New Paper By Zhou et al Surprises! …Heavy Precipitation Under Global Warming Likely “Overestimated”

Yesterday I posted on Spiegel reporting no precipitation trend changes in Germany from warming.  Today’s post once again shows the alleged link is not what we are often told it is.

Max Planck Institute: Coupling of extreme extreme precipitation to climate warming weaker than feared

A warmer world with more precipitation? That is plausible as warmer air means a higher moisture and water vapor carrying capacity. The risk of droughts thus would be reduced. However, do higher temperatures lead to drastic increase in extreme rainfalls? Some scientists prematurely made up their minds and sold the media their personal opinion of settled science. Here they hide the fact that this is in fact heatedly debated within the science community.

Very recently a new paper appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters, authored by Yu Zhou et al of the Max Planck Institute for Physics of Complex Systems. The scientists found errors in the statistical processing of extreme precipitation data. Once corrected, the data show that extreme precipitation have even declined over the past 15 years. When accounting for the past 25 years, they found a much weaker relationship between extreme precipitation and temperature than that found by other groups.

Zhou et al conclude that the danger from extreme precipitation events as a consequence of global warming was strongly overestimated and that it must be corrected downwards.

In the future extreme rain may even become less.

What follows is the paper’s abstract:

On the detection of precipitation dependence on temperature
Employing their newly proposed interannual difference method (IADM), Liu et al. (2009) and Shiu et al. (2012) reported a shocking increase of around 100% K−1 in heavy precipitation with warming global temperature in 1979–2007. Such increase is alarming and prompts us to probe into the IADM. In this study, both analytical derivations and numerical analyses demonstrate that IADM provides no additional information to that of the conventional linear regression, and also, it may give a false indication of dependence. For clarity and simplicity, we therefore recommend linear regression analysis over the IADM for the detection of dependence. We also find that heavy precipitation decreased during the global warming hiatus, and the precipitation dependence on temperature drops by almost 50% when the study period is extended to 1979–2014 and it may keep dropping in the near future. The risk of having heavy precipitation under warming global temperature may have been overestimated.”


Spiegel Calls Recent Extreme Weather Claims “A Climate Bluff”. Data Show “No Recognizable Increase”!

Parts of Germany have been hit hard by unusually harsh downpours, flooding and thunderstorms over the recent days, prompting some alarmist scientists to barge into TV and radio studios to announce it’s due to human-made climate worsening.

Now Spiegel science journlalist Axel Bojanowski comments on this behavior in a commentary titled: “Heavy rains in Germany: The storms and the climate bluff“.

Bojanowski tells readers that the long-term data do not support any links to climate change (let alone man) and that the recent climate doomsday headlines made with every occurring weather anomaly seem to have become “knee-jerk” reactions by German media outlets.

Bojanowski blames both the media and scientists for hyping the extreme weather events. One example he cites is Stefan Rahmstorf of the alarmist Potsdam Institute: Bojanowski writes:

Rahmstorf – a sought-after sound-bite provider for weather catastrophes, told on TV: ‘Also in Germany it is shown that the thunderstorms-heavy rains have increased significantly.'”

But DWD national weather service data show “no trend”

The Spiegel journalist gives some examples of statistical acrobatics recently seen in the media and provided by loose scientists with the aim of producing the desired things-are-getting-worse appearance.

But unfortunately for Rahmstorf and the sensational media, there are still some journalists out there who do their homework and check the facts to make sure the public doesn’t get fed misleading information. Bojanowski cites data from Germany’s own DWD national weather service:

The Deutsche Wetterdienst DWD thus does not wish to give weight to short-term fluctuations: ‘Indications to more frequent occurrences of heavy rains in the last 15 years,” said the DWD when asked to comment, were only “interesting when thinking about possible developments.'”

Bojanowksi cites the DWD further:

‘A trend is climatologically not detectable,’ confirms the DWD when asked to comment. But this simple message is not getting reported to the public during storms.”

To dispel the false claim of more intense and frequent heavy rainfall events, Bojanowski provides a DWD chart that clearly shows no trend change whatsoever in heavy precipitation events in Germany:

Zahlen des Deutschen Wetterdienstes: Kein Trend bei Starkregen in Deutschland

The chart goes back to the early 1950s and shows no trend in the number of days in Germany with more than 30 mm of rainfall. Source: DWD, via Spiegel.

Clearly the German media, and scientists such as Stefan Rahmstorf, seem to be loosely pushing some other agenda: one that appears more sensational and threatening. The reality and observations, however, show that the recent weather is completely normal bad weather.

Even the German Ministry of Environment confirms there is no trend in severe weather. Bojanowski discovered this in some simple research:

There is no recognizable increase in heavy rain events in Germany; that’s the result also for summertime: ‘The number of days with a precipitation amount of 20 mm and more in the summer is practically unchanged,’ the report writes.”

The Spiegel journalist concludes that although the models project heavier and more frequent rainfall events in the future due to warming, he says the data so far in Germany do not show this happening.

This is not good news for the already severely reeling credibility of the media outlets that are unable to resist the urge to promote the yellow climate doomsday stories.


Veteran German Geologist On Models: Forcing For Solar Activity Likely Will Have To Be “Drastically Increased”!

Lüning DkSGerman geologist and the author of climate science-critical book The Neglected Sun, Dr. Sebastian Lüning has entered his Medieval Warming Period Map in the French government sponsored contest “100 Projects For The Climate“.

Right: Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Photo Die kalte Sonne.

Within the scope of the 100 Projects For The Climate campaign, French Minister of Environment Ségolène Royal created an Internet platform that has the aim of promoting the 100 most innovative citizens’ initiatives for climate. This is all taking place as part of the April 2016 Environment Conference in Paris. Background here.

Lüning’s outstanding Medieval Warming Period (MWP) climate mapping tool allows users to click on any of the numerous flags on the map to call up studies that examine the Medieval Warm Period climate for the that particular area.

Please vote for Dr. Lüning’s project here

(The “Vote” button is at bottom right side, click on “Crush”)

Clearly the studies are showing that the MWP was a global phenomenon, and not one that was isolated in the North Atlantic – as some scientists have tried to have us believe.


I posed some questions to Dr. Lüning about the project, and his fascinating answers follow:

What caused you to start the project?

The climate of the past 1000 years is still surprisingly poorly understood. Especially the Medieval Warm Period (MWP: 1000-1200 AD) lends itself as a key analogue to be compared with the 20th century warming. Which areas have warmed, which cooled during the MWP, and possible reasons. The project aims to come up with maps integrating a great number of studies  which have been all too often ignored up to now.”

What surprises if any, did you find?

At least half of all studies focus on changes in hydro-climate. Studies with information and trends on temperature are less frequent than I thought. About 95% of all temperature studies found a warming during the Medieval Warm Period. However there are also some case studies which found cooling. In most cases the cooling is associated with cold meltwater from glaciers that has cooled fjords. In other local cases wind direction changed and coastal upwelling brought colder waters to the surface. It is very important to distinguish regional trends from local developments and their origins.”

In your opinion, have the IPCC and models taken the MWP accurately into account?

Once the data acquisition and mapping is completed, I will take a close look at the AR5 IPCC report to better understand the IPCC database and reporting.”

So far, does your analysis show the MWP was global?

Yes. Especially the wide distribution of MWP warming in Antarctica was surprisingly obvious. It becomes ever clearer that the MWP was not restricted to the Northern Hemisphere. Apart from the temperature curve, the MWP also led to major changes in hydro-climate. This is probably the second key result of the mapping so far. Areas with trends of wetter and drier climate during the MWP can be mapped out, which previously were not always identified systematically.”

Do you think the IPCC needs to revise it’s view of the MWP?

The MWP warming is already recognized by the IPCC. Deep inside the AR5 report the authors admit that the models cannot reproduce the amount of warming identified in the case studies. The new MWP mapping will help to interpret the MWP on a much higher level of detail. It will help to compare apples to apples, and avoid averaging across regions with opposite trends, e.g. in hydro-climate. It will be easier to detect outliers, data errors, interpretation issues and age dating problems.”

What implications could your findings have for the models.

It is fundamental that climate models reproduce the past climate before they are used for future climate modelling. Noteworthy: solar activity during the MWP was equally high as during the late 20th century warming while it declined significantly during the cold Little Ice Age. The global MWP results will help to calibrate the climate models. It is likely that radiative forcing (RF) for solar activity changes has to be drastically increased while the RF of CO2 would have to be reduced accordingly. Climate modellers have to accept this challenge and be open for pragmatic solutions, independent of political constraints and implications.”

Little wonder CO2 climate forcing has been significantly revised downwards over the past decade.

The science is catching up to reality, but the politics will need some more time.”

Global Satellite Temperature Plummets As Surface Cooling Makes Way Into Lower Troposphere

German meteorological site here presents the latest developments on surface temperatures. Today I’m focused on the part dealing with the rapidly declining global temperature (TLT).

Cold June spell about to hit Europe – more heavy summer rains in 2016 will lead to more flooding.

By Schneefan
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

The current global development is characterized by a rash global cooling after the El Niño reached its peak in global temperatures in February 2016: Global cooling strengthens – “Global Warming” Reality Check May 2016.

…The drop in the deviation by the satellite temperatures from the mean is – 0.23°K at RSS compared to the previous month April (0.76 K) and is greater than what was recorded by UAH,. The temperatures really plummeted after their peak high in February, 2016:

Die globalen Temperaturabweichungen der unteren Troposphäre (TLT) von RSS zeigen trotz eines kräftigen El Niño-Ereignisses seit NH-Sommer 2015 und Rekordtemperatur in einem Februar 2016 seit Beginn der Satellitenmessungen im Dezember 1978 weiterhin keine Erwärmung von Ende 1997 bis einschließlich Februar 2016. (grüne Flatline des linearen Trends). Quelle:


Surface cooling reaching up into lower troposphere

The above plot depicts the global temperature deviation from the mean (red line) for the lower troposphere (TLT) from RSS, December 1978 up through May 2016, showing an insignificant rise in the linear trend (blue line) since December 1997. Despite the powerful El Niño since the summer of 2015 and a record satellite measured temperature in February 2016, there has not been warming since 1997 (flat green line).

The global atmosphere reacts from the bottom up to the diminishing heating from the rapidly weakening El Niño event at the equatorial Pacific, whereby in May 2016 the strong cooling of the near surface temperature has reached up to the lower troposphere (TLT) for the first time.

The above-average evaporated water mass resulting from the above-average warmed ocean surfaces will form into clouds due to cooling, and condensate into precipitation and result in strengthened monsoon rains is parts of Asia and East Africa, and moreover fall as heavy summer rains over Europe in June during a coming cool period…“

Weak sun may enhance cooling

The unusually weak solar activity will also play another important role for global and regional weather development, as it recently has seen it’s first sunspot free days this year.

The latest news is that once again the sun is free of spots for now the fourth day in a row:

Die Sonne hat nach dem 3. Juni auch am 4. Juni 2016 keinen einzigen von der Erde sichtbaren (dunklen) Sonnenfleck. Die Sonnenaktivität ist sehr gering. Quelle:

 Solar activity is now at zero. Source:

The Svensmark solar mechanism leads to more intense cosmic rays during weak solar activity, thus resulting in up to a 100-times more powerful cloud-formation affect in the troposphere, as confirmed by the Swiss research facility CERN: CERN-Sensation: Die Wälder bilden Wolken als Schutz vor Sonnenbrand! Kosmische Strahlung verstärkt Wolkenbildung bis zum 100fachen!

Also read here.


Climate Science Consensus In Turmoil. New Studies Soundly Refute Antarctic Ice Melt Projections!

Scientists: Warming causes Antarctic ice sheet growth, and lower sea levels

By Kenneth Richard

While many scientists are projecting rapid sea level rise as a result of a warmer Antarctica and consequent ice sheet melting, other scientists are projecting that the surface of the Antarctic ice sheet will gain in mass because a warmer Antarctica means snow and ice accumulation will outpace the melting.


Antarctica ice mass growing. Photo: NASA-JPL.

For example, Jan Lenaerts and 4 other scientists recently published a paper in the journal Climate Dynamics that projects (via modelling) the Antarctic ice sheet will show a net gain of about 70 billion tons of ice per year for every degree of warming induced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Below are the highlighted portions of the Lenaerts et al. (2016) paper.

We present climate and surface mass balance (SMB) of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) as simulated by the global, coupled ocean–atmosphere–land Community Earth System Model (CESM) with a horizontal resolution of ∼1∘ in the past, present and future (1850–2100). CESM correctly simulates present-day Antarctic sea ice extent, large-scale atmospheric circulation and near-surface climate, but fails to simulate the recent expansion of Antarctic sea ice. The present-day Antarctic ice sheet SMB equals 2280±131 Gtyear−1, which concurs with existing independent estimates of AIS SMB. When forced by two CMIP5 climate change scenarios (high mitigation scenario RCP2.6 and high-emission scenario RCP8.5), CESM projects an increase of Antarctic ice sheet SMB of about 70 Gtyear−1 per degree warming. This increase is driven by enhanced snowfall, which is partially counteracted by more surface melt and runoff along the ice sheet’s edges. This intensifying hydrological cycle is predominantly driven by atmospheric warming, which increases (1) the moisture-carrying capacity of the atmosphere, (2) oceanic source region evaporation, and (3) summer AIS cloud liquid water content.”

This warming-causes-ice-sheet-growth-and-sea-levels-to-decline conceptualization is not new. Back in the mid-1980s, when the Greenland ice sheet was still in a cooling phase, Dr. R.K. Klige (USSR Academy of Sciences), concluded that a future rise in temperatures would cause a positive mass balance for both Greenland and Antarctica and “ultimately a lowering of sea level” due to the “increased accumulation on the major ice sheets.” Here is the abstract with key points of emphasis from Klige, 1985.

The author attempts to quantify the amount of water released (by various means) by the world’s glaciers, and to determine the variations in these figures provoked by the warming trend which was observed for the first half of this century, and the cooling trend observed in the 1960s and 1970s. Unfortunately Antarctica has generally had to be excluded from these calculations since data on a number of components of the water balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet are simply not available. Perhaps most significant are the author’s predictions that the anticipated future rise in air temperatures will provoke increased precipitation and hence increased accumulation on the major ice sheets. Even despite increased melting in coastal areas of Greenland and Antarctica the net effect will be a positive mass balance and ultimately a lowering of sea level.”

Observations defy the models

Not only is the Antarctic ice sheet growing in mass and lowering sea levels in modelled projections, it is doing so in observational studies. According to NASA and Zwally et al. (2015), during the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century (1992-2008), the gains in ice accumulation in East Antarctica outstripped the losses in West Antarctica, leading to a net gain of about 100 billion tons of ice per year on the Antarctic ice sheet during this period.

During the last 6 years of the study, the net gain in ice removed -0.23 mm per year from sea levels. The total sea level lowering equivalent was -0.28 mm per year when including the 1992-2001 rates of net ice gain for Antarctica. It should be pointed out that, unlike Lenaert  et al. (2016), Dr. Zwally (and co-authors) prefer to believe in different models that say future warming on the Antarctic continent will produce a net ice sheet loss rather than an ice sheet mass gain. Below are excerpts  from NASA’s press release for the paper.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. […] Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year. […] ‘The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,’ Zwally said.”

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. ‘If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.'”

Settled science?

So, according to scientists and climate modelling, we have good news from Antarctica. Warming from a rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions causes the Antarctic ice sheet to grow, and this lowers sea levels. In the future, we can expect that more warming due to human activity will cause more ice sheet growth and a further reduction in the Antarctic contribution to sea levels.

And if those models are not preferred, one can believe in the models that say warming from a rise in anthropogenic CO2 causes the Antarctic ice sheet to melt, and this, in turn, will cause sea levels to rise.

Unfortunately, the RSS satellite temperature dataset indicates that Antarctica and the South Polar region has not warmed in the satellite era, but has instead cooled slightly in the last 3 and a half decades.

Therefore, it appears we will have to patiently wait for Antarctica to actually warm due to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

If Antarctica does warm in the future, perhaps then we can see which of these projections  — (a) anthropogenic CO2 warming causes ice sheet net growth or (b) anthropogenic CO2 warming causes ice sheet net decline — become settled science.


Japanese Scientist Reiterates That CO2 Climate Sensitivity Is Overstated, “Theoretically Meaningless”

Japanese scientist Kyoji Kimoto reiterates his belief that CO2 climate forcing has been grandly overstated. See original story here.  Kyoji has sent the following essay to publish here at NTZ.

Collapse of the IPCC AGW theory

by Kyoji Kimoto

Dr. Syukuro Manabe was given many prizes for the discovery of greenhouse effect with Fig. 16 in Manabe & Wetherald (1967) utilizing one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) with the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5°K/km for the atmospheric CO2 of 300 ppm (1xCO2) and that of 600 ppm (2xCO2).

It gave the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) of 1.3°K under the fixed absolute humidity for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2, which was the starting point of the modern anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. The Manabe method was followed by Hansen et al. (1981) and Schlesinger (1986) to obtain the similar results that the CS (FAH) is 1.2-1.3°K with the radiative forcing of 4W/m2 for 2xCO2.


Fig. 16 in Manabe & Wetherald (1967)

The lapse rate of 6.5°K/km is defined for 1xCO2 in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1962).There is no guarantee, however, that the same lapse rate will be maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 because it depends on radiation, convection, large scale dynamics and moisture etc. Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter for which a sensitivity analysis is needed.

From Fig.4 in Manabe & Strickler (1964), below, we can calculate the sensitivity of the surface temperature (Ts) with the variation of lapse rate (LR) in 1DRCM as follows:

Radiative equilibrium     LR=17°K/km   Ts =332°K

Thermal equilibrium      LR=10°K/km    Ts=311°K

Thermal equilibrium      LR=6.5°K/km    Ts=300°K

Sensitivity: dTs/dLR = 3°K/1(K/km) = 0.3°K/0.1(K/km)


Fig. 4 in Manabe & Strickler (1964)


As shown above, the CS (FAH) greatly changes with a minute change of the lapse rate for 2xCO2, while it varies from 4°K/km to 10°K/km generally. Therefore, the CS (FAH) of 1.2-1.3°K is theoretically meaningless in Manabe & Wetherald (1967), Hansen et al. (1981) and Schlesinger (1986), furnishing a theoretical basis to the 14 GCMs studies for the IPCC AR4 in Soden & Held (2006).

Thus, the AGW theory of the IPCC is collapsed due to the lack of parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for 2xCO2 in the 1DRCM studies with the fixed lase rate assumption of 6.5°K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2.

It is a standard procedure to check the validity of obtained results in scientific studies.


  • Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D. and Russell, G., Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, Science 1981, 213, 957-966.
  • Manabe, S. and Strickler, R.F., Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a convective adjustment, J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1964, 21, 361-385.
  • Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R.T., Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity, J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1967, 24, 241-259.
  • Schlesinger, M.E., Equilibrium and transient climatic warming induced by increased atmospheric CO2, Climate Dynamics, 1986, 1, 35-51.
  • Soden, B.J. and Held, I.M., An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models.  J. Climate, 2006, 19, 3354-3360.


Low Solar Activity And Oncoming La Niña: “Only A Question Of Months Before Pause Resumes”?

Snowfan at wobleibtdieerderwä features a spotless sun and quite possibly the start of cooling now that the planet is well past the peak of the recent El Niño event. What follows are some excerpts, with some editing to shorten the text to save a little time.


The sun goes on strike: First spotless day this year! The earth is cooling down!

By Schneefan

The sun is on strike as for the first time since 17 July 2014 it showed an absence of sunspots. Solar activity is unusually weak.

Die Sonne hat am 3. Juni 2016 keinein einzigen von der Erde gut sichtbaren (dunklen) Sonnenfleck. Die Sonnenaktivität ist sehr gering. Quelle:

On June 3, 2016 there were no visible sunspots. Source:

Already at the end of May 2015 and at the end of March 2016 only a little solar activity was observed. Low solar activity leads to a global and regional cooling. That was known already in the 18th century, as some people got rich in the wheat business.

The current solar cycle (SC) 24 is the weakest in over 100 years.

And since using the new counting method July 1, 2015 (sunspot relative number) SC 24 may be the weakest in almost 200 years: Solar activity since 1700 –

The following diagram shows the relative numbers for the time period 1820 until the present (source: SIDC), which are calculated using the sunspot numbers. The light green color depicts the daily value. The dark color shows the monthly and yearly average. For the long-term trend, a red line with the 5.5-year (i.e. half a cycle) average has been added, as well as a blue line showing the 30-year average.

Der aktuelle Zyklus 24 erscheint im Kontext der letzten 200 Jahre als schwächster Sonnenzyklus. Der höchste Tageswert im derzeitigen Maximum lag bisher bei nur 135 Sonnenflecken. Seit dem Zyklus 7 (ab dem Jahre 1823) war kein Zyklus so schwach. Die monatlichen Durchschnittswerte liegen derzeit ebenfalls sehr niedrig. Das letzte Sonnenminimum war bei Betrachtung der Monats- und Jahresdurchschnittswerte das Schwächste seit 100 Jahren. Quelle:

Solar cycle 24 has been weak in comparison to the cycles of the past 200 years. The highest daily value so far for the current cycle has been only 135 sunspots. No cycle has been this weak since SC 7 (starting in the year 1823). The monthly average values are currently very low. Source: Solar Activity since 1700 –

On July 1, 2015, the relative numbers were replaced by a homogenized version. The new relative numbers are now immediately available. Comparison between the old and the new version shows the differences. More info at SIDC/SILSO.”

The mean international sunspot relative number (SN Ri) of the last 13 years starting in June 2003 up through May 2016 is SN 39 – considerably below the critical value of SN 50.

This may have implications as some experts believe the threshold is met for cooling. The Berliner Wetterkarte here writes:

Mean sunspot numbers for each cycle of more than (approx.) 50 over a longer time period are associated with above-normal temperatures. If the mean sunspot number for each cycle is below 50, then below normal temperatures result, i.e. a cold period!…”

The time lag for a weak sun’s impact on climate, depending on the thermal inertia of the oceans – and depending on the study – is between 8 and 20 years: Time lag earth’s climate vs. sun = 14 + – 6 years.

From June 1997 to January 2016 global temperatures made a pause. Using the unfalsified satellite temperatures from RSS:

Linearer Trend der Abweichungen der globalen Satellitentemperaturen von RSS. Seit 224 Monaten, nämlich von Juni 1997 bis Januar 2016, gibt es trotz eines aktuellen kräftigen El Niño-Ereignisses keinen Anstieg der globalen Temperaturen, der Rekord der Länge der globalen Erwärmungs"Pause" von November 2015 wurde nur um einen Monat verkürzt. "Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months since May 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause." Quelle:

“Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months since May 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.“ Source: The Pause hangs on by its fingernails

The powerful El Niño event of late 2015 has temporarily ended the warming pause:

Die globalen Temperaturabweichungen der unteren Troposphäre (TLT) von RSS zeigen trotz eines kräftigen El Niño-Ereignisses seit NH-Sommer 2015 und Rekordtemperatur in einem Februar 2016 seit Beginn der Satellitenmessungen im Dezember 1978 weiterhin keine Erwärmung von Ende 1997 bis einschließlich Februar 2016. (grüne Flatline des linearen Trends). Quelle:

RSS lower troposphere temperature data since 1978 shows statistically insignificant temperature rise since 1998. Source:

Using UAH satellite data, since March the temperature has been falling as the warming effects of the recent El Niño fade:

Die UAH-Grafik zeigt die monatlichen Abweichungen (blaue Linie) der globalen Temperaturen der unteren Troposphäre (TLT) sowie den laufenden Dreizehnmonatsdurchschnitt (rote Linie) von Dezember 1998 bis Mai 2016. Wegen eines kräftigen global zeitversetzt wärmenden El Niño-Ereignisses ab Sommer 2015 gab es auch bei den unverfälschten Datensätzen von UAH nach Monats-Rekordwerten von November 2015 bis März 2016 nun im Mai mit einer Abweichung von 0,55 K einen deutlichen Rückgang um 0,16 K gegenüber dem Vormonat April. Der Mai 2016 liegt nur noch auf Rang 2 von 38 Jahren hinter Mai 1998 mit 0,64 K Abweichung. Quelle: wie vor

Source: UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2016: +0.55 deg. C

NCEP data also show that cooling continues in June 2016, as the following chart depicts:

Der Plot zeigt den Verlauf der globalen 2m-Temperaturabweichungen (schwarze Linie) sowie der beiden Hemisphären. Nach dem El Niño-Höhenflug Ende Februar 2016 gehen die Temperaturen bis Ende Mai 2016 vor allem auf der NH wieder deutlich zurück. Quelle:


Since the El Niño has faded, the oncoming projected cooling La Niña is expected to arrive over the coming months: El Niño is dead, La Niña lives! – ENSO update May 2016.

Thus it may be only a question of months before the global warming pause resumes and the Earth cools with the weak sun.

Moreover the Svensmark Mechanism between weak solar activity and thus stronger cosmic rays can result in up to 100 times more powerful cloud formation in the troposphere. This has recently been confirmed by the research results at CERN.


Top Scientists: CO2-Induced Warming Is “Weak” To Non-Existent For Greenland, Antarctica!

By Kenneth Richard

We routinely read about “highest ever” Arctic ice sheet and sea ice melt rates in the Arctic. And about rapid, “faster-than-expected” melting of ice shelves in West Antarctica.  And then, of course, we’re told that sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate — a catastrophically accelerating rate — due to the amplified warming at the poles, or “polar amplification”.

The predominant cause of these alarming climate changes is almost invariably attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, of course. These headlines are now commonplace, designed to grab our attention and stir us to action.  But does the scientific evidence confirm that the polar climate is predominantly determined by the rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

A warming and cooling Arctic

As documented in the below Climate4you graph (HadCRUT4), the Arctic climate has followed a roughly 60-year oscillation in the last century. Arctic (70-90 N) temperatures warmed during the 1920s to 1940s, cooled during the 1950s to1990s, and then returned to a warming trend from the mid-1990s onward.


Source: Climate4You

Back in the early 1990s, the failure of the Arctic region to warm during the previous ~40 years (1950-1990) despite the concomitant increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions was puzzling to scientists publishing in the journal Nature (Kahl et al., 1993: Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years), leading them to question whether the models for the CO2 greenhouse warming hypothesis  could adequately explain climate fluctuations for the polar regions.

Below are some excerpts from the Kahl et al. (1993) paper.

In particular, we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn. This discrepancy suggests that present climate models do not adequately incorporate the physical processes that affect the polar regions.

Conclusion Kahl et al., 1993:

The lack of widespread significant warming trends leads us to conclude that there is no strong evidence to support model simulations of greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean for the period 1950-1990.  Our results, combined with the inconsistent performance of model simulations of Arctic climate indicate a need to understand better the physical processes that affect polar regions, especially atmosphere-ice-ocean interactions, ocean heat transfer and cloud radiative effects

A cooling Antarctica, Southern Ocean since 1979

In contrast to the recent Arctic warming trend, there has been a lack of atmospheric warming in and around Antarctica since the late 1970s according to both the UAH and RSS datasets (as shown in the two graphs below). Scientists have documented a net growth in Antarctic sea ice in the last few decades, and, according to Fan et al. (2014), the Southern Ocean has also cooled since 1979, consistent with the increase in sea ice.  These results are, of course, not consistent with modeled projections.

Key points from the Fan et al. (2014) paper entitled Recent Antarctic sea ice trends in the context of Southern Ocean surface climate variations since 1950:

[A]ll of these studies reported a close relationship between [sea ice extent] and sea surface temperature (SST) whereby sea ice gain is associated with lower SSTs and vice versa. … Cooling is evident over most of the Southern Ocean in all seasons and the annual mean, with magnitudes approximately 0.2–0.4°C per decade or 0.7–1.3°C over the 33 year period [1979-2011].”

Also RSS and UAH show Antarctic cooling since 1979:


UAH. Source: climate4you.


RSS. Source: here.

The unsettled science of polar amplification and CO2 forcing

As the warming in the Arctic has resumed (after decades of cooling), scientists no longer seem to be questioning the theoretical models projecting a polar-amplified warming due to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Instead, it is presumed to be “settled science” that the dominant cause of the Arctic warming trend since the mid-1990s has been anthropogenic  CO2 emissions.

But is the science of polar amplification due to a rise in atmospheric CO2 really settled? A paper published recently  (2015) by Dr. Schmithüsen (Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany) and colleagues may seriously undermine this conceptualization. The scientists analyze observational measurements (using the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer) of global-scale CO2 radiative forcing and find the greenhouse warming effect for CO2 is “weak” (Greenland) to non-existent (Antarctica) at polar locations, and that the CO2 greenhouse warming effect is instead strongest in the equatorial regions.   Not only is the polar amplification paradigm  rendered questionable by these observed results,  but Schmithüsen et al. (2015) have found that, for central Antarctica, increasing CO2 actually leads to a “negative greenhouse effect”, or a net cooling.

Below are highlighted excerpts from the Schmithüsen et al. (2015) paper entitled How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica“.

For this region [central Antarctica], the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system.”


For most of the Antarctic Plateau, GHE-TES [greenhouse effect as measured by the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer] is close to zero or even slightly negative; i.e., the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling. Over Greenland, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is also comparatively weak but invariably positive. An evaluation of monthly averages of GHE-TES shows that the increased cooling due to CO2 of Antarctica is strongest during austral spring and autumn. … Central Antarctica is the only place on the planet where increased CO2 concentrations lead to an increased LW energy loss to space [cooling]. In the Northern Hemisphere the lowest, but invariably positive, [CO2] forcing values are seen over Greenland and Eastern Siberia.”

An excellent visual representation of the “weak” radiative forcing effect attributed to CO2 for the polar regions is found in Figure 4 (below) from the paper. Notice that, according to Tropospheric Emission Sperctrometer measurements, the radiative forcing values are in the range of only about -1 to +5 W/m2 for the polar ice sheets (Antarctica and Greenland), whereas radiative forcing values average roughly 20 W/m2 for the rest of the globe, with up to 35 W/m2 for the equatorial regions.


Source: here.

Cloud radiative forcing more than CO2 radiative forcing

To put this relatively “weak” -1 to +5 W/m2 CO2 greenhouse forcing for the polar regions into perspective, consider that the radiative forcing (greenhouse warming effect) for clouds has been found  to be several times  greater (~30 W/m2) over the Greenland ice sheet than for CO2 forcing (~5 W/m2).   In fact, scientists (Tricht et al., 2016) have determined that cloud forcing warmed the Greenland climate by 1.2°C from 2007 to 2010, which is enough heat energy to melt 90 Gigatonnes (Gt) of ice.

Here’s an excerpt from the Tricht et al. (2016) paper Clouds enhance Greenland ice sheet meltwater runoff:

Clouds are known to play a pivotal role in regulating the local SEB [Surface Energy Balance], with competing warming and cooling effects on the surface. […] The satellite-based cloud observations allow to estimate the cloud impact on the SEB [Surface Energy Balance].  … The annual mean CRE [Cloud Radiative Effect] of 29.5 (±5.2) W m 2 provides enough energy to melt 90 Gt of ice in the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] ablation area during July and August. … The snow model simulations, which capture the evolution of the GrIS SMB [Surface Mass Balance] from 2007 to 2010, indicate that clouds warm the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] surface by 1.2° (±0.1) C on average over the entire period [2007-2010]. … These results further indicate that not only liquid-bearing clouds but also clouds composed exclusively of ice significantly increase radiative fluxes into the surface and decrease GrIS SMB [Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance]”

Not only for Greenland, but on a global scale, cloud radiative forcing has also long been observed to be far more climatically influential than CO2 forcing. For example, in the Ramanathan et al. (1989) paper entitled “Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment” — which has been cited over 1300 times in the peer-reviewed literature — it was determined that the greenhouse effect of CO2 may need to be increased by a factor of 100 to approach the greenhouse effect of clouds. What follows is an excerpt:

Water vapour and cloud are the dominant regulators of the radiative heating of the planet. ..The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. … 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.”


The implications of these measurements showing relatively minimal CO2 greenhouse forcing at the poles are enormous. Succinctly, the alarmist insistence of a significant anthropogenic influence on polar ice sheet melting and the consequent impact on sea level rise become highly dubious if observational evidence reveals that the CO2 greenhouse effect is only very modest  (-1 to +5 W/m2) for the polar regions.  For if the Arctic warming trend and sea ice decline that resumed in the 1990s cannot be significantly attributed to increases in atmospheric CO2, this severely undercuts the heart of alarming claims about humans catastrophically altering the polar — and global — climate.

The sensational headlines about melting polar ice and rapidly accelerating sea level rise would be reported with much less exhortative zeal if there wasn’t also a co-existing paradigm that says anthropogenic CO2 emissions are what drive these alleged climate changes. So when science doesn’t corroborate what the alarming headlines say about a significant anthropogenic or CO2 influence on the polar climate, ice melt, or sea level rise, that science is usually glossed over…or dismissed.  After all, the science is supposed to be settled. Right?


Modern Debacle Of Wasted Trillions. Consensus: Efforts To Prevent Climate Change “Will Almost Surely Fail”!

Scientific Consensus: “Efforts to curtail world temps will almost surely fail”

By Kenneth Richard

Already this year there are 6 peer-reviewed papers examining efforts to curtail CO2 emissions through the use renewable energies. They all conclude that the effort won’t be successful. Given the trillions already committed and at risk of being totally wasted, one has to seriously question the wisdom of the effort.

In fact, some think the renewable energy effort could make things even worse.

What follows are 6 scientific publications from this year alone that tell us the climate protection efforts are not working.

1. Jones and Warner, 2016

“Here we quantify the changes in the global energy mix necessary to address population and climate change under two energy-use scenarios, finding that renewable energy production (9% in 2014) must comprise 87–94% of global energy consumption by 2100. Our study suggests >50% renewable energy needs to occur by 2028 in a <2 °C warming scenario

Press release here.

“Efforts to curtail world temps will almost surely fail”

The Texas A&M researchers modelled the projected growth in global population and per capita energy consumption, as well as the size of known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas, and greenhouse gas emissions to determine just how difficult it will be to achieve the less-than-2 degree Celsius warming goal.  “It would require rates of change in our energy infrastructure and energy mix that have never happened in world history and that are extremely unlikely to be achieved,” explains Jones.   “Just considering wind power, we found that it would take an annual installation of 485,000 5-megawatt wind turbines by 2028. The equivalent of about 13,000 were installed in 2015. That’s a 37-fold increase in the annual installation rate in only 13 years to achieve just the wind power goal,” adds Jones.  Similar expansion rates are needed for other renewable energy sources.  “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.”

2. Lomborg, 2016

“All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.”

3. Moriarty and Honnery, 2016

Highlights: “We argue it is unlikely that RE [renewable energy] can meet existing global energy use.

Fossil fuels face resource depletion, supply security, and climate change problems; renewable energy (RE) may offer the best prospects for their long-term replacement. However, RE sources differ in many important ways from fossil fuels, particularly in that they are energy flows rather than stocks. The most important RE sources, wind and solar energy, are also intermittent, necessitating major energy storage as these sources increase their share of total energy supply. We show that estimates for the technical potential of RE vary by two orders of magnitude, and argue that values at the lower end of the range must be seriously considered, both because their energy return on energy invested falls, and environmental costs rise, with cumulative output. Finally, most future RE output will be electric, necessitating radical reconfiguration of existing grids to function with intermittent RE.”

4. Ferroni and Hopkirk, 2016 

Abstract: “Many people believe renewable energy sources to be capable of substituting fossil or nuclear energy. However there exist very few scientifically sound studies, which apply due diligence to substantiating this impression. In the present paper, the case of photovoltaic power sources in regions of moderate insolation is analysed critically by using the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI, also called EROI). But the methodology for calculating the ERoEI differs greatly from author-to-author. The main differences between solar PV Systems are between the current ERoEI and what is called the extended ERoEI (ERoEI EXT). The current methodology recommended by the International Energy Agency is not strictly applicable for comparing photovoltaic (PV) power generation with other systems. The main reasons are due to the fact that on one hand, solar electricity is very material-intensive, labour-intensive and capital-intensive and on the other hand the solar radiation exhibits a rather low power density.”

Conclusion: “[A]n electrical supply system based on today’s PV technologies cannot be termed an energy source, but rather a non-sustainable energy sink. … [I]t has become clear that photovoltaic energy at least will not help in any way to replace the fossil fuel.

5. 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. The recent Paris Agreement may restore a faith in UN process if implemented but doesn’t reduce temperatures as needed unless all drivers of climate variability are considered, particularly the abortive role of developing cities. The UN Programme appears to be focusing on attaining urban resilience rather than targeting grassroots causes. Urbane-bias global policies drive the rural population to leave their land and flood cities while over-usage of natural resources by the rich is left unchecked.”

6. Kelly, 2016

“The growth of the ecological footprint of a human population about to increase from 7B now to 9B in 2050 raises serious concerns about how to live both more efficiently and with less permanent impacts on the finite world. One present focus is the future of our climate, where the level of concern has prompted actions across the world in mitigation of the emissions of CO2. An examination of successful and failed introductions of technology over the last 200 years generates several lessons that should be kept in mind as we proceed to 80% decarbonize the world economy by 2050. I will argue that all 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. In practice, the scaleand the different specific engineering challenges of the decarbonization project are without precedent in human history. This means that any new technology introductions need to be able to meet the huge implied capabilities. An altogether more sophisticated public debate is urgently needed on appropriate actions that (i) considers the full range of threats to humanity, and (ii) weighs more carefully both the upsides and downsides of taking any action, and of not taking that action.”


Masato Mori’s Harsh Winter/Shrinking Arctic Sea Ice Hypothesis Flops, Brand New Study Shows!

Some 15 years ago we were told that snow and ice in the wintertime would be things of the past.

Then Europe and North America experienced a series of harsh winters and climate scientists, turning on a dime, suddenly declared them the result of global warming.

Now that claim too is turning out to be a farce as well.

Flopped hypothesis: Cold winters not the consequence of shrinking Arctic sea ice

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

Do you recall how the experts wanted to tell us that cold winters were linked to global warming? For example Spiegel Online wrote on 27 October 2014:

Weather bridge: Ice melt in the Arctic cooling winters in Europe
Climate scientists have discovered a meteorological remote link: When the sea ice melts in the Arctic, atmospheric currents get shifted – winters in Europe and Asia get cooler.
According to a study, ice melt over the past decades has led to especially harsh winters in Europe and Asia. Observations show that the cold winters could be linked with the retreat in Arctic sea ice, which has been happening over the past decades. Scientists led by Masato Mori of the Japanense University of Tokyo have discovered that the retreat of sea ice in the Arctic Barents-Kara Sea favor atmospheric currents that lend to cold in Europe and Asia. These atmospheric patterns that are called ‘blocking situations’ that serve to convey cold air to Europe and Asia and cause harsh winters there, reported the scientists in the journal “Nature Geoscience”.

A regrettable scientific knee-jerk reaction – as it would be exposed just half a year and half later.

A team of scientists of the University of Colorado Boulder and the NOAA led by Lantao Sun examined the mechanism more closely on 25 May 2016 in a new study in the Geophysical Research Letters. They were unable to confirm the relationship between sea ice melt and cold continental winters. The cold winters were neither explainable by the shrinking Arctic sea ice, nor by anthropogenic factors, the scientists found. A pronounced and underestimated natural climate variability is much more at play here.

The abstract for this important paper follows:

What caused the recent “Warm Arctic, Cold Continents” trend pattern in winter temperatures?
The emergence of rapid Arctic warming in recent decades has coincided with unusually cold winters over Northern Hemisphere continents. It has been speculated that this “Warm Arctic, Cold Continents” trend pattern is due to sea ice loss. Here we use multiple models to examine whether such a pattern is indeed forced by sea ice loss specifically and by anthropogenic forcing in general. While we show much of Arctic amplification in surface warming to result from sea ice loss, we find that neither sea ice loss nor anthropogenic forcing overall yield trends toward colder continental temperatures. An alternate explanation of the cooling is that it represents a strong articulation of internal atmospheric variability, evidence for which is derived from model data, and physical considerations. Sea ice loss impact on weather variability over the high-latitude continents is found, however, to be characterized by reduced daily temperature variability and fewer cold extremes.

This is a nice example of how we should not immediately believe everything our experts say and why critique and skepticism are completely justified.


Body Of Proof: Large Number Of Studies Show Medieval Warm Period “Prominent In Southern Hemisphere”

Remember how in the late 1990s/early 2000s the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was made to disappear, and it was claimed that it was mainly a local, North Atlantic phenomenon.

Unfortunately for those trumpeting this claim, a comprehensive worldwide survey of scientific literature is now showing that the MWP was in fact a global phenomenon, suggesting large-scale natural cycles are what is really driving the climate.

Charting the Medieval Warm Period In The Southern Hemisphere
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

The plotting of the Medieval Warm Period Map is making good progress. At first the basic idea was the Southern Hemisphere because of the notion that Medieval Warm Period (MWP) could be limited only to the Northern Hemisphere, mainly the North Atlantic, kept popping up. The collection of data for Africa, Antarctica, Australian and Oceania is now finished and it shows that the MWP was prominent.

In South America the data have been recorded foremost in the northwest part. The rest will soon follow.

The online data chart is here

The color code is as follows: red = warm MWP, blue = cold MWP, yellow = dry, green = wet. Here the precipitation code is shown only when there is no temperature information.

Over the last weeks the charting has been focused on the Mediterranean region, Arabia and the Caspian Sea. Once these regions are finished, the focus will move to northwards into Europe.

Recently studies from Switzerland and Austria were added. The MWP was uniformly hot and dry in this region:


Vote for Dr. Lüning’s MWP Map

Within the scope of the Environment Conference in Paris in April 2016, French Minister of Environment, Energy and Ocean Issues Ségolène Royal started an Internet platform that has the aim of promoting the 100 most innovative citizens’ initiatives for climate.

Among the candidtes is also our Medieval Climate Map, which is now an officially electable project. From June 6 to July 6 it will be possible for citizens to vote for their favorites. After the voting by Internet users ends, the top 100 will be declared as the winners by Ms. Royal. These will be supported and promoted until COP22 in November in Marrakesh.

We hope you’ll support us with your vote when the voting opens. We’ll remind you at our blog, of course.


The MWP project is 50% funded, thanks to your generous support. More information on the MWP charting map is available here.


Though Media Refuse To Admit, CERN Results Vastly Strengthen Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray-Climate Theory

Looking at the English-language media, one might be led to think that the latest CERN experimental results show that trees alone dominate cloud formation, by supplying the necessary cloud seeding medium. Little reference is made to cosmic rays acting as the cloud formation modulator, initiating the cloud seeding process, as hypothesized by Henrik Svensmark.

Lubos Motl at the Reference Frame noted that factions of the mainstream media seem to have spun the recent CERN papers in a “bizarre” way.

Climate models way off target. CERN’s latest CLOUD experiment results further underpin Svensmark’s cosmic ray-climate theory. Image: Maximillien Brice/CERN

German press reports cite cosmic rays

Yet looking at the reporting by German-language scientific media, one finds plenty of mention of cosmic rays as a major player in cloud formation, which has a large cooling effect on our climate, and that erosols have been grossly misweighted in the recent climate models.

Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt here write that the latest CERN results confirm what they claimed already in their 2012 book: The Neglected Sun. Today they write:

Already one year ago, in April 2015, scientists warned that the cooling effect by aerosols had been exaggerated (see our blog article “Director of the Hamburg Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology: Aerosols cool less than previously assumed“). This appears to have been confirmed further. Within the scope of the CLOUD Project at CERN, scientists have found more indications that the aerosol effect in the models must corrected strongly downwards.” here writes that trees earlier “provided the means for lots of clouds before industrialization” and that “man obviously has influenced cloud formation [Industrialization] less than previously thought.”

So if it wasn’t human emitted particles seeding clouds before industry; and causing cooling like in the mid 20th, what could it have been? The answer according to CERN is “organic vapours emitted by trees that produce lots of aerosol particles in the atmosphere when there’s no sulphuric acid.

How does the cloud seeding by organic tree particles work? Through nucleation-inducing cosmic rays.

Cosmic rays as the amplifier writes that scientists used the CLOUD experiment to discover this in a controlled environment and so “determine how strongly certain components in the air or certain molecules contribute to cloud formation” and “how strongly these are amplified by the energy influx through cosmic rays.”


Although the product of alpha pines occurred only in concentrations of one molecule per one trillion air molecules, they effectively contributed to cloud formation as the experiment showed. Through the influence of ions from cosmic rays, the effect increases even 10 to 100 times.”

That means cloud cover (and so cooling) would be the likely result in conditions of high cosmic ray influx into the lower atmosphere, as is the case during periods of low solar activity. Thus it appears Svensmark’s theory strengthens further.

Germany’s online also points out the essential role of cosmic rays.

In the artificial atmosphere, scientists directed a beam of positively charged particles, so-called pions, which were generated by a Proton-Synchrotron. With this they simulated the effect of cosmic rays, which are constantly penetrating into the atmosphere. This stream of particles caused the organic molecules to ball up into approximately 2-nanometer size particles. More measurements confirmed that these volatile organic compounds grew further to form efficient condensation nuclei. In parallel the scientists underpinned the mechanism with computer models. ‘These results for me are the most important so far that the CLOUD experiment yielded so far,’ said Kirkby.”

The online Austrian here tells us more of the same: cosmic rays are at very much at play:

The experiment also showed that the nucleation rate rose by one or two orders of magnitude under the influence of cosmic rays. ‘This allows one to conclude that cosmic rays had a greater role on aerosols and cloud formation in preindustrial times than under today’s relatively dirty conditions,” said Paul Winkler of the Department of Aerosol Physics and Environmental Physics at the University of Vienna.”

In their press releases the government-paid scientists can add the mandatory “the-warming-continues” remarks all they want, but one thing is clear: The models have a long way to go and they are in dire need of major revamping. CO2 is nowhere near as important as some want us to believe it is. Cosmic rays, modeulated by the sun’s magnetic field, are together a factor that need to be accounted for.

It’s time for the habitual solar-denying so-called “experts” to acknowledge this and to start modelling much more accurately. We’ve known this for years already.


DiCaprio’s Disease: Survey Initiated By Munich Greens Show They’re The Biggest Abusers Of Airline Travel!

Georg Etscheit at the climate alarmist Klimaretter here whines about the Greens in Munich setting a poor example when it comes to (ab)using jet-fuel burning commercial airlines.

This reminds us of serial private jet flier Leonardo DiCaprio, who took his private jet 12,000 kilometers and burned 30,000 liters of jet fuel to pick up an environment award.

Contrail_fourengined_arpMunich Green official took airliner to attend “bicycle traffic conference”. Public domain photo.

It turns out that in the Bavarian capital city of Munich the opposition Greens were looking for a way to create an issue with which to put the ruling socialist-conservative coalition administration on the defensive, and so they sent a query to the city government demanding to know who abused (ab)used commercial flights the most. They hoped to place the blame for damaging to the environment squarely on those responsible. Before 2014, Munich was governed by a SPD socialist/Green coalition. Since then it has been governed by an SPD (socialist)/CSU (Christian conservative) coalition.

Surely the recent government must be abusing air travel and irresponsibly damaging the environment.

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne.

Fliegen für mich, nicht für dich

It turns out the opposition Greens should have never posed the question. The answer came back from the Munich city administration, and it is truly embarrassing for them. According to Etscheit:

It’s the Greens. By a wide margin who fly the most often, more often than members of the other political fractions. According to the SZ [Süddeutscheteitung] 23 flights were logged by the Greens, while the members of the SPD party, which is twice the size, flew half the number [12], the CSU even less [6].”

Etscheit bemoans that this is in line with a 2014 survey conducted by news weekly Der Spiegel, which found that greens are “passionate fliers”. I wrote on this here, whereby a reliable survey found that:

…Green Party voters fly the most: 49% have flown at least once in the past 12 months. They were followed by the communist Die Linke (42%), the conservatives CDU (36%) and lastly by the socialists SPD (32%).”

That’s remarkable behavior given that the Greens are the most vocal when it comes to protesting airport expansions or nighttime landings and takeoffs. They loudly protest such projects, but then end up being the ones using them the most.

Air travel to a “bicycle traffic conference”

The Munich Greens write here that they were surprised to discover that they are the biggest abusers of air travel, despite being a comparatively small party.

But they had good reasons, blaming: “inconvenient connections”, and official business such as being the only party to send an official to attend “Kiev Pride”, or to participate at a “bicycle traffic conference” in Rostock, or to visit a day-conference in Venice.

So why is it that Greens in general are most often involved in widespread (ab)use of the commercial airlines? Etscheit writes it is because they tend to be high income earners.


Solar Denialists Face Harsh Times …Flurry of New Studies, CERN, Show Sun’s Massive Impact On Global Climate

Harsh times for the nay-sayers to the sun driving climate, who risk facing academic extinction and joining history’s huge scrap heap of junk science circus performers.

CERN just recently confirmed the sun’s impact, via cosmic radiation, on climate-regulating cloud formation. here writes here:

Through the influence of ions from cosmic rays, the effect increases even 10 to 100 times.”

Jasper Kirkby calls the link between cloud cover and climate “profound“.


Cropped from video by CERN.

The UV mechanism

Now Germans Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt present papers on another way the sun impacts climate: UV radiation. Clearly the sun has an entire bag of tricks when it comes to dominating climate on Earth, and we are only at the dawn of understanding.

Heavenly Teamwork: How UV Radiation Above The Stratosphere Impacts Climate At The Earth’s Surface

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

The sun? It doesn’t have any impact on the climate. At least that’
s what climate alarmism circles believe. A new study from 28 April 2016 appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters once and fore all shakes this view. Scientists have been able to show that changes in solar UV radiation on a scale of months have a clear impact on temperatures at the lower weather atmospheric levels at the tropics. What follows is the paper’s abstract. a paper by L. L. Hood of the Univeristy of Arizona in Tucson:

Lagged response of tropical tropospheric temperature to solar ultraviolet variations on intraseasonal time scales
Correlative and regression analyses of daily ERA-Interim reanalysis data for three separate solar maximum periods confirm the existence of a temperature response to short-term (mainly ∼27 day) solar ultraviolet variations at tropical latitudes in both the lower stratosphere and troposphere. The response, which occurs at a phase lag of 6–10 days after the solar forcing peak, consists of a warming in the lower stratosphere, consistent with relative downwelling and a slowing of the mean meridional (Brewer-Dobson) circulation, and a cooling in the troposphere. The midtropospheric cooling response is most significant in the tropical Pacific, especially under positive El Niño–Southern Oscillation conditions and may be related to a reduction in the number of Madden-Julian oscillation events that propagate eastward into the central Pacific following peaks in short-term solar forcing.”

Thomas et al. even found a solar-regulated temperature in the mesosphere, which he described in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics in November 2015:

Solar-induced 27-day variations of mesospheric temperature and water vapor from the AIM SOFIE experiment: Drivers of polar mesospheric cloud variability
Polar Mesospheric Clouds (PMCs) are known to be influenced by changes in water vapor and temperature in the cold summertime mesopause. Solar variability of these constituents has been held responsible for 11-year and 27-day variability of PMC activity, although the detailed mechanisms are not yet understood. It is also known that the solar influence on PMC variability is a minor contributor to the overall day-to-day variability, which is dominated by effects of gravity waves, planetary waves, and inter-hemispheric coupling. To address this issue, we have analyzed 15 seasons of data taken from the Solar Occultation for Ice Experiment (SOFIE) on the Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) satellite. The SOFIE data contain precise measurements of water vapor, temperature and ice water content (among other quantities). These high-latitude measurements are made during the PMC season at the terminator, and therefore directly relate to the simultaneous measurements of mesospheric ice. Using a composite data set of Lyman-α irradiance, we correlated the time variation of the atmospheric variables with the 27-day variability of solar ultraviolet irradiance. We used a combination of time-lagged linear regression and Superposed Epoch Analysis to extract the solar contribution as sensitivity values (response/forcing) vs. height. We compare these results to previously published results, and show that the temperature sensitivity is somewhat higher, whereas the water sensitivity is nearly the same as published values. The time lags are shorter than that expected from direct solar heating and photodissociation, suggesting that the responses are due to 27-day variations of vertical winds. An analytic solution for temperature changes forced by solar irradiance variations suggests that if the response is due purely to Lyman-α heating and Newtonian cooling, the response should vary throughout the summertime season and depend primarily upon the height-dependent column density of molecular oxygen.”

Also Ball et al. found a detectable climate impact by solar UV fluctuations in a study appearing in the journal Nature Geoscience of 25 January 2016. Interesting result: The models are unable to reproduce the results. Here’s the abstract:

High solar cycle spectral variations inconsistent with stratospheric ozone observations
Solar variability can influence surface climate, for example by affecting the mid-to-high-latitude surface pressure gradient associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation1. One key mechanism behind such an influence is the absorption of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation by ozone in the tropical stratosphere, a process that modifies temperature and wind patterns and hence wave propagation and atmospheric circulation2, 3, 4, 5. The amplitude of UV variability is uncertain, yet it directly affects the magnitude of the climate response6: observations from the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite7 show broadband changes up to three times larger than previous measurements8, 9. Here we present estimates of the stratospheric ozone variability during the solar cycle. Specifically, we estimate the photolytic response of stratospheric ozone to changes in spectral solar irradiance by calculating the difference between a reference chemistry–climate model simulation of ozone variability driven only by transport (with no changes in solar irradiance) and observations of ozone concentrations. Subtracting the reference from simulations with time-varying irradiance, we can evaluate different data sets of measured and modelled spectral irradiance. We find that at altitudes above pressure levels of 5 hPa, the ozone response to solar variability simulated using the SORCE spectral solar irradiance data are inconsistent with the observations.”

A long neglected link between the solar fluctuations and climate change at the sea surface, troposphere and stratosphere was described by Yamakawa et al. in March 2016 in the journal Quaternary International:

Relationships between solar activity and variations in SST and atmospheric circulation in the stratosphere and troposphere
Relationships between solar activity and variations in both sea surface temperature (SST) and atmospheric circulation at the time of the solar maximum are presented. The global distribution of correlation coefficients between annual relative sunspot numbers (SSN) and SST from July to December was examined over a 111-year period from 1901 to 2011. Areas with a significant positive correlation accounted for 11.7% of the global sea surface in December, mainly over three regions in the Pacific. The influence of solar activity on global atmospheric pressure variations and circulation in the maximum years was also analyzed from 1979 to 2011. The results indicated that higher geopotential height anomalies tended to appear in the stratosphere and troposphere in the northern hemisphere, centering on around the Hawaiian Islands from November to December, in the second year of the solar maximum. The SST distribution in the Pacific with strong north and south Pacific Highs produced a pattern that resembled teleconnection patterns such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Central-Pacific (CP) El Niño, or El Niño Modoki (ENM). It is suggested that the solar activity had an influence on the troposphere via not only the stratosphere but also the sea surface.”

Another paper by Reichler et al. appearing in Nature Geoscience already back in 2012 follows similar lines:

A stratospheric connection to Atlantic climate variability
The stratosphere is connected to tropospheric weather and climate. In particular, extreme stratospheric circulation events are known to exert a dynamical feedback on the troposphere1. However, it is unclear whether the state of the stratosphere also affects the ocean and its circulation. A co-variability of decadal stratospheric flow variations and conditions in the North Atlantic Ocean has been suggested, but such findings are based on short simulations with only one climate model2. Here we assess ocean reanalysis data and find that, over the previous 30 years, the stratosphere and the Atlantic thermohaline circulation experienced low-frequency variations that were similar to each other. Using climate models, we demonstrate that this similarity is consistent with the hypothesis that variations in the sequence of stratospheric circulation anomalies, combined with the persistence of individual anomalies, significantly affect the North Atlantic Ocean. Our analyses identify a previously unknown source for decadal climate variability and suggest that simulations of deep layers of the atmosphere and the ocean are needed for realistic predictions of climate.”

The University of Utah issued the following press release:

Stratosphere Targets Deep Sea to Shape Climate:
North Atlantic ‘Achilles heel’ lets upper atmosphere affect the abyss

A University of Utah study suggests something amazing: Periodic changes in winds 15 to 30 miles high in the stratosphere influence the seas by striking a vulnerable “Achilles heel” in the North Atlantic and changing mile-deep ocean circulation patterns, which in turn affect Earth’s climate.

‘We found evidence that what happens in the stratosphere matters for the ocean circulation and therefore for climate,’ says Thomas Reichler, senior author of the study published online Sunday, Sept. 23 in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Scientists already knew that events in the stratosphere, 6 miles to 30 miles above Earth, affect what happens below in the troposphere, the part of the atmosphere from Earth’s surface up to 6 miles or about 32,800 feet. Weather occurs in the troposphere.

Researchers also knew that global circulation patterns in the oceans – patterns caused mostly by variations in water temperature and saltiness – affect global climate.

‘It is not new that the stratosphere impacts the troposphere,’ says Reichler, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Utah. ‘It also is not new that the troposphere impacts the ocean. But now we actually demonstrated an entire link between the stratosphere, the troposphere and the ocean.’

Funded by the University of Utah, Reichler conducted the study with University of Utah atmospheric sciences doctoral student Junsu Kim, and with atmospheric scientist Elisa Manzini and oceanographer Jürgen Kröger, both with the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany.

Stratospheric Winds and Sea Circulation Show Similar Rhythms

Reichler and colleagues used weather observations and 4,000 years worth of supercomputer simulations of weather to show a surprising association between decade-scale, periodic changes in stratospheric wind patterns known as the polar vortex, and similar rhythmic changes in deep-sea circulation patterns. The changes are:

— ‘Stratospheric sudden warming’ events occur when temperatures rise and 80-mph ‘polar vortex’ winds encircling the Artic suddenly weaken or even change direction. These winds extend from 15 miles elevation in the stratosphere up beyond the top of the stratosphere at 30 miles. The changes last for up to 60 days, allowing time for their effects to propagate down through the atmosphere to the ocean.

— Changes in the speed of the Atlantic circulation pattern – known as Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation – that influences the world’s oceans because it acts like a conveyor belt moving water around the planet.

Sometimes, both events happen several years in a row in one decade, and then none occur in the next decade. So incorporating this decade-scale effect of the stratosphere on the sea into supercomputer climate simulations or “models” is important in forecasting decade-to-decade climate changes that are distinct from global warming, Reichler says.

‘If we as humans modify the stratosphere, it may – through the chain of events we demonstrate in this study – also impact the ocean circulation,” he says. “Good examples of how we modify the stratosphere are the ozone hole and also fossil-fuel burning that adds carbon dioxide to the stratosphere. These changes to the stratosphere can alter the ocean, and any change to the ocean is extremely important to global climate.’

A Vulnerable Soft Spot in the North Atlantic

‘The North Atlantic is particularly important for global ocean circulation, and therefore for climate worldwide,’ Reichler says. ‘In a region south of Greenland, which is called the downwelling region, water can get cold and salty enough – and thus dense enough – so the water starts sinking.’

It is Earth’s most important region of seawater downwelling, he adds. That sinking of cold, salty water ‘drives the three-dimensional oceanic conveyor belt circulation. What happens in the Atlantic also affects the other oceans.’

Reichler continues: ‘This area where downwelling occurs is quite susceptible to cooling or warming from the troposphere. If the water is close to becoming heavy enough to sink, then even small additional amounts of heating or cooling from the atmosphere may be imported to the ocean and either trigger downwelling events or delay them.’

Because of that sensitivity, Reichler calls the sea south of Greenland “the Achilles heel of the North Atlantic.”

From Stratosphere to the Sea

In winter, the stratospheric Arctic polar vortex whirls counterclockwise around the North Pole, with the strongest, 80-mph winds at about 60 degrees north latitude. They are stronger than jet stream winds, which are less than 70 mph in the troposphere below. But every two years on average, the stratospheric air suddenly is disrupted and the vortex gets warmer and weaker, and sometimes even shifts direction to clockwise.

‘These are catastrophic rearrangements of circulation in the stratosphere,” and the weaker or reversed polar vortex persists up to two months, Reichler says. “Breakdown of the polar vortex can affect circulation in the troposphere all the way down to the surface.’

Reichler’s study ventured into new territory by asking if changes in stratospheric polar vortex winds impart heat or cold to the sea, and how that affects the sea.

It already was known that that these stratospheric wind changes affect the North Atlantic Oscillation – a pattern of low atmospheric pressure centered over Greenland and high pressure over the Azores to the south. The pattern can reverse or oscillate.

Because the oscillating pressure patterns are located above the ocean downwelling area near Greenland, the question is whether that pattern affects the downwelling and, in turn, the global oceanic circulation conveyor belt.

The study’s computer simulations show a decadal on-off pattern of correlated changes in the polar vortex, atmospheric pressure oscillations over the North Atlantic and changes in sea circulation more than one mile beneath the waves. Observations are consistent with the pattern revealed in computer simulations.

Observations and Simulations of the Stratosphere-to-Sea Link

In the 1980s and 2000s, a series of stratospheric sudden warming events weakened polar vortex winds. During the 1990s, the polar vortex remained strong.

Reichler and colleagues used published worldwide ocean observations from a dozen research groups to reconstruct behavior of the conveyor belt ocean circulation during the same 30-year period.

‘The weakening and strengthening of the stratospheric circulation seems to correspond with changes in ocean circulation in the North Atlantic,’ Reichler says.

To reduce uncertainties about the observations, the researchers used computers to simulate 4,000 years worth of atmosphere and ocean circulation.

‘The computer model showed that when we have a series of these polar vortex changes, the ocean circulation is susceptible to those stratospheric events,’ Reichler says.

To further verify the findings, the researchers combined 18 atmosphere and ocean models into one big simulation, and “we see very similar outcomes.”

The study suggests there is “a significant stratospheric impact on the ocean,” the researchers write. ‘Recurring stratospheric vortex events create long-lived perturbations at the ocean surface, which penetrate into the deeper ocean and trigger multidecadal variability in its circulation. This leads to the remarkable fact that signals that emanate from the stratosphere cross the entire atmosphere-ocean system.'”


Unprecedented? Central England Warming Of 1692 – 1737 Twice As Fast As Late 20th Century Warming!

By Ed Caryl

The Warmunists are fond of stating that the warming in the late twentieth century was unusual and unprecedented, and could only have been caused by rising CO2. They refuse to recognize that the early twentieth century warming was just as rapid. Of course that statement is also based on the lack of data for earlier times.

But there ARE data for earlier times. The Central England Temperature (CET) data set extends all the way back to 1659 and has been maintained to this day. Here is a window into an early 90-year section of that data set, overlaid with the last 90 years.


Figure 1 is CET and GHCN temperatures from 1925 to the present, compared to CET temperatures from 1660 to 1750. The 45-year span from 1692 to 1737 is highlighted in red.

If the trends for all three 90-year data sets are compared, they are nearly identical, from 0.084 to 0.091°C per decade warming.

But the 45-year span from 1692 to 1737 was warming at nearly five times that rate, 0.4°C per decade. This warming rate is more than twice as fast as the late twentieth century rate, for twice as long.

Central England warmed by two degrees, three degrees if one measures from the coldest year to the warmest in that interval. For comparison, here is the GHCN data for the modern period.


Figure 2 is the modern era from GHCN with the modern warming in red and the early twentieth century warming in green. 

Please note that I have picked the time period with the most warming in that interval, including from the bottom of the 1976 La Niña to the top of the 1998 El Niño. The early twentieth century warming began with the 1914-15 El Niño. If the El Niño and La Niña events are removed, both warming periods have a trend of about 0.16°C per decade. The 0.4°C/decade warming period from 1692 to 1737 must have been very scary for the eighteenth century climatologists.

It all came to an abrupt end, however, in 1739 and 1740. The temperature dropped three degrees practically overnight in climate terms. See figure 1. What caused that? A volcano!

On the southern end of Hokkaido, in Japan, there is a large caldera called Shikotsu. It is now filled with a lake. This caldera was formed about 35,000 years ago. On the edge of the caldera three volcanic vents have been intermittently active since then. One of those, Tarumai, (or Tarumae) is active to this day, including four VE5, very large eruptions in 6950 BCE, 800 BCE, 1667, and 1739. Though both the 1667 and 1739 eruptions were classed as VE5, the 1739 event pushed enough gas into the stratosphere to affect global climate.

“In the northern hemisphere density of yearly tree ring [sic] have changed in AD 1740 (Briffa et al., 1998) suggesting the eruption of 1739 affected global climate.”

Sheveluch, on Kamchatka, is also implicated, but that eruption was only a VE3.

The resulting cold caused the “Great Irish Frost” of 1740, where Irish harbors and rivers froze over, preventing import of grain, frost killed the potato crop, and 20 to 30% of the Irish population died of cold and famine. The cold affected all of northern Europe, but was a disaster for Ireland due to the politics of the time. For a scholarly treatise on it see The Irish famine of 1740–1741: famine vulnerability and “climate migration”, here. The implication is that the good years prior to 1740, made Ireland in particular, vulnerable to a cold snap. This is the thing to be feared in our future rather than continued warming.


EU Reveals Its Inner Arrogance …Floats Plan To “Punish Parties That Don’t Represent EU Norms”

European climate science dissenters beware.

Recall how the effort in the US of some 20 attorneys general to silence climate skeptics backfired. In the story the attorney generals wanted to go after oil companies and think tanks because the scientific views they held differed from their own.

Inquisition - public domain

Public domain image

Well, in Europe it is not just a group of activist attorneys general who are calling for silencing dissent, but the EU itself!

According to Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten – DWN – (German Business News), “The EU is planning penalties for parties that do not represent ‘the values of the EU“.

The move is apparently in response to the rising wave of right wing parties currently sweeping across Europe – especially Austria, which saw a right wing figure almost winning national Presidential elections last Sunday. Europe’s established parties are spooked, and they aren’t coping well with growing opposition and voter dissatisfaction. Their latest solution: to punish it.

A number of EU parliament leaders apparently believe that political parties should not provide a platform for citizens to express their dissatisfaction with failing EU policies. The proposal has been floated by the EU socialists, led by EU Parliament President Martin Schulz and Denmark’s Helle Thorning-Schmidt. The aim, according to DWN, is to prevent “rightwing radical or foreigner-hostile” being represented in the EU Parliament.

Of course the exclusion of radicalism always appears to be a noble cause at first glance, but achieving it by regulation as some leading WU parliamentarians are proposing opens up very dangerous doors to abuse. It would be the first major step to dictating speech and opinion, and that on a continent that likes to claim it protects.  The move would be a threat to anyone holding a different opinion on controversial EU issues like energy, fiscal policy, social orientation, economics and immigration.

Skeptics of climate science could be targeted

The proposal reveals the EU’s growing discomfort with the democratically and legitimately led opposition. Brussels is in fact (unwittingly) sending a terrible message: Democracy is okay, but only if you agree with us. That’s arrogance, and it should be no surprise voters are punishing the established politicians by voting against them. These people seem to think dissenters are need of upbringing.

Deny funding to parties

The proposal calls for punishing political parties that don’t conform to EU norms by denying them EU party funding. Parties would only get money if they agreed with the opinions of the money givers.

Fortunately, many established politicians, even Green ones, are able to see the plan for what it is, and are against it. EU Green parliamentarian Nicholas Villumsen told: “That would be like the Parliament imposing penalties against parties with wrong opinions. It is very worrisome that the European Parliament wishes to punish parties for their views,” the DWN quotes.

So it starts. What’s next?

Punishing the Catholic Church for its views on gay marriage and abortion?

The fining of climate “deniers”?

The DWN comments:

In fact such a regulation is very dangerous. It opens the door and gate to pressure opinion. […] In a tense crisis climate, EU critics could be forcibly silenced with such an EU rule. The right to freedom of expression can be suppressed with such a regulation. […]

The enforcement of belief to ‘values’ is undemocratic.

It is the first step to a totalitarian system.”

Obviously for the socialists in power in Brussels, that is precisely the idea. They can’t win the debates on the merits of their arguments, so they resort to the very radical right-wing type authoritarian measures they proclaim to fear and from which we need to be protected.


“Modern” Western Nutrition Is Deep In The Dark Ages …A Catastrophe Of “Modern” Science


Nothing is more dangerous than bad science driven by arrogance. Readers here are very much aware of this when it comes to climate science. Yet, as surprising as it may sound, the problem of junk science is even far worse in the field of Nutrition.

Book (right) available at Amazon.

Recently I read a book written by Dr. Weston Price, published in 1938 – almost 80 years ago: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.

Weston Price was an American dentist who had been shocked by the wave of physical degeneration he observed among patients, who suffered tremendously from caries and facial deformities, along with the number of crippling diseases that seemed to accompany it.

To find out what was happening, he journeyed to many remote regions across the globe to study “primitive” tribes and people who were still isolated from “modern” living. What he found was stunning and revealing: These people were in tremendous physical and mental condition. He observed that physical degeneration had little to do with genetics, was mostly nutrition-based, and that it took only one generation to turn a physically superior community of people into a health and societal basket case.

He journeyed to isolated areas of the globe where the so-called “primitive” people relied on their own local natural food sources and customs for nourishment and health. Their practices had been perfected over generations. Price examined tens of thousands of teeth, facial forms, dental arches of not only living persons, but also of exhumed skulls. He found near dental perfection and few modern diseases among them. Health was at an impeccable level.

No matter if it was a community in Switzerland or Polynesians in the South Pacific, those who relied on their traditional food staples were in a state of excellent health and near physical perfection.

Throughout the book Price describes natives of great physical strength, well-being, keen intelligence and near zero crime rates within their communities. Cancer, heart disease and metabolic syndrome – our modern diseases – were almost non-existent.  But as soon as these peoples and tribes came into contact with western “modern” nutrition, their health deteriorated rapidly and dramatically.

What follow are sample photos of what Dr. Price typically found. It did not matter where or what race he examined. They were all healthy and shared a common denominator: excellent animal-based nutrition.

Weston A Price - Povos Primitivos

Isolated communities living on “primitive” diets had near perfect health. Rates of caries were close to zero. Shown above is a sample of people from various locations around the globe. Modern diseases were rare. Photos: Weston Price Foundation

It was only when the “modern” western foods of “civilization” – comprising in large part sugar, white flour, syrups, polished rice and canned goods – were introduced by the whites did a profound and rapid deterioration in the health of these isolated tribes and groups take place.

Price often observed parents of superior physique, facial form and dental health –  but whose children had been ravaged by caries, deformed dental arches and poor health because they had switched to the “modern foods”.

As was common back in the early 20th century, “experts” often blamed the facial deformities and poor health on race mixing. Another scientific debacle.

What follows is a table showing a selection of isolated, “primitive” tribes and peoples that Price studied, and who had robust physiques and health. Note the very low rates of caries – all without the need for “modern” dentistry.



The above table is just a sampling of many tribes and peoples Price studied.

But once the modern western foods were introduced, many of these healthy societies literally collapsed. What the diseases of the encroaching “modern” civilization didn’t kill off, the newly introduced “modern” foods did the rest, laying many of these once healthy societies to waste.

When we look at the above tables, it is clear that one thing stands out: The common food staples necessary for good health are in large part made up of natural, animal-based foods such as fish, shellfish, organ meat, animal fat, dairy, vegetables, plant life, insects and some fruit.

In short: their diets were as remote of a vegan or vegetarian diet as one could possibly get. Price writes that many of these tribes and peoples also had advanced medical, veterinary and engineering skills, which also were lost since the invasion of “modern” junk food.

The key component to these healthy individuals was animal product. Price confirmed it in his book.

Western society is deep in the Nutrition Dark Ages

It becomes clear that our modern nutrition has completely diverged from what the human species was originally designed to consume. Worse, it is evident that modern nutrition risks diverging even further away as junk diet fads such as veganism are being promoted as the way to health. Here many greens are unwittingly advocating the worst of both worlds.

The truth today, as Price reveals, is that our modern society is deep in the Dark Ages of Nutrition and it’s going to take a lot of time, effort, education and resources to crawl back out of that abysmal pit. Unfortunately many more tens of millions in western society will further suffer from the ravages of our “modern” food before things get better. The burden risks collapsing our entire society if something is not done soon.

Of course no one advocates returning to “primitive” life standards. But why isn’t it possible to integrate the advanced nutrition of these isolated natives with our modern society?

Today tens of millions are suffering and dying from metabolic syndrome and its related diseases. Hundreds of millions more are at high risk. It is one of the great scientific catastrophes of human history.

What is needed is a Nutrition Renaissance – and quickly.


Renowned Economics Prof On Climate Model-Based Policy: No “Need To Be A Denier To Qualify It As Methodological Nonsense”!

The online Swiss Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) has published a commentary by renowned economics professor Silvio Borner, University of Basel, where he sharply criticizes climate models and basing political decisions on them.

Borner UBas

 Photo of Prof. Silvio Borner: Credit: University Basel, by Peter Schnetz

He compares climate forecasts to economic forecasts, where in both fields one runs into a myriad of unpredictable variables and complex, poorly understood interactions that make reliable forecasts impossible – even more so in climate.

When it comes to climate, Borner writes that it is a fact the current warming started before industrialization and that CO2 is “partly responsible” for the current warming – as scientifically accepted temperature reconstructions of the past show.

In his commentary he looks at the parallels between global economy and global climate, reminding us that we already know that there are huge margins of errors for even short-term forecasts. “They often err even on the algebraic sign“.

Interestingly, Borner writes that forcasting the climate system is even more difficult because “we do not know the unknown exogenic causal factors in advance nor are we able to control them politically“. He explains that economists have had (bitter) experiences in trying to forecast economies and that the climate system is an even more unfamiliar system. This is evident, he says, even from weather forecasts which “differ from model to model and are often wrong“.

On the usefulness of models, Borner says they are of value, but never “true” due to the numerous assumptions that go into them. He writes:

For these reasons, all the ‘doom prognoses’ concerning the limits of growth have all failed grandly.”

Due to all the unknowns in the climate system, and the extreme lack of understanding with regards to their interaction, Borner says it is “scientifically irresponsible to fix a relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming, and then calculate from that how much Co2 needs to reduced by 2030 in order to avoid a 2°C temperature rise.” He adds:

To qualify that as methodological nonsense, one does not have to be a ‘climate denier’.”

Borner believes that it makes sense to reduce CO2, “but not on the backs of the poor countries“. He favors a CO2 emissions certificate trading scheme. He concludes:

 It is enough to set down the right general framework conditions. State planning or investments lead to chaos.”

Take this from a renowned expert in economic modeling – one who understands that the climate system is even more complex, unpredictable and far less controllable. In a nutshell Professor Borner is warning that controlling the climate is a futile endeavor and that basing policy on climate models borders on folly.


DiCaprio’s Private Jet Junket Burned 30,000 Liters Of Fuel …Enough For 10,000 Cars An Entire Day!

Imagine an arsonist receiving the Fireman of the Year Award, or Satan being canonized a saint by the Vatican, or Hitler driving a tank into Oslo – to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize!

It all sounds utterly ridiculous, but unbelievably something about as nutty happened recently. Everywhere in the media we read how mega-filmstar Leonardo DiCaprio took his private jet over 12,000 kilometers – to pick up an environmental award! See here and here.

Gulfstream 450

Need to pick up an environmental award in a hurry? We’ve got the ideal private jet! Image cropped at

While the millionaire Hollywood star jets-sets across the globe between stays at his mansions, awards and yachts, he likes to preach to the rest of the struggling world on responsible, humble and sustainable living.

DiCaprio’s Dilemma

Probably one of the most telling aspects of the affair is the decision process leading up to this junket. The award in New York City happened to coincide with the Cannes film festival – an event the California-residing Mr. DiCaprio obviously didn’t plan on missing. Yet, he really wanted that image-polishing environmental award as well. In a normal world a normal person in such a dilemma would have foregone one or the other. Indeed if the environment and climate were as important to Mr. DiCaprio as he likes to profess it is, he certainly would have skipped the star-studded Euro-Festival altogether, or if anything at least cut the Cannes fling short and picked up his award on the way back. That, after all, would have sent a clear signal that he is quite serious about the environment and that it precludes material things like Cannes. Remember DiCaprio’s own words:

Climate change is real. It is happening right now, it is the most urgent threat facing our entire species.”

The other option would have been to skip the environmental award, citing scheduling problems. But that would not have gone over well either. Doing so would have sent the message that having fun at Cannes was more important than the stinking environment and shown that maybe he wasn’t really sincere about the environment.

So you do what people like DiCaprio do in such a bind. You simply flaunt the very rules you profess, and you do both – even if it means clandestinely indulging in an orgy of fossil fuel burning and environmental rape. Besides, you can always offset later. It’s Leo first. Rules apply to us, but not to him.

DiCaprio took the private jet to Cannes, then back to New York to pick up the environmental award, and then shuttled back to Cannes. After that, who knows?

Enough fuel for 10,000 automobiles!

Just how much fuel did that particular 12,000-kilometer environmental round-trip junket consume? No one knows for sure, but we can estimate it. The round trip involved around 16 hours of flight time – if not more – in a longer range private jet, e.g. a Gulfstream G450, which has a fuel capacity of 29,500 lbs,  or approx. 16,000 liters. For the 16-hour long haul roundtrip, refueling once, such a jet would need close to 30,000 liters of fuel – fuel that gets burned right where greenhouse gases are claimed to be the most effective.

30,000 liters is a huge amount of fuel. A normal compact European car can travel some 600,000 kilometers, or some 30 years, on that amount. In a single day, 30,000 liters are enough fuel to power some 10,000 cars!

Clearly if you hold Mr. DiCaprio’s beliefs, private jets are the most environmentally damaging form of transport imaginable. They ought to be banned outright. Yet, Mr. DiCaprio saw no problem committing this mass environmental climate crime. What Leo wants, Leo gets. The environment be damned.

Interestingly the Gulfstream websites overviewing the various models do not include fuel consumption and CO2 emission ratings in order to let the jet-setting millionaires and Hollywood environmental activists know the damage they do to the environment. In Europe brochures and new car stickers clearly state the vehicle’s fuel consumption and CO2 emissions so that people can judge the alleged damage to the environment (er, never mind for now the recent scandalous car exhaust test manipulations).

Sorry, I forgot. Fuel consumption awareness and environmental protection are only for the little folks.


1959 Paper Shows Most Warming Before 1945 …Arctic Warmed 7.7°C, Sea Level Rose 8 mm/yr

The following clearly shows a complete lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature. Most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1945, and clearly was linked to natural factors at time the planet was emerging from the Little Ice Age.

Explosive (Non-Anthropogenic) Warming in the Early 20th Century

By Kenneth Richard

As Figure 1 depicts, human CO2 emissions were essentially flat during first half of the 20th century.


Yet, the world’s climate warmed dramatically throughout this period. For example notice how steep the rise in near-surface (0 – 20 m) ocean temperatures was between 1900 and 1945 according to Gouretski et al. (2012, Consistent near-surface ocean warming since 1900 in two largely independent observing networks).


As the Gouretski et al. (2012) graph indicates, near-surface ocean temperatures rose by about 1.2°C between 1900 and 1945. But then, in the next 65 years, between 1945 and 2010, the near-surface ocean only warmed by about 0.3°C in total, which includes a 30-year cooling trend (1945 – 1975).

If we compare the two trends, the early 20th century (1900 – 1945) near-surface ocean waters warmed at a rate of almost 0.27°C per decade, whereas the more recent period (1945 – 2010) only warmed at a rate of under 0.05°C per decade. Interestingly, it was the more recent 1945 – 2010 period that contained the rapid expansion of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, with rates rising from ~1 GtC/year (1900 -1945)  to nearly 10 GtC/year by 2010.

These warming (and cooling) trends in the near-surface ocean are the opposite of what would be expected if human CO2 emissions were the primary driver.

Sea level rose 8 mm/year between 1930 – 1948

What follows are some of the details of this dramatic early 20th century warming as documented by Princeton geologist Dr. Erling Dorf, a veritable expert on the subject. Notice from the summaries provided below that sea levels were observed to be rising at a rate of about 8 mm/year between 1930 and 1948 (6 inches in 19 years), which is more than double today’s modeled satellite altimetry rate (3.2 mm/year).

These early 20th century temperature and CO2 trends beg the question: What were the physical mechanisms that caused this dramatic global-scale warming, since anthropogenic CO2 emissions were both low (~1 GtC/year) and stable during this period?

Summary of the 1900 to 1950 warm period as described in Dr. Dorf’s (1959) “CLIMATIC CHANGES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT”.

  1. A 14°F (+7.7°C) warming in the Arctic (North Pole region) between the early 1900s and 1950, with ice-free ports 7 months out of the year rather than the mere 3 months per year that were common at the turn of the century.
  2. A 5°F (+2.8°C) warming in Antarctica.
  3. “Catastrophic” and “violent” wasting away of glaciers, with Muir Glacier retreating 2 miles (3.2 km) in 10 years.
  4. A snow line rise by 2700 feet (823 meters) in the Peruvian mountains.
  5. A 6-inch (15 cm) rise in sea level between 1930 and 1948, a rate of about 32 inches (+80 cm) per century and 8 mm/yr  (more than double today’s alleged rate per satellite altimetry [3.2 mm/yr]).  A 600% increase in the rate of sea level rise in the 1920s.
  6. Agricultural crop lines shifted 50 to 100 miles (80 to 161 km) northward, with 10-day longer growing seasons.
  7. Tree lines moved 65 feet (20 meters) up the mountains in Sweden.
  8. Many birds and mammals extended their habitats northwards; about 25 species of birds advanced from the south up into a warmer Greenland; codfish replaced seals along the coasts of Greenland, which led “Greenland Eskimos” to switch to cod-fishing rather than seal-hunting.

Excerpts from Dr. Erling Dorf, 1959:


It has been observed, however, that the greatest temperature increases during the last hundred years have been in the Arctic regions. In Spitsbergen, only about 10 to 12 degrees from the North Pole, the mean winter temperatures have risen about 14° F. since 1910 (Willett, 1950). Ice-free ports there are now open to navigation about 7 months of the year as compared with only 3 months fifty years ago (Ahlmann, 1953, p. 32). If the warming trend of the north polar region should continue at its present rate, it has been estimated that the entire Arctic Ocean would be navigable all year long within about a hundred years. At the opposite end of the world, according to recent reports from the Weather Bureau (Wexler, 1958), the Antarctic region has undergone a rise of about 5°F. in average temperature in the last fifty years. There has been no appreciable rise, however, in the mean annual temperatures in the tropical regions of the world.

What have been some of the notable results of this warming trend during the last hundred years? Glaciers throughout the world have been melting away at a rapidly increasing rate. Brooks (1949, p. 24). the eminent British paleoclimatologist, stated that “Since the beginning of the 20th Century glaciers have been wasting away rapidly, or even catastrophically.” In the Juneau region of Alaska, all but one of the numerous glaciers began melting away as far back as 1765. Muir Glacier, for example, has retreated as much as two miles in 10 years. Baird and Sharp (1954, p. 143) have referred to the “alarming retreat of glaciers” in the Alaskan region; along the Pacific Coast of North America and in Europe they believe the glacial melting “appears to be progressing violently.” In the north polar region, measurements of melting of the ice islands in the Arctic Sea indicate an approach toward an open polar sea (Crary, Kulp, and Blarshall, 1955). In only a few regions of the world, such as the Pacific Northwest, are there any records of glaciers advancing during the past century, and these have been mostly since 1950 (Hubley, 1956). The warmer temperatures have also caused a general rise of the snow line throughout the mountainous regions of the world, even in the tropics: in northern Peru it has risen about 2700 feet during the 60 years.

Believed in large part to be the result of the melting of the world’s glaciers, sea level has been rising at a rapidly increasing rate, amounting to as much as a 6-inch rise from 1930 to 1948 (Marmar, 1948). This is about four times the average rate of sea level rise during the past 9000 years, as recorded by Shepard and Suess (1956). It should be noted that more than a six-fold increase in the rate of sea level rise occurred in the mid-1920’s at the same time there was a striking change in the rate of glacial melting in the north (Ahlmann, 1953, Fig. 11).

Changes in vegetation brought about by the warmer temperatures include the encroachment of trees into the subpolar tundra as recorded in Alaska, Quebec, Laborador, and Siberia. In the Canadian prairies the agricultural crop line has shifted from 50 to 100 miles northward as a result of the lengthening of the growing season by as much as ten days. In parts of northern New England and eastern Canada the birch trees have been dying off over large areas, and the spruces and balsams have begun to suffer as a result of the rise in summer temperatures. In Sweden the timberline has moved up the mountain slopes as much as 65 feet since 1930 (Ahlmann, 1953, p. 35).

In the animal world many southern types of both birds and mammals have been extending their habitat ranges northward as a result of the warming trend. The cardinal, the turkey vulture, the tufted titmouse, and the blue-winged warbler, as well as the warmth-loving opossum, have slowly moved their ranges into the northern United States. A good many central European species of animals have been shifting their ranges northward into Scandinavia, Greenland, Iceland, and the Faero Islands. Twenty-five species of birds alone are reported to have invaded Greenland from the south since 1918 (Jensen and Fristrup, 1950). Codfish from the Atlantic have replaced the seals in the waters along the coast of Greenland. It is reported that compared to a shipment of 5 tons of codfish from Greenland in 1913, the 1946 shipment had risen to over 13,000 tons; the Greenland Eskimos have become cod fishermen instead of seal fishermen (Kimble, 1950). Farther south tunafish have moved northward into the waters off New England, and tropical flying fishes have become increasingly common off the coast of New Jersey.