Sea Level Goes The Way The Wind Blows…Wind, Pressure Play Major Roles

This is one of those posts about things noticed, remembered, and linked while surfing the web.

It is well known that the local sea level is heavily influenced by wind speed and direction as well as barometric pressure. Most people are aware of storm surges associated with hurricanes, for example. The same thing happens on a near-global scale, and some of it is near-permanent. Here is a global map of sea level anomaly from the University of Colorado.


Figure 1 is the sea level rise trend since satellite radar altimetry began.

In Figure 1, the sea level in the Western Pacific has risen 10 or 12 mm per year, while the eastern Pacific, parts of the Southern Ocean, and a spot in the Atlantic, have fallen by 3 to 5 mm per year, over the satellite era.

The next interesting map comes from the European Space Agency (ERA). This map is generated by taking the sea surface height as measured by satellite and subtracting the gravity model from GOCE. The result is the sea surface height over the geoid.


Figure 2 is the sea surface height over the Geoid.

Note the difference in height between the western Pacific and the Southern Ocean, about 3 meters. The difference in height between the western Pacific and the coasts of North and South America is over a meter. These height differences drive ocean currents. These differences are maintained by wind and pressure differences. If wind and pressure change, the sea level changes accordingly.

SLP Changes WP Winds

Next are plots (Figures 3 and 4) from Garza et al 2012, of Sea Level Pressure (SLP), and wind changes over the 1980 to 2009 epoch.

The SLP has increased over the eastern Pacific and decreased over the western Pacific. North of 10°N, easterly trade winds have increased in the eastern Pacific and south of 10°N, they have decreased. These small changes, along with thermal expansion, have changed the relative sea level between the two sides of the Pacific Basin by 1%, one centimeter out of one meter. My point is that not all of the western Pacific sea level rise is due to warming, a great deal of it is due to wind and SLP change.

Do you remember the controversy last year about the trade winds? One paper had them increasing, due to global climate change; the other had them decreasing due to climate change. They were both right. They were just looking at different parts of the elephant. North of 10° North the winds increased; south of 10° North the winds decreased.


Die Zeit Interview With Hans von Storch: “No Intensification In Storm Activity”…All “Within Range Of Natural Variability”

The online center-left Die Zeit features an interview with Prof Hans von Storch, Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg and Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany.


Hans von Storch photo credit: European People’s Party, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license

The focus was on mainly storm activity and its possible link to man-made climate change.

In the end the very green-oriented Die Zeit did not get the sound bites it likely had hoped to get.

All within natural varibility

In the interview, in response to the question of storm frequency and intensity, von Storch, a renowned climate scientist with 40 years of experience, says:

We see no intensification in storm activity at our latitudes, and our climate models also indicate that we cannot expect it.

Also since 1950 they have not become systematically more frequent or stronger. Therefore we believe that Christian [October 2013 North Sea storm] moved within the range of normal variability.”

Von Storch also tells Die Zeit that storms do not occur with a rather regular periodicity, saying that “sometimes there are decades when they rumble a lot, and some decades when they don’t.”

The north German professor also tells Die Zeit it is very difficult to make comparisons between the storms of today and those of decades ago because the data recorded back then are nowhere near as complete:

If you simply compared the pressure values with those from a few decades ago, then you would reach the conclusion: Yes, the storms have become more powerful. But that would be a faulty conclusion.”

The reason for this, von Storch explains, is that the measurement of the storms core pressure was very inadequate and readings were often taken by ships that were not located near core of the storm. Today satellites provide very reliable data for comparisons.

Climate models do not indicate future intensification

On the future of storms and increased intensity, von Storch tells Die Zeit no one can rule it out, of course, but thinks it’s “implausible“. “Our climate models do not lead us to expect it.”

Von Storch also cautions against putting too much emphasis on model results:

Ultimately, however, observations and not climate models decide. We always have to expect that we will know the truth only afterwards. We can’t predict everything with certainty.”

“Pause” has led to more attention on natural fluctuations

Next Die Zeit looks at the warming pause, which it writes it has been confirmed “by some scientists” and asks if the “pause” has ended. Von Storch replies:

At least one finds no strong evidence showing that the long-term warming pause in the climate system has ended. The debate over this postulated ‘pause’ in the end has had a good side: Natural fluctuations have gotten more attention. We understand the climate a little bit better.”

In summary, von Storch sees 1) no data supporting a trend of stronger, more frequent North Sea storms, 2) models do not show an increasing trend, 3) recent storms have been within the range of natural variability, and 4) the pause has been substantial enough that it has shifted more focus onto natural factors.

The AGW theory of catastrophic warming has taken a significant blow.


German Citizens Have Had Enough…”Conflict Over Wind Turbines Escalating” …Against “Horror Landscapes”!

In Germany protests over a broad range of issues have been heightening.

In Dresden citizens have been turning out by the thousands in “Monday demonstrations” to protest the perceived threat of the Islamification of Europe and the so-called “liar media”, which they no longer trust. Since the Paris attacks by radical Islamic terrorists, the protesters have only become more emboldened.

Citizens are also clearly beginning to feel they are being misled by the “liar media” and politicians regarding wind energy. The glaring difference between what was promised and what is actually being delivered can no longer be ignored. Enough is enough!

Germany’s online writes that the “conflict over wind turbines is escalating” and that “criticism and fears are becoming louder” and that “citizen protest groups are forming at many locations“.

What does it mean? It means that wind and solar power are nothing like they were once cracked up to be. They are poor performers, costly, and are creating a nationwide blight that risks permanently scarring Germany’s once idyllic landscape and natural heritage.

Everything and anything can now be sacrificed at the alter of climate protection. Recently Die Welt published a scathing commentary on the “immensely dangerous power of the eco-cartel“, writing that “totalitarian undercurrents are plainly visible” and that the movement is all about power and money, and less so about environmental protection. Germany’s green movement has been corrupted to the bone.

In the state of Mecklenburg-Pomerania the site writes how an organization called Freier Horizont was established last November and serves as the umbrella for 40 citizens initiatives. “They are protesting against what they see as the uncontrolled expansion of wind energy and speak of horror landscapes.”

Freier Horizont Chairman Norbert Schumacher worries that wind energy will have negative impacts on the region’s coastal tourism. Citizens are concerned that Germany’s cherished Baltic Sea coast will be “blighted” and believe political leaders and wind energy developers are not taking their concerns seriously.

They aren’t, of course. It’s all about money. Even the most self-professed Greens are selling out to the big money of wind energy. For example Die Welt writes of German Green Party honcho Boris Palmer, someone “who grew up protesting the installation of power transmission towers is – no joke – demanding that natural parks and reserves be opened for the 200-meter tall rotating monsters, even if they are located right next World Heritage Sites.”

Greens like Palmer no longer have qualms about that, and so it should not surprise us that they are ready to trample and permanently damage heritage locations – e.g. like the Nazca Lines in Peru. It’s all in the name of the Green Allah: Climate Protection. Green madness has taken over in Germany, but citizens are waking up.

German readers may wish picking up a copy of “Alles grün und gut? Eine Bilanz des ökologischen Denkens“, by Dirk Maxeiner and Michael Miersch.


Spiegel Dumps Cold Water On “Record Warm Year” Significance … Sees Science Fraught With Widespread Uncertainty

Now that a couple of surface temperature data sets are showing 2014 was a “record warm year,” people are wondering if it means the warming pause is over, and if so, how much climate sensitivity to CO2 there really is.

Online Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski (a geologist) has an analysis of 2014’s “record warm year” and asks if it means global warming has resumed after “a pause since the end of the 1990s”. He describes how climate scientists have been dumbfounded by the “unexpected warming pause”. A number of scientists blame the oceans for absorbing the heat out of the atmosphere. Japan’s meteorological services report that global surface temperature has risen 0.7°C in one hundred years, he writes.

On the significance of the warm year, the Spiegel science journalist quotes the German Climate Consortium: “The following years will allow us to judge the extent global warming at the surface of the earth has resumed.” And even the most alarmist organizations are conceding the global warming pause is real. For example the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) indirectly admits to Spiegel that the global temperature has paused, but reminds us that the 14 warmest years on record occurred over the past 15 years.

On the future of warming, Bojanowski describes a science fraught with uncertainty when it comes to future projections:

The UN IPCC continues to predict a hefty global warming should carbon dioxide emissions not be drastically reduced. But there are major uncertainties in the calculations and for this reason short-term fluctuations will remain unexplainable.”

Readers should note at this point that this too also has to apply for “short-term” warm fluctuations, such as the one from 1980-1998. That one too must have been in large part due to natural factors.

Bojanowski sums up his analysis by pointing out there is also uncertainty not only at the earth’s surface, but in the troposphere as well, writing that “satellite meaurements are astonishing” researchers:

Moreover satellite measurements for upper air levels, which have been taken since the mid 1990s, show hardly any warming. Because of this, scientists are debating if the sensitivity of air temperature with respect to greenhouse gases is possibly less than assumed.”

Bojanowski also points to conflicting scientific literature and papers when it comes to the stability of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. He adds, “The uncertainties show that the decisive questions about the future cannot be answered using short-term fluctuations.” And:

A warm record here, a warming pause there – the concerns and questions surrounding climate change remain the same.”


Activist Dana Nuccitelli Starting To Sweat? Satellite Data Show Current Decade Running COOLER Than The Previous!

Many readers will recall the climate bet for charity this site and its readers (the coolists) entered into against the climate alarmists, principally climate loudmouth Dana Nuccitelli and Rob Honeycutt, back in January 2011.

The coolists maintain that the 2011 – 2020 decade will be the same or cooler than the 2001 – 2010 decade. The alarmists of course are absolutely convinced that the current decade will be warmer.

Listening to the media lately, one might think that the coolists are getting trounced. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bet is based on the RSS and UAH satellite data, and they tell us a different story. Nuccitelli and his buddies can cite NOAA, GISS or NCDC all they want, but those datasets are not going to matter come 12/31/2020.

Robin Pittwood of the Kiwithinker has been so kind to tabulate the race so far as it develops. The first four years of the decade are now behind us, and Robin tells the coolists are maintaining a slight lead. Yes, this decade so far is running COOLER than the previous one! Hardly a good development for the Nuccitelli & Co. The dang oceans must have eaten up all the heat.

Climate Bet_Robin Pittwood

Chart shows this decade continues to be cooler than the previous one. Source: Robin Pittwood of the Kiwthinker.

With the current CO2 emissions trajectory running at the IPCC’s worst case scenario, this decade so far theoretically should have been at least a good 0.2°C warmer, and certainly not cooler. Something must have gone terribly wrong for the cocky climate boy-wonder in California.

Robin writes:

We are now 40% through the race … and clearly it is still close with the coolists in the lead by half a nose.

Now back to the hype we’re hearing about the ‘hot’ 2014. Notice that during 2014 (months 37 to 48) the green line just keeps trucking along at the same basic slope as it has for the past few years and much of the previous decade too. There was even a small El Nino in 2014, whose effect is conspicuous by its absence. Maybe the heat that is missing in the observed atmospheric temperature trend is hiding in the ocean?  ;-)”

So we’ve got another 6 years to go and now is a good time to speculate how those might go. Personally I expect 2015 to be a warm one as well, because of the current Tiny Tim El Nino. But then we all know what happens after an El Nino. Right, global temperatures tend to drop due to La Nina that follows.

Also boding ill for Nuccitelli and Co. is the projection that the current solar cycle will soon be winding down and so it is quite possible we will be seeing a cool period around 2018, similar to what we saw back around 2008. Indeed it’s too early to call it for the coolists, but I must say I’m quite comfortable with our current position.

Let’s assume that the coolists do win the bet and thus deliver the major upset. How will the warmists react? Are they going to cry foul? Or are they going to be relieved and a bit happy because the planet is not warming like they thought. That would be the rational reaction.

I doubt very much Dana is sweating about this at all. He’s a master rationalizer and will creatively concoct a way to deny it.

Awhile back at this site William “Winston” Connelly demanded that the terms of the bet be modified. Sorry, it is a bit late for that, and it’s not his bet anyway.

Should the coolists win, the warmists are going to have a lot explaining to do. But they are well prepared, as already there is a huge supply of excuses out there for them to choose from.

And even if the warmists should somehow eke out a victory, it’ll be quite a hollow one because they all claimed it would be min. 0.2° warmer. A few hundredths warmer would also take the air out of the alarmism.

Fun blogging lies ahead.


German Physicist Sees Dangerous Return To “Medieval Scholasticism” – Climate Models Have Failed Conclusively

At EIKE distinguished German physicist and climate expert Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke writes how we are witnessing a notable paradigm shift in climate research today: the resurrection of medieval scholasticism. In plain language: the science of the Dark Ages.


German climate physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke says today’s climate science paradigm has shifted to a “medieval scholasticism” and is a real threat to science and society as a whole. Photo: EIKE.

Scholasticism dominated medieval western Europe and was based on the writings of the Church Fathers, with strict adherence to traditional doctrines. To say the least, it was effective in stifling enlightenment.

The breakthrough from this crusty, dogmatic approach, Lüdecke writes, came with Galileo, who gave highest priority to systematic and numerical measurement, which today remains the standard method of science. With Galileo’s approach hypotheses or theories that are not confirmed by measurements get discarded and are no longer pursued. The method led to giant leaps and bounds in technology, medicine and science, from which today humanity is benefitting immensely.

Richard Richard Feynman summarized Galileo’s approach beautifully, saying that if a hypothesis disagrees with observations, then it’s wrong.

This fundamental approach, the Lüdecke writes, is no longer in use in climate science and, what is worse, the old medieval scholastic method is even now dangerously invading other fields of science.

According to Lüdecke, the key question today: Is the climate change witnessed since 1850 unusual, and thus due to man, or is it well within the range of natural variability the planet has seen throughout its history? The German physicist says a hypothesis’s burden of proof is clearly not on its skeptics, but on the one proposing the hypothesis. He writes:

It is senseless to favor a certain hypothesis – senseless according to our still valid scientific paradigm – when no confirming measured data can be shown to support it. One can occupy himself with a hypothesis, put it at the center of his research, and even have complete faith in it. However one cannot use it as a basis for taking rational action without first having confirmed measurements. In summary: If we cannot observe any unusual climate activity since 1850 compared to the times before that, then we have no choice but to assume natural climate change.”

In order to assume there has been “unusual activity”, Lüdecke says, it would be necessary to have comprehensive data about the oceans before 1850. This doesn’t exist, and so a comparison is not possible. Lüdecke reminds: “It is mandatory to prove that the climate data since 1850 are indeed unusual when compared to the period before that.” A comparison is already very difficult to do with atmospheric temperatures. With ocean data: “Who today can tell us what temperature distributions the oceans had back during the Medieval Warm Period?” Lüdecke writes Assuming that today is unusual without being able to compare it to anything from the past is not science at all, he tells us.

When it comes to extreme weather events, there are plenty of paintings and recorded accounts showing that they too existed earlier on, and that today’s events are nothing new, Lüdecke writes. Even the IPCC has reached that conclusion. The German climatologist puts the assumptions of more future extreme weather events in the category of “crystal balls” and not modern science.

Prof. Lüdecke also blasts the over-emphasis on climate models, writing that “the models fail already for the past” and that they cannot even predict the next El Nino correctly or the missing tropospheric hot spot. He writes:

Using the R. Feynman yardstick these climate models are not only inaccurate or a bit false; they are totally false. […] Anyone selling climate forecasts from climate models as scientific is using a medieval paradigm. He is conducting moral sciences instead of physics.”

Ouch. Lüdecke also then calls the alliance between the IPCC and policymaking “dubious” and one that was set up with the target of reaching an already predetermined result. He calls the manner in which policymaking is moving ahead “embellished nonsense”.

In his conclusion the German professor advises those engaged in a discussion with alarmists, or listening to a presenation by an alarmist, to not go easy on them. There are three points, he advises:

1. The modern science paradigm of priority on measurement over theoretical model remains valid. The climate alarmist must prove that his hypothsies is confirmed by observations and measurements. It is not up to you to prove his hypothesis is false.

2. When the climate alarmists “starts beating around the bush” insists he name a peer-reviewed paper that proves, based on measurements, that the climate change since 1850 is unprecedented compared to earlier times (there isn’t any).

3. Don’t let yourself be drawn into the discussion over climate models. That the models are unable to describe the climate development means they are false, as to point no. 1.”

The distinguished professor ends by blasting climate policymakers, warning they are bordering on “criminal activity” in their conscious misuse of science to formulate policy:

We are allowing hundreds of thousands of people in the poorest developing countries to starve in order to be able to finance climate protection and energy transformation that are not based on today’s valid science paradigm. That is not only idiotic, but also borders on criminal activity by the politically responsible persons.”


German Analysis: Spreading Alarmism Over Mere Hundredths Of A Degree Is “Complete Hyperbolism”

Screaming bloody murder over nothing? Keep in mind that RSS recently released the satellite measured global temperature for 2014 and found it is not even close to a new record. Three days ago one of Germany’s leading climate science sites Science Skeptical issued the following comment.

Global Temperature Record 2014?
By Michael Krueger
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

A new temperature record for Germany has been announced by the DWD German Weather Service. With 10.3°C the warmest year since 1881 has been measured. Here are the facts.

2014 was the warmest year in Germany since 1881, but the warmest 12-months occurred from July 2006 to June 2007 with a mean of 11.3°C. Therefore the annual mean for 2006/2007 as 1°C over the current annual mean.


Chart depicts Germany’s temperature since 1761. Rose line is the annual mean temperature and the dark red line depicts the 5-year smoothing.

Moreover since 2000 Germany’s temperature has barely risen – in contradiction to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

How does the global temperature appear?

There are different datasets available for global tempertaure. I’m selecting the most alarmist, which comes from NASA. The gray shading shows the monthly mean values and the red curve is the smoothed annual mean (over 12 months).


Since 1880 the global temperature has risen about 0.8°C, i.e. not even a full degree. Since 1998 (a powerful El-Nino-year) there’s been practically no rise. What follows is a blow-up for the recent period.


In 2007 and 2010 it was just as warm as in 2014, or even warmer. We’re talking about 1/100 °C, which is deep inside the range of uncertainty. Yet the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 continued their steady rise. Based on these data, spreading climate alarmism is complete hyperbolism.

Very likely in the days ahead NASA will be announcing a global temperature record that in reality never was.


Pope Embraces False Prophets Of Doom – Why I’m Disassociating Myself From The Vatican And Church

Vatican sells outI’m Catholic and this Sunday I’m announcing that I’m disassociating myself from the Vatican and its pope. I urge other skeptic Catholics to consider doing the same. This is not a step I’ve taken lightly.

I’ll be opting out of Germany’s Kirchensteuer (Church Tax) and will not attend any services in the future. With their latest planned encyclical they are indicating that they have shifted back to the Dark Ages of bad-weather witches, superstitions and Medieval indulgences. Worse, they are openly subscribing to nutty end-of-times theories.

This comes on the heels of a recent announcement that Pope Francis intends to issue an encyclical on climate change. I am not renouncing Catholicism Christianity, rather I am solely renouncing my recognition that the Vatican and Pope are the faith’s administrator and moral compass. It’s the last straw in an unending string of corruption, child sexual abuse and scandals that have raged within the Catholic Church in recent times.

False prophecies based on junk models

The Vatican announces that it accepts a science (but it is one that is built on the false prophecies of faulty climate models made by unscrupulous scientists who claim they can now see decades and even hundreds of years into the future) and that bad weather is now due to the sins of man. It’s back to the dark days of Church-sanctioned witchhunts of the sort that once punished, tortured and burned people for brewing bad weather. Stunningly, once again, this is where today’s Catholic Church is heading today.

We can only speculate on why the Vatican has decided to take this extreme, divisive, and hugely misguided step, especially at a time when climate science is hotly debated and more tenuous then ever. It has elected to ignore the long-term data, the role of the sun and oceans, the complete lack of correlation between CO2 and global temperature, and seems to have declared the debate over among Catholics. It has entered a bargain founded on a monumental lie and bought into the silly end-of-world scenario. Such a Church is no longer worthy of being followed.

Vatican aligning with population control ideology

Even more disturbing is that the Vatican has opted to align itself with those who possess ideologies that are openly hostile to and spiteful of humanity. In May 2014 the Vatican held a workshop where the invited delegates included Naomi Oreskes, Arctic sea-ice crackpot Peter Wadhams, and Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber of the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Pesearch. Strangely it doesn’t seem to bother the Vatican that Professor Schellnhuber once openly stated that the ideal human population for the planet was less than 1 billion people, implying an excess of more than 6 billion inhabitants. He also once said that the planet would “explode” if the population reached 9 billion.

This kind of environmental stewardship is one that advocates the pre-emptive abortion of future generations – a denial of life for future generations – i.e population control. This is hostile to the human race and it is appalling to any practicing Catholic. Either Pope Francis is stunningly naïve, or just diabolically evil.

And don’t expect the Vatican to backtrack anytime soon and to admit that it may have acted too hastily. Recall that It did not apologize to Galileo until 1992 – some three hundred and fifty years after the great philospher’s death. Galileo’s crime: he dared to challenge the consensus of the time.

Poorest urgently need affordable fossil fuels

I can no longer stomach this giant step back to the witch-hunting Dark Ages the Catholic Church is contemplating. The Vatican appears to have unwittingly elected to abandon the poorest among us, and their urgent need for affordable and reliable energy that only fossil fuels and nuclear power are able to deliver. The move by the Vatican risks putting the lives of tens of millions of the world’s most impoverished at risk. This Pope needs to remember that the road to Hell is often paved with good intentions. Though his intentions may be good, they are in this case based on horribly false prophesies peddled by charlatans who arrogantly refuse to debate.

What’s going to be next? An encyclical on the virtues of veganism – based on junk science nutrition?

Defying a corrupt Vatican is the Catholic thing to do

It’s important to keep in mind that rejecting a corrupt, incompetent or misguided Vatican is in fact the most Catholic thing to do. The collection money you give every week will do a lot more good if you give it directly to the needy. The Vatican or the regional Bishop need not send over a minion priest with the errand of saving my soul. Instead the Vatican should worry about its own.

Little wonder that Pope Benedict XVI resigned. The Vatican appears to be well on the way to becoming a cesspool of corruption and self-deceit. I can no longer bear it. The witch-hunting, end-of-world climate encyclical will be the last straw.


Analysis Shows Claim That “CO2 Concentration Is Highest In 600,000 Years” Is Highly Dubious At Best

“CO2 Has Never Been This High In 600,000 Years!”… FALSE!
By Ed Caryl

One item on the list of catastrophes that the CAGW climatists claim is that at nearly 400 ppm, the CO2 concentration has never been as high in hundreds of thousands of years. The number quoted is flexible, sometimes 600,000, sometimes 800,000.

It is true that in the ice core figures, CO2 measures from 180 to 200 ppm during the coldest periods and peaks at around 300 ppm during the interglacial periods. But it is well known that the ice core measurement resolution is a few hundred years for recent times and spreads to a few thousand years for the most ancient measurements. Thus the ice core measurements can’t show short periods of high atmospheric CO2.

This was demonstrated in my last article on the brief spike of CO2 in the Younger Dryas period 12,800 years ago from the paper by Steinthorsdottir et al.


Figure 1

Figure 1 above is a plot of CO2 and Greenland temperature during the Younger Dryas. The purple diamond marks the time of the nano-diamond (ND) event as seen in the Greenland ice cores. The horizontal time error bars on the peak CO2 data bring the ND-event within the time  period of the CO2 peak. The stomata index is carbon 14 dated, which has a time error of ±150 years.


Figure 2 is a plot of temperature versus CO2 concentration from the Figure 1 data. The trend line shows that the relationship is negative; a temperature rise of 1°C occurs when CO2 falls by 2.5 ppm during the 2000 year period covered by the stomata proxy data. The R2 value is very low, indicating that this trend is very likely zero. It is apparent that the brief high CO2 concentration did not cause any warming, as it occurred when the temperature was approaching the lowest recorded by the ice core data.


Figure 3 is a plot of the Dome Concordia CO2 measurement over the last 22,000 years. The ND event time is marked by the red dot.

The ice core data can be seen to get smoother as it gets older. Only the stomata data shows the 400+ ppm peak at the ND event. The ice core data cannot show a brief spike in CO2, because at Dome C, the snow (firn) to ice transition takes 100 years or more to close the tiny bubbles that sample the atmosphere.

The ND event was probably caused by a kilometer-size comet that came into the atmosphere over what is now Canada. It likely came in at a shallow angle, like the Chelyabinsk object in February 2013. It is thought to have exploded over the Laurentide ice sheet, with some pieces impacting in what is now Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and others continuing on to impact as far away as the Pacific Ocean. The intense thermal flash ignited all the forests of North America, leaving a soot layer laced with impact-generated particles and raising the CO2 level to more than 400 ppm as seen in southern Sweden in the leaves of the following year.

There is another stomata study, covering eastern Canada. The trees in eastern Canada were burned away, so the stomata data from one location, Pine Ridge Pond, shows a lower peak, and another, Splann Pond, no peak at all. The trees furnishing the leaf stomata needed to re-grow, which took 20 to 40 years or longer, depending on the number of viable seeds in the ground and local conditions. During that time, CO2 was falling back to normal levels.


 Figure 4 is from Mcelwain, J. C., Mayle, F. E. and Beerling, D. J. 2002. Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 17 pp. 21–29. ISSN 0267-8179.

This data is from Pine Ridge Pond in New Brunswick. The top line is a summer temperature proxy from sub-fossil chironomid remains (Midges). The numbers 1 and 2 marks the peaks of the Bölling and Allerød warm oscillations. The lower traces are the stomata proxies with upper and lower 95% bounds. The number 2 here marks the ND event CO2 peak. The CO2 data point at 1 does not appear in the Figure 1 data from Sweden. The total time for the CO2 level to fall back from 400 ppm to 200 ppm appears to be 100 years or less.

Both Figures 1 and 4 show temperature slowly rising during the Younger Dryas as CO2 concentration is slowly falling.

Figure 1 has a ±150-year error in the carbon 14 age data. The spike in CO2 does not line up with the ND event. In Figure 5, a 150-year correction is applied to line up these dates.


Figure 5 is a plot of the southern Sweden stomata data shifted 150 years to the right to align with the ND event.

Figure 6 below is the corresponding XY plot of Figure 5. In the Swedish data there is no stomata data on the temperature rise out of the YD period between 11,500 and 11,750 years ago. There appears to be no relationship between CO2 and temperature. The trend is very close to zero with extremely low R and R2 values.


There should be a CO2 increase as temperature rises and the oceans begin to out-gas dissolved CO2. We see this increase in the longer Canadian stomata data in Figure 4.


Figure 7 is an XY plot from the Figure 4 data. Here we see that CO2 rises at about 4 to 8 ppm for each degree of summer temperature rise at the Canadian latitudes. There appears to be a small delay of up to 150 years between temperature rise and CO2 rise as CO2 peaks always appear after temperature peaks by about this amount in both stomata data sets.

From these two papers we learn the following:
– A large sudden rise in CO2 decays away in 100 years or less.

– A large sudden rise in CO2 does not cause a rise in temperature.

– A large rise in temperature causes CO2 to rise, not the other way around. All the rises in CO2, including in modern times, came after temperature increases.

– The delay between temperature rise and CO2 rise is somewhere between zero and 150 years.

We can see that delay in modern times. The rise in temperature after the little ice age began in the late 19th century, accelerating after 1910. The rise in CO2 began about the time Keeling started measuring it in 1959, accelerating after that, a delay of about 50 years.

Is the rise in CO2 all due to temperature rise? No. It is a combination of temperature change and increased fossil carbon emissions. Will those emissions cause temperature to rise further? No. The large rise at the ND event caused NO temperature rise in either of the data sets above.

For further information on the Nano-Diamond event see: Nanodiamond-Rich Layer across Three Continents Consistent with Major Cosmic Impact at 12,800 Cal BP. Charles R. Kinzie, et al. 2014


Why Has There Been Global Warming? Literature Unambiguously Shows: Because It’s Entirely Normal (Stupid)!”

A reader posted a comment, which I’ve upgraded to a post (with some editing).

Why there is global warming

by Harold Faulkner

People in the USA are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the Earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people?

Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900 AD and 1350 AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the Earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph shows the temperatures of the Earth before Christ to 2040.

In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.

In approximately 983 AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.

When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.

After the year 1200 AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:

The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982:

The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”

The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the Earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e.:

The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the solar system, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”

Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:


– Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter the Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

– At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, the Earth’s current atmosphere is CO2-impoverished.

– CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on Earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

– CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

– If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people, cannot allow this to happen.


The Wolf Of Climate-Protection…Leonardo DiCaprio’s Monster-Size, Fuel-Guzzling “Rolling Palace”

Many of us are familiar with climate jihadist/ambassador Leonardo DiCaprio’s über-hypocritical lifestyle of cruising on billionaire mega yachts, private jets and living in huge mansions. Well, it doesn’t end there by any means.

There are times when DiCaprio actually has to slum it, and put up with travel on the road, along with the rest of the world’s lowly mortals.

To help the Hollywood superstar cope with such horrible hardships, a “rolling palace” gets used, this according to Steve Austin of WQYK here. Hat-tip Graeme No.3.

DiCaprio’s monster-size vehicle is reportedly supplied by KING KONG Production Vehicles Inc.

According to the company, it is a 53-foot “celebrity suite” that includes extra capacity air conditioning and heating systems, large hot water heating system, heated floors, fireplace, home theatre, and plasma TV. According to the KING KONG website:

No expense will be spared on the luxurious interior, with only the finest fabrics, fixtures, appliances and floor coverings hand picked by our interior designers.”

These are precisely the sorts of things the rest of the world’s citizens are to shun if there is any chance of rescuing the planet. The following YouTube video unabashedly boasts about all the features the rolling palace sports, such as a $50,000 shower!

The total price tag for the “celebrity suite” is $1.5 million and probably consumes by itself as much energy (diesel fuel) as three American homes. And even if it did use renewable power, the manufacture and transport of all the components to assemble the palace leaves a carbon footprint that is as big as a crater.

What’s really amazing is that DiCaprio expects us to take him and his planet-saving message seriously. It’s all worse than a B-rated comedy.

These people are truly spoiled phonies with a few loose screws.

Also read here bikinis and boats.


Just Dying To Save The Planet…Fuel-Efficient Cars Fail in Crash Tests. And: White German Christmases Not More Seldom!

Two blurbs today, before I get ready for this evening’s New Year’s celebrations.

Environmentally friendly cars as death boxes

First is that people who drive small cars in order to save the climate are seriously putting themselves at risk, or even dying if involved in a serious accident. That’s the result of newly conducted crash tests reported here at Spiegel. Citing crash test results from the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the EuroNCAP Test 2014, Spiegel tells us that the Mazda 5 fared the worst.

Also among the worst-performing cars were “environmentally-friendly” electric cars like the Renault Twizy 80, top-selling electric car Nissan Leaf, and the Nissan e-NV200 Evalia. People who drive such cars with the aim of not killing the climate are actually risking getting killed, because the cars don’t adequately protect the occupants.

Also potential death boxes exposed by the crash tests were a number of compact models, e.g. made by FIAT or Renault. Indeed drivers are far better off behind the wheel of a good German-built car, which today are also very fuel efficient.

White German Christmases not more seldom

On a different subject, Spiegel here reports on 5 myths concerning Christmas. One of them it turns out is that white Christmases are not less frequent today than they were 100 years ago. Spiegel writers and  tell us:

The longing for a white Christmas gets traced back to a postcard; indeed on Christmas Eve in the German lowlands it is traditionally green. Weather data show: Despite global warming white Christmases over the last 100 years have not become more seldom.”

The Spiegel authors write that the chances of a white Christmas in Germany as a rule increase the further inland one goes away from the North Sea. Chances of a white Christmas are especially high in the Alps. The idyllic impression of a German white Christmas stems from an 1863 Vermont (my home state) postcard, Spiegel writes. I checked the weather records myself and the frequency of a white Christmas at the northern port city of Bremen, for example, is roughly twice every decade.

A short post today, but certainly a couple of points here you can use to annoy the global warming family members, friends or acquaintances at this evening’s festivities.

Well, I see the sparkling wine is now getting close to the ideal temperature. HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone, and cheers!


Climatologists’ Projections Defied…25-Year Trend For German Winters Shows Cooling! …”Snow Has Not Disappeared”

In 2014, Germany and parts of Europe will be seeing their warmest year ever since temperature recording began in earnest late in the 19th century. The media and alarmists are giddy about this, even though most of it is due to a global weather pattern that worked to deliver an almost steady stream of warm southerly air over the continent: especially early this year, over the autumn, and the end of the year. It’s all pattern related.

Moreover, as the warmists like to say when cold strikes, it’s just one year and does not in any way represent a trend.

Not long ago some climate scientists announced winters with snow would be a thing of the past in Europe. Global warming, they said, would be especially noticeable in the wintertime. But then in the late 2000s and early 2010s, a string of harsh winters gripped the old continent and the trend in Germany went downhill: colder and snowier winters.

Veteran journalist Ulli Kulke of Germany’s national daily Die Welt writes at his blog that the tendency over the last two and half decades – since before the first IPCC report was ever issued – has been slight cooling and no warming to speak of. He writes of Germany’s winters:

The winters between 2001 and 2010 were on average 0.1°C colder than the 1991 – 2000 decade. And the winters between 2011 and 2014 were also 0.1°C colder than the 2001-2010 decade. Even if we are talking only about tenths of a degree, the climate discussion is actually all about such magnitudes. So anyone who had the impression of hard winter times was not wrong. The tendency of winter temperatures has been downward over the past two and half decades, and not upwards. […] Snow has not disappeared.”

So with the general winter trend in Germany and Central Europe slightly downward, spooked climate scientists had to scramble to concoct an explanation. Kulke continues:

As the cold winters became undeniable, decisive institutes came up with the original idea of tracing the icy temperatures back to global warming. The reason for this was the disappearing Arctic sea ice around the North Pole. In a press release from the institute, Vladimir Petoukhov of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research is quoted as having stated concerning a study of his: Disturbances in air currents, caused by the disappearance of ice ‘could increase the probability of the occurrence of extremely cold winters in Europe and North Asia by a factor of three’. In summary: ‘Hard winters such as last year’s or 2005/06 do not contradict global warming, rather they more so confirm it.’“

The Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Ocean Research also presented a similar paper. The warming Arctic, Kulke explains, was supposed to alter the pressure difference between the Azores and Iceland, and thus produce more favorable conditions for cold winters to take hold over Europe. Kulke calls the logic behind the theory weak, writing that there’s a lot of controversy swirling around it, especially in view that it was produced after the fact.

Kulke’s piece in general points out that the theories of the global warming scientists are not doing well when compared to real observations. For example he ends his piece with a look at the Arctic and global temperatures:

In addition it is turning out that the Arctic sea ice may increase in size. And as before the time-out taken by the global temperature increase continues on. No one knows how long it’s going to go on, even if this year a high will be reached because of an El Nino.”

Another blow to the models.


New York Times Dot Earth’s Andrew Revkin Suddenly Believes In “Natural” Causes (And Not Man-Made Ones)

A couple of days ago I wrote a piece aimed at encouraging readers to consider a diet change to improve their health for the coming new year, and to ignore the consensus high-carb/lowfat diet. My own health has improved dramatically since I stopped listening to the preventive maintenance advice peddled by the boys at the expensive repair and spare parts shop, advice that always seemed to land me on their workbenches. Go figure.

I also used it as an opportunity to illustrate the absurdity and the extreme danger of consensus-driven science, using Andrew Revkin’s stroke to highlight this.

In the example I suggested that his stroke was perhaps root-caused by the high-carb/low fat diet – the very one advocated as healthy by the consensus of America’s major health and medical institutes and associations. The one that we are finding out has been a catastrophe. I just assumed that Andrew followed their advice because, as we all know, he is a big believer in science by the consensus of leading experts – especially when critical issues are at stake. In effect I suggested that Mr. Revkin had been probably (and ironically) a victim of the very consensus he so dearly endorses, like he does in climatology.

Mr. Revkin reacted, denying that his brush with death had anything to do with (consensus) nutrition at all. I expected that. He wrote:

Hmm. You must not have read much of my article or related blog posts. I experienced what’s called a ‘spontaneous dissection’ of the left internal carotid artery (which is not in the brain). Resulting clots traveled to the brain. Such strokes are not a function of diet at all. My arteries were (and are) clear. These strokes are mainly triggered by physical injury to the carotid – everything from some yoga and chiropractic moves to tipping your head back in certain ways painting a ceiling, even getting a shampoo at the beauty parlor. The video, created by a medical illustration team for someone with a very similar stroke, is informative:

Here he claims his type of stroke was caused by “‘spontaneous dissection’ of the left internal carotid artery.”, which is like blaming a bridge collapse on “spontaneous beam rupture”. Well, bridge beams and rivets just don’t rupture for nothing when hardly loaded, do they? They do so because of rust from poor maintenance, or perhaps ignored fatigue-cracking as it ages. Andrew’s medical issues are personal and I don’t want to dwell into them in particular. But here he insists his arteries are healthy and suggests that “spontaneous dissection” in arteries in general is just something natural, a bit of bad luck (even though medical science shows that arterial health is in fact very closely related to nutrition). This is amazing.

It is truly stunning that some people can infer a possible connection between a single storm in New Jersey and SUV emissions in California, yet are not able to see the clear connection between diet and strokes in middle-aged men.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter if Mr. Revkin’s own stroke was nutrition-related or not. It’s not our business. What matters is that for many people who have suffered the same, or have had a heart attack, or who struggle with Type 2 diabetes, etc., it is very often diet-related and the direct result of the consensus-driven nutritional guidelines, which today are proving to have been underpinned by fraudulent and bogus science, read here.

Today the scientific literature tell us that Andrew’s condition, once very rare, has become more commonplace over the past decades. Strokes in middle age men are not natural incidents resulting from bad luck, but rather they are, as is the case with the explosion of cardiovascular disease and diabetes sweeping across the western world, a direct result of the catastrophic, junk-science-based medical and nutrition consensus of the past decades.

Thus it would be nice if people like Andrew Revkin would concede that the notion of consensus-driven science is dangerous, that it always needs to be vigorously questioned and that skeptics are essential.

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Revkin and he deserves much credit for bringing the much needed attention to the stroke issue. I just have serious issues about how he selectively applies science from field to field, whatever suits him best.


2014/15 Super El Niño Gets “The Kiss Of Death”…Climatologists’ Prediction Of Warming Planet Crumbles Again

Joe Bastardi’s latest Weatherbell Saturday Summary is out. This week the high-profile, veteran meteorologist has some interesting comments on sea surface temperatures and this year’s once highly ballyhooed “super El Niño“.

Remember how earlier this year a number a climatology experts were all giddy because somehow they had managed to convince themselves that a “super El Niño” was supposedly in the pipeline and, after having waited 18 long years, warming would finally resume and shut the skeptics up once and for all. Well, their prediction losing streak refuses to end and it just got extended again.

At the 6:45 mark Joe remarks:

You can see the water near Australia is beginning to warm up and the water in the eastern Pacific is starting to cool. That is the kiss of death for El Niño, so this El Niño, just like we were saying back in April: No super El Niño. It comes on for the winter, and then it goes. There’s no 2 or 3-year El Niño coming up, or what these guys that want the globe to warm up so that whatever is going with the climate fight and that type of thing. It’s not happening. We took them apart with the super El Niño, and I’ll take them apart again for these guys who think this thing is going to run on for 2 years.”

Sea Surface temps 27 Dec 2014

NCEP sea surface temperature anomaly shows “Kiss of Death” for this season’s El Niño. Source: cropped from Weatherbell Saturday Summary.

Joe then elaborates some on why global temperatures are currently at a high level, saying that it’s due to the warm northeast Pacific sea surface temperature anomaly. Joe thinks these anomalies will flip and be cold over the next 2 or 3 years – pointing out that this is nothing new and that it has all happened before.

Snow in North Africa

The Weatherbell meteorologist shows how extreme cold is set to spread across much of the US over the coming days and weeks and that it’s also going to be cold in Europe, with even “snow in the mountains of North Africa”.