Germany Manages To Draft “Watered Down…Hollowed Out” Climate Plan For Marrakesh

Some days ago we wrote about how Germany was headed to Marrakesh without any plan on how it would meet its “climate targets”.

This of course promised to be a huge embarassment for a country that liked to massively boast about being a leader in fighting climate change.

Merkel’s government and leading ministers had to endure quite a beating by the media, and apparently caved in and have since reached a compromise with climate alarmist minister of environment Barbara Hendricks. They’re coming to Marrakesh with a Climate Plan 2050 after all.

“Hardly any substance…watered down”

Daniel Wetzel at the online national daily Die Welt here reports, however, that the plan has “hardly any substance” left in it, and:

What resulted was a light version: Many requirements have been crossed out or watered down. Those who profit are industry and power plant operators.”

That of course means that German consumers, who have been hard hit by the “Energiewende” (transition to renewable energies) through skyrocketing electricity costs and grid instability, can breath a sigh of relief: Germany is in fact only lukewarm when it comes to combatting the “most serious threat to mankind”.

“Nebulous text”

Also deleted from the Climate Plan 2050 is a minimum price for CO2 emissions trading, and what remains, according to Wetzel, is a nebulous “strengthening of price signals of emissions trading“.

“Completely hollowed out”

Wetzel adds that the German Greens and environmentalists have slammed the new Climate Plan 2050, calling it “completely hollowed out” and that it “will not fulfil the requirements of the Paris climate agreement“.

Yet, despite all the shortcomings in the latest draft, Wetzel believes that the plan will in fact be praiseworthy when it arrives in Marrakesh later this week, writing:
Hardly any counry has bothered drawing up a reduction plan that goes so far out into the future.”

No effect on emissions so far

One reader at Facebook commented that Germany’s climate fight so far has been a farce, and that it has caused far more damage than good. The reader writes that over the first 9 months of this year, Germany has in fact consumed 0.3% more energy than it did over the same period a year earlier, concluding:

The German Energiewende is meaningless for the climate. […]. Nonetheless, Germany’s most beautiful landscapes continue to be destroyed by wind turbines – a crime against nature.”

And then there are the astronomical financal costs.

 

Critics Call German Elitist Reaction To Trump Victory: “A High Altitude Flight By Arrogance And Disdain”

Today just a few comments on Trump’s spectacular victory.

Don’t let the title above mislead you. The overwhelming majority of the German media were shocked and infuriated by Trump’s against-all-odds victory. Indeed if Germans had cast their votes in the US election, Hillary would have won by a margin of something like 94 – 6.  That’s how disgustingly one-sided the press here is.

Yet, there are a few journalists/commentators who had the courage to express the harsh, politically incorrect truth of the US election result.

What follow are some examples of non-conforming reaction to Trump’s spectacular victory.

“hate-filled arrogance”

Roger Köppel of the Swiss Weltwoche here writes:

I can understand that some reject Trump and criticize his positions. But what really annoyed me was the hate-filled arrogance coming from fat-cat elites who with great certainty believe that it is a sort of blasphemy whenever someone stands up and challenges their claim to power.”

He summarizes:

The arrogant political cartel, which Trump was fighting, experienced a staggering defeat.”

broder_henryk“High altitude flight of arrogance and disdain!

Henryk M. Broder (right) commented at national daily Die Welt here, where he described how he started the election evening by attending a ritzy election party in Berlin, wholly occupied by Hillary supporters, pundits and elitists of every type. Outside he couldn’t help notice a huge, white stretch-limousine parked outside waiting to ferry guests to the next stop for celebrating a Clinton victory. Broder titled his commentary:

A high altitude flight by arrogance and disdain.”

He writes that he too was convinced Clinton would win. After all: “So many intelligent people in one single spot just couldn’t possibly be wrong.” When the result became clear, Broder says he couldn’t help feeling “a bit of Schadenfreude“. He summarizes:

What do we learn from this? The political elites, starting with the think tanks and ending with the top of the EU, have no clue about the USA. They know where to find the best margaritas in New York, the best spare ribs in Washington and the best tacos in Los Angeles, yet they do not understand America.”

“Collapsed expectations”

At Germany’s flagship political daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung here, journalist Frank Lübberding writes how expectations by Germany’s elitist media collapsed before their very eyes. To explain Trump’s voter base, charts and figures from ARD moderator Jörg Schönenborn were used to clearly show that Trump’s message resonated “only with white men who had little education“. Schönenborn insisted at the beginning of the evening: “Hillary Clinton’s chances are much greater.”

Lübberding then writes that in the ARD studio in Cologne there was only a pro-Clinton audience – and one single “Never-Trump” republican. That was the overall atmosphere. Only the Clinton perspective was presented.

Lübberding then describes the atmosphere of shock and stun that spread across the pro-Clinton ARD studio as the results came to show that Trump would roll to victory. What happened? To explain, Lübbermann cites data presented in the studio from Virgina:

In Virginia white women with college degrees voted as often for Trump as they did for his opponent. That Trump appealed to white uneducated men, a claim that pollsters often heard during the campaign was impressively refuted on that evening.

The picture in reality was nothing what the German media elitists and think tanks believed it had been.

“Shock therapy” for the elitist class

Finally, chief editor Markus Somm at the Swiss Basler Zeitung writes how the elitists have in fact become “trapped by the ideology of privilege” and that anyone who views things differently, or suffers under the elitits, is “berated or ignored“. In talk shows guests who maintain other views are almost excluded. And when they are invited, they are hugely outnumbered so that a pile-on results.

Somm calls the result of the election “shock therapy” for the elitists, and he issues a dire warning for Europe:

What happened in the USA, where a totally non-tested outsider succeeded in capturing the highest office, this is only the beginning. Many countries in the West will soon experience something similar. A revolutionary mood has taken over. […] It is hardly a coincidence. Switzerland, Great Britain, Netherlands, the USA: these are countries that are among the oldest democracies of the West. The more mature and established the democratic traditions are, the more the people’s resistance comes to surface, and thus the more the elitists tremble.”

Photo: Henryk Broder

 

8 New Papers Reveal ‘Natural’ Global Warming Reaches Amplitudes Of 10°C In Just 50 Years With No CO2 Influence

Climate records from ice cores indicate that abrupt, global-scale warming events with amplitudes of up to 10°C (in the Greenland region) were reached within as little as 50 years dozens of times during the roughly 100,000 years between the last interglacial (~120,000 years ago) and the current interglacial period (11,700 years ago to present).  That’s equivalent to a rate of up to 2.0°C per decade of “natural” global warming.  CO2 concentrations remained flat and low (~180 parts per million) throughout these warming (and cooling) periods, commonly referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger events.  Schmidt and Hertzberg (2011) provide a summary and (modified) illustration of what these abrupt climatic shifts affecting the “Earth’s climate system” may have looked like.

Schmidt and Hertzberg, 2011

Unlike the relatively stable climate Earth has experienced over the last 10,000 years, Earth’s climate system underwent a series of abrupt oscillations and reorganizations during the last ice age between 18,000 and 80,000 years ago (Dansgaard 1984, Bond et al. 1997, 1999). …There are twenty-five of these distinct warming-cooling oscillations (Dansgaard 1984) which are now commonly referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, or D-O cycles. One of the most surprising findings was that the shifts from cold stadials to the warm interstadial intervals occurred in a matter of decades, with air temperatures over Greenland rapidly warming 8 to 15°C (Huber et al. 2006). Furthermore, the cooling occurred much more gradually, giving these events a saw-tooth shape in climate records from most of the Northern Hemisphere.”

dansgaard-oeschger-events-past-80000-years-copy

In contrast to these abrupt and profound warming events in the paleoclimate record, the IPCC indicated in their 5th report (2013) that the surface temperature of the Earth rose by 0.78°C between 1850 and 2012.   That’s a warming rate of a little less than 0.05°C per decade.

IPCC AR5 (2013):

The total [global temperature] increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 °C, based on the single longest dataset available.”

Of course, this 1850-2012 warming period (0.78°C in 160+ years) occurred while CO2 concentrations rose from 280 parts per million (ppm) to nearly 400 ppm.

Putting these records together, it can therefore be concluded that global-scale warming and cooling events occur naturally at rates and amplitudes several times greater (multiple degrees per decade) than what has occurred since 1850 (<0.05°C per decade), and thus climate change in the modern period does not even come close to falling out of the range of what can and does occur naturally.  Also, it can be concluded that CO2 concentration changes have historically not been well correlated with abrupt temperature changes either in the paleoclimate record nor during significant portions of the modern period.

Below there are 8 scientific papers published in 2016 referencing these abrupt climate changes, some of which indicate a “global footprint” or “global signature” or “global distribution” of these warming and cooling events.

Hewitt et al., 2016

“Many northern hemisphere climate records, particularly those from around the North Atlantic, show a series of rapid climate changes that recurred on centennial to millennial timescales throughout most of the last glacial period. These Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) sequences are observed most prominently in Greenland ice cores, although they have a global signature, including an out of phase Antarctic signal. They consist of warming jumps of order 10°C, occurring in typically 40 years, followed generally by a slow cooling (Greenland Interstadial, GI) lasting between a few centuries and a few millennia, and then a final rapid temperature drop into a cold Greenland Stadial (GS) that lasts for a similar period. … [S]teady changes in ice-sheet runoff, driven by the AMOC, lead to a naturally arising oscillator, in which the rapid warmings come about because the Arctic Ocean is starved of freshwater. The changing size of the ice sheets would have affected the magnitude and extent of runoff, and we suggest that this could provide a simple explanation for the absence of the events during interglacials and around the time of glacial maxima.”

Rasmussen et al., 2016

Full paper: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep20535

Press release (sciencedaily): “Extreme climate changes in the past Ice core records show that Greenland went through 25 extreme and abrupt climate changes during the last ice age some 20,000 to 70,000 years ago. In less than 50 years the air temperatures over Greenland could increase by 10 to 15 °C. However the warm periods were short; within a few centuries the frigid temperatures of the ice age returned. That kind of climate change would have been catastrophic for us today.  Ice core records from Antarctica also show climate changes in the same period, but they are more gradual, with less severe temperature swings.”

Jensen et al., 2016

“Proxy data suggests a large variability in the North Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST) and sea ice cover during the Dansgaard Oeschger (DO) events of the last glacial. However, the mechanisms behind these changes are still debated. … Based on our analysis, we suggest that the variability of the subpolar gyre during the analyzed DO event can be explained by internal variability of the climate system alone. Further research is needed to explain whether the lacking amplitude in the Nordic Seas is due to the model deficiencies or if external forcing or some feedback mechanisms could give rise to larger SST variability.”

Agosta and Compagnucci, 2016

“The climate in the North Atlantic Ocean during the Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3) —roughly between 80,000 years before present (B.P.) and 20,000 years B.P., within the last glacial period—is characterized by great instability, with opposing climate transitions including at least six colder Heinrich (H) events and fourteen warmer Dansgaard–Oeschger (D-O) events. … The various theories on the causes include factors internal to the dynamics of ice sheets, and external factors such as changes in the solar flux and changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). The latter is the most robust hypothesis. At certain times, these ice sheets released large amounts of freshwater into the North Atlantic Ocean . Heinrich events are an extreme example of this, when the Laurentide ice sheet disgorged excessively large amounts of freshwater into the Labrador Sea in the form of icebergs. These freshwater dumps reduced ocean salinity enough to slow down deep-water formation and AMOC. Since AMOC plays an important role in transporting heat northward, a slowdown would cause the North Atlantic Ocean to cool. Later, as the addition of freshwater decreased, ocean salinity and deep-water formation increased and climate conditions recovered. During the D-O events, the high-latitude warming occurred abruptly (probably in decades to centuries), reaching temperatures close to interglacial conditions. Even though H and D-O events seemed to have been initiated in the North Atlantic Ocean, they had a global footprint. Global climate anomalies were consistent with a slowdown of AMOC and reduced ocean heat transport into the northern high latitudes.”

Olsen, 2016

“The most frequent abrupt stadial/interstadial changes retained from the marine sediments are known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles, and appear every 1-2 kyr. These cycles are characterized by abrupt short-lived increase in temperatures (10 ± 5°C) followed by gradual cooling preceding the next rapid event. A second millennial scale feature detected in the sediments record is cooling events culminating significant iceberg discharges analogous to Heinrich events. Mechanisms triggering abrupt changes display uncertainties, but leading hypothesis is attributed to modifications in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and deep-water formation initiated by freshwater input.”

Mayewski, 2016

“The demonstration using Greenland ice cores that abrupt shifts in climate, Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, existed during the last glacial period has had a transformational impact on our understanding of climate change in the naturally forced world. The demonstration that D-O events are globally distributed and that they operated during previous glacial periods has led to extensive research into the relative hemispheric timing and causes of these events. The emergence of civilization during our current interglacial, the Holocene, has been attributed to the “relative climate quiescence” of this period relative to the massive, abrupt shifts in climate that characterized glacial periods in the form of D-O events.”

Bogotá-A et al., 2016

“We reconstructed upper forest line (UFL) positions between ~2000 and ~3400 m elevation and the most abrupt temperature shifts ranged up to 10 °C/100 yr at Terminations II and III. Regional vegetation change is mainly driven by eccentricity (100 kyr) and obliquity (41 kyr) cycles, while changes in local aquatic vegetation show variability in the obliquity and precession (21 kyr) bands. Millennial-scale climate variability reflecting Dansgaard–Oeschger (DO) climate cycles in the upper part of the record, continues in this penultimate intergalcial–glacial cycle strongly suggesting that this variability has a persistent character in Pleistocene vegetation and climate dynamics.”

Shao and Ditlevsen, 2016

“The glacial climate is dominated by the strong multi-millennial Dansgaard–Oeschger (DO) events influencing the long-time correlation. However, by separately analysing the last glacial maximum lacking DO events, here we find the same scaling for that period as for the full glacial period. The unbroken scaling thus indicates that the DO events are part of the natural variability and not externally triggered.”

 

NOAA Forced To Totally Overhaul Winter Forecast For Northern Europe, Russia, As Cold Spreads

Models and experts of every type have had plenty of setbacks making forecasts for chaotic systems. Recent examples include the election results and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman’s prediction that the US market would dive in response to the election of Trump (it in fact went on and set a new all-time record high).

If anything has lost its worth, it’s the value of Krugman’s Nobel Prize

Recently German weather site Wetterfrosch posted at Facebook that the US NOAA had been forced to correct its previous Europe seasonal forecast for the coming winter.

Earlier the NOAA had forecast a mild winter, but now the American meteorologists are foreseeing a “significantly much colder than normal month for Scandinavia and Russia“.

For the time being, the NOAA is sticking to its mild winter forecast for Central Europe. However, German meteorologist Dominik Jung has doubts on that mild outlook, warning that there is a real possibility of getting hit by cold blasts from Siberia.

The central European forecast over the next week sees continued colder than normal weather. Earlier in the week large parts of Germany were hit by snowfall and frosty temperatures. November temperatures so far are well below normal.

Recent computer models show massive regions of cold having spread over Russia and Canada and now threaten to whip Europe over the weeks ahead. Interestingly the cold has split over the high Arctic and produced a mild pocket over the pole – due to a blocking pattern over the past few weeks which is expected to continue well through November.

The following chart shows the GFS 850 hPa temperature outlook for November 14, cropped from meteociel.fr. Note the warm pole:

n-hemisphere-24-nov-2016

Source: meteociel.fr.

Three days ago The Telegraph here reported: “Freezing temperatures are likely to hit Britain this winter as the polar vortex above the Arctic moves south bringing bone-chilling weather in the run up to Christmas, the Met Office has predicted.”

 

Chart of the Day

Looks like the election models and forecasts are about as bad as those we’ve seen in climate “science”.

nyt-chances

Source: New York Times

Think about this.

Of course when you place your full faith in them, eventually you get brutally slammed by reality.

Make no mistake, I’m also stunned by Trump’s victory, as yesterday I thought he was a longshot. Yet, the huge crowds he drew at his rallies, clashed with what the polls were saying…like how all that snow we have today isn’t supposed to be there.

I see even sod, in his latest comment, is unable to find an argument to dispute this reality, and so had to seek refuge and consolation in his bed. So it shall be for tens of millions of practicing deniers today.

 

Glimmers Of Hope Amid Longshot Odds. Can The People Overcome The Corrupt Establishment?

I doubt many are focused today on climate and energy right now, so today I have a few thoughts on the election.

Sorry, Hillary, but I was not able to cast my vote for you: too many scandals, too much corruption, bad positions on fundamental issues and too many phony promises.

You are really just a pawn of Wall Street, Big Media, Hollywood, globalists, the Saudis and Soros. My message to you:

Concerning the election itself, I learned the hard way back in 2012. A few signs that Romney would win got the best of my optimism and I ended up disappointed. Obama won handily.

This time I’m staying sober about the outcome of this election. Trump is the clear underdog, as he’s up against a formidable line-up comprising the string-pullers mentioned above. It is truly unbelievable that he has gotten as far as he has.

What indicates Hillary will win?
1. She is leading (slightly) in the polls.
2. The electoral college favors her as well. She only needs to pick up a few of the toss-up states.
3. Voter fraud favors her.

Some glimmers of hope for Trump:
1. He’s well within striking distance.
2. He appears to have mobilized the base: impressive huge rallies nationwide.
3. Polls are often wrong/manipulative.
4. Republicans tend to turn out on election day.

In the end, the election will be probably decided in the swing state counties with large ghettos (Dade, Broward, Cuyahoga, Philadelphia, etc.) where there are signs of rampant voter fraud of the sort we see in banana republics. Moreover there is little to discourage the fraud from being carried out, like who is going to do anything about it? The DOJ?

Those who put up with banana republic elections ought not wonder why they find themselves living in banana republic conditions.

But who knows, Trump just may pull it off. It’s up to GOP voters to turn out.

My advice to those long suffering in these ghettos: Why do you keep voting for the same hucksters, election after election? How many more decades will it take before you realize you’ve been swindled?

 

New Paper Asks ‘What Does The Paris Agreement Actually Do?’ Answer: Nothing. CO2 Emissions Continue Rising Unabated.

A new paper just published online asks a timely and poignant question as the U.S. Presidential election splatters the headlines this week: What does the Paris Agreement actually do?  The author succinctly answers his own question, concluding that the Paris Agreement allows countries like China and India “permission to emit as much [CO2] as they see fit,” and therefore the international pact “makes the policy of mitigation of global warming impossible.”

Campbell, 2016

What does the Paris Agreement actually do?

“Though very widely believed to be inadequate in the target it sets, the Paris Agreement is commonly thought actually to set a binding target of reducing global CO2e emissions so as to limit global warming to 2℃. Proper legal interpretation of the Agreement shows it to set no such target. It rather gives the newly industrialising countries such as China and India a permission to emit as much as they see fit. These countries have been principally responsible for the huge growth in emissions since 1990 and they will be responsible for their continued huge growth until 2030. The Paris Agreement therefore makes the policy of mitigation of global warming impossible. However, this policy has been impossible over the whole of the now more than a quarter century of international climate change policy.”

To expand on this point, consider that global-scale CO2 emissions were still only 6.5 gigatons per year (GtC/yr) in the year 1999, but they grew to 7.5 GtC/yr by 2005, 8.5 GtC/yr by 2008, and 10.1 GtC/yr by 2014.  Here’s what that explosive growth in CO2 emissions looks like:

co2-emissions-1900-2014-gtc-per-year-climate-laws

 

Notice the exponential expansion in climate change mitigation laws and policies from 1997, 2009, and 2014, and how they are negatively correlated with global-scale CO2 emissions growth (source: London School of Economics).  In other words, the more laws are passed that attempt to mitigate the growth in CO2 emissions, the sharper the growth in CO2 emissions.

London School of Economics, 2015

Three-quarters of the world’s annual emissions of greenhouse gases are now limited by national targets

“53 countries, including the 28 Member States of the European Union, have national targets that set either absolute or relative limits on annual emissions of greenhouse gases across their economies. … 98 countries and the European Union together had 804 climate laws and policies at the end of 2014, compared with 426 in 2009, when a previous attempt was made in Copenhagen, Denmark, to reach an international agreement. In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was agreed, these countries had just 54 climate laws and policies between them. … 47 countries, including the 28 Member States of the European Union, have introduced carbon pricing through either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system.”

According to an analysis by the Washington Post, Gigawatt-hours (GWh) from fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) grew from 5.8 GWh in 1980 to 15.4 GWh in 2012.  Gigawatt-hours from renewables rose from 1.8 GWh in 1980 to 4.8 GWh in 2012.  This means that total consumption of fossil fuel energies grew more than 3 times faster than renewables did (9.6 GWh vs. 3 GWh) between 1980 and 2012.

Washington Post (2015):

As appetite for electricity soars, the world keeps turning to coal

“[T]wo-thirds of the world’s electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuels, mostly coala proportion that hasn’t budged for 35 years. Emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants have more than doubled since 1980 as the world’s demand for electricity keeps rising.”

And fossil fuel use will continue rising – no matter how many more laws are passed.

India and China alone plan to build 1617 new coal power plants by 2030.

Between 50 and 86 new coal plants are planned for Turkey in the next few years.

Russia plans to rapidly expand their coal industry (source):

The Russian government has endorsed a long-term coal industry development program, featuring an increase in coal production and coal-powered generation – a day after adopting a brand-new climate action plan.   The refurbished program sees coal production in Russia increase to 410-480 million tons by 2030, and exports are expected to grow by some 70 million tons.”

Japan is currently building 43 new coal plants.

South Korea is also adding more coal-fired energy according to a report from Reuters.com:

Less than a week since signing the global climate deal in Paris, Japan and South Korea are pressing ahead with plans to open scores of new coal-fired power plants, casting doubt on the strength of their commitment to cutting CO2 emissions.   Even as many of the world’s rich nations seek to phase out the use of coal, Asia’s two most developed economies are burning more than ever and plan to add at least 60 new coal-fired power plants over the next 10 years.  Officials at both countries’ energy ministries said those plans were unchanged.”

The Netherlands

Dutch energy companies are burning more coal than ever, despite efforts to produce more green and sustainable energy, according to research by news agency De Persdienst. It says coal-fired power stations in the Netherlands used over seven million kilos of coal in the first nine months of last year, a 15% increase on 2013 and a 36% increase on 2012.”

World Research Institute assesses that ten developing countries are or will be building new coal plants.

“New coal-fired plants have been proposed in 10 developing countries: Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Laos, Morocco, Namibia, Oman, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Currently, there is limited or no capacity for domestic coal production in any of these countries.”

According to a report from The Guardian, the only two wealthy countries that did not expand coal production and consumption since 2009 are the United States and Canada.  For Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and the UK, coal consumption rose by 16% between 2009 and 2013.

Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and France together burned 16% more coal in 2013 than 2009 and are planning to further increase construction of coal-fired power stations. Only the US and Canada of the G7 countries meeting on Monday in Berlin have reduced coal consumption since the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009.”

The Paris Agreement was, is, and will be an exercise in futility.  It will not reduce global-scale CO2 emissions, as emissions rates will continue to grow on a net global scale, especially since Asian and Middle Eastern countries continue to “emit as much as they see fit”.

Analysts have suggested that our efforts to mitigate CO2 emissions “will almost surely fail,” and they may “actually make matters worse.”

Jones and Warner, 2016

Efforts to curtail world temps will almost surely fail

To even come close to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, 50 percent of our energy will need to come from renewable sources by 2028, and today it is only 9 percent, including hydropower. For a world that wants to fight climate change, the numbers just don’t add up to do it.”

Kelly, 2016

“[A]ll the actions taken together until now to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide will not achieve a serious reduction, and in some cases, they will actually make matters worse.”

Bannaga, 2016

“It is evident that UN efforts to combat climate change are not effective because past experience shows that CO2 generation cuts weren’t near enough.”

 

Leading German Alarmist Site Sees Little Difference Between “Eco-Clinton” And “Coal-Trump”

Leading German climate activist/alarmist site Klimaretter (climate rescuers) here has an opinion piece telling readers that there is in fact little difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton when it comes the energy policy. “Eco-green or coal-black? It really isn’t that simple.”

Klimaretter writes that while it may appear Trump wishes to save the American coal industry and Clinton promises to promote “clean energies”,  the two candidates have many more similarities’ than what meets the eye:

In fact there are more common points between the two than what their rhetoric would have us believe. Both Clinton and Trump wish to hold on to the controversial fracking technology for natural gas  and crude oil. The same is true for nuclear power.

Trump has long since added on to his pro-coal course by coming out in favor of ‘all types of energy’. Also solar and wind energy would also play a role under his administration. It’s a balancing act for the billionaire: Of course he wishes to gain the votes from the many unemployed coal workers, however he has in fact understood that renewable energies has become a good economic engine, and in the meantime offers more jobs than the coal industry.

Trump even appears to be worried that there might indeed be something behind climate change: One of his companies wants to build a protective wall around his golf course on the Irish coast. Rising sea level and increasing erosion necessitate it…”

Klimaretter’s opinion could be the case of a climate alarmist trying to see a silver lining in a Trump presidency. Let’s recall that Trump said he would stop payments to the UN climate programs, not sign the climate treaty, and rev up the American economic engines (hence more CO2 emissions).

Clinton would do the opposite.

Hillary Clinton would also very likely shackle the economy with massive environmental regulation and possibly even impose a carbon tax. These are points that Klimaretter would surely welcome.

 

Mont Blanc Glacier History Clearly Shows Natural Cycles Behind Climate, And Not Man

Little Ice Age as a suitable reference point for the warming of the last 150 years?  The case of Mont Blanc

By Uli Weber
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

On October 29 television station ARTE broadcast the documentary “Laboratory Mont Blanc“ (94 Min.). It’s available at Arte.tv until November 6, 2016.  The description at ARTE:

On a 6-day expedition three scientists climbed the Mont Blanc, which is considered the heart of the European Alps. At approximately 4810 meters tall the ‘white giant’ is a natural wonder of nature. Climbing the large mountain is a unique experience and is considered as a look at the past 240 million years of evolution…”

Of course the problem in the documentary all gets back to man-made climate change. Yet between the 37 minute and 45 minute marks, we found some rational documentation: The Mont Blanc glacier had retreated just as much during the Medieval times as much it has today. Back then a small town near what today is Chamonix (Le Chatelard?) was covered in 1643 by the Mer de Glace (sea of ice) glacier and destroyed. In 1860 – the end of the Little Ice Age – the Mer de Glace reached its greatest extent, which is documented by photos and other means.

Since then the Mer de Glace has been in retreat, as the following satellite photo from Google-Maps clearly shows:

 

Also other sources report of glacier advance during the Little Ice Age, e.g. the Blog History of Geology on October 8, 2016:

In the year 1644 in the Mont Blanc region, a procession to the glacier was organized at the village Les Bois because supposedly it had advanced to only 120 meters away from the village and it was threatening. The bishop of Geneva blessed the Les-Bois-glacier personally…“

Wikipedia on the Mer de Glace, quote:

„… Earlier the glacier flowed over a steep part and into the valley of Chamonix, and right up to the settlement Les Bois. This part of the glacier was named the Glacier des Bois and used to be an attraction of old Chamonix. At the elevation of Montenvers the glacier used to be 130 meters thicker than today. Crossing the right bank was free of trouble. People even drove the herds of sheep over it…“

It is most astonishing that the mean temperature at the end of the Little Ice Age (usually 1850, but in the ARTE documentary 1860) gets misused as the “natural” yardstick for measuring our current warming, and thus used as proof of a “man-made” global warming – even though that it is clearly shown by the ARTE documentary and without a doubt as simply part of the ongoing natural cycle since the Medieval time.

 

Cold October… N. Hemisphere Snow Cover Reaches Near Record High …Record Snow In Siberia!

Cold German October

Germany’s Deutsche Wetterdienst (DWD) weather service reports the preliminary weather data for October. At a mean of 8.6°C, the month came in 0.6°C colder than normal (compared to the 1981-2010 mean) and even came in 0.4°C colder than the 1961-1990 mean.

The DWD hints that natural variability factors are to blame for the cool month, writing:

An unusually strong high pressure area in October 2016 blocked the train of Atlantic lows towards Eastern Europe.

The October mean was calculated from data collected from Germany’s approximately 2000 weather stations across the country. October 2016 was also wetter and less sunny than normal.

Cold and cloudy in Austria

The situation was similar over Germany’s southeastern neighbor, Austria. The Austrian ZAMG weather service writes here that the Alpine country saw a much cloudier than normal month with a mean temperature 0.4°C below the 1981-2010 mean:

austria_oct_2016

October-2016 temperature anomalies for Austria. Source: ZAMG.

Several cold snaps provided for wintery conditions especially at higher elevations. Austria had experienced a string of warmer-than-normal months, but that streak has ended. Already there are signs that November may be colder than normal as well.

Near record northern hemisphere snow cover

The wetteronline site here just reported that for this time of the year “snow cover in the northern hemisphere reached the second highest level in about 50 years“. Snow cover has extended to 31.48 million square meters. Only 1976 was higher. Over the past few days a vast area of Russia has seen temperatures fall well below normal. Because of the early and widespread snow cover , the air cools and results in significantly colder than normal temperatures.

What does this mean for the coming weeks? Wetteronline reports the massive snow cover will likely have consequences for Europe and North America. Widespread snow cover over northern Asia can lead to the formation of a powerful cold high system over Siberia, which in turn can weaken the polar vortex. The result:

The weaker it becomes, the more probable it becomes that there will be blasts of polar air over Central Europe.”

This was also the case over the past winters, yet Europe escaped with mild winters.

“Snowiest winter on record”

Not only Central Europe could be slammed by cold winters due to massive snow cover over Russia, also Eastern North America could get hit as well according to Weather Underground here. The site writes that some Siberian locations have seen “their snowiest winter on record“. Weather Underground reports that the current conditions for producing a hard winter “are the best they’ve been in years“.

 

Scientific Studies Reveal No Correlation Between CO2 And Ocean Heat Content Variations For 99.975% Of The Last 10,000 Years

“The current eager acceptance of oceanic thermal lag as the ‘explanation’ as to why CO2 warming remains undetected, reemphasizes that the atmosphere cannot warm until the oceans do. The logical implication follows that most current climate models are lacking in relevance; they have not been constructed with ocean surface temperature as the fundamental variable. When the problem is attacked from this view, sensitivity to CO2 is significantly reduced; a position also strongly supported by the available palaeoclimatic data.”  — Ellsaesser, 1984

According to the IPCC (2013), 93% of the heat energy change from global warming can be found in the oceans (AR5, Chapter 3).  Only a tiny fraction of climate change can be accounted for in the atmospheric record, as the heat capacity of the oceans is more than a thousand times greater than the heat capacity of the air.  In other words, the widely-publicized surface air temperature change of about +0.6° to +1.0°C since the 19th century is not the main barometer of whether or not global warming has occurred – – and if it has, by how much.  Global warming (or cooling) is primarily accounted for as a change in ocean heat content, not surface air temperatures.

Climate models that prognosticate what the temperature of the global climate system might be 100+ years from now, or when atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach 560 ppm (doubled pre-industrial levels) are fundamentally flawed, for they presume that CO2 concentration rise (or decline) is a primary determinant of changes in atmospheric temperature change.  It is not.  Because of the magnitude of difference in heat capacity, it is the global ocean that determines the temperature of the air (predominantly), not the other way around.

It therefore needs to be established that (1) CO2 variations and ocean heat content changes are correlated (when CO2 falls, ocean heat/temperatures fall, and vice versa); and if they are correlated, then it still needs to be scientifically established (i.e., via experimental observation and measurement) that (2) ocean heat/temperature changes are primarily caused by CO2 variations.  Just because there is a correlation between two variables does not necessarily mean that one variable is the cause of the other.

So, as mentioned, first we need to establish a correlation before we can even consider causation.  And when it comes to a correlation between CO2 variations and ocean heat content variations, we don’t have one.  According to scientific studies of long-term ocean heat content, for 99.975% of the last 10,000 years, there has effectively been no significant correlation between rising or falling CO2 concentrations and rising or falling ocean heat.  As will be clarified below, the only period in the last 10,000 years in which CO2 and ocean heat/temperatures sharply rose or fell in concert was the period between 1975 and 2000.

Just 0.09°C – 0.18°C Of Net Warming In 0-2000 m To 0-700 m Ocean Since 1955

Levitus et al. (2012) estimate that, between 1955 and 2010, the global ocean heat energy change (converted to temperature) amounted to an addition of a blistering +0.18°C in the 0-700 m layer, and +0.09°C in the upper 2000 meters of the ocean.  That’s less than one-tenth of one degree over 55 years in the 0-2000 m layer.

Levitus et al., 2012

“The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. … The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) [over 1955-2010] corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. … The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C.”

Below the 2000 m depth (and 52% of the ocean waters reside below 2000 m), the “entirety” of the Pacific and Indian Oceans as well as the Eastern Atlantic have been cooling for the last few decades, largely off-setting the already modest change in the 0-2000 m layer.

Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014

“Over the 20 yr of the present ECCO state estimate, changes in the deep ocean on multiyear time scales are dominated by the western Atlantic basin and Southern Oceans. … In those same regions, a longer-term general warming pattern occurs below 2000 m. A very weak long-term cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth, including the entirety of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic basin.”

holocene-cooling-pacific-atlantic-indian-oceans-wunschheimbach14-copy

But let’s consider the contextual magnitude of the 0.18°C of warming in the 0-700 m layer since 1955.  Below is a graph taken from the Rosenthal et al. (2013) paper published in the journal Science documenting the changes in 0-700 m Pacific Ocean heat content during the Holocene.   Pictured are the last 1,200 years (800 C.E. to 2010) of ocean heat changes, including the added blue dotted line on the right extending from 1955 to 2010 (+0.18°C).

As indicated by the black trend bars, notice (a) the amplitude of the rise for the 1900-2010 period is not as steep as 11 previous decadal- and centennial-scale demarcated warming periods during the last 1,200 years.  Also notice that (b) the overall sharp drop in ocean heat since the Medieval Warm Period ended (encompassing the 1200 C.E. to 1900 Little Ice Age) was not accompanied by a sharp decline in CO2 concentrations, and that the Medieval Warm Period had flat, not rising, CO2 levels,  indicating that CO2 variations could not have been a causal factor in the ocean heat content changes during this entire period (800 C.E. to 1900).  Finally, notice that (c) modern temperatures are still tenths of a degree cooler than they were during the 1300 to 1500 C.E. period, when CO2 concentrations still hovered around 280 ppm.  In sum, the data in this graph indicate that there has been no significant correlation between CO2 and ocean heat temperature variations for nearly all of the last 1,200 years.

holocene-cooling-pacific-ocean-medieval-warm-present-rosenthal-13-warmings

Non-Correlation Between Human CO2 Emissions & Ocean Heat For Most Of The 1900-2010 Period

And yes, the non-correlation includes the 1900-2010 period.  There are very few reconstructions of global-scale ocean heat content prior to 1950 available in the scientific literature.  However, in a paper entitled “Consistent near surface ocean warming since 1900,” Gouretski et al. (2012) provide a comprehensive look at available evidence for the near-surface (0-20 m) change in ocean heat content for the early 20th century.  The supplemental graph below (using the available link [red] from the University of Hamburg) was made available upon the release of the paper.

Gouretski et al., 2012

http://icdc.cen.uni-hamburg.de/uploads/pics/hc_fig2.jpeg

Taking a closer look, the graph shows that the amplitude (+1.3°C) and rate (+0.27°C per decade) of the 1900-1945 ocean warming period was about 4 to 5 times as large as the 1945-2010 warming period (+0.3°C, +0.055°C per decade).

global-oceans-0-20-m-gouretski-12

In the paper, Gouretski and co-authors point out that the twenty-first century has experienced a general cooling in large regions of the global ocean — just as anthropogenic CO2 emissions (and atmospheric CO2 concentrations) were rising most dramatically.

[T]he first decade of the 21st century (2001–2010) was not uniformly warmer than previous decades. Before about 1920, the global ocean was almost everywhere colder than the reference decade of 2001–2010. After 1920, several regions of the global ocean were warmer than the reference decade [2001-2010]. … [A] rather abrupt cooling since the end of 1990s both in the East Pacific (connected to the weakening of El Nino and the shift to the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and in the Southern Ocean may have contributed to a flattening of the global temperature anomaly series after about 2000. …Decadal mean SST and 0–20 m layer anomalies calculated relative to the reference decade 2001–2010 give evidence of the general warming of the global ocean since 1900. However, large regions of the oceans have experienced cooling since the 1990s. Whereas cooling in the tropical Eastern Pacific ocean is associated with frequent La Nina events in the past decade, the cause of the cooling within the Southern Ocean remains unknown.”

The much larger amplitude and rate of warming that occurred in the early 20th century was not accompanied by a commensurate large change (increase) in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.  In fact, throughout the entire 1900 to 1945 period, human emissions only averaged about 1 gigaton of carbon per year (GtC/yr).  In contrast, human emissions rates rose sharply to 4 GtC/yr by the 1970s, 6 GtC/yr by the 1990s, and over 10 GtC/yr by 2014.  Atmospheric CO2 followed a similar trajectory, as concentrations rose by just 15 ppm in the 40 years between 1900 and 1950 (295 ppm to 310 ppm), whereas concentrations rose by 85 ppm in the 65 years after 1950, including 22 ppm just between the years 2000 and 2010 alone (Feldman et al., 2015) — a decade when near-surface ocean heat “flattened” according to Gouretski et al. (2012).  And despite this explosive increase in human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2, the near surface ocean heat content actually cooled between 1945 and 1975, and the rate of warming since 1975 has been much less pronounced than during the 1900-1945 period.

co2-emissions-1900-2014-gtc-per-year-ps

If we were to visually combine the record of the explosive rise in human CO2 emissions since 1945 with the record of near-surface ocean heat content for the entire 1900-2010 period, it would be evident that the only decadal-scale period in which CO2 emissions steeply rose in concert with ocean temperature was during the 25 years between 1975 to 2000.  For 1900-1975 and 2000-2010, there was no obvious correlation between rapidly rising CO2 and ocean heat content.

co2-emissions-1900-2014-gtc-per-year-0-20-m-ohc-copy

No Correlation Between CO2 Variations And Ocean Heat For The Entire Holocene

And not only is there a lack of correlation between rising CO2 and rising ocean heat content for all but the 1975-2000 period during the years 800 C.E. through 2010, there is also no correlation between rising CO2 and rising ocean heat for the entirety of the Holocene.  Actually, the general long-term trend is for there to be an inverse correlation: as CO2 rises, ocean heat content declines.   The following Rosenthal et al. (2013) graph of the Pacific Ocean’s 0-500 m layer demonstrates this.

holocene-cooling-pacific-ocean-rosenthal-13-co2

Conclusion

To summarize, in the last 10,000 years, there was one 25-year period (1975-2000) in which CO2 levels and ocean heat content rose in concert.  Other than that, the rest of the last 10,000 years contained no obvious correlation between ocean heat content variations and the rise and fall of CO2 concentrations.  Without a significant long-term (or short-term) correlation between these two variables, we cannot even begin to address the causality question.

Simply put, the presumption that variations in CO2 concentrations cause global warming — net increases in global-scale ocean heat content — has not been established.

 

Four Major Body Blows Now Shattering Clinton Backbone, And …The “Top 100 Damaging Wikileaks”

Whether Hillary wins or not, things are looking grimmer and grimmer for the Democratic Party with each passing day. The Hillary organization is now taking four major blows, simultaneously, and likely will shatter the Clinton backbone to pieces.

4-nightmares

Four of Clinton’s biggest nightmares: Jonathan Gruber (Photo: MIT); Julian Assange (Photo: Free Assange); James Comey (Photo: FBI); James O’Keefe (Photo: Project Veritas). Also add a relentless Trey Gowdy to the mix.

The Democrats would be doing the country a huge and honorable favor in withdrawing the Clinton candidacy – or making sure she does not get elected. This would spare the nation a great crisis. Some even warn of a Constitutional crisis.

The four back-breaking body blows:

1. Skyrocketing Obamacare costs

The runaway costs of healthcare insurance are turning into a grand debacle, one that will plague and enrage Americans for months to come. Nationwide Americans are bracing for an average 25% increase in healthcare premiums starting next year. The authors of this debacle: Obama, Clinton and the Democrats. The upward spiral is only the beginning.

2. Wikileaks

The whiz hackers behind these “illegal” leaks will wear down the Clintons for many more months. The e-mail exchanges expose the inner workings and shady dealings of the Clinton circle. You can view The Top 100 most damaging Wikileaks emails – so far – hat-tip Andrew Bolt.

Wikileak dump number 25 just occurred, and very few of us know how many more are on the way and what’s potentially in store. This alone will be a slow political death by a thousand paper cuts for the Clintons. Clinton’s problems are only beginning.

3. FBI reopened investigation

Right now the 650,000 e-mails discovered on the device of sex pervert (ex-husband of Clinton top aide Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, are likely only the tip of the iceberg.

Moreover, one senses there’s a real desperation to keep the e-mails concealed, and that the dam of corruption is about to break. This is a classic situation where when one digs deeper, the more one finds massive rot. Therefore Hillary’s troubles risk growing exponentially. And not only is the scandal reaching the very top levels of the US government, it has the potential of expanding internationally and ensnaring the UN, foreign governments and institutions. And once key players start feeling the heat, they’ll start ratting each other out and cause the dominoes to fall uncontrollably.

One thing is already clear: Clinton illegally managed confidential e-mails, lied to the FBI, and obstructed justice. The rest is just more icing. She is a lawbreaker no matter how you look at it.

4. Project Veritas revelations

The hidden cameras of James O’Keefe reveal voter fraud, intimidation and corruption within Democratic Party. The sleaze uncovered by James O’Keefe only further tarnishes whatever may be left of Clinton’s reputation.

We’re looking at many months, even years, of corruption-caused chaos and scandals. The only hope that the Democrats might overcome the tsunami may be to boldly implement a massive crackdown of the sort are now witnessing in Turkey. That’s a hugely tall order. We wish Hillary and the Democrats lots of luck with that, should they decide to go for it.

 

Shock…Germany To Come To Marrakesh Conference Empty-Handed! Withdraws Climate Protection Plan!

The online daily Abendblatt here and media all over Germany report that the country will not pass its climate protection act, which was supposed to be voted on tomorrow, thus meaning the Germany will come to the Marrakesh world climate conference later this month without any plan for decarbonizing its society.

Last June German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks put forth the Climate Protection Plan 2050 with the aim of starting the “climate-friendly transformation of society”. The plan called for reducing CO2 emissions 40% by 2020 (compared to 1990 levels) and 80 – 95% by 2050.

However the plan was quickly and “radically” gutted out by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Office, Economics Minister/Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, Transportation Minister Alexander Dolbridt and Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt. The plan’s rejection sent a loud signal that the country was deeply divided on the issue, and that there were in fact other priorities far outweighing “climate protection”.

Plan withdrawn from a vote

The Ministry of Environment’s Climate Protection Plan 2050 was designed to systematically decarbonize German energy production, industry, transportation and agriculture by 2050, and was scheduled to be ratified by the German Bundeskabinett tomorrow, just in time for the world climate conference in Morocco, which starts next week.

However Minister Hendricks announced that she was withdrawing the latest plan, and thus it will not go up for a vote tomorrow. The reason, according to Klimaretter here: “It’s not ready for ratification.”

The move to allow the plan to fall apart sent a wave of surprise across the country as it signals that Germany will come to Morocco with no official commitment to substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Hendricks will attempt a new vote in December, long after the end of the Morocco conference.

“Unscientific hodgepodge of measures”

This is a devastating signal coming from a country often viewed as one of the leading proponents of CO2 reduction and climate protection. Initially Germany wanted to showcase it’s commitment to CO2 reductions, and so in Morocco serve as an example for responsible behavior to the rest of the world. Now Europe’s most powerful economy will have nothing to show, and Europe’s leadership on the issue appears seriously compromised.

According to the Abendblatt, Michael Fuchs of Merkel’s CDU party called Hendricks’s draft plan “an unscientific hodgepodge of measures” and that climate strategy has to be foremost focused on innovation and technology.

“Embarrassment”

Leading environmental groups and environmental activists blasted the government’s gutting out and opposition to the climate protection plan, calling it an “embarrassment” that Germany will show up in Morocco with no official intention of cutting back its emissions.

 

Revealed: IPCC Adds 0.3°C Of Phantom Warming Between 3rd, 5th Reports … Met Office Removes 0.3°C From 1880s-1940s Warming

In the IPCC’s 2001 third report (TAR), the total surface temperature increase for the 20th century was reported to be “about 0.6°C”.

IPCC TAR (2001):

“The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C.”

This Met Office graph of global temperatures for 1860-2000 was included in the IPCC’s 2001 report.  It provided visual clarification of the 0.6°C temperature increase since 1900.

hadcrut-1861-2000

In taking a closer look, the graph does indeed show a warming of 0.6°C between 1900 and 2000:

hadcrut-1900-2000-0-6-c

At the time, this warming amplitude for the 20th century was widely accepted in the scientific literature.  For example:

Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2006

“Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century).”

Vincent et al., 2005

“The global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.6°C over the twentieth century.”

Polyakov et al., 2003

“An analysis of observational records shows that the global surface air temperature (SAT) has increased by 0.6°C since 1861.”

The IPCC Adds 0.3°C Of Phantom Warming To Global Temperatures Between 2001 and 2013 Reports

The IPCC authors acknowledged that there was a pause in global warming since the 21st century began in the 2013 report (AR5), regularly referring to the pause as a “hiatus.”  They even acknowledged that 97% of climate model simulations (111 of 114) got it wrong, or didn’t simulate the lack of warming:

IPCC AR5 Chapter 9 (2013):

“For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations.”

“Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.”

Even the UK’s Met Office — where the IPCC obtains temperature data (HadCRUT) —  acknowledged there was a pause in global warming since the early 2000s in a paper published in July, 2013, entitled “The Recent Pause in Global Warming.”

Met Office (2013):

The start of the current pause is difficult to determine precisely. Although 1998 is often quoted as the start of the current pause, this was an exceptionally warm year because of the largest El Niño in the instrumental record. This was followed by a strong La Niña event and a fall in global surface temperature of around 0.2oC (Figure 1), equivalent in magnitude to the average decadal warming trend in recent decades. It is only really since 2000 that the rise in global surface temperatures has paused.”

Nonetheless, by the time the 5th report (AR5) was released later that year (2013), the IPCC (and the Met Office) had decided that a substantial warming of 0.25°C had occurred since the release of the 2001 report.   Twelve years and a hiatus later, the 0.6°C of warming since the 19th century ended had been transformed into 0.85°C of warming.

IPCC AR5 (2013):

“The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85°C over the period 1880 to 2012.

Apparently, 0.6°C since 1900 wasn’t substantial enough.  So 0.25°C of additional warming was tacked on.  After all, 0.85°C sounds a lot more dangerous than 0.6°C.

But notice there was a difference in starting points here: 1880 vs. 1900.  Was it possible that 1880 was -0.25°C cooler than 1900, which would account for the discrepancy?  Not according to the IPCC’s own 1860-2000 graph from the 2001 report.  Both 1880 and 1900 temperature anomalies were identical, as seen here:

hadcrut-1860-2001-1880-1900

So was it possible the additional 0.25°C of warming occurred since the 21st century began, or since 2001?  Not according to the HadCRUT temperature dataset.  Version HadCRUT3 was in use through 2012, and according to the data made available for public use on WoodForTrees.org (green trend line), HadCRUT3 indicated there was a cooling of about -0.05°C between 2001 and 2012.  The advent of HadCRUT4 in late 2012 allowed the Met Office to make substantial “up-justments” to the recent data, especially for the 2005 – 2012 period.  This extra warming added to the data could potentially eliminate the pause, or better conform temperatures to climate model expectations.  But even those “up-justments” didn’t work.  There was still no warming trend for the 2001-2012 period (purple trend line) even with the “up-justed” temperatures for HadCRUT4 from HadCRUT3.

WoodForTrees plot:

hadcrut4-up-justments-2001-2012-copy

 

So with the elimination of the -0.05°C cooling between 2001 and 2012 as indicated by the HadCRUT3 data, and with the addition of 0.25°C of extra warming since 1880 or 1900 that didn’t exist in the 2001 report, the IPCC and the Met Office were able to subtly add  0.3°C to global temperatures between their 3rd and 5th reports.

But perhaps a more recent graph (2015) might shed light on where this extra 0.3°C of warming could possibly be coming from.   It doesn’t.

hadcrut4-up-justments-1850-2015-copy-copy

                                                                 Adapted Met Office graph available here.

hadcrut4-up-justments-1900-2000

Other than more-of-the-same suppression of the 1880s to 1940s warming period (notice the 1940-’45 warming amplitude has recently been reduced by -0.05°C, making 1980 warmer), the warming trend for the 20th century (1900-2000) is still 0.6°C as shown on this 2015 Met Office graph.  And between 1880 and 2012, the graph still shows 0.6°C of warming (actually, about 0.55°C, since 1880 has recently been heated up almost 0.1°C relative to 1900 for some reason).   Neither starting point (1880 or 1900) indicates a warming amplitude of 0.85°C as claimed by the IPCC in 2013.

Met Office Has Removed 0.3°C Of Global Warming Amplitude From 1880s-1940s Period, And Transformed Strong 1940s-’70s Cooling Into A Pause

As just mentioned, the most recent depictions of the global warming trend for the 20th century have 1980 about 0.05°C warmer than 1940-’45.  A few decades ago, or before a series of chronic “adjustments” to the data were made to artificially reduce the 1940s warming height, 1980 was still about  -0.15°C cooler than 1940-’45, a net change of 0.2°C.

For example, this 1981 global temperature graph from NASA shows 1940 still 0.15°C warmer than 1980.  James Hansen, lead author of the paper, even admitted that he thought it was “remarkable” that 1980 is almost as warm as 1940 was.

Hansen et al., 1981

A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 [below] is that the global mean temperature is almost as high today [1980] as it was in 1940.”

global-temperature-1880-1980-copy

Reducing the 1920s to 1940s warming amplitude has apparently been a high priority agenda item for overseers of temperature datasets for quite some time.  In exposed e-mail exchanges from 2009, for example, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley — both overseers of the HadCRUT datasets spanning decades and activists for the anthropogenic global warming cause  — discuss reducing the “1940 blip” in their reconstructions of 20th century temperatures by simply cooling the 1940 temperature data down by -0.15°C.

“If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

                                 — Tom Wigley, Phil Jones exchange, from uncovered Climate Research Unit e-mails

 –

Not only has reducing the amplitude of the 1920s to 1940s warming been a priority among dataset procurers for the sake of advancing the cause, so too has eliminating the 1940s to 1970s global cooling period from the temperature record.   As shown in the Met Office graphs above, the 1940 to 1970 global cooling period extensively referenced in the scientific literature has now been reduced to a mere fraction of what it was reported to be during the 1970s.

The warming amplitude for the 1880 to 1940 period has now been reduced to between 0.2° and 0.3°C in modern datasets (see the smoothed blue trend line from 2015 Met Office graph above).  The cooling period between 1940 and 1970 has now been reduced to less than 0.1°C.

During the 1970s, it was commonly accepted by climatologists that the Earth had warmed by about +0.6°C between 1880 and 1940, and then cooled by -0.3°C between 1940 and 1970 (before temperatures began rising again in the late 1970s).  The Southern Hemisphere experienced only modest warming and cooling, but in the Northern Hemisphere, the warming and cooling was especially pronounced: 1°C of warming from 1880 to 1940, and -0.5°C cooling from 1940 to 1970.  Below are some examples of the widely accepted global and Northern Hemisphere temperature trends mentioned in the scientific literature during the 1970s.

Cimorelli and House, 1974

“[B]etween 1880 and 1940 a net warming of about 0.6°C occurred, and from 1940 to the present our globe experienced a net cooling of 0.3°C.”

Benton, 1970

“In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.6°C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C.”

Schneider, 1974

Introduction: “In the last century it is possible to document an increase of about 0.6°C in the mean global temperature between 1880 and 1940 and a subsequent fall of temperature by about 0.3°C since 1940.  In the polar regions north of 70° latitude the decrease in temperature in the past decade alone has been about 1°C.”

 

global-temperature-1880-1970-northern-hemisphere-copy

Robock, 1978

“Instrumental surface temperature records have been compiled for large portions of the globe for about the past 100 years (Mitchell, 1961; Budyko, 1969). They show that the Northern Hemisphere annual mean temperature has risen about 1°C from 1880 to about 1940 and has fallen about 0.5 °C since then”

Stockton and Boggess, 1979

“[A]verage temperature data for the northern hemisphere shows the range of change between 1880 to 1940 to be approximately 1.1°C.”

Douglas, 1975

“Since 1940, however, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has been steadily falling: Having risen about 1.1 degrees C. between 1885 and 1940, according to one estimation, the temperature has already fallen back some 0.6 degrees, and shows no signs of reversal.”

The net effect of substantially removing the warming from the 1880 to 1940 period (and concomitantly adding warming to the 1940s to 1970s cooling period) is to make the warming trend for the 20th and 21st centuries appear linear rather than oscillatory.  A linear warming fits climate models better, as the CO2 emissions rates have been linearly rising, of course, especially after about 1950.  Making the temperature record conform to modeling of CO2-induced climate changes is the main agenda.

Observations Found In Scientific Papers Reveal A 20th Century Temperature Oscillation, Not Linear Warming

If we were to return the 0.3°C of warming observed during the 1880s to 1940s period removed by the Met Office over decades of “adjustments” to the data, the graph of surface temperature changes might look like this:

hadcrut4-up-justments-1850-2015-removed-warmth-copy-copy

Interestingly, when scientists reconstruct surface and ocean temperatures for the 20th century using physical evidence (such as ice cores), the steepness of the warming and cooling trends for the pre-1970s era looks eerily similar to the oscillatory trends depicted above.  In other words, modern scientists who have been recently eliminating the warming amplitude of the 1880s to 1940s period to conform to CO2-centered climate modeling would appear to be making the datasets less accurate than they were in the 1970s … and all for the sake of an agenda.

Below are several examples of an oscillatory rather than linear temperature record for the 20th century (i.e., pronounced cooling after the 1940s and a decelerated warming since the 1970s) found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Gerhard, 2004

holocene-cooling-global-temps-gerhard-04-copy

holocene-cooling-global-temps-1940-1970-2000-gerhard-04-copy

Gouretski et al., 2012

http://icdc.cen.uni-hamburg.de/uploads/pics/hc_fig2.jpeg

global-oceans-0-20-m-gouretski-12

Saenger et al., 2009

holocene-cooling-global-temperature-northern-hemisphere-saenger-09-copy

 Box et al., 2009

“The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”

holocene-cooling-greenland-ice-sheet-1840-2007-box09-copy

Kobashi et al., 2011

holocene-cooling-greenland-ice-sheet-kobashi11b-copy

Pittman and Smith, 2012

holocene-cooling-canada-pitman-smith-12-1940-1970-2000-copy

Gregory et al., 2013

holocene-cooling-global-glacier-melt-contribution-to-sea-level-rise-copy

Matskovsky and Helama, 2015

holocene-cooling-finland-sweden-matskovsky-and-helama-15-copy

de Jong et al., 2013 (Chile)

holocene-cooling-chile-de-jong13-copy

Goodkin et al., 2008  (North Atlantic)

holocene-cooling-north-atlantic-ssts-goodkin08-copy

Esper et al., 2012

holocene-cooling-northern-europe-scandinavia-esper-12-1876-2006-copy

Divine et al, 2011  (Norway)

holocene-cooling-norway-divine11

 

Weather Models Now Agreeing: Early WINTER BRUTALITY For Europe/Asia, With “Vicious” Conditions!

Seasonal forecasts are iffy. Right now, however, there are strengthening indicators showing winter brutality in the pipeline for Europe rushing at us like an express train.

Don’t let the current relatively benign autumn conditions fool you. I’ve been following all of this over the past couple of weeks, and as a result decided last Friday to get the winter tires installed! The trend has crystalized and solidified.

It doesn’t look good if you’re hoping for a mild euro winter start – like the one we really had last year.

German weather and climate site wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung here provides some background on what is in store in the latest analysis titled:

Winter is coming early to Europe – polar vortex splits!”

Right off the bat the site provides the latest ECMWF analysis of the geopotential 150 hPa (approx. 14 km altitude, lower stratosphere) from 28 October 2016, writing:

The polar vortex for this time of the year is unusually powerful and has expanded far to the south. It has two partial vortices over Siberia and Northern Canada (polar vortex split), whereby the polar vortex over Siberia is stronger. A powerful cold trough of the partial vortex over Siberia (Rossby waves) is positioned over North and Eastern Europe and feeds cold polar air downward. Source: www.geo.fu-berlin.de/met/winterdiagnostics.html.”

The German site also points to the QBO, quasi-biennal ossillation in September 2016 has flipped in favor of powerful easterly winds:

In the easterly wind phase (negative QBO) the Arctic polar vortex can collapse (negative AO), and then with high probability lead to a cold winter.”

Bastardi: “vicious” conditions for mid November

Meanwhile 40-year veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi further solidifies the early winter European trend with his addictive weekly Saturday Summary at WeatherBELL Analytics site here:

bastardisat-sum-oct-29-2016

At the 12:45 mark Joe presents a chart of the forecast model 11-16 days out for the northern hemisphere (above), calling the Russian-European situation “vicious”, exclaiming that he is “in awe of that”. Note the vast swath of cold extending all across Siberia, Russia, China, India, Europe and beyond.

Keep in the back of your minds, however, that the atmosphere is chaotic, and thus surprises are always in store. There’s no 100% certainty in these forecasts. Still, the probabilities for colder than normal conditions over the weeks ahead are strong – likely much stronger now than Clinton winning the presidency.

 

“Clear Mismatch Between Climate Models And Paleoclimate Data,” New Peer-Reviewed Book Finds

Climate science critical geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and chemist Professor Fritz Vahrenholt informed readers here that a new book has been recently published: “Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming“.

evidence-based

The book’s publisher is glacier geologist Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University.

At their site Lüning and Vahrenholt write that the emphasis of the peer-reviewed book is on natural cycles, which they say “unfortunately were not adequately accounted for in the IPCC models“.

The book comprises 21 different articles from a groups of authors, among them a paper by geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt which looks at solar cycles. The abstract can be read here (click on Chapter 16).

NTZ contacted Dr. Lüning and asked about what he thinks the results of the book mean and about the status of climate science thus far. Here’s the answer He sent (emphasis added):

We identified a clear mismatch between climate models and paleoclimate data with respect to the role of solar activity changes. This is an issue that needs to be urgently addressed open mindedly by the climate science. Before wide ranging political conclusions are drawn and action taken, obvious model weaknesses need to be seriously addressed and clarified.

Our new paper does not answer this point quantitatively but indicates that there have always been warming and cooling phases in the past 10,000 years which in most cases appear to have run in parallel with solar activity changes. These natural climate and solar changes are of “millennial-scale” with a typical cycle length of 1000-2000 years. A key task is to better understand how much of the warming of the past 120 years is part of this millennial-scale cyclicity and how much is driven by CO2. All facts point at the direction that a sigificant part of the recent warming is actually due to an increase in solar activity whereby the sun has reached some of the strongest intensities of the entire past 10,000 years during this period.

In our paper (Chapter 16) we urge climate modellers to run alternative scenarios which honour the historical climate/solar relationship. Notably, current climate models are not able to reproduce the historical climate cyclicity of the past 10,000 years. With this “hindcast” failure, these models normally would be reliable for future modelling. An increased role of the sun may in the end mean that the warming until 2100 is much less than is currently pognosed, possibly less than 1°C.”

The book is available at Amazon, or can be ordered from the Elsevier online store.

 

Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Trend Has In Fact Been Upward Over Past Quarter Century!

USA’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides data here on snow cover.

Because global warming is supposed to be leading to less snow, one would think that snow cover in terms of area would be trending downwards over the past 50 or so years. However, the data tell us a very different story.

Surprisingly wintertime snow cover area has actually been trending upwards over the past 50 years and all-year snow cover in the northern hemisphere has been pretty much steady, and even of the rise over the past 25 years!.

The following NOAA chart shows us the northern hemisphere show cover for November:

snow-nov

Clearly the November trend is solidly upwards, with especially great area extents over 5 of the last 6 Novembers. The next chart is for December:

snow-dec

In December as well we see especially vast snow cover over many of the past 15 years – even higher than the winters of the 1970s, when we were being bombarded with warnings of global cooling.

Next we present the data for January, where see no change over the past 48 years:

snow-jan

However in January, over the past 25 years we can make out a rising trend as well. Claims that snow is becoming a thing of the past are very false.

February’s trend tell us the same story: greater snow cover:

snow-feb

Again here as well the powerfully upward trend is clearly visible since 1990.

The same is true for the autumn months of September and October.

The spring and summer months, however, show a downward trend, and so global warming alarmists may be quick to seize upon these data as evidence supporting their hypothesis.

But here as well when you leave out the cold 1970s and 80s and look at the trend since 1990, little is really happening during the spring and summer months.

The next chart shows the northern hemispheric snow cover for the whole year:

snow-all-year

The whole year trend is only very slightly downward – hardly anything that looks “catastrophic” and would put us on the verge of the dramatic-sounding climate system “tipping point”.

In fact eyeballing the all-year trend from 1990, here as well we see that snow cover is tending upwards rather than downwards, hence there’s no reason for any alarm with regards to snow cover.

As far as northern hemispheric snow cover is concerned, everything remains well within the range of natural variability.

 

3 New Papers Reveal Dominance Of Solar, Cloud Climate Forcing Since The 1980s … With CO2 Only A Bit Player

According to the IPCC (2007), changes in climate occur as a consequence of variations in the Earth’s radiation budget (solar energy absorbed by versus leaving the surface).  Changes in the Earth’s radiation budget occur for 3 primary reasons; two of those three reasons involve solar forcing.

IPCC AR4:

Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet. There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, thereby causing a climate change:

(1)  changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself),

(2)  changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover), and

(3)   altering the longwave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations).

Reason (3) is, of course, the one that gets nearly all the attention from those who wish to characterize climate changes as primarily influenced by — or caused by — human activity.  That’s where the 100 parts per million change in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1900 comes in.   According to the latest IPCC report, the total amount of radiative forcing attributed to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1750 (through 2011) is just 1.8 W m-2.   Again, that’s the total accumulated radiative effect attributed to CO2-forcing of climate changes over the last 260 years.

To put this into context, consider that the total amount of radiative forcing attributed to the +22 parts per million CO2 increase for the 2000-2010 period is claimed to be just 0.2 W m-2 by Feldman and co-authors (2015):

Feldman et al., 2015

“Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. … The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade)”

Remember that.  CO2 climate-forcing amounts to merely 0.2 W m-2 per decade with a 22 parts per million increase in atmospheric concentration during the first decade of the 21st century, when there was a pause in global warming.

Reason (1) above, which is essentially changes in the Sun itself that affect its direct output, or irradiance (referred to as total solar irradiance, or TSI), is the second-most talked about explanatory reason attributed to climate changes.  This one is controversial.  While there are many scientists who are increasingly concluding that long-term changes in the Sun’s output (as recorded by sunspot variations) are responsible for centennial-scale warming and cooling periods, including the modern warming (see here for references to 18 such papers published in 2016 alone), there are still many doubters who believe such seemingly small changes in the Sun’s irradiance cannot have a significant effect on the Earth’s climate.

So let’s focus on Reason (2) as an explanatory factor for changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.  This one rarely ever gets much attention.  Most casual observers don’t think of clouds as an important factor affecting changes in climate.  But they are – far more influential than CO2 within the longwave greenhouse effect.  The prominent influence of clouds encompasses both Reason (2) and Reason (3), both albedo/shortwave reflectance and longwave (greenhouse) forcing.

As an example of the dominance of clouds in influencing climate relative to CO2 concentration variations, Ramanathan et al. (1989), in their seminal paper (1,300+ citations) on cloud radiative forcing, write:

Ramanathan et al., 1989

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

Even on the RealClimate blog — founded by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt (among others) — there is an acknowledgement that the climate influence from changes in cloud cover are far more influential affecting the radiation budget than variations in CO2 (100 W m-2 for clouds versus just 4 W m-2 for doubled [600 ppm] CO2):

RealClimate:

“Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”

As mentioned, clouds influence the climate in both the shortwave (reflecting more or less solar radiation back to space depending upon cloud height and coverage) and longwave (via “trapping” heat at the surface, or the greenhouse effect).  Of the two forcing pathways, the shortwave effects of clouds out-radiate the longwave effects of clouds such that increasing cloud cover leads to cooling, whereas decreasing cloud cover leads to warming.

Allan, 2011

“Satellite measurements and numerical forecast model reanalysis data are used to compute an updated estimate of the cloud radiative effect on the global multi-annual mean radiative energy budget of the atmosphere and surface. The cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of − 21 Wm−2.”

So the net effect of reducing cloud cover is warming.  And, not coincidentally, there has been a significant reduction in cloud cover on a net global scale since the 1980s which has allowed more solar radiative energy to warm the Earth’s surface (oceans primarily).  This shortwave cloud radiative forcing since the 1980s (approximately 1 to 4 W m-2 per decade on a global scale on average) is several times greater than the alleged CO2 forcing value of just 0.2 W m-2 per decade for the +22 ppm CO2 increase for 2000 to 2010.  In other words, decadal-scale changes in cloud cover maintain a dominant influence on the net radiation budget, easily outclassing CO2 as the primary source of radiative change since the 1980s.

solar-cloud-radiative-forcing-vs

                                                                  Image: NoTricksZone

Goode and  Palle´, 2007

The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance [cloud cover] from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into … an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.

McLean, 2014

The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% [between 1984 – 2009] means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere… To put this [5.4 Wm-2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report…states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 Wm−2.  The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone [from 1750 to present]. … According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009), the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.

Radiation Budget Changes Are Primarily Caused By Changes In Cloud Cover, Not CO2

Changes in cloud cover do not need to be large to affect change in the radiation budget.  Even if there are no changes in the Sun’s output (solar irradiance), a tiny reduction in cloud cover can still have a significant radiative effect and lead to climatic warming.

Usoskin and Kovaltsov, 2008

Even a small change in the cloud cover modifies the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and affects the amount of absorbed solar radiation, even with no changes in the solar irradiance. Since the flux of CR [cosmic rays, which influences cloud cover changes] is modulated by the solar magnetic activity, this provides a link between solar variability and climate.”

Cess and Udelhofen, 2003

“As in the prior studies, which were restricted to lower latitudes, there is a significant increase in the TOA outgoing longwave radiation during the period 1985 to 1999 together with an increase in solar (shortwave) radiation absorbed by the climate system. It is suggested that these changes are related to an observed reduction in cloud cover.”

Wielicki et al., 2002

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

Kauppinen et al, 2014

We will show that changes of relative humidity or low cloud cover explain the major changes in the global mean temperature. We will present the evidence of this argument using the observed relative humidity between years 1970 and 2011 and the observed low cloud cover between years 1983 and 2008. One percent increase in relative humidity or in low cloud cover decreases the temperature by 0.15 °C and 0.11 °C, respectively. In the time periods mentioned before the contribution of the CO2 increase was less than 10% to the total temperature change.”

A recently-published paper even suggests that the explosive increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the early 1990s has had essentially no effect on the overall greenhouse forcing.  Instead, changes in cloud cover explain the variance in the greenhouse effect since the 1990s.  See “New Paper Documents Imperciptible CO2 Influence On The Greenhouse Effect Since 1992“.

Surface Solar Radiation, Modified By Clouds, Explain The 1980s-Present Warming

Again, CO2 forcing is claimed to yield about 0.2 W m-2 of radiative forcing per decade, which is the net forcing associated with an increase of +22 ppm between 2000 and 2010 (Feldman et al., 2015).   In contrast, global-scale surface solar radiation (SSR) since the 1980s, modified by decadal-scale changes cloud cover trends, has been observed (via satellites) to produce a radiative forcing of between 0.8 W m-2 and 6 W m-2 per decade, depending on the start and end points.  In other words, SSR dominates the changes in the radiation budget, with CO2 only a bit player. 

Pinker et al., 2005

“Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S [surface solar radiation] have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S [surface solar radiation] from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year [1.6 W m-2 per decade].”

Herman et al., 2013

“[T]here has been a global net decrease in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [1979-2011]. … Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.”

Wild et al., 2005

“A similar reversal to brightening in the 1990s has been found on a global scale in a recent study that estimates surface solar radiation from satellite data. This indicates that the surface measurements may indeed pick up a largescale signal. The changes in both satellite derived and measured surface insolation data are also in line with changes in global cloudiness provided by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), which show an increase until the late 1980s and a decrease thereafter, on the order of 5% from the late 1980s to 2002. A recent reconstruction of planetary albedo based on the earthshine method, which also depends on ISCCP cloud data, reports a similar decrease during the 1990s. Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe.”

Wang et al., 2012

Atmospheric impacts on climatic variability of surface incident solar radiation

The Earth’s climate is driven by surface incident solar radiation (Rs). Direct measurements have shown that Rs has undergone significant decadal variations. … By merging direct measurements collected by Global Energy Budget Archive with those derived from SunDu [sunshine duration], we obtained a good coverage of Rs [surface incident solar radiation] over the Northern HemisphereFrom this data, the average increase of Rs [surface incident solar radiation] from 1982 to 2008 is estimated to be 0.87 W m−2 per decade [2.3 W/m-2 total]”

Palle´ et al., 2005

“Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources.   There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval.  The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.”

Ohmura, 2009

Conclusion:  “Global solar irradiance showed a significant fluctuation during the last 90 years. It increased from 1920 to 1940s/1950s, thereafter it decreased toward late 1980s. In early 1990s 75% of the globe indicated the increasing trend of solar irradiance, while the remaining area continued to lose solar radiation. The magnitudes of the variation are estimated at +12 W m 2 [1920-1940s/1950s], – 8 W m 2 [1950s-1980s], and +8 Wm2 [1990-2005], for the first brightening, for the dimming, and the recent brightening periods, respectively.  … During the 15 years from 1990 to 2005 the sunshine duration hours over the five sites increased by 0.4 h/d which corresponds to the decrease in total cloud amount of 4%. The present analysis shows that the increase in 2.5 W m2 in global solar radiation was caused by the reduction of the total cloud amount by 4%.”

3 New Papers Reveal Dominance Of Solar, Cloud Forcing On Climate

The above scientific papers reference a global- or hemispheric-scale surface solar radiation (SSR).  Documentation of regional SSR trends are widely available in the scientific literature. For example,  in Hawaii, Longman et al., (2014) found that a 5-11% per decade reduction in cloud cover led to a 9 to 18 W m-2 per decade increase in SSR over the period 1988-2012.  For Europe, Posselt et al. (2014) found SSR forcing for Europe was 4.35 W m-2 per decade for 1983-2010.   The following three papers document the dominance of solar and cloud forcing on climate for Spain, the Mediterranean, and the Iberian Peninsula respectively since the 1980s.

Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2016

The linear trend in the mean annual series of global solar radiation shows a significant increase since the 1980s of around 10 Wm-2 over the whole 32-year study period. Similar significant increases are observed in the mean seasonal series, with the highest rate of absolute (relative) change during summer (autumn). These results are in line with the widespread increase of global solar radiation, also known as the brightening period, reported at many worldwide observation sites (e.g. Wild, 2009; Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2013b). On the other hand, the annual mean diffuse solar radiation series shows a significant decrease during the last three decades, but it is disturbed by strong increases in 1983 and 1991-1992, which might reflect the effects of the El Chichón and Pinatubo volcanic eruptions as a result of enhanced scattering of the aerosols emitted during these large volcanic eruptions. Summarizing, all these results point towards a diminution of clouds and/or aerosols in Spain since the 1980s.”

Kambezidis et al., 2016

“[T]his work investigates the evolution and trends in the surface net short-wave radiation (NSWR, surface solar radiation – reflected) over the Mediterranean Basin during the period 1979 − 2012 using monthly re-analysis datasets from the Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) and aims to shed light on the specific role of clouds on the NSWR trends. The solar dimming/brightening phenomenon is temporally and spatially analyzed over the Mediterranean Basin. The spatially-averaged NSWR over the whole Mediterranean Basin was found to increase in MERRA by +0.36 Wm−2 per decade, with higher rates over the western Mediterranean (+0.82 Wm−2 per decade), and especially during spring (March-April-May; +1.3 Wm−2 per decade). … The increasing trends in NSWR are mostly associated with decreasing ones in cloud optical depth (COD), especially for the low (<700 hPa) clouds. The decreasing COD trends (less opaque clouds and/or decrease in absolute cloudiness) are more pronounced during spring, thus controlling the increasing tendency in NSWR. The NSWR trends for cloudless (clear) skies are influenced by changes in the water-vapor content or even variations in surface albedo to a lesser degree, whereas aerosols are temporally constant in MERRA.”

Calbó et al., 2016

“The present paper describes how the entire series of global solar radiation (1987–2014) and diffuse radiation (1994–2014) were built, including the quality control process. Appropriate corrections to the diffuse component were made when a shadowband was employed to make measurements. Analysis of the series reveals that annual mean global irradiance presents a statistically significant increase of 2.5 W m−2 (1.4 %) decade−1 (1988–2014 period), mainly due to what occurs in summer (5.6 W m−2 decade−1). These results constitute the first assessment of solar radiation trends for the northeastern region of the Iberian Peninsula and are consistent with trends observed in the regional surroundings and also by satellite platforms, in agreement with the global brightening phenomenon. Diffuse radiation has decreased at −1.3 W m−2 (−2 %) decade−1 (1994–2014 period), which is a further indication of the reduced cloudiness and/or aerosol load causing the changes.”

Climate Protection Goes Medieval…Ushers In New Age Of Indulgences And Almsgiving

The other day as I was looking to book a hotel in the city of Hamburg I came across the Novum Style Hotel Hamburg.

What caught my eye was that the booking and price conditions allow guests the option of offsetting the CO2 emissions that their stay produces.

According to the Novum’s reservation page and price calculator, a two-night stay in a “Style Class” room (for example) from November 25 to 27 costs 458.00 euros, but that such a stay would produce some 144 kilograms of climate-damaging CO2. But not to worry, for only €3.86 extra, it is possible to offset these emissions and allow you as the guest to sleep soundly without any burdening of your green conscience.

novum_1

Pay it and you’ll feel as if you’ve done a great deed and played your part in protecting our supposedly increasingly agitated climate. You’ll then be able to relax with a clear conscience as you go sightseeing along the Reeperbahn or Herbertstrasse.

Thie Novum’s CO2 offset scheme of course reminds us of the old scam of almsgiving and paying indulgences to the Catholic Church to dodge going to Hell and suffering eternally.

Indeed the Novum’s site here explains that “climate change is the greatest challenge of the 21st century” and hints that it is all causing “increasing weather extremes, glacier melt, more frequent droughts and floods” and many other terrible things. However, this all could be avoided as the site assures visitors that it’s a “small contribution with a big impact“. The Novum site adds:

For offseting the CO2 emissions, additional costs of only 0.5 – 2.0% of the accommodations expenses are incurred.”

What a deal!*

Earmarked for climate protection projects

So what happens to the CO2 offsetting €3.86 that guests agree to pay?

The Hotel Novum’s site writes that it will “support a climate protection project that is certified according to international standards, one that otherwise would not be possible without your contribution.”

The project is proven to save CO2 and is checked by an independent third party on a regular basis.”

And naturally there’s full transparency, the Novum Hotel site promises. Guests who choose to have their emissions offset receive an ID number, which they can later enter at www.climatepartner.com to make sure that the voluntary contribution indeed leads to “climate neutrality”.

You can precisely check the level of greenhouse gases resulting from your overnight stay and which climate protection project was used for offsetting.”

Note that we are not singling out the Hotel Novum here, as surely many other hotels now offer their guests these conscience-soothing CO2 offsetting schemes. Also a host of other industries, like airlines, also offer the opportunity of climate almsgiving.

 * (Note: No money back guarantee).

Former German Economics Minister Rips Renewable Energy Policy! “Capital Destruction Of Difficult-To-Fathom Dimensions”!

Criticism and harsh words on Germany’s out-of-control renewable energy policy continues to mount and grow in volume as the energy sector approaches potential catastrophe.

clement

Germany’s former federal minister for economics and labour, Wolfgang Clement, slams current German energy policy. Photo: http://www.bmwa.bund.htm (free use).

Cologne’s online Kölner Stadt Anzeiger (KSta) here reports on a speech made by Germany’s former federal economics minister Wolfgang Clement on the subject of Germany’s green energy policy before the IGBCE-Angestelltengruppe Fortuna trade union group, which represents Germany’s once formidable mining, energy and chemicals sector. Clement earlier served as the country’s “super economics minister” under Gerhard Schroeder, from 2002–2005.

Energy policy “perversions”

The 76-year old socialist SPD party leader did not mince any words as he blasted Germany’s “perversions of its current energy policy” and “gigantic faulty developments” under the current government, led by Angela Merkel. What started as a reasonable shift over to renewable energies some 15 years ago has since morphed into a development that has totally run amok, the former federal minister described.

The current energy policy is marred by “unreasonableness and totally lacks basis” and is characteriszed by “a go-it-alone stoppage of nuclear energy” that he called “needless” because Germany faces no such catastrophe like the reactors at Fukushima.

“Capital destruction of difficult-to-fathom dimensions”

Clement told the audience “that with respect to cutting CO2 emissions, nuclear power in fact should be continued“, the online KStA writes. Later the former economics minister stated that the government got “carried away with the subsidies” for green energies. The KStA adds:

The ‘huge subsidies’ in the meantime cost consumers more than 23 billion euros annually’ and ‘especially lignite coal never needed such subsidies.'”

Clement blasted current energy policy for “putting climate protection too high above economy and supply stability” and that it is “a capital destruction of difficult-to-fathom dimensions”  He added that “it would be unthinkable in any other country on the planet.“ The KStA writes that the former super minister hopes for a “transition away from the energy transition” and that Germany’s Rhineland industrial belt survives.

He called on the trade unions “to fight with all their strength“.

The KStA writes that Clement’s call was greeted with great applause.