Europe Disses IPCC Horror Scenarios…Postpones Non-European Airlines Carbon Emissions Charges Until 2017

After Monday’s April Fool’s release of the IPCC WGII SPM and the subsequent gasps of horror coming as a reaction from top government officials, you’d think little time would be wasted in taking clear, decisive actions to “protect the climate”. Recall how the situation is urgent and that decisive, immediate action needs to be taken quickly!

It turns out that the gasps of horror were mere show – designed to appease green activists. In reality, it turns out governments really aren’t that alarmed by the IPCC’s science and don’t take it that seriously after all. As you are about to read, actions speak much louder than words, no matter how quietly and discreetly the actions are carried out.

The German DPA press agency has just released a report: EU postpones climate fees on international flights until 2017.

“Climate protection”, no matter how urgent it is said to be, will just have to wait.

For a number of years the European Commission threatened to force all airlines flying into, out of, and over Europe to pay carbon emission charges, or else face being locked out of it’s busy airspace. Background info: here, herehere and here. But countries like the USA, Russia, China protested loudly and threatened to retaliate massively.

Brussels shoots kneecaps of European airlines

Today the DPA announces that Brussels has backed off and decided to postpone charging international airlines for emission permits until 2017. News of this loss of face is being buried in the back pages of the internet and media outlets. But Internet site CO2 Handel here writes:

In the view of the aviation industry, the postponement is only going to be a burden on the airlines in Europe. The president of the German Association of Aviation (BDL), Klaus-Peter Siegloch, spoke of a European-island-solution. ‘It distorts competition, does not help the climate, and weakens the aviation companies in Europe.’”

What better present could foreign, non-European airlines possibly dream of. Now they have a nice competitive advantage - served to them on a silver platter, courtesy of Brussels.

The Greens are fuming – not because of the unfair competition, but because Europe has decided once again that the climate isn’t really that much in trouble. It can wait, after all.

European green Parliamentarian Rebecca Harms of Germany called the move “irresponsible”:

Originally the law was supposed to cover one third of the global aviation emissions. It’s lunacy to considerably weaken this effective climate protection instrument now.”

The move to postpone this “effective climate protection instrument” just goes to show you what Europe really thinks of the IPCC’s latest warnings. Not much!


Germany’s Research Minister Sees “Advanced Development Of Climate Models” …To Be Used For “Regional Adaptation Strategies”!

Judging by the German government’s own press release (from the Ministry of Environment) regarding the release of the new IPCC report, one could easily argue that it is in a state of complete confusion.

Federal Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks and Federal Research Minister Johanna Wanka see the latest IPCC report “as further proof that urgent action on climate change” and are therefore “advocating ambitious, rapid climate action in order to slow down the global increase in temperatures.”

Federal Environment Minister Hendricks commented:

Climate change is happening every day. This is why we have to do two things: firstly to combat climate change and make sure that global warming does not exceed 2 degrees Celsius, and secondly to prepare for the consequences of unavoidable climate change.”

The press release states that the government is “taking the risks very seriously” and has “already developed an adaptation strategy and an action plan“.

The press releases outlines a range of actions, “from developing early warning systems for extreme weather events to adaptation concepts for urban planning and specific changes to building legislation“. Then the press release boasts about all the money it is going to spend in “honoring international commitments like funding climate and biodiversity projects in newly industrialising and developing countries with a total of 1.4 billion euros” and allocating “more than 250 million euros for adaptation-related projects.”

If that were not enough of a waste of money, the press release also writes that German Research Minister Johanna Wanka will be using climate models to prepare regionally for the future:

In recent years we have considerably advanced the development of climate models. We will now focus on using and implementing our findings at regional level, for example to back up local investment decisions or develop targeted regional adaptation strategies. Climate and adaptation measures are particularly effective when planned regionally and implemented with scientific support.”

Unfortunately, news of the performance of the climate models have yet to reach the German government:

 73 climate models_reality

Germany’s Research Minister Johanna Wanka is impressed by the climate models’ performance.

The Federal Research Ministry is so impressed by the climate models that it boasts having “spent a total of 750 million euros on projects and research institutions in the areas of climate and energy in 2013 alone“.

Moreover, the press release keeps talking about adaptation measures, and makes no mention of curbing greenhouse gases.

Adapting to climate protects climate?

Federal Research Minister Wanka then states that its “KLIMZUG funding programme facilitates the testing of strategies for adaptation to climate change and related weather extremes in various regions“.

Minister of Research Johanna Wanka adds:

Education and research can make a difference in changing climate awareness worldwide. If people are successfully adapting to climate change at home, in their communities, this will make an important contribution to protecting our climate in general.”

So adaptation is climate protection? I’ve always understood it as our protection from the climate. Germany’s Ministry of Environment didn’t do itself any favors making the press release public. One would be hard pressed to find a press release that is more confused. She seems to be mixing up adaptation with mitigation.

Also the German government is pledging more money for climate research in order to close the “knowledge gaps” and for “understanding how climate change works” in a field where it is claimed everything is already understood and the science is settled. Federal Research Minister Wanka:

The report shows that there is a further need for research on climate change. Closing knowledge gaps and understanding how climate change works will help us develop more effective adaptation strategies and protect ourselves better against the effects of climate change.

On the surface the press release tells us that the German government’s plan is all about adaptation and shows no plans to knock down CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. There’s no mention of rapidly expanding renewable energies nor of scaling back fossil fuels.


Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (DPG): “Solar Doldrums Of The Last Years Led To A Cooling Of The Earth’s Surface

German Physical Society: Solar doldrums of the last years led to a cooling of the Earth’s surface
By Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

The Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (DPG), in English: The German Physical Society, is wringing its hands over the sustainability of the climate catastrophe. After all, hundreds of physicist jobs are in danger should the catastrophe sputter out. In the March 2014 edition of the information newsletter PhysiKonkret, the DPG poses the rhetorical question (pdf hier):

Climate change: warming pause yes or no?

The DPG lists a number of reasons, but noteworthy is Point 3:

3. Influence of solar radiation. The last decade was characterized by a solar maximum in the year 2000 as well as an above average long solar minimum surrounding the year 2009. That led to a cooling of the earth’s surface.”

In order to not upset the circle of IPCC friends, of course black holes in the ocean which made warmth mysteriously disappear without a trace a la Bermuda Trianagle, were also listed. And: The President of the German Physical Society, Johanna Stachel, announced in a large bold print:

We warn against the view that climate change has stopped. Global warming is advancing unhindered.“

What she most likely means to say is:

We warn climate change not to make a pause. Global warming must immediately continue on.”

Of course this is not written. Overall, it’s all a first good step in the right direction. Finally the sun is being taken as an important factor in the climate interaction scheme.


IPCC Ignores Its Own Data…Attempts To Incite Global Green Coup d’Etat Led By Alarmist Scientists

The IPCC’s tone, amplified by the media, speaks volumes: With its latest report, the UN organization is attempting to incite and lead a global coup d’état – with the main focus on Europe and North America.

Predictably the media in Germany are reporting today on the release of the IPCC’s Working Group II report and the new, shrill levels of alarm it has reached. The overall underlying tone from much of the German media is: The whole world needs to panic and drastic action is urgent and warranted!

Never mind that global temperatures have not warmed at all in over 15 years. The message coming from the German media is as clear as it is alarmist: Go for the hostile takeover! We’ll be behind you.

The center-left Die Zeit writes:

According to the new UN climate report, climate change is going to have more drastic impacts if man does not put the brakes on it more than it has up to now.”

And adds it’s not yet too late to act:

Through rash and comprehensive measures to reduce CO2, the dangers can be considerably reduced.”

Nothing like a thinly veiled call for a coup d’état.

Berlin’s leftist TAZ here writes that climate change is “blossoming and thriving“, warning that:

The galloping global warming is going to have drastic impacts. The UN climate report leaves no doubt a change of course is urgently needed.”

Tim Gore of Oxfam is quoted by TAZ:

The report is there and the message is clear: The impacts of climate change on the supply of food are worse than estimated earlier.”

The Handelsblatt, the business paper for the guilt-ridden rich, writes:

And getting control of the impacts of global warming, ocean over-acidification or climate-dependent natural catastrophes on millions of people is the largest humanitarian and economic challenge of our time.”

The Handelsblatt does add, though, that the IPCC risks failing in delivering the message because it seems to have “its finger permanently pressed on the alarm button” and that “many people have gotten used to the tone and only find it annoying.”

A correspondent on NDR Radio this morning said that the situation was dire, and that the scientists who authored the report were serious and that it had to be taken seriously. He mentioned that there were some dissident voices, but are mainly a gaggle of “Americans”, intonating they cannot be taken seriously.

Not every media outlet in Germany has allowed itself to be completely swallowed up by the uncontrolled fit of hysteria and calls for a green coup d’etat. Strangely Die Welt left the IPCC horror release off the top of its website (at least as of noon today), only posting an obscure story on how the country’s environment minister wants to combat climate change with textiles, saying that Germans might have to get used to wearing pullovers indoors in the wintertime.

At Spiegel, Axel Bojanowski writes that the climate debate has morphed into “a conflict between rich and poor countries” and that “developing countries are requesting payments from the industrial nations as indemnification“. Bojanowski also writes that the IPCC also had to backpedal on some of its earlier predictions involving species die-off, climate refugees, droughts in Africa, and hurricanes in the North Atlantic.


University of Graz Study Finds Vegetarians Are Unhealthier, More Mentally Disturbed Than Meat-Lovers

It’s no secret that many vegetarians are also radical environmentalists and climate alarmists who are obsessed and hysterical about the planet burning up. Perhaps the University of Graz in Austria has discovered one reason why: their “unhealthy” diet.


Study shows that big meat-eaters are healthiest. Photo credit: AlphaCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

A new University of Graz study concludes that vegetarians are more often ill and have a lower quality of living than meat-eaters. According to the German press release, vegetarians “have cancer and heart attacks more often”. The release also says that they show more psychological disorders than meat eaters. Consequently, the report writes, they are a greater burden on the health care system.

According to the press release the scientists evaluated data from the Austrian Health Interview Survey (AT-HIS), which is also part of an important and valuable EU survey (European Health Interview Survey).

The scientists examined a total of 1320 persons who were divided up into 4 groups of 330 persons each. All groups were comparable with respect to gender, age, and socio-economic status. The study also accounted for smoking and physical activity. Also the BMI was within the normal range for all four groups (22.9 – 24.9). The only thing that really was different among the four groups was the diet. The four groups were: 1) vegetarians, 2) meat-eaters with lots of fruit and veggies, 3) little meat-eaters and 4) big meat-eaters. More than three quarters of the participants were women (76.4%).

Vegetarians plagued by significantly more chronic illnesses

The press release states that the results contradict the common cliché that meat-free diets are healthier. Vegetarians have twice as many allergies as big meat-eaters do (30.6% to 16.7%) and they showed 166% higher cancer rates (4.8% to 1.8%). Moreover the scientists found that vegans had a 150% higher rate of heart attacks (1.5% to 0.6%). In total the scientists looked at 18 different chronic illnesses. Compared to the big meat-eaters, vegetarians were hit harder in 14 of the 18 illnesses (78%) which included asthma, diabetes, migraines and osteoporosis [1, p.4, Table 3].

The Medical University of Graz confirms findings by the University of Hildesheim: More frequent psychological disorders among vegetarians, the press release writes.

The roots of anxiety and depression?

In the analysis, the University of Graz found that vegetarians were also twice as likely to suffer for anxiety or depressions than big meat eaters (9.4% to 4.5%). That result was confirmed by the University of Hildesheim, which found that vegetarians suffered significantly more from depressions, anxiety, psychosomatic complaints and eating disorders [2]. The U of Graz scientists also found that vegetarians are impacted more by ilnessses and visit the doctor more frequently [1, p. 3, Table 2].

Big meat-eaters were also found to have a “significantly better quality of life in all categories”, the study found. The four categories examined were: physical and psychological health, social relationships and environment-related life quality [1, p. 5, Table 4].

Dubious science everywhere

Again this is not the first study that has recently contradicted the claims that vegetarians are healthier. The world’s largest study on nutrition (EPIC) indicated that vegetarians in general tend to die earlier [3].

Recently experts have shown that the alleged health benefits of a vegetarian diet are myths and fairy tales. For example, according to Professor Ulrich Voderholzer, Director and Chief Physician of the Schön Klinik Roseneck and an expert for eating disorders, promises made by vegetarian organisations “are not scientifically supported.”

The University of Graz press release writes [4]:

It’s more about an ideological message that suggests false promises.“

The press release also adds [5]:

Concerning cancer prevention through fruits and vegetables, Prof. Rudolf Kaaks of the German Cancer Research Center DKFZ recently stated: ‘There’s no relationship, zero-point-zero.’“

Gee, it all sounds as bad as the evidence we see linking bad weather to CO2.

Not only are greens duped about climate science, many are also duped about nutritional science. Granola-eating tree-huggers are turning out to be the most ill-informed people on the planet.


DAILY CALLER Book Review: “Scientists Conspired To Hide Obvious Flaws” … “Endless Series Of Hobgoblins”

Ball BookUncovering deceptions in the climate change debate

For more than a decade, the Heartland Institute has tried to explain to the public, in courteous terms, that the idea of a human-caused global warming catastrophe is a delusion, and that its proponents should not be allowed to waste the world’s economic resources through arrogant efforts to alter the planet’s climate.

Tim Ball, Ph.D., takes up the issue with strong words in his new book, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. He argues, with overwhelming evidence, that in fact the global warming debate in the halls of science has been an unmitigated fraud perpetrated by people who no longer have the right to be called scientists. Their collective goals have been to…” Read more:


Stunning Absurdity From Germany’s Energy Feed-In Act…Wind-Park Operators Earn Most When Turbines Are Idle!

Rudolf Kipp at the skeptical website Science Skeptical here writes about one of the incredible (but very real) absurdities of Germany’s “EEG” renewable energy feed-in act, which forces power companies to buy all green power that gets produced, whether needed or not, and even power that doesn’t get produced.

When the wind turbine is idle…
By Rudolf Kipp
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

For some weeks now I have been observing from my window the operation of an Enercon 101 wind turbine. On many Sundays when there is a fair amount of wind its rotor remains idle. Next to it there are smaller 1 MW turbines which continue turning. At first I thought little of this. After all on Sundays not as much electricity gets consumed. Yet, this is true only in an indirect way. Electricity from the wind turbines are usually given the right of way into the power grid before fossil-fuel generated power. That means when the wind turbines are switched off because their power is not needed or the grid is not able to take it in, the wind-park operator gets compensated. Here the amount of compensation is not determined by the actual wind strength prevailing at the time the turbine is idle and the corresponding amount of energy that would have been generated, rather it is determined by the turbine’s rated capacity. According to the German feed-in law, an Enercon 101 turbine with a rated capacity of 3 MW must be compensated 90% should it be ordered to remain idle and not feed-in energy.

That means the turbine I saw standing idle 10 hours on a Sunday was compensated to the tune of 10hrs x 3MW/hr x 90% = 27,000 kWh. At 15 cents per kwh, the turbine operator is entitled to €4050.00…for nothing.

On the other hand if the very same turbine had been allowed to operate under the prevailing moderate wind conditions on that Sunday, thus putting out say 33% of its rated capacity, then it would have fed in 9900 kWh into the grid, meaning the turbine operator would have earned only €1485.00…for 9900 kwh of real electricity.

What a wonderful business you can make with the German feed-in act! Doing nothing gets rewarded to the max, bringing in multiple times more money than if you actually delivered something!


Just for your information, the average output for a wind turbine in Germany is only about 20% of its rated capacity.


Spiegel Reports: “Leading Scientist Leaves IPCC …Dispute Surrounding UN Climate Panel Escalates”

The German online Spiegel here has a piece by science journalist Axel Bojanowski about Richard Tol quitting the IPCC in protest: “Alleged panic-making: Leading scientist leaves the head of the IPCC. The dispute surrounding the UN IPCC escalates.”

Spiegel writes how Tol complains that the IPCC has “wiped away decisive formulations” from the final version and that the language of the report has been written by the “horsemen of the Apocalypse“.

Spiegel writes:

A ‘stupid statement’ in the report is the claim that people in war areas are especially vulnerable to climate change.”

Tol thinks that the people in Syria “are far more afraid of chemical weapons“.

Spiegel adds that Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change aimed criticism at Tol” resignation, claiming his criticism came too late. Tol rejects Ward’s assertion: “Material was not submitted too late, rather it was moved from one chapter to another.”

Spiegel then writes that Ward subscribes to the more pessimistic view when it comes to the economic impacts that climate change may have, a view that Tol outright dismisses.

SPIEGEL ONLINE claims to have a draft of the “secret report” and writes that in it assumptions have been “significantly corrected downwards” and that the IPCC expects an economic loss that is only “a tenth of that claimed by the Stern Report“.

Although Spiegel does not take a side in the article, Bojanowski’s report shows just how discordant, contentious and disharmonious the IPCC has become.


Plots Show It Should Be Clear That Something Else Besides CO2 Is In Charge…CO2 Correlates Poorly

CO2 or Ocean Cycles?
By Ed Caryl

We are all aware (or should be) of the warming that took place from the 1970’s to the 1990’s. The calamitologists are firmly convinced that this rise in temperature was due to rising CO2 in the same period. The lukewarmists think it was a combination of factors that perhaps contain some warming due to CO2. Then there is another group who think it was all due to the sun or ocean cycles.

This article will compare an ocean cycle, the Atlantic Multi-decadel Oscillation (AMO), and CO2 as temperature drivers over the last 133 years, since 1880. The annual temperature data is from GISS. The plots are scatter diagrams with temperature on the vertical axis and AMO index or CO2 atmospheric concentration on the horizontal axis.


Figures 1a and b are XY plots of temperature vs. AMO (1a) and temperature vs. CO2 (1b).

The period of 1880 to 1910 was a period of cooling. Unless CO2 was driving that cooling, it seems clear that ocean cycles (or some third forcing, such as solar) were responsible.


Figures 2a and b are XY plots of temperature vs. AMO (2a) and temperature vs. CO2 (2b).

The period from 1911 to 1936 was one of warming, on a similar scale to the recent warming. The amount of CO2 increase has been thought not to be responsible for the warming, and attributed to ocean cycles. Climate sensitivity is easy to calculate from the slope of the trend lines in the temperature versus CO2 plots. Simply multiply the “x” value by the minimum CO2 concentration. If the warming in this period was totally due to CO2, the associated climate sensitivity would be 8.3°C for CO2 doubling from 300 ppm, a value that all will agree is much too large. Again, CO2 isn’t providing the warming.


Figures 3a is a plot of temperature vs AMO and 3b a polot of temperature vs CO2.

Figure 3c below is a zoom in on 1937 to 1950, the near vertical line at the left in figure 3b where CO2 actually reversed slightly for a time:


This was a period of cooling, and it is obvious that CO2 had nothing to do with it. Climate sensitivity would have been a negative 0.465°C for CO2 doubling from 310 ppm. During the cooling 1937 to 1950 period, sensitivity would have to have been an astounding negative 82°C for CO2 doubling. Again, ocean cycles or some other forcing were responsible.


Figures 4a and b are XY plots of temperature vs AMO (4a) and temperature vs. CO2 (4b).

The years from 1970 to 2000 were warming years as can be seen on both plots. Note the R2 values for both plots. Was the warming due to CO2? Or was it ocean cycles? The R2 values are voting for ocean cycles, but it isn’t definitive. Remember that Salby and myself have made cases for temperature driving CO2, and not the other way around. The slope of the CO2 trend in this period (climate sensitivity) is 3.64°C for CO2 doubling. This is the only time period where the putative climate sensitivity is reasonable, and close to the theoretical IPCC approved number.


Figures 5a and b are XY plots of temperature vs. AMO (5a) and temperature vs. CO2 (5b).

Above is the recent past; the pause period. Not much is happening. The warming is so slight, that the computed climate sensitivity is 0.33°C for CO2 doubling from 370 ppm. The R2 value for CO2 is so low that it should be clear that something else besides CO2 is in charge. The slope on this AMO plot is positive, as it has been for all of the AMO vs temperature plots, but the points are clustered tightly and the R2 value is only 0.19.

In the 133 years since 1880, all the “CO2 is causing catastrophe” furor is based on one 30 year period in that long span. The remaining 103 years, where CO2 was obviously having no effect, are ignored, …are unexplained. Is this justified? Shouldn’t some effort be made to determine what has really happened? If CO2 is the driver of warming periods, and ocean cycles are driving cooling periods, then climate sensitivity was 8.3°C in the early 20th Century, 3.64°C in the late 20th Century, and 0.33°C now. If CO2 is assumed responsible for half the warming, as the IPCC suggests, and other greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest, the numbers then are: 4.15°C for the early 20th Century, 1.82°C for the late 20th Century, and 0.165°C for the last decade. This may be another indication that climate sensitivity has hit a low limit.

The numbers for CO2 become even lower if changes in solar radiation, solar magnetic effects, cosmic rays, aerosols, volcanic sulfate, soot, dust, water vapor, and changing cloud cover are thrown into the forcing mix. The problem is lack of data. We have good data from satellites only for the last 34 years for temperature, and less than that for many of these other factors. On this paucity of data we are betting our economic future on all kinds of ill-thought out “renewable solutions” that in the long run we will regret.

Analysis Shows Solar Modules Cause More Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Modern Coal Power Plants!

It turns out that because of the emissions of extraordinarily potent greenhouse gases NF3 and SF6 and energy during the manufacture of solar modules, solar energy ends up being worse for the climate than burning coal (assuming the global warming hypothesis is valid).

A Swiss engineer has made a thorough analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by the manufacture, transport and operation of solar panels. His conclusion:

Solar energy in Germany is climate killer no. 1!”

Ferrucio Ferroni writes here how China is the number 1 manufacturer of solar panels globally and that the production of solar panels there requires immense amounts of electricity, which in China is mainly produced by coal power plants. Moreover the manufacture of solar panels also involves substantial amounts of potent greenhouse gases that leak out into the atmosphere.

The result Ferroni writes:

The comparison on CO2 emissions of a modern coal power plant and that of a PV system shows that per kilowatt-hour of power produced, PV systems damage the climate more. This statement is true if the hypothesis of the IPCC is correct to start with.”

Ferroni writes that it is accepted as fact the coal power plants emit carbon dioxide. But what is little known is that PV systems also lead to the emission of considerable quantities greenhouse gases – not during their operation, but during their manufacture.

Ferroni writes that when calculating the climate impacts of PV systems per unit, it is first necessary to account for the energy used in their manufacture in China, which involves the processing of solar silizium. Silizium processing involves considerable amounts of chemicals and raw materials. Also the manufacture of peripheral systems and their subsequent transport of materials to Europe and North America and their modest outputs in many northern locations have to be taken into account.

In comparison, modern steam power plants using clean-coal-technology now reach an efficiency of 52%, which means they emit 846 grams of CO2 per kWh when powered with stone coal (heat value: 30 MJ/kg). Moreover, nowadays highly efficient filters keep dust emissions to a minimum.

Producing 1 square meter requires 300 kg of coal

The manufacture of the silizium for the panels is immensely energy-intensive. According to Prof. Jian Shuisheng of the Jiatong-University in Peking, one square meter of solar module production requires more than 300 kg of coal, which leads to more than 1100 kg of CO2 emissions.

Also the production in China of peripheral systems for PV systems, like frequency converters, batteries, copper cable, switches, instruments etc., require fossil energy. According to literature this is estimated to be an additional 13%. Thus so far the emission for one square meter of solar module now adds up to 1243 kg CO2.

Potent gases needed for manufacturing solar modules

According to Ferroni, the other huge drawback presented by PV systems are the nasty chemicals and industrial gases used for their manufacture. The production of solar panels in China entails nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are extremely potent heat-trapping gases that leak out during the process. NF3 has a greenhouse gas potency that is 16,600 times greater than CO2; SF6 is 23,900 times more potent. Reports show that these gases emitted annually into the atmosphere from the manufacture of solar panels is equivalent to over 70 million tonnes of CO2 in terms of greenhouse effect. In 2010 over 17.5 GW of rated capacity of solar cells were installed. Thus the emissions per square meter of solar panels comes out to be 513 kg CO2 – a huge amount!

Other chemicals in the production process

The manufacture of solar cells also uses other chemicals like (HCl), silizium carbide, and silver among others. The total alleged warming potential of these chemicals comes out to be an estimated 30 kg CO2 per square meter of PV module. Oddly (likely to avoid embarrassment) the solar industry has yet to release any detailed data on the warming potential and impacts of the chemicals used in their manufacture.

Emissions-intensive transport 

Also the transport of the PV systems and modules represent a considerable source of emissions. Ferroni writes that the transport of the systems from China to Germany results in 23 kg CO2 per square meter of solar module, more than what is used to transport coal from South Africa to Europe.

In total 1809 kg of CO2 equivalent is emitted into the atmosphere per square meter of solar panel manufactured and transported.

Ferroni then calculates that over the entire lifetime of a solar panel (25 years) one square meter will produce a total 2000 kwh in Germany. But then there are losses from conversions and so the real value is closer to 1850 kWh.

Over the entire lifetime and taking all factors into account, Ferroni finds that each kwh of electricity produced by solar modules emits 978g of CO2. How does this compare to coal? Ferroni:

In comparison, a modern coal power plant emits 846 g CO2/kWh, i.e. about 13% less. As a result, under German conditions, PV modules are the no. 1 climate killers. By comparison a gas power plant is more advantageous because its CO2 emissions are about half as much: approx.: 400g CO2/kWh.”


1) Arnold, T., C. M. Harth, J. Muhle, A. J. Manning, P. K.Salameh, et al. “Nitrogen trifluoride global emissions estimated from updated atmospheric measurements.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, no. 6 (February 5, 2013): pp. 2029-2034

2) (Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition)

3) Technische Gesellschaft Zürich, These 8: Ökobilanz der Photovoltaik verlangt mehr Transparenz, 27. August 2013, auf


Spiegel: IPCC-Backpedal On Species Extinction…”Astonishingly Great Doubt Over Earlier Predictions…Acute Lack Of Data”

Alarmists like claiming that a bit of global warming can lead to mass-scale species extinctions and even threatens the very survival of human civilization. It’s one of the media’s favorite scare stories after sea level rise and super storms.

It turns out that the IPCC is now having “great doubts” about that. Yet another scare-story gets debunked!

Yesterday online journalist Axel Bojanowski at Spiegel here reports in a piece titled: Secret UN Report: IPCC Doubts Prognoses On Species Extinction.

H/t: DirkH

According to information obtained by Spiegel, the UN body “is now sowing astonishingly great doubt over its earlier predictions.”

Online Spiegel writes that scientists are now distancing themselves from their previous projections, and quotes the IPCC:

There is very little confidence in the models accurately predicting the extinction risks.”

Spiegel reports of an “acute lack of data” and that “biological findings have increased doubt over the expected species extinction“.

Spiegel adds:

Thus far, the IPCC admits, there has been no evidence showing that climate change has led to the extinction of a single species. [...] With most life forms there’s a lack of data, says Ragnar Kinzelbach of the University of Rostock.”

Kinzelbach then says that climate change has been used as an excuse for inaction in other more urgent areas:

“Monocultures, over-fertilization or soil destruction destroy more species than do several degrees Celsius of temperature rise ever could.”


Daily Energy From “Negligible” Solar Irradiance Variation Turns Out To Be Far More Than 400,000 A-Bombs!

Remember how alarmists say that the variation in solar irradiance was too small to have any real impact on the earth’s climate, and thus gets neglected by the IPCC?

Reader GuarionexSandoval has written a comment which I’m elevating to a post, see below. It too shows that if the variation solar irradiance from the 11-year cycle is negligible, then so must the alleged 400,000 daily Hiroshima bombs of heat that alarmists insist are being added to the climate system.


By GuarionexSandoval

I remember first reading about this in some moronic piece of agit-prop on Market Watch called New ‘War of Worlds’: Capitalism vs. Planet Earth Opinion: Global-warming rate today has impact of 400,000 daily A-bombs by Paul B. Ferrel.

400,000 daily A-bombs by Paul B. Ferrel

My reply:

Let’s crunch some numbers. The author claims that human effect on “global warming” is equivalent to 400,000 atomic bombs going off per day. We’ll assume he meant that all human activity results in a temperature rise per day the energy of which is equal to 400,000 atomic bombs. Since he didn’t specify what kind of atomic bomb, we’ll use Hiroshima since that’s usually the one used by those trying to score polemical points. The yield of the Hiroshima bomb was around 64.5 terajoules (TJ). So 400,000 of these would be about 25,800,000 TJ. The total amount of energy in TJ released by all nuclear explosions to date is around 2,135,000. So, he’s claiming that human effect on temperature each day is 12 times greater than all the nuclear weapons ever exploded. Gee, that sounds so horribly ominous.

But let’s compare that to the amount of energy on average that reaches the earth each day from the sun. The average influx is somewhere near 81,660 joules per square meter per minute. Given that the earth has a surface area of 510 trillion square meters, the energy is 41,646,600,000,000,000,000 J/minute or 41,646,600 TJ/minute or 59,971,104,000 TJ/day. But consider that over the 11 year sunspot cycle the energy output reaching the earth can vary by 0.1 percent (but other solar cycles can increase this up to 0.6 percent). So at maximum, it varies between 60,001,089,552 TJ/day to 60,151,017,312 TJ/day.

Just the variation of the 11-year sunspot cycle is responsible for a change in the daily solar energy influx equivalent to 930,249 atomic bombs per day. At the maximum the change would be equivalent to 5,581,494 atomic bombs per day. So, even if his claim were true, which it isn’t, the effect would be less than the natural variation from just the sunspot cycle alone without even considering other cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation that cause a large fluctuation in average global temperature or the 200 year de Vries cycle that does the same or the progression from grand solar maxima to grand solar minima that does the same or regular changes in the earth’s orbit that do the same or changes in the solar magnetic field that controls cloud formation by changing cosmic ray flux that do the same or combinations of all these cycles that can really shift temperature radically in one or the other direction–like between the 100,000 year glacial periods and the approximately 10,000 year interglacial periods, such as our current interglacial, the end of which we are nearing.

Bombs are equal to only 37 seconds of sunlight

So against all this, let’s compare his deliberately scary sounding atomic bomb imagery to the actual daily energy that reaches the earth from the sun: 59,971,104,000 TJ/day. That is 2,324 times larger than 400,000 atomic bombs or, rather, those bombs are equal to about 0.043% of the sun’s daily energy influx or 37 seconds of sunlight.

Now, let’s put this into the context of what’s actually been happening to global temperatures over the past 10,000 years. Over the past 9,000 years there has been a downward trend; over the past 3000 years, a steeply downward trend. From the Minoan Warm Period to the tiny little blip of warmth between about 1860 to 1998 (3 roughly equal periods of roughly equal increases of temp), the trend has been to ever colder warm periods and to ever colder intervening cold periods. The last cold period, referred to as the Little Ice Age, was the coldest the planet has been since the last worldwide glaciation. We are still warming up from the LIA and have far to go to reach the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period, farther still to reach that of the Roman Warm Period (according to Greenland ice core temperatures) and very far to reach the warmth of the Minoan Warm Period. The 20th century was also special in that there was a grand solar maximum that exceeded anything for millennia. We’re now on the down slope toward a grand solar minimum. By the end of the 1990s we reached the end of the positive phase of the Pacifical Decadal Oscillation and are headed in the negative or colder direction. We also reached the peak of the 200 year de Vries cycle and are headed back down. None of these predicts higher temperatures. He should hope that anthropogenic CO2 has the effect climate alarmists claim for it.

CO2 near 500 million year low

As far as his professed fear and trembling over CO2 being higher than any time in “recorded history,” first, it’s not true. There were times in the 19th century that atmospheric CO2 was measured at over 400 ppm. And, second, “recorded history” is a cute way to avoid looking at all the other ways that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are measured for times before “recorded history.” Again, he either lacks perspective or is deliberately failing to provide it. In the geological time frame, the current amount of atmospheric CO2 is near an all time low, vying with the Carboniferous and Permian Periods for the lowest atmospheric CO2 in over 500 million years. Its decline over the past 150 million years has been almost linear and completely unconnected with any sort of human activity, as was its abrupt increase at the end of the Permian period from about where it is now, just barely enough to sustain life, to over 2500 ppm.

Against this, the author’s piece can be seen to be one of two things: 1. Ignorant and uncritical re-posting of hysterical claims that make Orson Well’s War of the World hoax look like a Hello Kitty cartoon. 2. Deliberate deception in the service of a political agenda.

Given that his bullet points were either inaccurate, irrelevant, or completely untrue, I’d be tempted to say number 1.

But given his absurd allusion to 400,000 atomic bombs per day, I’m sort of leaning toward number 2.

And especially so when I consider Al Gore’s statement that he. Al, believes “…it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

H.L. Mencken described these types well:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed–and hence clamorous to be led to safety–by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”



Rash Of Weather Extremes In 1936 …Before 15 Billion “Hiroshima Bombs Worth Of Heat” Were Added To Our Climate!

We keep hearing from alarmists that if we sacrifice by giving up carbon based fuels and bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations below 350 ppm, then we will get nice weather with far fewer extremes – like in the 1930s.

Reader Jimbo however shows that this is all bogus. Now he has compiled a list of extreme weather events occurring in 1936…before 15 billion “Hiroshima bombs worth of heat” were added to the climate system by humans – and at a time when CO2 were well below the “safe level” of 350 ppm.

Recall awhile back we posted Jimbo’s list of extreme weather events for the year 1935 here.

Now he has his list of…

- World’s Weirdest Weather America’s Blizzard Of Mud
- WILD WEATHER MORE WILD WEATHER Tornado’s Wreckage East and West
- EVEREST UNCONQUERED ATTEMPT ABANDONED UNPRECEDENTED BAD WEATHER VIOLENT WIND. Damage in Victoria [..Red rain fell...a waterspout was seen..]

- DEATHS IN CANADA SIX HUNDRED IN ONTARIO [...worst six days' heat wave in the history...]
- Relief in Sight After 5,000 Perish….America Heat Wave…..
- Antarctic Expedition. Polar Heat Wave.
- Black Swan Dies In Sudden Heat Wave, But Polar Bears Survive
- OVER 90DEG. FOR FOUR DAYS Temperature Record For October [Brisbane]

- UNITED STATES IN GRIP OF COLD WAVE Over 200 Deaths Blizzards, Snowstorms and Frost Widespread Suffering
- FROZEN CANADA 50 Degrees Below Zero Worst Cold in Memory

- WORST DROUGHT IN HISTORY Millions Hit In America
- CALAMITOUS DROUGHT. Special Alberta Legislation
- Cattle Dying in Hundreds Transvaal’s Most Terrible Drought in Living Memory
- GRAIN POSITION IN ARGENTINA Drought Affects Many Crops

FLOODS – 1936
- 11 LIVES LOST. DISASTROUS FLOODS. £1,000,000 Damage in N.Z.
- FLOODS IN FRANCE Serious Damage Reported Towns Under Water
- HUGE DAM BURSTS IN JAPAN. Six Villages Swept Away [...owing to heavy rain...]
- FLOODS IN RUMANIA. Coffins Swept Through Streets. BUCHAREST

- A QUEENSLAND TORNADO. Township Ravaged

- MANY DEAD Cyclone in New Zealand SHIPS BUFFETED Extensive Damage to Property
- Over 300 Killed in Cyclone [S. Korea]
- FIJI HURRICANE. WORST IN HISTORY. 240 Deaths [..worst hurricane and floods ever..]
- DISASTROUS HURRICANE. 300 Dead; 7,000 Homeless. Birmingham, Alabama
- GALES SWEEP EUROPE 30 Killed: Long Trail Of Wreckage

- IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING? Climatic Change Brought About by Dam. [W. USA]
- IS THE EARTH DRYING UP? World’s Deserts On The Earth

SkS Hiroshima-Bomb Heat-Clock Fraud …Claim 2.1 Billion Climate Ground-Zeros, Yet Can’t Find A Single One Of Them!

The alarmists at Skeptical Science put up a “Hiroshima Bomb Heat Clock” claiming that the earth’s climate system has “accumulated” over 2 billion Hiroshima bombs worth of thermonuclear heat since 1998. This heat, they say, will pop out in the future and make us all very sorry.


Image cropped yesterday from Skeptical Science.

Yet, despite the hundreds of millions of Hiroshima heat bombs, we have seen 0°C of warming in the earth’s atmosphere during the very same period. Comically, despite the 2 billion plus climate ground-zeros, not a single one of them can be found in our atmosphere:

Temperature Clock global

NTZ climate temperature clock. Chart: Wood For Trees.

So where could all that heat possibly have gone? Why hasn’t the global atmospheric temperature gone up with all that accumulated (trapped) heat?

The answer is that a part of this alleged quantity of heat very likely has not been permanently trapped. A significant part likely has been re-radiated back out into space. Things like that happen when it’s a little warmer. Moreover, much of it probably has been absorbed by the oceans, whose sheer mass has a thermal heat capacity that is 100 times that of the atmosphere. Even SkS acknowledges this here.

The problem is that the SkS bedwetters would like to have us believe that the heat absorbed by the oceans is somehow getting packed in a compact suitcase, is getting transported around below the ocean surface for awhile, and that it will later get suddenly belched out back into the atmosphere almost all at once. This is a story that is either the product of astonishing ignorance or a malevolent desire to deceive.

That’s not the way heat behaves, of course.

Think of it as hot water getting introduced into a bath tub filled with cool water. The heat just doesn’t stay together in a clump and swim around waiting to scald you 30 minutes later, rather it quickly gets distributed via conduction and convection throughout the entire bathtub.

In a similar manner, heat absorbed by the ocean gets distributed around the ocean’s vast volume via convection and thermal conduction as well. It just doesn’t stay clumped together, hide for awhile, and later pop out all at once. It’s very complex and it just doesn’t work the way the SkS horror-storytellers say it does. In fact, none of their stories have turned out to be right so far. According to their fairy tales from ten years ago, the atmosphere was supposed to be some 0.3°C warmer today than it actually is.

2 billion Hiroshima bombs would heat the ocean a mere 0.024°C

So how much would 2 billion Hiroshima bombs heat the entire ocean system if it got more or less uniformly distributed? This is easy to compute. The mass of the ocean is about 1.3 x 10exp24 grams. The energy of 2 billion Hiroshima bombs is approx. 130  x 10exp21 Joules. the specific heat of water is 4.186 Joules/g°C. Thus the 2.1 billion Hiroshima bombs of heat would warm the ocean by approx.:


The range of uncertainty in measuring ocean temperature is far greater. There are lots of zeros involved and hopefully I didn’t lose or gain one or two during the number-crunching. Remember, this is assuming that there really is 2.1 billion bombs of heat accumulated.

What we are talking about here is on the same order of magnitude as someone trying to heat his home with a single cigarette lighter…and hoping none of the heat escapes out of the house!

Of course added heat is not distributed throughout the ocean uniformly, but it is certainly not kept in a tidy little package either. Ocean currents are still very poorly understood.

The Hiroshima heat clock is a gimmick

So why has SkS come up with this somewhat idiotic and reality-remote Hiroshima heat-bomb-clock? It’s a gimmick. It’s to distract the readers from the embarrassment of no global atmospheric warming since their silly clock started counting.

We’ll get our natural ENSO heat releases and absorptions and the corresponding heating and cooling in the atmosphere. But at the same time, any external heat absorbed by the ocean will get distributed with much of it is likely not coming back out for a very long time…and only when the atmosphere cools.


German City Of Bremen Calls For A Green Police – To Enter Private Homes And Eliminate Electric Heaters

Most of us already suspect that environmentalists are dictatorial wolves dressed in the democracy sheepskin. Despite all the lip service they pay to justice and liberty, they are really all about state power and regulation.

So it is with Germany’s authoritarian statists and greens, who not long ago called for the enactment of a nationwide “Veggie Day” once a week in order to start weaning people off climate-killing diets containing meat. Fortunately the citizens roundly rejected the nonsense, sending the wackos off – to return another day.
Electric heater

German city of Bremen attempts to form a green police to enforce proposed ban of electric heaters.

Well, that “another day” has already arrived. The latest suggested intrusion into and control over our private lives is reported by the Liberal website of Friedrich Naumann Foundation For Liberty.

In the northern port city of Bremen, just a single hour away from the home of NoTricksZone, officials are now busily playing let’s-save-the-planet and zealously committing the city to cutting its carbon footprint by 40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.

Hat-tip DirkH

How is this to be done? The Liberal writes (my emphasis):

One of the planned measures: The ‘ban of electric heaters’. What sounds like one of the usual injection of fuel into the green bonfire of bans in fact takes on a whole new quality. The proposed law by Environment Senator Joachim Lohse foresees a system of monitoring that allows for detection of violations and punishment. According to the Weser-Kurier daily, officials would ‘in carrying out the duties of their office, tread upon private property and enter private buildings‘. The provision of the German Constitution for the inviolability of the home would in this respect be curtailed.”

The Liberal adds:

Here Lohse is creating nothing less than an environment police.”

As mentioned, the proposed law for the city of Bremen of course would clash with Article 13 of the German Constitution which guarantees private individuals the “inviolability of the home”. But in the City of Bremen, which is run by a coalition of climate protection-obsessed socialists and greens, little things like Constitutional Rights are not about to stop their hunt for electric radiators as part of their mission to rescue the planet. After all it’s far more vital to improve the city’s carbon footprint and to promote sustainability then it is to uphold the Federal Constitution.

In their distorted minds, not having an electric heater is more important than having fundamental Constitutional rights.