Polar Vortices Everywhere! Central Russia Hit By Mid Summer “Freak…Abnormal Snowstorm…Snowdrifts”!

Central Russia is famous for it’s harsh winters, but it also has warm southern European-like summers. Well, at least it used to.

Today’s English-language online Russian news site RT here reports that a “freak summer snow” has struck areas of Central Russia in the cities of cities of Chelyabinsk and Sverdlovsk just north of Kazakhstan – in the middle of July! Hat-tip Alexander Hamilton at FaceBook.

“Snowdrifts”

Here we are not talking about high up in the mountains, but down in low country. The RT writes:

Snowdrifts piled up on the roads of Russia’s Ural region on Saturday as an abnormal summer snowstorm hit the region, bringing the area into the spotlight once again after last year’s meteorite fall. Siberia also witnessed a downpour of giant hailstones.”

The RT website adds (my emphasis):

Residents of the cities of Chelyabinsk and Sverdlovsk, located in Russia’s eastern Ural region, were taken aback when it suddenly started snowing in the middle of summer on Saturday.”

Also the Siberian city of Novosibirsk was hit by a heavy hailstorm, captured on video and posted at Youtube (hat-tip: RT):

Big Insurance Getting Set To Use Junk Science To Gouge The Poor…”Climate Liability” Insurance

If you do an Internet search of “climate liability insurance“, you will quickly find that it is one of the latest schemes being promoted by insurance companies, banking and even fossil fuel companies to curb “dangerous climate change”. Here they stand to make huge piles of cash by claiming CO2 is causing bad weather. It’s the latest proposed scam to shake down hundreds of billions from consumers and the poor.

Switzerland’s Neue Züricher Zeitung NZZ (New Zurich Newspaper) has a commentary on the “merits” of climate liability insurance.

It works as follows: The “fact” that greenhouse gas CO2 is responsible for storms and thus the property damage they cause is pushed. Fossil fuel companies (at the start of the CO2 supply chain) are held liable for the resulting “climate damage”, and so are forced to buy climate liability insurance. In such a scheme the premiums are based on how much fossil fuel production each company is responsible for. Based on complex calculations, a figure of 15 dollars per tonne of CO2 would be payable by fossil fuel producing companies, in total 400 billion dollars annually. The huge costs added would then be passed along to the consumers and the poor, who find themselves at the bottom of the fossil fuel energy chain.

So what would happen to the 400 billion dollars in premiums that would be collected annually? The NZZ writes: “National, regional and local authorities would have the right to apply for compensatory damage payments because of storm damage to infrastructure” and “A part of the premiums would be invested in projects for the prevention of climate damage; financial instruments (e.g. catastrophe bonds and Green Climate Fund) are already available.” That means green energy companies.

In the end this all has the same effect as a hefty tax on the poor and middle class. Naturally big banks and insurance companies are salivating, as are green energy companies, governments and fossil fuel companies because they stand to profit handsomely.

The NZZ writes that climate liability insurance would be easier to implement because the scheme would not require any international treaty. Moreover, fossil fuel companies would have few qualms about playing along as they would have a good excuse to jack up energy prices. The NZZ:

Climate liability insurance functions when a number of relevant companies start using it. The pressure to play along would successively build up– through appropriate laws in individual countries and foremost because more and more companies, NGOs, and consumers would demand manufactured products be made with insured fossil fuels.”

In the end consumers would be willing to pay more because of having been tricked into believing they are improving the weather.

What would consumers really get in return? They’ll never see any perceptible changes in weather – perhaps a few hundredths of a degree less warming. Many consumers of course will complain about the dubious charging. But no problem, proponents will always be able to claim that the weather would have been worse had the consumers not paid the costs of climate liability insurance. Making tonnes of money with the weather has never been easier. The only thing that is needed are masses of gullible suckers who stand ready to believe anything.

 

USA’s Monster “Climate-Catastrophe”…Of 1936 (When CO2 Was At “Safe” Level of 310 PPM)!

Swindlers are out there trying to sell us that bad weather is something new and happening because atmospheric CO2 concentration are “too high”. If only we paid carbon taxes and gave them more regulatory power, then we could prevent bad weather from happening and return to a Garden of Eden.

To some us all this sounds silly, of course. But many dimwitted people actually believe it.

Steve Goddard at Twitter brought my attention to the following newspaper clipping (I’ve cut and pasted piecemeal below) from the Perth Australia Daily News, dated 1936. As you will read, the scale of the disaster and the extremes are beyond anything we have ever witnessed today.

1936_0

1936_1

1936_2

1936_2a1936_3
1936_41936_51936_61936_71936_8

Weather like we had back when CO2 was only 310 ppm? No thanks!

Source: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/8424077?zoomLevel=1

Also read Europe’s disaster of 1540 here.

 

In Switzerland Thing of The Past Becomes A Thing Of July…More Weather That Isn’t Supposed To Happen!

Looks as if Europe’s thing of the past, wintertime snow, has once again become a thing of summertime in Switzerland…at least down to 6000 feet in elevation. Cool weather swept across parts of Central Europe this week bringing snow in the Swiss Alps.

Although summertime snowfall high up in the Alps is not an unusual occurrence, snowfall down to 6000 feet elevation IN JULY is something that wasn’t supposed to happen nowadays – especially with increased concentrations of “heat-trapping” greenhouse gas CO2.

20 inches of snow

Last Tuesday, July 8, the Swiss online Blick here reported meteorologists were predicting snowfall down to 1800 meters elevation (6000 ft.), warning that up to 50 cm (20 inches) of snow in the Canton of Valais. Blick writes that the snowfall presented a problem for grazing cattle, which would either have to be brought down to lower elevations or housed in mountain shelters stocked with feed.

Passes closed, avalanche warnings

By evening, the online Südostschweiz.ch reported that the Furkapass had been closed.

By evening the passes over Susten and the Furka were closed, the TCS Traffic Information reported. The Matterhorn Gotthard railway (MGB) allowed additional car wagons to travel through the Furka Tunnel due to snowfall Tuesday evening at the Furka.

Snowfall fell to elevations of approximately 2000 meters, according to the Swiss Met. At elevations of 2000 meters there was a blanket of snow by evening. There was more snow in the high mountain elevations over 2500 meters.”

By Wednesday, July 9th, the online Blick here reported Swiss authorities had issued elevated avalanche warnings for elevations near 3000 meters. At Germany’s Zugspitze, the country’s highest peak, 15 cm of fresh snow fell. German meteorologists point out that snow at such elevations at this time of year are not unusual. Well, if the “usual” is happening, then the climate can’t be changing that much.

“Snowed in”

Today, public SRF Swiss Radio reports here that mountain excursions and tours are being cancelled due to the cold and snowy weather, thus delaying the start of the season.

In Switzerland there are an estimated 1500 mountains guides. Many of them have jobs on the side, and so when tours are cancelled they have other work. But the guides are also hit by the bad weather. A part of the 150 mountain shelters of the Swiss Alps Club SAC are even snowed in.”

 

Energy-Wasting Internet…IEA Describes “Range Of Policy Options” For Curbing Wasted Power

Press release from the International Energy Agency
===========================================

Around $80 billion wasted on power for online devices in 2013

Simple measures can keep problem of inefficient ‘network standby’ from worsening in years ahead, IEA report says
2 July 2014 Paris

Today, the world’s 14 billion online electronic devices – such as set-top boxes, modems, printers and game consoles – waste around USD 80 billion each year because of inefficient technology. By 2020, the problem will considerably worsen, with an estimated USD 120 billion wasted. But a report by the International Energy Agency points to a different path, identifying simple measures that can be implemented now to improve energy efficiency in networked devices, resulting in massive savings of energy and money.

The report, More Data, Less Energy: Making Network Standby More Efficient in Billions of Connected Devices, shows that electricity demand of our increasingly digital economies is growing at an alarming rate. While data centre energy demand has received much attention, of greater cause for concern is the growing energy demand of billions of networked devices. In 2013, a relatively small portion of the world’s population relied on these devices to stay connected. But energy demand is increasing as a growing share of the world’s population becomes wired and as network connectivity spreads to devices and appliances that were previously not connected, such as washing machines, refrigerators, lights and thermostats.

‘The proliferation of connected devices brings many benefits to the world, but right now the cost is far higher than it should be,’ said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven. ‘Consumers are losing money in the form of wasted energy, which is leading to more costly power stations and more distribution infrastructure being built than we would otherwise need – not to mention all the extra greenhouse gases that are being emitted. But it need not be this way. If we adopt best available technologies we can minimise the cost of meeting demand as the use and benefits of connected devices grows.’

As the report explains, much of the problem boils down to inefficient ‘network standby’ – that is, the maintaining of a network connection while in standby. In many devices, standby is a misnomer: it suggests that the device has gone to sleep and is almost off. In reality, most network-enabled devices draw as much power in this mode as when activated to perform their main tasks.

In 2013, the world’s networked devices consumed around 616 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity, the majority of which was used in standby mode. Of that total, around 400 TWh – equivalent to the electricity consumed annually by the United Kingdom and Norway combined – was wasted because of inefficient technology.

‘The problem is not that these devices are often in standby mode, but rather that they typically use much more power than they should to maintain a connection and communicate with the network,” said Ms. Van der Hoeven. ‘Just by using today’s best available technology, such devices could perform exactly the same tasks in standby while consuming around 65% less power.’

The report describes technologies and technical solutions as well as a range of policy options that are available to reduce energy waste. It projects that if better energy efficiency measures were applied to online devices in the coming years, 600 TWh of energy would be saved. That’s equivalent to shutting 200 standard 500MW coal-fired power plants, which would cut emissions by 600 million metric tons of CO2

In the report, the IEA calls on policy makers, standards development organisations, software and hardware developers, designers, service providers and manufacturers to work together to reduce energy demand. To achieve this, the agency urges an international initiative to enhance standards, as the issue is global.

 

Comprehensive EIKE Review Of Sea Level Rise Shows TOPEX/POSEIDON/JASON Results Are Inflated, Faulty

One of the last remaining bastions of the global warming scare is sea level rise.

Unsurprisingly, a handful of alarmists are still desperately clinging to accelerating sea level rise, insisting that it is just around the corner. However a new analysis on the subject by veteran meteorologist Klaus -Eckard Puls of the European Institute of Climate and Energy (EIKE) shows that sea level rise is not accelerating, and that there are signs showing a deceleration. That bastion is on the verge of collapse.

The EIKE review first starts by focusing on German coastal sea level rise, sections 1-4, before shifting on global sea level rise, section 5-10. The focus here is on the latter.

Concerning global sea level data, Puls starts by looking at a peer-reviewed tide gauge analysis conducted by distinguished Swedish scientist Nils-Axel Mörner who evaluated 182 tide gauges scattered around the world, some going back more than 200 years.

Mörner’s results uncovered gaping differences when he compared the tide gauge results to those reported by the TOPEX/POSEIDON/JASON satellite. His conclusion:

Removing outliers of obvious uplift or subsidence, there are 182 records left, which forms a nice Gaussian distribution around a mean value of +1.65 mm/yr.

Satellite altimetry is a new and important tool. The mean rate of rise from 1992 to 2013 is +3.2 ±0.4 mm (UC, 2013). This value is not a measured value, however, but a value arrived at after much “calibration” of subjective nature (Mörner, 2004, 2011a, 2013a). The differences between the three data sets (±0, +1.65 and +3.2 mm/yr ) are far too large not to indicate the inclusions of errors and mistakes.”

He adds:

The evaluation of worldwide 182 tide gauges yields a mean secular sea level rise of 16 cm, without a GIA [Glacial Isostatic Adjustment] correction. A secular acceleration in rise was not found, and thus there is no AGW-CO2 climate signal.”

Puls also quotes an article by Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt at DkS:

Despite the satellite measurements, naturally the tide gauge measurements were continued. And they don’t mislead in any way as they stubbornly stick to their old course of being significantly below 2 mm/year.”

Puls provides three charts showing the glaring discrepancy:

EIKE_RTEmagicC_Abb11a_b_03_jpg

 Chart: climatesanity.wordpress.com/sea-level-rise/

“Amazing agreement between tide gauge data and GRACE”

So which is right? TOPEX/POSEIDON/JASON or the observed tide gauges? Next Puls looks at the data obtained from the GRACE satellite, which show they are practically in exact agreement with the tide gauge measurement. Puls writes, citing multiple sources of peer-reviewed literature:

Both extremely different measurement methods of tide gauges [1.7 mm/yr] and gravity measurements (GRACE satellite [1.6 mm/yr]) agree with each other amazingly well at [near] 1.7 mm/yr, They are off by only a millimeter!  That leads us to the question we often find in the literature of why the TOPEX/POSEIDON/JASON satellite measurement method – the only one of all methods – yields values that are almost double.”

From this Puls summarizes at the end:

The constant stream of alarmist announcements of a supposed dramatic sea level rise now taking place and in the future cannot be confirmed. Rather it is even refuted by the measurement data. Worldwide neither the tide gauge data (200 years) nor the satellite data (20 years) indicate an acceleration in sea level rise. This is in stark contradiction to all the former and current claims of the IPCC, some institutes and a number of climate models. Moreover there is evidence that indicate the satellite data have been ‘overly corrected’[28]: “Instead of the satellite data being adjusted to match the real measured data at the surface and being adjusted downwards, there is now a discrepancy between the tide gauge and satellite measurements, unfortunately even today. And it appears to bother no one. A mysterious case.”

Puls is telling us that if you wish to have the true story on sea level rise, then look at the tide gauge data and to be very careful with the (calibrated) data from TOPEX/POSEIDON/JASON. Again some, it would appear, are playing it very loose with the data.

Overall the review by Puls is comprehensive and an English version would be extremely useful, especially for the scientists at the IPCC.

 

GISS Data Contradict Mark Serreze’s Claim

Antarctic Sea Ice is Growing – Because of Global Warming?
By Ed Caryl

Short answer: No. Antarctic sea ice has been growing, especially in the last three years. This has been largely ignored by the AGW crowd because it opposes their narrative. They needed badly to come up with an excuse. A recent article in the Daily Caller, quoted below, was recently discussed in this blog. See here.

A quote from the article: “The primary reason for this is the nature of the circulation of the Southern Ocean —water heated in high southern latitudes is carried equatorward [sic], to be replaced by colder waters upwelling from below, which inhibits ice loss,” Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, told author Harold Ambler in an email. Read more: http://dailycaller.

It is a bit difficult for me to swallow this in light of the temperature trend in the southern ocean:

Ed_1

Figure 1 is the annual temperature trend in the Southern Ocean according to GISS.

It is also opposite the well understood thermohaline current flows in both the Arctic and Antarctic, where warm currents flow from the equator to the poles, is cooled, surface evaporation increases salinity, and the cold, dense, more saline water sinks, to rise again closer to the equator. The southern ocean is getting colder, not warmer, opposite to the trend stated above.

Ed_2

Figure 2 is the Southern Hemisphere sea ice anomaly inverted to match the temperature curve.

Note how closely these curves match, even though one is annual average data and the other is daily ice anomaly. Just how is it that this high southern latitude supposed heated water is getting colder, not warmer. I’m sorry, but my credulity doesn’t stretch this far.

 

“Green” Energy Industry Suspected Of Red Kite Cleansing To Clear The Way For Windpark Permitting

The dispute over windpark development on some of Germany’s most idyllic landscapes is heating up rapidly and massively. And should the dispute continue on its current trajectory, it won’t be long before the ugly contraptions get stopped for good.

The dispute reached a boiling point recently with windpark opponents suspecting green energy activists of poisoning birdlife in order clear the way for an unobstructed windpark permitting.

According to south Germany’s online Stuttgarter Nachrichten, a number protected red kites have been found poisoned by the E 605 herbicide - in rural areas that just happen to be sited for the installation of large-scale industrial windparks.

Under Germany’s wildlife protection laws, wherever the predatory red kites are found to be nesting, green energy developers are promptly denied permits to install their turbines. But if red kites are nowhere to be seen, then wind-park developers stand a far better chance of getting the go-ahead. Angry windpark opponents are now pointing the finger at the windpark proponents for the poisoning. The Stuttgarter Nachrichten writes, however, that there’s no proof.

The Stuttgarter Nachrichten writes that a number of poisoned red kites were found at several locations in southwest Germany.

‘Systematically’ rare predatory birds are being killed wherever they find themselves in the way of large windparks, some wind-power critics are now surmising. That in the recent days in Pfalzgrafenweiler in the district of Freudenstadt also a dead peregrine falcon has been found, which according to police died from chloralose, just makes the situation more explosive.”

But windpark proponents are calling the accusations unfounded, and claim that poisoning the birds would even have the opposite effect: The bird would be put higher up on the endangered list, and thus make permitting of wind turbines even more unlikely. Other “green” activists call the accusations “speculation”.

The Stuttgarter Nachrichten ends its article writing that one fact is certainly beyond speculation: “The gloves have come off when it comes to the dispute over the transition to green energies.”

 

Veteran Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Issues NSIDC Caveat Emptor After Claim Global Warming Behind Record Sea Ice

Weatherbell Analytics presents its latest Saturday Summary featuring the one and only Joe Bastardi.

There used to be a time when meteorologists truly admired and trusted the work and data put out by national weather services. After all if you couldn’t trust them, who could you trust!

But those days are becoming a thing of the past.

I don’t want to give the impression that Joe Bastardi doesn’t admire and respect these institutions, I’m sure he still does so very much, but if his latest video is anything to go by, he is adding reservations to that trust - at least when it comes to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Starting at the 6:60 mark Joe focusses attention on global sea ice, showing that right now globally it’s about 1 million square kilometers above average…in a world that is supposedly in the midst of runaway global warming.

Weatherbell_1

Global sea ice on the rebound. Image cropped from Weatherbell Saturday Summary.

Then at the 8:56 mark Joe brings up the recent (some would call absurd) claim made that Antarctic sea ice is expanding to record high levels because of global warming. (With that kind of logic one could hypothesize that the snowball earth episodes occurred when the earth was a hot house). Bastardi:

Now the guy, I believe the guy that was saying that the Arctic was in a death spiral, now he’s saying that it’s global warming that’s causing the Antarctic to have more ice. It is absolutely astounding to me…the National Snow and Ice Data Center …that no matter what happens, the answer is global warming. That by itself should make you suspicious, okay.”

To me that sounds like “buyer beware” if you are getting your information from certain leading individuals at the NSIDC.

 

Raw Weather Data Destroyed, Lost Forever?…USHCN, NOAA And GHCN “Prime Manipulators”

Some scientists devote their lives painstakingly assembling fragments of evidence to piece together a picture of the past. They deserve tremendous credit. Unfortunately today we appear to have inept or sleazy scientists who take collected data and destroy it - thus permanently blinding our view of the past. These people deserve to be loathed.

Ed Caryl presents an essay of such an example.
==============================

What Is The Temperature Trend At Barrow Alaska?

By Ed Caryl

If you ask this question of Wolfram-Alpha, the online Guru that Siri depends on for answers, you get this plot.

1

Figure 1 from Wolfram-Alpha.

If you look at all the available temperature data bases for Barrow, you get multiple answers, none that agree, and none agree with Wolfram-Alpha, or even come close.

2

Figure 2 is a plot of Barrow temperatures from five different sources. The BEST data nearly coincides with the Barrow Airport NWS Average (the blue line us under the red line) until the last decade. The Russian data ends at 2000.

During the search for this data, I came to the conclusion that RAW data simply does not exist for any stations except for the filled-out sheets from COOP stations or the electronic reports from the automated stations. All the on-line data, whether from BEST, NOAA, USHCN, GHCN, GISS, or wherever, has been manipulated in some way. USHCN, NOAA and GHCN seem to be the prime manipulators, filling in missing records with estimates, inventing data for “zombie”stations that won’t die, and “homogenizing”data to supposedly correct for UHI. GISS then takes the GHCN data and adds their own special sauce where they think it is necessary.

Of the 19 stations examined in my previous article, only Barrow received the “special sauce”. For all the others GISS simply passed along the GHCN data with no changes. All the changes in the last three years and nine months in those GISS files were GHCN changes. But Barrow is special. Here is what GISS did to Barrow

3

Figure 3 illustrates the GISS “homogenization” change to Barrow temperatures (the green stair-steps), adding more than one degree per century to the warming trend by cooling the past.

Without the change illustrated in figure 3, 1940 would be the warmest year by 0.04°C. This change obviously has nothing to do with Urban Heat Island, it is in the wrong direction. Changes like this give a whole new meaning to the term “hutzpah”.

So from where did Wolfram-Alpha get their data? I have no idea. The source they cite has no connection to climate. It’s appearance suggests it was made up from whole cloth.

So who do we trust with the temperature records? We certainly cannot trust GHCN and GISS, nor any of the other agencies because they get their data from GHCN. GISS simply further corrupts that data. They are also continuously changing the data on a monthly basis, not just the previous month, but months in the distant past. For an excellent review of the “dancing data” see this recent article, and the associated comments.

Who can we trust? No one.

 

Caribbean Coral Reef Die-Off Not Caused By Climate Change After All, Expert Report Writes!

Whether it’s war, rape, storms, depression, etc., there’s almost nothing that doesn’t get blamed on CO2 nowadays.

One of the favorites in the climate blame-game is the alleged dying off of coral reefs due to global warming from man-made CO2..

But that is turning out to be false, too. The online Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes today that climate change is not responsible for the dying off of the Caribbean coral reefs after all, citing a new report by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The IUCN writes (emphasis added):

Climate change has long been thought to be the main culprit in coral degradation. While it does pose a serious threat by making oceans more acidic and causing coral bleaching, the report shows that the loss of parrotfish and sea urchin – the area’s two main grazers – has, in fact, been the key driver of coral decline in the region. An unidentified disease led to a mass mortality of the sea urchin in 1983 and extreme fishing throughout the 20th century has brought the parrotfish population to the brink of extinction in some regions. The loss of these species breaks the delicate balance of coral ecosystems and allows algae, on which they feed, to smother the reefs. [...]

‘Even if we could somehow make climate change disappear tomorrow, these reefs would continue their decline,’ says Jeremy Jackson, lead author of the report and IUCN’s senior advisor on coral reefs.”

Surprise. Another climate myth gets debunked.

Climate change: “an excuse for doing nothing”

Next is a nice video featuring the report’s lead author Jeremy Jackson who explains the significance of the report. He makes a surprising comment on climate change.

At the 3.48 mark, Jackson states:

There’s nothing in my report, except the realization that climate change hadn’t been as severe as we feared so far, that’s new.  The fact and the thing about climate change is that it is an excuse for doing nothing. You know if it’s all those goddamn gringos in the north that made things bad, then I don’t have to do my job.”

He’s right. What Jackson hopefully realizes is that with just a fraction of the money that is spent on the bogus problem of climate, it would likely be enough to solve all the Caribbean coral reef problems.

Also read here at WUWT.

 

Leading German Daily: “Apocalypse Will Not Take Place”…Richard Tol: “97% Consensus Does Not Exist”!

Tol_FAZThe German media are giving time and space to skeptical voices.

The latest is a report appearing in Germany’s print high-profile national daily the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) which features climate economist Richard Tol titled: “The apocalypse won’t take place“.

Image above, right: FAZ

The subheading reads: “Climate economist Richard Tol sees the consequences of global warming as manageable – he has become a “figure of hate for green activists

The FAZ describes the controversial 44-year old Dutch scientist and outspoken IPCC critic as someone who in the early days was “quite green”, comes from a modest background, but who developed to become one of the world’s leading authorities in his field. The FAZ:

Tol is one of the most productive and most respected researchers in his field. He is (co)author of more than 250 papers in renowned journals and according to the Ideas-Repec databank, among the top 100 scientists worldwide.”

The FAZ reports on how Tol believes the IPCC has gone overboard with hysterical scenarios for the future and as a result had his name removed from the IPCC’s final report.

On claims that 97% of climate scientists are in agreement, the FAZ writes:

Such a consensus does not exist, he explains. ‘Climate science is very bitter and politicized.’ He sees the unpleasant tendency of scientists getting more attention by issuing ever more drastic warnings.”

According to the FAZ, Tol is confident that humans can overcome the challenges posed by climate change through their uncanny ability to adapt by applying their ingenuity. His come country of Holland is cited as an example with the construction of dikes to hold back the seas. Another example he cites is the huge gain in agricultural yields over the past decades that will provide ample supplies of food in a warmer world.

Overall Tol believes “the European Union is on the wrong path” with its climate policy of costly subsidies for the feed-in of green energies, which has scarcely has an impact on climate.

It should all be discarded and the ten thousand climate bureaucrats should look for new jobs. We need a policy change”

In the FAZ article, Tol is in favour of a carbon tax because in his view it is “the only effective measure.”

========================
Richard Tol is Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Institute for Environmental Studies & Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam; Research Fellow at the Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam; Research Network Fellow at the CESifo, Munich, Germany; and Co-Editor of Energy Economics

 

Spiegel: Europe’s “Gigantic Catastrophe” Happened in 1540 (When CO2 Was 30% Less Than Today!)

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski, a geologist, writes about Europe’s largest natural catastrophe, which occurred in 1540.

No, it wasn’t a mega-volcanic eruption, a super earthquake, or a monster meteor hit. It was a severe “unprecedented” drought that fried and scorched the continent to an extent that dwarfs anything we have experienced over the past 100 years, scientists have uncovered. In the introduction Bojanowski writes:

Hardly any rain and extreme heat eleven months long. More than 300 chronicles reveal the gruesome details of a gigantic catastrophe in the year 1540. And they show: The disaster can happen again.”

I hope Spiegel publishes this article in English later on because it succinctly reminds us that there is a lot more to climate and extreme weather than a trace gas and that weather and climate have always been brutal. Voodoo science, rain-dancing and bicycle riding aren’t going to tame the weather.

Bojanowski writes that there was no warning that a catastrophe was about to grip the continent. Europe had enjoyed a spell of rainy mild weather accompanied by bumper harvests. Culture and society flourished. In December 1539 heavy rains led to flooding and people had to flee their homes. “They had no idea how precious the rain would soon be.”

In his article Bojanowski describes how suddenly in January 1540 a drought ensued and would last 11 months. Scientists say it was “far worse” than the European heat wave of 2003 according to a new paper authored by Oliver Wetter et al appearing in the journal Climate Change. The study’s abstract reminds us that extreme extremes are all too familiar in the past when CO2 were at a critically low level of 270 ppm (my emphasis).

The heat waves of 2003 in Western Europe and 2010 in Russia, commonly labelled as rare climatic anomalies outside of previous experience, are often taken as harbingers of more frequent extremes in the global warming-influenced future. However, a recent reconstruction of spring–summer temperatures for WE resulted in the likelihood of significantly higher temperatures in 1540. In order to check the plausibility of this result we investigated the severity of the 1540 drought by putting forward the argument of the known soil desiccation-temperature feedback. Based on more than 300 first-hand documentary weather report sources originating from an area of 2 to 3 million km2, we show that Europe was affected by an unprecedented 11-month-long Megadrought. The estimated number of precipitation days and precipitation amount for Central and Western Europe in 1540 is significantly lower than the 100-year minima of the instrumental measurement period for spring, summer and autumn. This result is supported by independent documentary evidence about extremely low river flows and Europe-wide wild-, forest- and settlement fires. We found that an event of this severity cannot be simulated by state-of-the-art climate models.

Spiegel writes that according to one wine grower, “It rained only 3 days in March.” Bojanowski writes that as the year progressed, the soil dried out and the air above it became oven hot as the summer sun relentlessly scorched the continent day after day. The result? Bojanowski describes a scene of multiple days over 30°C, rivers drying out, animals dying of dehydration, large-scale crop failures, forest infernos, and people collapsing like flies from heat stroke. The social fabric came apart at the seams: “Tensions erupted into persecution and executions. people barricaded themselves in homes in fear of the violence.”

The Spiegel journalist also writes that the mega-drought of 1540 shows that the hypothesis drawn up by climate scienists claiming the 2003 heat wave was exascerbated by man-made global warming is overly simplistic. He quotes Rüdiger Glaser of the University of Freiburg:

Indeed it just isn’t that simple: The fact that 1540 saw an even worse heat wave without the artificially enhanced greenhouse effect relativizes the assessment of a man-made impact on the weather of 2003.”

Near the end of the article Bojanowski writes that experts say that the same catastrophe could happen again today and that Europe is ill-prepared. Moreover, it is doubtful that droughts of such magnitude can be predicted early nowadays and the reasons for the 1540 extreme event are subject to pure speculation only.

See Spiegel photo gallery of Germany’s 2003 summer scorcher.

So, should it surprise us that the extreme heat of 1540 precluded the Little Ice Age? What evidence of solar activity do we have for the year 1540? There are lots of factors that need to be pieced together in the hopes of finding out what may have caused the catastrophic 1540 heat wave. One factor can be excluded: trace gas CO2.

 

NASA’s Arctic Fudge Factory: “More Than Half” Of Claimed Arctic Warming Stems From “Data Adjustments”

As global warming is being used as justification for profound policy shifts, one has to wonder if the one-sided fudging of data that produces the appearance of more warming is a deliberate attempt to deceive and defraud the public.

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

Is GISS Also Cheating in the Arctic?

By Ed Caryl

Almost four years ago, I wrote A Light In Siberia, where I examined 24 Arctic weather stations. The annual temperature data for those stations was downloaded from GISStemp. In light of all the recent controversy about weather station data corruption by “adjustments”, I decided to reacquire the GISS data for 19 of those stations for which I had kept the annual figures, and check for changes. There is also the matter of divergence, especially in the Arctic latitudes, between GISS LOTI and the satellite temperature readings. I examined this issue in this article back in November.

Is all that Arctic warming real?

Car_1

Figure 1 is the annual temperature anomaly plots for land and ocean north of 60°.

I won’t bore you with individual 19 plots of the changes (see Figure 3), but here is one sample that my be illustrative, from Barrow Alaska. The station is at the airport, across the runway from the terminal and hangar areas, but close to the asphalt paved runway. There may have been a move in 1989, giving an excuse for the large discontinuity at that time, but there is no excuse for the constant positive correction, in the same direction as the well-documented urban heat island temperature increase at Barrow.

Car_2

Figure 2 is a plot of GISS annual temperature for Barrow, Alaska, downloaded in August of 2010 and June of 2014, and the difference between these two sets of data. This is just the adjustment that has been applied in the last 3 years and 9 months.

Car_3

Figure 3 is a plot of all the adjustments for all 19 stations.

The difference plots for most of the other stations look like noise, with occasional large steps, but the adjustments are nearly always warmer for the last half of the 20th century. The next plot is the average.

Car_4

Figure 4 is a plot of all the adjustments that have been applied by GISS in the last three years and nine months for 19 Arctic stations averaged together.

Again, these are just the “adjustments”or “corrections” that GISS has applied in the last three years and nine months to the 19 Arctic stations. I have no way of knowing what they did before August of 2010.

Note the trend line in Figure 4. These recent changes to the data have resulted in more than half of all the warming that has supposedly taken place since the bottom of the Little Ice Age and a third of the difference between GISS LOTI and RSS seen in Figure 1.

We may never know what the real temperature change has been.

 

Forget Global Cooling Predictions…It’s Already Happening! Global Temperature Falling More Than A Decade!

Climate scientists on both sides of the debate agree on one thing: the earth’s surface and atmosphere have (unexpectedly) stopped warming; there’s been no temperature increase in over 17 years and counting.

While global warming scientists insist the pause is only temporary and that warming will resume in earnest sometime in the future (once the missing heat comes out of hiding), other scientists are very skeptical. Today a growing number of distinguished scientists all over the globe believe the earth will be cooling due to the forces of natural cycles that have recently come into play.

Yet as many scientists are making forecasts of cooling, there’s one fact that seems to have escaped them: the datasets of the world’s leading climate data institutes clearly show that planetary cooling is already taking place and has been happening for over a decade.

2002_Cooling

Chart source: www.woodfortrees.org.

Danish solar scientist Henrik Svensmark recently declared: “Global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning.” The cold reality, however, is that the cooling actually started 12 years ago!

There are more signs other than temperature readings that show global cooling is in full swing. Antarctica has just set a new record positive sea ice anomaly. Global sea ice has been mostly above average for a year and half, flying in the face of stunned scientists who warned just 5 years ago that the Arctic could soon be ice-free in the summertime. Moreover Asia, Europe and North America have been hard hit by a string of unexpectedly harsh winters.

So how cold is it going to get and for how long?

Although a large number of scientists agree on cooling, they differ widely on how much and for how long.

Geologist and climate researcher Sebastian Lüning of Germany in a just released video forecasts a global cooling of 0.2° by 2030, before it starts to warm up again. However, many scientists see this as too mild of a forecast. Russian solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov, for example, predicts another Little Ice Age by 2055. Also Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory claims we “could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.”

Long list of experts

At his Climate Depot website, Marc Morano has a list of a number of renowned scientists who believe the data are clear on what’s ahead.

Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warns that “global cooling is almost a slam dunk” for up to 30 years or more. The Australian Astronomical Society warns of global cooling as the sun’s activity “significantly diminishes”.

The reason for the cooling? Scientists agree that it’s natural solar and oceanic cycles overpowering the overhyped effects of greenhouse trace-gas CO2.