it was wrong, and the horrendous consequences.

… we opinion makers insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol.

The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice.”

The result he writes:

Despite the fact that 25% of the population takes expensive statin medications and despite the fact we have reduced the fat content of our diets, more Americans will die this year of heart disease than ever before.” […]

The long-established dietary recommendations have created epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the consequences of which dwarf any historical plague in terms of mortality, human suffering and dire economic consequences.”

Imagine that it took 6 decades to figure that out.

The same will be true when it comes to the CO2 and climate theory. The parallels are stunning. Like the lipid theory, the climate-CO2 theory is also based on an absurd hockey stick chart fabricated by a less-than-honest activist scientist. It’s going to take a few more decades, and probably here too tens of millions of premature deaths as well.

Consensus is the brake failure of science

It wasn’t until early last year that I rejected the old consensus on cholesterol and health and switched to a high-fat, low carb diet that includes lots of meats, eggs, Kerrygold butter and vegetables. Since then I’ve lost 20 lbs, my blood pressure has returned to normal, and my blood values are normal. I haven’t felt better in at least 20 years. This is what results from rejecting “consensus” science.

The lesson here? Consensus is the brake failure of science. When it happens we can only hope it doesn’t take us over a cliff. This is precisely what is happening today in climate science.

The 97% should have been ignored

Concerning heart disease, if earlier patients had ignored 97% of the doctors and followed the advice of the other 3%, many would still be alive and even healthy today.

Reading Dr. Lundell’s admission at the above link may change your life and make it immensely better.

German Chancellor Refuses To Answer Inconvenient Climate Questions From Fellow Scientist

It appears leading German politicians have no interest in dealing with facts.

Last March geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning, co-author of the climate science skeptic book “The Neglected Sun“, wrote a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Sadly he never got a reply.

Therefore he has posted the following letter at the Chancellor’s “Direct to the Chancellorwebsite here.

You can support Dr. Lüning’s request for answers and democratic participation by clicking “dafür stimmen” (in favor), circled in yellow in image below, at the end of the letter at the above link. You’ll have to enter the code in the box.

Merkel letter

Here is Dr. Lüning’s letter in English:

The Fight against global warming

Dear Chancellor Merkel

I am referring to the article “The fight against global warming: Climate protection has priority” at: http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2015/02/….

1) You wrote (with reference to Germany):
‘Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent’
On which scientific publications and time periods are you basing this on? According to my knowledge most studies have found Central Europe has had no increase in weather extremes over the past 100 years.

2) You presented ‘heavy rains and storm flooding are on the increase’ and ‘the five largest natural catastrophes of 2014′ as examples of extreme weather events. Such a list can be drawn up for any desired year. Climatically relevant, however, in this relationship are foremost long-term trends of the last 100-300 years. How does these look? What is the intent of your list?

3) You wrote:
‘Climate change is leading to high costs. The total costs arising from natural disasters in 2014 worldwide was 110 billion dollars. One cyclone in India for example caused damage of seven billion dollars.’
However, scientific papers show that the observed rise in global extreme weather insurance damage is almost completely based on socio-economic reasons.

4) You quote Peter Höppe of reinsurer Munich Re: ‘Damages from thunderstorms and bad weather have been shown to be on the increase in various regions such as the USA and Central Europe.’
And what about other regions on Earth? How do things look when it comes to the global mean? And can it be excluded that natural fluctuations/shifts are at play here?

Thank you in advance for your reply.
Kindest regards
Sebastian Lüning

Analysis By German Experts Expose 350.Org Lake Baikal Flawed Claims …Temperatures In Truth “Stagnated Since 1988″

Water shortages at Lake Baikal: climate activists ignore important climate cycles

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

Not long ago we corresponded with the Helmholtz Asscoiation over a somewhat botched article about Lake Baikal. They simply assumed that the climate at the lake had been constant before industrialization – a fatal flaw.

On May 6, 2015 the activist groups of 350.org and Global Voices followed and committed similar flaws when they misinterpreted the current climate changes as “unique” and as “something that had never occurred before“. At Global Voices we read [translated from the German]:

According to experts, climate change is the cause of Russia’s shrinking Lake Baikal.
[…] The Russian Minister had clear words for the drop in the water level: ‘The climate’. So what on earth has happened with the climate? Experts assume that precipitation amounts in the Baikal region fluctuate in cycles of several decades. What is now happening, however, is clearly out of the pattern of normal variation. At the end of March the water level for example fell 9 cm below the critical value. Such a water shortage has not been observed in over 100 years. According to the Ministry for Catastrophe Protection, the water amount finding its way into the lake in the summer and fall of 2014 was only 65% of the climatic normal. The drying of Lake Baikal is taking place within the backdrop of a dramatic climate change in Russia: According to the Rosgidromet Meteorological Center, the rise in the mean temperature occurred here 2.5 times faster than it has globally. Climate change is leading to a rapid rise in the frequency of natural catastrophes, including drought.”

It’s nice to see that activists are at least recognizing precipitation cycles on a decadal scale. However they fail to take the longer term hundred-year or millennial cycles into account. The lowest lake water level in the last 100 years? That is only a tenth of a 1000-year cycle that is clearly described in the literature. See: “Study by the University of Alberta: 1000-year climate cycles triggered by solar activity fluctuations“ or “Climate at Lake Baikal pulsed in sync with the sun over the past 5000 years“.

In January, 2015, Sputnik News discussed the reasons for the water shortage. In addition to a pronounced drought in the previous year, also the hydropower plant removed too much water from the lake:

Over the past twelve months the lake water has dropped a record 40 cm to a sixty-year low — just shy of the critical mark of 456m. Some experts blame this on the local energy companies, but officials and biologists attribute the drop to last year’s drought.”

No word on this at 350.org/Global Voices. Instead they prefer to dramatize the warming of the past 70 years:

Lake Baikal is indeed warming. According to a study published already in 2008, the temperature of the surface water of Lake Baikal has risen already 1.21°C since 1946.”

Why do the activists cite a study from 2008 when there is more up-to-date data available that extends to today? Why the seven-year omission? We want to know more about this and so we look at the Lake Baikal GISS temperature record for the past 130 years at New Scientist:

The answer: In 2007 there was an extreme warm peak that obviously some people wanted to fully use in the statistic. In truth the temperatures have been falling again at Lake Baikal since 2004, measured with the 5-year running mean. In principle temperatures at Lake Baikal already have stagnated since 1988. Moreover the activists failed to mention that 1000 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period, Lake Baikal was once similarly warm as it is today, perhaps with similar warming spells during the transition phase.

Energy Expert Issues Warning On “Carbon-Free Society”: “Destruction On An Astronomical Scale”…”Cost Avalanche”

This too will be a sticky post for at least a day or more. Germany’s leading renewable energy expert and climate science critic Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt warns of an irrational and panicked rush into renewable energies.

In a penned opinion piece in Germany’s Manager Magazin titled: “Why a Phase Out of Coal Would Be Damaging“, the German professor believes the movement to divest from fossil fuels is seriously misguided and that the move to a completely carbon-free global society would lead to “destruction on an astronomical scale“. He writes:

In order to produce the same amount of power with wind, we would see a surface area consumption and corresponding destruction of natural habitat on an astronomical scale.”

Fritz Vahrenholt was formerly responsible for the renewable energies arm of European power giant RWE, RWE Innogy GmbH. No one has overseen the installation of as much renewable energy in Europe as Vahrenholt has. In the field of wind energy he is a leading expert. He has since become a leading critic of renewable energy and climate science.

Vahrenholt, a professor of chemistry and former Environment Senator for the City of Hamburg in the SPD socialist party, asks:

How realistic is it really to produce not only electricity but also heat and fuels for transportation worldwide from China to Brazil over the coming decades without fossil fuels? As before in China a coal power plant goes online every 14 days, and India is well on the way to do the same as its neighbor.”

“Cost avalanche of 1000 billion euros”

Vahrenholt sharply criticizes Germany’s transistion away from coal and nuclear power and over to renewables because of the enormous cost burdens that citzens will have to bear in the years ahead. He writes that German Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel knows that “if the brakes on renewable are not applied, a cost avalanche of 1000 billion euros is headed our way“.

Uncontrollable supply

And as exorbitant quantities of wind and solar power are added to the power grid, Vahrenholt warns that during windy and sunny periods, large quantities of power will have to be “disposed of” on foreign markets.

We will have to dispose of the power in foreign countries more often than we do today and even pay money to Austria, Holland, Poland and the Czech Republic to take the power.”

Excess power of course would be ruinous to foreign markets. Vahrenholt reminds that sun and wind energy are fraught with technical problems because they work a minimal part time. Storage technology remains nowhere in sight.

Will have near zero impact

And even if Germany were able to solve the unsolvable technical problems, the CO2 emissions savings that Germany would achieve through a shut-down of its coal power plants would be offset by growth in China in a matter of just 2 months. The result would be no “climate protection” at all and Germans would only be able to boast over a flickering mess of a power supply.

In Vahrenholt’s view, the German green energy model is so costly that “no country in the world is going to follow it“.

Exaggerated science, flawed models

He also calls the climate science “wildly exaggerated” and maintains the climate models have been false:

There are more and more scientific findings showing that the climate effect by CO2 has been wildly exaggerated by the IPCC. There has not been any significant warming in 16 years even though one third of the historical CO2 emissions occurred in the same time period and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising year after year.”

Vahrenholt describes the climate models as a joke as they do not even take the long-known ocean and solar cycles into account.

Leaping before looking

He tells us that Germany is rushing unnecessarily into renewable energies and that the natural cycles mean we have lots of time and that we should take that time and do the transition in a sensible manner. He asks:

Why the frenzied go-it-alone approach that is putting so much at risk? No nation on the planet is going to follow us when they see their own industrial base being destroyed and citizens financially overwhelmed.”

Vahrenholt adds:

In addition to the destruction of capital, there is also a grand destruction of many thousands of jobs.”

But none of this seems to impress Germany’s green government authorities, who continue to overzealously pursue shutting down fossil fuels and pushing for large-scale installation of an piece-meal energy infrastructure that has been proven to be technically flawed.

Consequences “close to insurmountable”

The German energy folly is already taking its toll, Vahrenholt writes. He claims that the “insidious process of deindustrialization has already begun” in Germany because of skyrocketing energy prices and growing uncertainty.

Consequently Vahrenholt is calling for a “fundamental reform” of the country’s energy policy and a return to a more market-oriented approach. He calls Germany’s famous EEG renewable energy feed-in act an obsolete model that is “bringing no reduction in CO2 emissions” and one that is “eroding Germany as a place for industry” and whose “consequences will be close to insurmountable“.

Rahmstorf’s “Fantasy” Of “A Weakening Gulf Stream” Gets Refuted Yet Again.

Norwegian University of Bergen: Gulf Stream Shows No Longterm Weakening Over Past 20 Years!

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated by P. Gosselin]

Not long ago we asked German public radio Deutschlandfunk why they mentioned only the alarmist viewpoint of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in a report on the Gulf Stream published in March. The DLF replied that they indeed had reported on deviating models in the past.

PIK scientist Stefan Rahmstorf naturally detests it when the German media express criticism over his statements. In the Süddeutschen Zeitung of July 3, 1999 Rahmstorf was cocksure, claiming:

The Atlantic ocean current probably will weaken notably over the coming decades – here the simulations from various institutes are in broad agreement.”

Over the past one and a half decades that “broad agreement” has turned out to be a fantasy. The wide majority of scientists see no long-term change in the Gulf Stream. At the end of May 2015 yet another institute that refuses to follow the PIK has appeared. Oceanographer Kjell Arild Orvik of the Geophysical Institute of the University of Bergen has studied the Gulf Stream at the west coast of Norway and has determined that the ocean current has remained stable over the last 20 years. At the Forskning.no website (via WUWT) Orvik explains:

What we see is that the stream is lively in the sense that it varies both seasonally and from year to year. But when observing it over 20 years, it shows long-term stability.

Of course neither German national public radio Deutschlandfunk nor the Süddeutsche Zeitung have reported on this interesting development from Norway.

Germany’s Anti-Wind Energy Elements Morph Into A Massive Network Of Protest Groups… Call Wind Energy “A Lie”

The last two posts were getting a lot of traffic, and so yesterday I decided to take the day off and let them run. Today I’m back with the next post, which is also about the wind energy folly.

Resistance to the junk green energy is growing in Germany.

Last month a print edition of Germany’s Braunschweiger Nachrichten featured a commentary by the head of a German wind protest organization, Dr. Thomas Carl Stiller. The title:

Braunschweiger Zeitung“Madness With Wind Turbines”

Hat-tip K.E. Puls, European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).

In the commentary Stiller says that Germany’s once highly ballyhooed Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) “cannot and will not function“, and what was once only a few single protesters voicing opposition to wind parks, is now an entire nationwide umbrella organization of protest groups against the “subsidy-robbing empire” of wind energy industry.

Stiller describes a technology whose produced energy cannot be stored and which depends on random, unpredictable winds. The technology is so inefficient that builders are now forced to erect 800-foot tall monster size machines in a desperate effort to extract real power. He also writes that “wind energy has done nothing to combat climate change”.

Despite increased wind energy installation, CO2 emissions in Germany have risen. […] Climate protection and reliable power supply by wind turbines installed on the land is thus a lie.”

Stiller also writes that the maximum output of a wind turbine “is far below its rated capacity” and that the German citizenry is paying 20 billion euros annually for a “misconception“. To illustrate the folly of wind energy, Stiller writes that Germans are paying 20 billion euros a year for a commodity that gets sold on the power exchange for only around 2 billion euros.

What’s encouraging is that Stiller writes: “German citizens are waking up to this insanity“. He comments that “wind energy would not be able to supply the country even if the entire country were covered with wind turbines“.

Stiller also calls for more research for the health impacts that wind turbines are having and that the energy source has got to be for the good of the public and not profit a few opportunists. He adds:

Us organized citizens are demanding independent feasibility studies and calling for more transparency during the planning process and that man and nature be put back in the focus.”

Shocking Before-And-After Photos: How Wind Parks Are Devastating Idyllic German Countryside!

Note: Most, if not all, of the “before” photos were produced by airbrushing away the wind turbines from the real “after” photos, as some readers have pointed out. This is the most effective way of accurately showing the real extent the turbines have blighted the landscape.
=================================================

Wind energy is supposed to rescue the planet from an environmental and nature disaster. Unfortunately for many in Germany the opposite is true. It has brought on environmental ruin and destruction of natural heritage.

What follows are a series of before and after photos depicting the “success” wind turbines are having in rescuing the environment.

The photos are posted with the kind permission of Hermann Dirr of windflut-elpe.de.

1. Vogelsberg

001

002

2. Hohe Vogelsberg

003

004

3. Dirlammen

005

006

4. Lautertal

007

008

 5. Mücke

009

010

6. Ulrichstein

011

0127.  Zeilbach was beautiful…

013

014

8. Adorf0150169. Diemelsee:

017

018

10. Paderborn-Dahl

019

02011. Ostfriesland…02102212. Saxony Anhalt:023024These are just some examples how Germany’s political leaders are protecting the environment. Aren’t they wonderful!

Boy, we sure could learn a lot from these deep thinkers. Let’s not talk about the impacts on property values and the health effects from infrasound.

The original German Powerpoint presentation with the photos is here. Once again special thanks to windflut-elpe.de and the Naturpark Hoher Vogelsberg.

Bombshell: Comprehensive Analysis Reveals NOAA Wrongfully Applying “Master Algorithm” To Whitewash Temperature History

A bit on the long side, but stunning to say the least. Energy physicist Mike Brakey tells us why he is not surprised the NOAA might be investigated by Congress. (Sticky post – new posts below). 
=============================

The “Trick” to Controlling the Climate Agenda
By Mike Brakey

Brakey_1Last April, in a short, narrated YouTube series titled, Black Swan Climate Theory [1] (BSCT) irrefutable evidence was presented that sometime between 2011 and 2015 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had on two occasions rewritten its own version of Maine’s statewide climate history. The gist of my findings was that I believe I caught NOAA purposefully using computer code (algorithms [2]) to lower historic temperatures to promote present day temperatures as the warmest on record. The image above is from the new YouTube series posted after NOAA’s acknowledgement that they had indeed made improvements to Maine’s climate history.

On May 6, 2015, NOAA confirmed in writing that the 151°F of Fudging—the Massive Rewrite of Maine Climate History, [3 ] reported in Black Swan Climate Theory [4] (BSCT) study was no accident. NOAA states the changes were intentional and were justified! NOAA’s written statement included these words [5]:

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

Brakey_2NOAA’s statement about the need to recently introduce colder Canadian data into Maine’s past climate history was highly fishy, to say the least. I decided to rework the research parameters to eliminate possible Canadian temperature infusion and confusion. Rather than compare my archived data for Lewiston/Auburn, Maine (Zone 19) to NOAA’s “statewide” [6] data for 32 Zones as I did in BSCT, I limited my analysis to NOAA’s southern interior data (CD 2) [7]. Since Lewiston/Auburn is centered in NOAA’s Maine southern interior climate region (see blue region of state chart), the two sets of numbers should essentially be identical. However, as I theorize, my findings again suggest NOAA is using a computer algorithm to inflate heating degree-days with all the raw climate data processed by an average of more than 10 percent.

This new approach is documented on our new narrated PowerPoint series, Black Swan Climate Theory II [8] (BSCTII). It will be posted on YouTube by early June 2015. Here are some of the highlights of our findings.

Incredible discrepancy

There remained an incredible discrepancy of Heating Degree Days (HDD) between the two southern interior Maine data sets.

Brakey_3

The green-shaded area of the above chart to the right represents NOAA’s HDD values for the southern interior region of Maine, which I downloaded in May 2015. The black bars represent the raw HDD data that I gathered for Lewiston/Auburn over the last 10 years. I observed negligible difference between NOAA’s data for southern interior Maine and for the entire state of Maine. The annual average HDD’s for 1895 to 2014 were:

* 7,565 based on the raw data for Lewiston/Auburn;
* 8,276 based on NOAA’s 2015 data for the entire state of Maine; and
* 8,381 based on NOAA’s 2015 data for the southern interior region of Maine (105 HDD colder than statewide! See NOAA table below).

Brakey_4

Flawed NOAA algorithms

I expected the HDD’s for the state’s entire 32 zones to be greater than for Lewiston/Auburn’s Zone 19 because the statewide NOAA data includes the vast colder regions in the northern part of the state. However, NOAA’s published 2015 data indicates the southern interior region of Maine runs 0.288°F colder on average over the last 119 years! This points out another of many flaws in the NOAA data when an agency begins relying on computer algorithms over basic clean data from Mother Nature.

As I lay out my case in BSCTII, I contend that NOAA adjusted the data for all of Maine and for the southern interior region using the same algorithm shown in the first chart. NOAA’s HDD adjustments were kept small in the most recent decade then grew substantially in earlier decades of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Brakey_5

The chart above is drawn from BSCTII, Part 3 of 6, YouTube presentation [9]. In the presentation, step-by-step, I compared the raw data for Lewiston/Auburn to NOAA’s data for the state of Maine. I was able to discern the two algorithms that I believe NOAA implemented in 2011 and in 2014. Mother Nature’s data is the solid black line in the chart. Deviations from Mother Nature is shown as the blue line (percentage adjustment detected in 2013 archived data); the red line shows the percentage adjustment made in 2014 (detected in 2015). The green line is the master algorithm, the net effect of the two adjustments (blue and red lines).

I speculate that NOAA intended to quietly rewrite climate history over two programming runs (2011 and 2014). Each would lower historical temperatures a total of approximately 130°F.

I speculate that computer programming errors were discovered internally by NOAA after the 2011 algorithm was launched. NOAA decreased the 1913 HDD by 10% as opposed to increasing it by that amount. NOAA made 1913 one of the hottest years in Maine’s history. They eventually corrected that error and others with their 2014 algorithm run. I was not the first to catch this major faux pas.

Joseph D’Aleo, did a paper in 2014, involving Farmington, Maine data in southern interior Zone 13. The title of his effort was “Data Set Changes Makes It Hard to Tell Real Story” [10]. He complained of a 5°F swing in 1913 for NOAA’s southern interior data. In my April study, I had detected a 4°F swing for 1913 based on statewide archived NOAA data.

Maine’s history made a total of 254°F cooler

The 2011 algorithm lowered Maine “statewide” temperatures around 103°F. The Phase II algorithm run in 2014 corrected the 1913 error and lowered overall temperatures an additional 151°F. I contend that the master algorithm is now fully operational and maintains that Maine’s statewide climate history is over 254°F lower than the original documented records between 1895 and 2014!

As detailed in BSCTII, I contend that NOAA has attempted to maintain a number of the climate “inflection points” for authenticity while minimizing or completely eliminating all but one cooling period between 1895 and 2014. Drawn from BSCTII, Part 5 of 6, YouTube presentation [11] the following chart shows originally three Black Swan events [12] found with the Lewiston-Auburn data (the black line) provided by Mother Nature.

Brakey_6

Three have been reduced to a single Black Swan event on the NOAA data (the green line) from 2014 for the southern interior region of Maine. Based on this and many other revelations found in BSCTII, I concluded that NOAA’s explanation of the inclusion of Canadian data was not only fishy—it proved to be a red herring [13].

“NOAA continues to manipulate historic climate data”

Based on these findings, my ongoing working theory is that NOAA continues to manipulate historic climate data through single master computer algorithm. The master algorithm array serves as the “trick” to hide present and future Black Swan [14] regional cooling events in Maine. I have also found that identical tweaks were being made with the other individual states and United State as a whole. It is being done by consistently lowering historical temperatures on all processed climate data controlled by NOAA as will be illustrated below with archived data from 2013.

Brakey_7

Algorithm applied nationwide…2014 a fabricated record

The graphs above illustrate how I contend NOAA applied a master algorithm “trick” not only to Maine, but to the United States as a whole. The green graphs show NOAA’s HDD published in 2013 for Maine and the U.S. The blue graphs show NOAA’s HDD published in 2015 for the same two locations. As you can see, the HDD have been inflated in both cases by the same percentages. In 2014, it appears NOAA had completed cooling both Maine and U.S. climate history by increasing HDD over 5%. This permitted NOAA to lower historical temperatures in excess of 10% between 1895 and 2014. Now NOAA and government agencies could announce to the world that 2014 was one of the warmest years in U.S. (revised) history.

Ohio adjusted as well

Another example includes NOAA’s data associated with Ohio. The green graph below shows NOAA’s data for Ohio prior to its 2014 adjustment (but after the 2011 adjustment).

Brakey_8

The blue shows the data after that adjustment. This second adjustment reduced Ohio’s historical temperatures by 83.8°F. You can see that it is the same pattern of adjustment as in Maine and the United States as a whole. I wonder if they needed Canadian meter stations here also!

NOAA’s data associated with Tennessee increased 18,802 HDD between 2013 and 2014. This reduced Tennessee’s historical temperature record an additional 51.5°F.

What is NOAA’s rational for the major correction here? The pattern is the same.
Based on my research to date, I have concluded that:

Whosoever holds the algorithm for interpreting and documenting past climate history possess the power to shape a nation’s perception of present climate and the funding solutions. Are we experiencing global warming or global cooling? It depends on whose historical climate data we are examining!

NOAA admitted to rewriting temperature

I want to emphasize again that NOAA admitted to massive rewrites of Maine “statewide” history on May 6, 2015. NOAA indicated all these changes to include Canadian stations were necessary to make sure the data truly reflected Maine history over the last 120 years.

How do they explain similar adjustments to Maine’s southern interior region, Tennessee, Ohio and the United States as a whole?

Every U.S. state for which I kept archived NOAA data had been corrupted in an identical manner. At this point in time, my theory that NOAA is rewriting U.S. climate history with a computer algorithm appears to still be valid.

Summary

I contend that the NOAA computer program essentially uses a very simple algorithm array, that automatically takes each historical year of local data and “shapes it” to fit into an overall mosaic NOAA wants to project to the scientific community and the general public.

Brakey_9

The table below lists “Year”, “NOAA Master Algorithm Adjustment”, and the “Anti-Master Algorithm”.

Brakey_15

The Anti-Master algorithm is nothing more than the reciprocal of NOAA’s algorithm.

This entire affair seems reminiscent of the early 1990s. The following chart below shows the multiple warming and cooling (Black Swan) periods over the last 1,100 years.

Brakey_10

In 1990, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the graph seen in Chart 1. It showed that the Middle Ages were warmer than today, in what was called the “Medieval Warming Period”. Then, around the 14th century, society begins its descent into a series of “Black Swan” cooling climate events. We plunged into the “Little Ice Age” period from which we gradually emerged in the early 1700s. There were at least five major Black Swan events over this time period.

In the late 1990s Michael Mann published Chart 2 which redefined climate history and eliminated numerous Black Swan events. A Congressional investigation uncovered numerous errors in Mann’s chart and the IPCC dropped it from the Summary of Policymakers for its 2007 report. Unfortunately, the false hockey stick is still cited by advocates of the “science-is settled” position [15]. This includes powerful members of NOAA and the current U.S. administration.

Are we now remaking American climate history to adhere to Mann’s disappearing hockey stick? I have theorized that NOAA has possibly attempted a similar approach for inconvenient climate history in Maine and across the United States.

The following chart shows the result of applying NOAA’s algorithm to the Lewiston-Auburn, Maine data (the black line). The result is NOAA’s green line.

Brakey_11

In the transformation you eliminate two of the three Black Swans. This chart thereafter falls in line with Michael Mann’s chart from the late 1990’s that cited only one Black Swan event in the last hundred years.

My theory is that, if you begin with NOAA’s “adjusted” data and apply the anti-algorithm, you return the “processed data” back to how Mother Nature provided us the information in the first place.

USA likely in a state of cooling since 1990s

As a last example, on the chart below, we will take NOAA’s “processed” data for the United States climate history and apply the “anti-algorithm array” (see table above).

Brakey_12

The application of the anti-algorithm would indicate the United States, as a whole, might have been in a state of regional cooling since the late 1990s, as is presently true of Maine when you use Mother Nature’s original data.

“…certain individuals in NOAA have being hoisting a fraud on taxpayers”

If my theory is proven correct, it would mean certain individuals in NOAA have being hoisting a fraud on taxpayers of the U.S. and around the world. It has added up to trillions of dollars over the decade. [16]

As noted in BSCT and BSCTII, I play a short video clip of Doctor Feynman explaining how theories are generated and how they should be tested repeatedly.

Brakey_13

We expect no less here. I welcome a thorough examination of my algorithm theory.

In Black Swan Climate Theory II we explain, in depth, why, in my opinion, I believe this is not an accident. I have concluded American basic climate data has been hijacked and corrupted within NOAA through the use of a simple master computer algorithm that I have repeated here.

Brakey_14Profound implications

Based on the evidence from Maine, Ohio, Tennessee and consolidated U.S. climate data presented in the BSCT series; and should my theory be validated, the implications are profound. It would indicate we presently live in a nation where an agency of the Federal government has taken it upon themselves to rewrite the history of climate for the fifty different individual states of the Union.

If my theory proves correct, billions of dollars of climate data has been corrupted within a formerly great organization. Worse, decisions worth trillions of dollars are being made presently on fraudulent climate data. As well-intended as I believe most NOAA associates are, I implore NOAA to please make available the plain, unexciting, unfiltered temperature data provided by Mother Nature.

Throw the environmental activists [17] out! The litmus test for me is when NOAA’s climate data agrees with both satellite data and local archived data.

References:

[1] Black Swan Climate Theory, April, 2015, Mike Brakey, 1st series of five (5) short YouTube videos on NOAA climate adjustments https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59

[2] A computer program can be viewed as an elaborate algorithm. In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm usually means a small procedure that solves a recurrent problem. I contend NOAA has been attempting to correct a climate aberration that Mother Nature has repeatedly thrown at the organization since 1998. These inconvenient aberrations are pockets of regional cooling in Maine, across the United States and likely around the world between 1998 and 2010!

[3] 151 Degrees of Fudging, May 2, 2015, Mike Brakey, Link: http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/02/151-degrees-of-fudging-energy-physicist-unveils-noaas-massive-rewrite-of-maine-climate-history/#sthash.9QtBzze0.SF5o7vzD.dpbs

[4] Black Swan Climate Theory, April, 2015, Mike Brakey, series of five (5) short YouTube videos on recently discovered NOAA climate adjustments that rewrote Maine climate history – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59

[5] NOAA E-Mail Confirms Large Scale Rewrite of U.S. Temperature Data, May 6, 2015, Mr. Derek Arndt, NOAA, Link: http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/07/noaa-e-mail-confirms-large-scale-rewrite-of-u-s-temperature-data-in-2014-improvements-in-the-dataset/#sthash.T6Bpcr1O.4fwNcmBn.dpbs

[6] NOAA classifies Maine heating degree days under four divisions. They are Statewide CD 1 North CD 2 South Interior, and CD 3 Coastal.

[7] Unlike “statewide” and “CD 1 North” this region, “CD 2 South Interior” should have no reason to be subject to Canadian temperature contamination.

[8] Black Swan Climate Theory II, Michael Brakey, June, 2015. The six part PowerPoint YouTube series is also found at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59. The presentation takes you step-by-step through how it appears that leadership in NOAA unashamedly created a new master algorithm that was applied to the Maine data to rewrite climate history.

[9] See link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn3QUEE3HYo&index=8&list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59

[10] https://redneckusa.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/data-set-changes-makes-it-hard-to-tell-real-story.pdf

[11] See Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go1zpvUzmRk&list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59&index=10

[12] A Black Swan event is a significant cooling period of more than ten years.

[13] red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.

[14] or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

[15] The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon, 2008, Richard Vigilante Books, Chapter 2, The Case of the Disappearing Hockey Stick. pp. 9-21.

[16] The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria, Larry Bell, Forbes, August, 2011; See link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

[17] Robber Barons disparaging term dating back to the 12th century which refers to: 1. Unscrupulous feudal lords who amassed personal fortunes by using illegal and immoral business practices. 2. In social criticism and economic literature, became a derogatory term applied to some wealthy and powerful 19th-century American businessmen. Does it now apply to the leaders of the environmental movement?

 

Cooling…German Springs Arriving 20 Days Later Than 28 Years Ago!

Spring in Germany arriving later and later every year. Also forsythia blossoms in Hamburg arriving later and later

By Josef Kowatsch und Stefan Kämpfe
[Translated/edited by P Gosselin]

This is an addendum to our earlier article on delayed spring blossoms here (and here at NTZ).

In our previous article linked above we showed that mean temperatures for the months of January, February and March have been cooling for almost the past three decades, this according to the German DWD National Weather Service. And this is the result without applying any urban heat island adjustments to the measured temperatures.

As a result we are seeing increasingly delayed spring starts – especially spring blossoms in open areas where the cooling is even more pronounced. We confirmed this with our own vegetation observations in the article, e.g. the blossoming of winter aconites out in the open.

Crocuses and winter aconites; Photo by J.Kowatsch/Stefan Kämpfe

Some readers from the over 100 comments left cast doubt on our observations, and pointed out that the official authorities such as the State Office for Environmental Protection in Karlsruhe or the DWD claimed the opposite was in fact occurring, i.e. spring was arriving earlier and earlier. However these readers failed to provide any measured data from these officials.

We took the time to look more deeply into the matter and found something astonishing. The State Environment Office in Karlsruhe itself does not even keep any such long-term observations. Instead it gets the results from the DWD. And the DWD appears to have the habit of regularly citing forsythia blossoms in the City of Hamburg as an example of spring arriving earlier. The blossoms are earlier and earlier, the DWD claims, at least those that the DWD always likes to invoke. This claimed early blossoming indeed must be evidence of climate warming, a few of the readers believed.

Well, a former DWD employee recently provided us with the following diagram of the forsythia blossoming data for the Hamburg Lombard Bridge from the DWD itself. The surprise is great:

Fig. 1 The left side vertical axis depicts the number of days after the start of the year. The higher the number, the later the start of forsythia blossoms. The chart shows they are arriving almost 20 days later than 25 years earlier.

Although the observation series were recorded right in the middle of heat island Hamburg, and thus did not even fulfill the conditions for an objective observation, the start of blossoms turns out to be precisely as those in the completely open exposed areas that we looked at in our previous article: Since 1988 spring has been arriving later and later. The start of springtime forsythia blossoms is also arriving later and later in the large urban heat island of Hamburg.

Result: Also the data on the City of Hamburg show that forsythia blossom have been arriving considerably later and later since 1988, indicating a increasingly delayed start of spring.

The constant claims that forsythia blossoms are coming earlier and earlier are false.

Another phenologist located in Seesen also sent us his observation data of forsythia blossoms, and these are shown in the following chart:

Fig. 2. Forsythia blossoms have been arriving later and later also in Seesen for the past 28 years. The observations are consistent with the data from the DWD in Hamburg.” Data source: Phenologist Georg v. Petersdorff-Campen

Result: Spring in Germany is beginning later and later. All March blossoms are delayed. We trace this back to the months of January, February and March becoming colder and colder over the past 28 years.

Germany’s May 2015 Comes In 0.5°C Cooler Than Normal…Trend To Cooler Central European Springs Continues

The German DWD National Weather Service brings us the statistics for the month of May in Germany.

Overall, using the preliminary results from approximately 2000 weather stations, the DWD reports that May in the Central European country was 0.5°C cooler than the 1981-2010 mean and 0.4°C warmer than the 1961-1990 mean. The 1961-1990 reference period is used very little and has no meaning for the general citizenry because it was too long ago. But because the DWD has adopted the warmist agenda, it likes to use the ancient 1961-1990 mean in order to be able to declare warmer than normal months.

Statistical acrobatics aside, the May result shows that Central Europe’s overall trend to cooler and later springs continues unabated, thus defying predictions of warming.

The DWD also reports that precipitation was below normal and that the month saw some severe thunderstorms and destructive tornadoes. Overall the country saw a mixed bag of May weather, from night-time frosts at some locations to daytime high temperatures of over 30°C in other locations. The country also saw a bit below normal sunshine.

Though the DWD does its best to make this recent month appear as a month with unusual, weird weather, as a whole the month was nothing out of the normal range and was everything one would expect for a month of May in Central Europe.

Major North Sea Offshore Wind Park Outfitter Files For Insolvency Amid “Considerable Uncertainties”!

German financial daily Handelsblatt here reports that a former shipyard which later turned to building offshore wind turbine sub-structures has filed for insolvency.

According to the company’s Managing Director Thierry Putters, the filing is due to “a looming inability to pay” its creditors. The Handelsblatt writes that 188 employees will be impacted. They already had been working reduced hours.

The Nordseewerke, located at the northwest seaport of Emden, was originally founded as a shipyard in 1903. After financial setbacks over the past five years it was taken over by other companies. Recently in a bid to stem losses it retooled to build offshore wind turbine sub-structures to supply North Sea wind park demand. However investment decisions on future offshore wind parks have been put off as uncertainty over Germany’s move into renewable energies grows.

Over the years huge technical problems have plagued North Sea offshore wind parks.

Nordseewerke is just the latest in a years-long series of insolvencies that have been crippling Germany’s renewable energies industry. In the solar industry, almost every major German solar manufacturer has gone bust since 2012.

Spiegel here reports on Nordseewerke:

The political framework conditions are marked by considerable uncertainties concerning the support for offshore wind energy after the year 2020, the company reported.”

During its ship-building heyday, the company employed some 5000 workers. The labor union blames poor management for the company’s demise.

 

Top Automotive Engineer Calls Tesla “A Failure”…Demand For Electric Vehicles “Has Reached An Absolute Low Point”!

UPDATED 13:52 CET

As part of the 35th Vienna Motor Symposium, German online financial daily Handelsblatt here has an interview with leading automotive engine design expert Prof. Fritz Indra, who says that much of the talk about electric vehicles is “hype” and calls the Tesla “a failure”.

Indra, 75, is now retired after a long career in developing engines for BMW Alpina, Audi and General Motors. He now acts as a consultant.

Demand for electric cars reach “absolute low point”

The Handelsblatt writes that internal combustion engines have made huge technological leaps in progress when it comes to efficiency and cleanliness. And when asked about the most recent trend for electric vehicles, Indra tells the Düsseldorf-based financial daily that this year there was not even a single presentation on electric vehicles, and that the demand “has reached an absolute low point.”

Skewed statistics and “environmental fraud”

Indra tells the Handelsblatt that countries like Norway and USA have stopped or plan to curb their generous subsidies for electric cars. He says Germany’s target of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2020 is wildly exaggerated. “In reality it won’t even be 100,000 vehicles.” He then tells the Handelsblatt that they may get the figure to look respectable by skewing the statistics by including hybrid cars and electric bikes in the count.

Indra also calls both plug-in-hybrids and electric cars “an environmental fraud“, adding that the subsidies for electric cars are very expensive and points out that Norway is stopping some of the subsidies and that the USA curbed them after 60,000 vehicles. These are two rich countries!

Moreover he says China ought to impose an “electric car driving ban” as a first step to help clean up its air pollution.

Tesla “a failure”

Indra also believes that the Tesla will be a failure “because every year the company makes huge losses and the market is not big enough.” Moreover he describes how its batteries are technically inadequate, and that Tesla owners face huge replacement costs later on: “The customers are going to wonder.” He calls Elon Muskprobably the best PR man in the world“.

He also believes the electric car market is “almost saturated”.

Indra feels that the future remains in combustion engines due to their tremendous technological progress with regards to fuel efficiency, cleanliness and practicality.

Finally, WUWT reports on how Teslas really get recharged.

Scientist Exposes Grossly Deceptive Science Communication By Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute

What follows is an e-mail sent by geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning to Dr. Roland Neuber of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Potsdam. Dr. Lüning wishes to know why a report issued by the AWI left out more than 80% of the Spitzbergen temperature record.
========================================

To: Dr. Roland Neuber, science coordinator of the research team AWIPEV, Alfred-Wegener-Institute Potsdam
From: Dr. Sebastian Lüning

Sent: 15 May 2015
Reply: still unanswered

Dear Dr. Neuber,

On April 9, 2015, at the web platform “Entwicklungspolitik Online” (epo online) there appeared an article: “Climate change: Arctic air temperature climbs 1.3°C per decade”, which was about a recent visit to Spitzbergen by the German Federal Minister for Education and Research, Prof. Dr. Johanna Wanka. The article quoted the AWIPEV research team which you yourself coordinate as follows:

Since the regular data recording in 1993, the mean annual air temperature at Spitzbergen has increased an annual average of 1.3°C per decade.”

Of course this is true. However in my view it absolutely should have been pointed out that between 1940 and 1970 a cooling of the exact same amount as the warming that followed over the past 40 years occurred at Spitzbergen. Here I cite the GISS temperature dataset for Spitzbergen, see http://www.kaltesonne.de/news1-6/.

Overall today’s temperatures are at the level of 1930, after having gone through a complete warm-cold-warm cycle.

My question to you: Did the AWIPEV delegation advise the Minister and the accompanying media of this important context? How is it possible that this omission was allowed in the epo-online article, which as a result suddenly makes the climate situation at Spitzbergen look completely different?

To be transparent I would very much like to publish your answer at www.kaltesonne.de.

Kindest regards

Dr. habil. Sebastian Lüning
=========================================

Today, almost two weeks later, Dr. Lüning’s inquiry remains unanswered. This leaves us to wonder if AWI is too embarrassed to face the issue.

Scandal: Wind Energy Law Written Directly By German Wind Lobbyists, Enercon and GE!

Though regional, what follows is a scandal that illustrates just how energy laws and policy are formed today in many developed countries: by green activists and lobbyists who have an extreme agenda or narrow, self-serving interest.

German national daily Bild here reports how in Hannover the new energy law for the state of Lower Saxony was not really written by policymakers elected by the voters, but by the Big Green industry lobbyists themselves.

The Bild story bears the title: “Companies write the energy law

Germany’s number one daily by circulation, Bild, tells of Lower Saxony’s Environment Minister Stefan Wenzel of the Green Party coming under heavy fire from the opposition. The FDP Free Democrats accused Wenzel of having parts of the 79-page draft legislation “dictated to him by the wind industry.” In other words, Bild writes:

Instead having the law formulated by employees of the Ministry, lobbyists participated in the formulation!”

According to Bild 12 environmental activist groups worked on the legislation, including companies such as Enercon and GE.

Bild quotes Free Democrat Dr. Gero Hocker, an environment expert:

The Environment Minister must concede that the wind lobby took over the job of drafting the law. That’s an outrage!”

Bild writes that although it is not unusual to get imput from various organizations, an angered Gero Hocker shot back: “Taking over as they are the formulations is a real scandal.”

Increasingly lawmakers have become marionettes of Big Green…democratic representation be damned. It also doesn’t help that a huge share of German lawmakers are investors in fail-safe, get-rich-quick green energy projects.

Analysis: Coinciding Maxima Of Three Natural Cycles Ends…Cooling Ahead As They Turn Negative!

Additional Thoughts On Natural Cycles 
By Ed Caryl

In Natural Cycles In A Random World Are Unmistakable…Future Holds Nothing To Fear, we showed plots of simulated temperature generated in Excel using the sum of three cycles and a random number generator.

Some commenters realized that if you averaged many runs, like the professional climate “scientists” do, the result would be the underlying cycles. Some realized that doing the averaging step is unnecessary, as the underlying cycles are simply three columns in the Excel file. Here is that plot.

Sum of Natural Cycles

Figure 1 is the sum of the three natural cycles, the 62, 204, and 1040-year cycles. The green rectangle outlines the historical temperature record, from 1850 to 2015. The blue rectangles highlight cold periods, the red rectangles the warm periods. The numbers are the beginning and end years for each period. Yellow highlights the future. 

Note that in figure 1, the cycles in the green rectangle follow the known temperature record. See figure 2, below. The rest of the plot, before the known period, reflects what we know generally about the Medieval Warm  Period and the Little Ice Age. I leave it to the reader to interpret the future.

Natural cycles and HADCRUT4

Figure 2 plots the natural cycles from figure 1 and the HADCRUT4 global anomaly index. The vertical offset is due to the HADCRUT4 baseline choice.

The three natural cycles are not, of course, as fixed in frequency or amplitude as in these Excel plots. As we go back in time, the climate that actually occurred will drift from these calculations. But we know that the Roman warm period occurred about a thousand years before the Medieval warm period, and that it happened with about a 200 year cycle imposed on it.

There are several papers that discuss 1470 ±500 year cycles. Those that occurred during the last ice age are labeled Dansgaard-Oeschger events. In the Holocene, they are called Bond events. The Bond events tend to happen at 1000 year intervals, thus the ±500 year error margin. Solar scientists refer to a thousand year plus Hallstaat Cycle that looks like the thousand-year cycle used here. Bond events and the Hallstaat Cycle appear to be the same thing.

During the last ice age there were also deeper periods of cold known as Heinrich events. These occur at approximately 10,000 year intervals. During the last ice age, these events tended not to be sine-wave in shape, but punctuated cold intervals. Bond events in the Holocene such as the 5.4 and 8.2 kilo-year events also appear as abrupt cooling followed by equally abrupt warming. Figure 3 is a plot of Bond events from Bond et al. data here. The last column “stacked” data was used for this plot. It is a combination of several proxies. The resolution is 70 years between points, so only the longer cycles are resolved. Both scales have been reversed to match figure 1.

Bond Events

Figure 3 is a plot of Bond events in the Holocene. The outlined area is the time covered by figure 1 up to the present. Down is cold, up is warm. The 70-year resolution captures only the longest of the warm and cold periods in the last one thousand years, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Wolf, Spörer and Maunder cold periods.

Carbon 14

Figure 4 is a plot of carbon-14 production at the top of the atmosphere. This plot is also from Bond et al. from the same source as above. The cold and warm periods are highlighted as in figure 1.

The 200 year cycles appear solar-based. The resolution in figure 4 is 10 years. Cold periods happen when 14C production is declining, warm periods when it is increasing. As 14C is produced by cosmic rays at the top of the atmosphere, there is a delay before it appears as captured carbon in living things.

If past temperatures are related to known solar and ocean cycles with increasing precision in the modern era, then future temperatures will also be related. The present warming is simply a Bond warming event just like more than a dozen similar and even more dramatic warming events in the last 10,000 years. The recent warming is simply climate following natural cycles. We are now at the peak of the sum of three cycles, each cycle also at a peak, a grand maximum. What follows will be cooling as all those cycles go negative.

NASA’s Temperature Data Fibbing … And Thomas Friedman’s Junk Renewable Energy Economics

Good to see that this NTZ site is contributing to articles on climate change and renewable energies by larger media outlets.

For example Charles Battig at the American Thinker here cited NoTricksZone in his report on Thomas Friedman’s editorial on the supposed “success” of Germany’s renewable energies. In his editorial, Friedman stupidly ignores all the glaring reports and data of Germany’s reneable energy failure, and tries to sell the entire mess as a grand success. In Battig’s words, “He knows how to put the proverbial ‘lipstick on a pig’.” And adds:

A recent German government report notes that Germany’s system ‘rewards the most inefficient plants, doesn’t contribute to protecting the climate, jeopardizes the energy supply and puts the poor at a disadvantage.’  A Nobel Peace Prize for this, Mr. Friedman?

Germany is building new coal power plants to replace the energy provided by nuclear power plants being shut down.  They are to be powered by lignite, a brown coal of low caloric content.  German’s newest and most energy-efficient gas turbine plants are forced into an uneconomical standby status as Energiewende  policies mandate the preferential use of wind and solar.  Thus, cheap lignite-powered plants are built and produce high levels of pollutants that are the exact opposite goals of the government’s green policies.

As for Friedman’s ‘stability of our planet and climate’ concern, he might console himself with the fact that the global satellite temperature record of the past 18 years and 5 months shows a statistically flat line, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen about 10 percent.

Three oinks to Friedman’s lipstick report. It is a green porker.”

NASA data alterations

Meanwhile, H. Sterling Burnett at the Heartland Institute here has a story on all the temperature data fibbing going on at NASA lately. Though he does not link to NTZ directly, the source of the information behind the tampering shenanigans going on in Switzerland is NTZ here, a story that was shared or liked more than 2000 times.

Burnett writes:

Science journalist Markus Schär of the Swiss news weekly Weltwoche discovered the Swiss Meteorological Service (SMS) tampered with its datasets as well.

For example, in Sion and Zurich, SMS adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend. Schär notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering. As a result, Schär calls the adjustments a ‘propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.’

In light of significant urbanization resulting in an expanded heat island effect near many temperature gauges, Schär argues the adjustment of raw data to report higher temperatures than are actually measured is unjustifiable. ‘The corrections … appear so massive that they represent half of the entire temperature increase,’ said Schär.

Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists.”

Also reporting on the Swiss data fibbing was Newsmax.