25 New Papers Confirm A Remarkably Stable Modern Climate: Fewer Intense Storms, Hurricanes, Droughts, Floods, Fires…

It has by now become common practice for just about any and every unusual weather occurrence, extreme temperature anomaly,  or seismic event to be somehow, someway linked to the human practice of using energy derived from fossil fuels.   No hurricane, flood, drought, storm, wildfire … is spared from potential anthropogenic implication.

Last week, a named hurricane (Hermine) that ultimately devolved into a tropical storm landed along the Florida coast — the first landfall in 11 years.  As expected, the usual suspects  reflexively blamed the storm on humans.

When a volcano erupts, the headliners are quick to point out that humans have made volcanic eruptions more likely.

When wildfires consume the landscape, human-caused warming is claimed to be fueling them.

In one year, human-caused warming can be said to be a cause of catastrophic drought in Texas.

2011 Texas drought was 20 times more likely due to warming, study says

A few years later, human-caused warming leads to catastrophic flooding in Texas.

A new study directly links human-caused global warming to the [2015] catastrophic flooding in Texas and Oklahoma this spring.”

Even shifting plates beneath the Earth’s crust (earthquakes) can be creatively connected to human-caused climate change.

Those who may dare to question the link between  humanity’s growing oil, gas, and coal consumption and a weather or  tectonic event are swiftly called “climate deniers,” and the substantive discussion that never happened (and was never going to happen) ends then and there.

In the 1970s, extreme weather events were blamed on global cooling

Interestingly, in the 1970s it was common for severe weather anomalies (for example, the deadly catastrophic drought plodding throughout the continent of Africa) to be linked to the global cooling occurring at that time.  In 1974, NOAA acknowledged that many climate scientists had linked the drought and other extreme weather anomalies to the -0.5°C drop in temperatures that had occurred from the 1940s to 1970s.

NOAA, 1974

“In the Sahelian zone of Africa south of the Sahara, the countries of Chad, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Upper Volta are enduring a drought that in some areas has been going on for more than six years now, following some 40 previous years of abundant monsoon rainfall. And the drought is spreading—eastward into Ehtiopia and southward into Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Zaire. … Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world.Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned. … [T]he average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950’s, Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. … Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an “ice age.”

But, like now, there were still a collection of scientists willing to reconsider the common-knowledge “beliefs” of the time.  For example, Boer and Higuchi (1980) investigated the “belief” that more extreme climate variability accrued as temperatures cooled, concluding that the climate had not undergone significantly more extreme shifts in weather patterns and events during the mid-20th century global cooling period.

Boer and Higuchi, 1980

“In recent years there has been increasing concern about climatic change and variability and its influence on man and his activities.  This concern has been formally expressed in a WMO statement on climate change and variability (WMO, 1976).  Many studies concerning climate change have been undertaken.  Most studies have concentrated on long-term trends in temperature.  … There appears to be a general belief that the climate has become more “variable” in recent times.  For instance, there is the suggestion that “since the 1940’s and 1950’s . . . the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere appears to have shifted in a manner suggestive of an increasing amplitude of the planetary waves and of greater extremes of weather conditions in many areas of the world” (GARP, 1975, p. 16). … The results of this study do not support the contention that the climate has become significantly more variable, nor do they support a connection between variability and either mean temperature or north-south variation of temperature.”

Modern scientists also question the assumption that more warming means more variability

Likewise, today’s peer-reviewed scientific literature is teeming with examples of scientists who don’t appear acquiesce to the humans-cause-more-extreme weather-and-climate-events alarmism.

What follows below is a compilation of scientific papers published within the last year that do not support the popular contention that the Earth’s climate and weather (and seismic activity) have become more variable and more extreme in recent decades, or that warmer temperatures are necessarily associated with more variability and potential catastrophe.  Instead, these papers indicate that the modern (20th, 21st century) climate is, and has been, remarkably stable, with significantly less extreme variability than in previous centuries and millennia.

For example, the scientific literature reveals natural global-scale climate warmings of multiple degrees per decade routinely occurred in the recent past.  Greenland typically warmed at amplitudes of about 10.0°C in a matter of about 40 years during the last glacial — while CO2 levels remained stable and low (180 ppm) throughout.  In contrast, the IPCC has concluded that the Earth has warmed at a rate of about 0.05°C per decade since 1850, or while CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

Scientists have also found the frequencies of storms and tsunamis have decreased during the 20th, 21st centuries; the frequencies and intensities of hurricanes have decreased in the last several decades; and there are far fewer wildfires today than centuries ago.  Furthermore, scientists have found no  significant trends (even decreases) in extreme precipitation events in recent decades compared to past centuries; drought frequencies and intensities are stable or decreasing; tornado occurrence has remained stable or decreased since 1950; climate models are too “unreliable” to simulate variability or extremes in weather patterns; and a warming climate is a more stable climate.

In other words, these papers do not support the popular assumption that just about every adverse weather event can be linked to global warming in general, or human activity in particular.

More weather instability/extremes, much higher climate change rates in cold periods than warm periods

Mayewski, 2016

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

Hewitt et al., 2016

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

Rasmussen et al., 2016

Extreme climate changes in the past Ice core records show that Greenland went through 25 extreme and abrupt climate changes during the last ice age some 20,000 to 70,000 years ago. In less than 50 years the air temperatures over Greenland could increase by 10 to 15 °C. However the warm periods were short; within a few centuries the frigid temperatures of the ice age returned. That kind of climate change would have been catastrophic for us today.”

Agosta and Compagnucci, 2016

The climate in the North Atlantic Ocean during the Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3) —roughly between 80,000 years before present (B.P.) and 20,000 years B.P., within the last glacial period—is characterized by great instability, with opposing climate transitions including at least six colder Heinrich (H) events and fourteen warmer Dansgaard–Oeschger (D-O) events. … During the D-O events, the high-latitude warming occurred abruptly (probably in decades to centuries), reaching temperatures close to interglacial conditions. Even though H and D-O events seemed to have been initiated in the North Atlantic Ocean, they had a global footprint. Global climate anomalies were consistent with a slowdown of AMOC and reduced ocean heat transport into the northern high latitudes.”

Pratte et al., 2016

“The highest dust fluxes in the Baie bog were recorded from 1750–1000 cal. BP to 600–100 cal. BP and occur at the same time as periods of high variability in the macrofossil record (i.e. successive layers dominated by Sphagnum or Ericaceae). The timing of these events in the dust and macrofossil records also corresponds to documented cold periods. These two periods have been identified as episodes of climatic instability, which could have been caused by changes in the wind regime.”

Degeai et al., 2015

“A comparison with North Atlantic and Western Mediterranean paleoclimate proxies shows that the phases of high storm activity occurred during cold periods, suggesting a climatically-controlled mechanism for the occurrence of these storm periods. Besides, an in-phase storm activity pattern is found between the Western Mediterranean and Northern Europe. Spectral analyses performed on the Sr content revealed a new 270-year solar-driven pattern of storm cyclicity. For the last 3000 years, this 270-year cycle defines a succession of ten major storm periods (SP) with a mean duration of 96 ± 54 yr. Periods of higher storm activity are recorded from >680 to 560 cal yr BC (SP10, end of the Iron Age Cold Period), from 140 to 820 cal yr AD (SP7 to SP5) with a climax of storminess between 400 and 800 cal yr AD (Dark Ages Cold Period), and from 1230 to >1800 cal yr AD (SP3 to SP1, Little Ice Age). Periods of low storm activity occurred from 560 cal yr BC to 140 cal yr AD (SP9 and SP8, Roman Warm Period) and from 820 to 1230 cal yr AD (SP4, Medieval Warm Period).”

Frequencies of storms and tsunamis have decreased during the 20th, 21st centuries

Dezileau et al., 2016

Storms and tsunamis, which may seriously endanger human society, are amongst the most devastating marine catastrophes that can occur in coastal areas. Many such events are known and have been reported for the Mediterranean, a region where high-frequency occurrences of these extreme events coincides with some of the most densely populated coastal areas in the world. In a sediment core from the Mar Menor (SE Spain), we discovered eight coarse-grained layers which document marine incursions during periods of intense storm activity or tsunami events. Based on radiocarbon dating, these extreme events occurred around 5250, 4000, 3600, 3010, 2300, 1350, 650, and 80 years cal BP. No comparable events have been observed during the 20th and 21st centuries. The results indicate little likelihood of a tsunami origin for these coarse-grained layers, although historical tsunami events are recorded in this region. These periods of surge events seem to coincide with the coldest periods in Europe during the late Holocene, suggesting a control by a climatic mechanism for periods of increased storm activity.”

Frequencies and intensities of hurricanes have decreased

Chang et al., 2016

“Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America. Climate models project a decrease in summer cyclone activity, but the observed decreasing rate is near the fastest projected. Decrease in summer cyclone activity will lead to decrease in cloud cover, giving rise to higher maximum temperature, potentially enhancing the increase in maximum temperature by 0.5 K or more over some regions. We also show that climate models may have biases in simulating the positive relationship between cyclone activity and cloud cover, potentially under-estimating the impacts of cyclone decrease on accentuating the future increase in maximum temperature.”

Williams et al., 2016

“Bayesian age–depth models, derived from eight AMS radiocarbon dates, suggest that the frequency of typhoon strikes was 2–5 times greater from 3900 to 7800 cal. yr. BP compared to 0–3900 cal. yr. BP. Possible explanations for this variability in the typhoon record are that typhoons were more frequent and/or more intense in Southeast Asia in the mid-Holocene because of climatic changes associated with the Mid-Holocene Warm Period or that the record reflects site sensitivity changes resulting from a mid-Holocene sea-level highstand.”

Sugi et al., 2015

More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?

Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate, although the mechanism of the reduction is not yet fully understood. Here we present a result of 4K-cooler climate experiment. The global TC frequency significantly increases in the 4K-cooler climate compared to the present climate. This is consistent with a significant decrease in TC frequency in the 4K-warmer climate.”

Fewer wildfires today than centuries ago

Doerr and Santín, 2016

“Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades.”

No trends (decreases) in extreme precipitation events in recent decades compared to past centuries

Tozer et al., 2016

The reconstruction shows that significantly longer and more frequent wet and dry periods were experienced in the preinstrumental [19th century and earlier] compared to the instrumental period [20th, 21st centuries]. This suggests that existing drought and flood risk assessments underestimate the true risks due to the reliance on data and statistics obtained from only the instrumental record.”

Pausata et al., 2016

“Following the devastating droughts that ravaged the Sahel in the 1970–1980s, many efforts have been directed at investigating climate variability in Northern Africa, focusing on vegetation–climate feedbacks and the dynamics of the West African Monsoon (WAM) system (Charney et al., 1975 and Giannini et al., 2003). However, the past millennia have witnessed much larger precipitation changes than those seen in recent decades. One of the most dramatic changes in the WAM began around 15000 yr BP, when increased summer precipitation led to an expansion of the North African lakes and wetlands.”

van Wijngaarden and Syed, 2016

Changes in annual precipitation over the Earth’s land mass excluding Antarctica from the 18th century to 2013

The trends for precipitation change together with their 95% confidence intervals were found for various periods of time. Most trends exhibited no clear precipitation change [from the 1700s to present]. The global changes in precipitation over the Earth’s land mass excluding Antarctica relative to 1961-90 were estimated to be: -1.2. ±. 1.7, 2.6. ±. 2.5 and -5.4. ±. 8.1% per century for the periods 1850-2000, 1900-2000 and 1950-2000, respectively.  A change of 1% per century corresponds to a precipitation change of 0.09. mm/year.”

Yadava et al., 2016

“We developed the first boreal spring precipitation reconstruction for the western Himalaya covering the last millennium (1030–2011 C.E.). … The precipitation reconstruction revealed persistent long-term spring droughts from the 12th to early 16th century C.E. and pluvial from the late 16th century C.E. to recent decades. The late 15th and early 16th centuries (1490–1514 C.E.) displayed the driest episode, with precipitation being ∼15% lower than the long-term mean. The early 19th century (1820–1844 C.E.) was the wettest period of the past millennium, with mean precipitation 13% above the long-term mean. The reconstructed boreal spring precipitation from the western Himalaya revealed large-scale consistency with hydrological records from westerly dominated regions in Central Asia, indicating synoptic-scale changes in atmospheric circulation during the major part of the Medieval and Little Ice Age periods.”

Hoerling et al, 2016 

“Time series of US daily heavy precipitation (95th percentile) are analyzed to determine factors responsible for regionality and seasonality in their 1979-2013 trends. …. Analysis of model ensemble spread reveals that appreciable 35-yr trends in heavy daily precipitation can occur in the absence of forcing, thereby limiting detection of the weak anthropogenic influence at regional scales.

Analysis of the seasonality in heavy daily precipitation trends supports physical arguments that their changes during 1979-2013 have been intimately linked to internal decadal ocean variability, and less to human-induced climate change.”

van der Wiel et al., 2016

“[T]he observed record and historical model experiments were used to investigate changes in the recent past. In part because of large intrinsic variability, no evidence was found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record

Drought frequencies and intensities are stable, decreasing

Cheng et al., 2016

“The results thus indicate that the net effect of climate change has made agricultural drought less likely and that the current severe impacts of drought on California’s agriculture have not been substantially caused by long-term climate changes.”

Hofmann et al., 2016

Abrupt mid-Holocene megadrought in northwestern Montana

One of the best studied examples of historic drought in North America includes the 1930s Dust Bowl event (Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998) that heavily impacted agriculture in the Great Plains region and that is well represented in lake sediment records in North America (e.g. Alley et al., 2003). Interestingly, lake sediment records that contain a signal of the Dust Bowl event (e.g. Alley et al., 2003) also show that such events occurred more frequently and on a higher magnitude throughout the late Holocene (Laird et al., 1996).”

Stahle et al., 2016

“Nationwide drought is predicted to become more common with anthropogenic climate change, but the MXDA reconstructions indicate that intense “All Mexico” droughts have been rare over the past 600 years and their frequency does not appear to have increased substantially in recent decades.”

Dai and Zhao, 2016

“How drought may change in the future are of great concern as global warming continues. In Part I of this study, we examine the uncertainties in estimating recent drought changes. … Consistent with reported declines in pan evaporation, our calculated potential evapotranspiration (PET) shows negative or small trends since 1950 over the United States, China, and other regions, and no global PET trends from 1950 to 1990. Updated precipitation and streamflow data and the self-calibrated PDSI_pm all show consistent drying during 1950–2012 over most Africa, East and South Asia, southern Europe, eastern Australia, and many parts of the Americas. While these regional drying trends resulted primarily from precipitation changes related to multi-decadal oscillations in Pacific sea surface temperatures, rapid surface warming and associated increases in surface vapor pressure deficit since the 1980s have become an increasingly important cause of widespread drying over land.”

Tornado occurrence has remained stable since 1950

Guo et al., 2016

Variability of Tornado Occurrence over the Continental United States since 1950

“The United States experiences the most tornadoes of any country in the world. Given the catastrophic impact of tornadoes, concern has arisen regarding the variation in climatology of U.S. tornadoes under the changing climate. … Based on the 64-year tornado records (1950-2013), we found that the trends in tornado temporal variability varied across the U.S., with only one-third of the continental area or three out of ten contiguous states (mostly from the Great Plains and Southeast, but where the frequency of occurrence of tornadoes is greater) displaying a significantly increasing trend. The other two-thirds area, where 60% of the U.S. tornadoes were reported (but the frequency of occurrence of tornadoes is less), however, showed a decreasing or a near-zero trend in tornado temporal variability. Furthermore, unlike the temporal variability alone, the combined spatial-temporal variability of U.S. tornado occurrence has remained nearly constant since 1950.”

Unreliable climate models do not simulate variability or extremes – warming stabilizes the climate

Bellprat and Doblas-Reyes, 2016

Attribution of extreme weather and climate events overestimated by unreliable climate simulations

“The framework illustrates that unreliable climate simulations are prone to overestimate the attributable risk to climate change. Climate model ensembles tend to be overconfident in their representation of the climate variability which leads to systematic increase in the attributable risk to an extreme event. Our results suggest that event attribution approaches comprising of a single climate model would benefit from ensemble calibration in order to account for model inadequacies similarly as operational forecasting systems.”

Ljungqvist et al., 2016

[T]he intensification of the twentieth-century-mean hydroclimate anomalies in the simulations, as compared to previous centuries, is not supported by our new multi-proxy reconstruction. This finding suggests that much work remains before we can model hydroclimate variability accurately, and highlights the importance of using palaeoclimate data to place recent and predicted hydroclimate changes in a millennium-long context.”

(press release)

According to a new study, the Northern Hemisphere has experienced considerably larger variations in precipitation during the past twelve centuries than in the twentieth century. Researchers from Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland have found that climate models overestimated the increase in wet and dry extremes as temperatures increased during the twentieth century.

Gaucherel and Moron, 2016

“‘Tipping points’ (TPs) are thresholds of potentially disproportionate changes in the Earth’s climate system associated with future global warming and are considered today as a ‘hot’ topic in environmental sciences. In this study, TP interactions are analysed from an integrated and conceptual point of view using two qualitative Boolean models built on graph grammars. They allow an accurate study of the node TP interactions previously identified by expert elicitation and take into account a range of various large-scale climate processes potentially able to trigger, alone or jointly, instability in the global climate. Our findings show that, contrary to commonly held beliefs, far from causing runaway changes in the Earth’s climate, such as self-acceleration due to additive positive feedbacks, successive perturbations might actually lead to its stabilization.”

Greve and Seneviratne, 2015

Substantial changes in the hydrological cycle are projected for the 21st century, but these projections are subject to major uncertainties. In this context, the ‘dry gets drier, wet gets wetter’ (DDWW) paradigm is often used as a simplifying summary. However, recent studies cast doubt on the validity of the paradigm and also on applying the widely used P-E (precipitation-evapotranspiration) metric over global land surfaces. Here we show in a comprehensive CMIP5-based assessment that projected changes in mean annual P-E are generally not significant, except for high-latitude regions showing wetting conditions until the end of the 21st century. Significant increases in aridity do occur in many subtropical, but also adjacent humid regions. However, combining both metrics still shows that ca. 70% of all land area will not experience significant changes. Based on these findings we conclude that the DDWW paradigm is generally not confirmed for projected changes in most land areas.”

Germany’s Media Sobering Up To The Widespread Corruption Of The ‘Energiewende’ and Wind Lobby

German flagship ARD public television recently broadcast a report on Germany’s Energiewende called: “The Battle Over Wind Turbines”

Meet the Schmidt’s in northern Germany. The family, like many Germans, once welcome wind turbines and viewed them as a responsible way to produce energy in an environmentally and climate friendly way. Today the ARD reports that they have long changed their minds ever since their home has since become surrounded by industrial wind parks in all directions. “They no longer recognize their landscape.”

They are the victims of a corrupt but powerful industry.

ARD august 2016

Industrial wind turbines litter Germany’s countryside, transforming it into a vast eyesore. Image cropped from ARD report here.

According to the ARD, wind park developers are simply steamrolling over local residents who oppose them, and installing the giant machines less than a few hundred meters away from homes, and many natural places where they don’t belong.

And even though there is no longer a demand for wind power in northern Germany, windparks continue to be built. Often turbines are shut down so as to not overload the grid (but they get paid no matter if they run or not – which is why they keep getting built).

At the 4-minute mark, one community in south Germany (Erlangen) actually installed wind turbines where there is not even enough wind for them to make a profit. Here the message of being “green” (and making easy money at consumers’ expense) trumps common sense. The madness knows no end. And there are plans to build even more in the area.

“Dirty business with clean energy”

With all the madness, the ARD reporter says at the 5:30 mark that it’s no wonder that trust in wind parks is disappearing in Germany. Another problem, the report states, is that often wind parks are approved by politician’s who have a direct interest and business dealings in them, meaning the industry is rampant crony capitalism – the very kind that Germans are typically famous for opposing. For example Rannungen mayor Fridolin Zehner had a wind turbine built where none is supposed to be built – on his own land – thus allowing the honorable mayor to cash in on lucrative leasing fees – to the tune of 10,000 euros annually.

The same type of sweet deal was worked out by town councilman Egon Sendelbach in Urspringen. Germany-wide local politicians and twoncouncilmen are profiteering from windparks at the full expense of the citizens and the common good. Sendelbach tells ARD he has no problems with it.

An ARD investigation uncovered that dozens of communities across Germany are seeing local politicians profiteering from dubious wind park permitting. According to law professor Michael Frey:

Research shows that we have a massive problem with the help-yourself” mentality when it comes to the zoning of wind parks. Many mayors and town councils vote in a way where they themselves profit. The extent of the problem is frightening and is nationwide.”

ARD calls it the “dirty business with clean energy.”

Environmental protection sold out

Back to northern Germany, the ARD focusses on the required setback distances from residential homes. That distance varies from state to state. Unfortunately in the Friesian region of Germany, wind parks can be built “right up close” to homes. Here the report features one family that is no longer able to sleep well at night due to the noise of the nearby turbines. Some wind turbines are even being installed in the middle of forests, which leads the ARD to ask “What’s with environmental protection?”

Germany’s leading environmental group BUND “loses its credibility”

Harry Neumann is a former head of BUND, one of Germany’s leading environmental protection groups. However he left the organization in protest, telling that the BUND is completely in bed with the wind industry, with top BUND officials even directly involved in the wind industry lobby. The depth and scale of the conflicts of interest and downright corruption is stunning. Former BUND member Stephan Schlitz: “In my eyes, the BUND has lost its credibility as an environmental organization.”

Former BUND founder Enoch zu Guttenberg, now one of Germany’s most vocal critics of the wind industry, says the wind lobby and the BUND are practically the same. He tells the ARD they’ve gone from being the lawyer for nature, to being the lawyer for the wind industry. “For nature it’s a catastrophe.”

Consumers can no longer afford electricity

At the 20-minute mark, the ARD focusses on who ends up paying for the wind energy bonanza: the struggling consumers (like Nina Albig) who are seeing their electric bills skyrocket.

Albig has seen her electric bill double since 2008 and is no longer able to afford it. Now the power company is threatening to cut her power off. Like so many other Germans who used to support rescuing the climate, she is “having doubts about the Energiewende“.

Paid demonstrators

But Germany’s Green Party refuses to believe any of it. In Berlin the Greens and the wind industry loudly protested the government’s recent plans to scale back the wind energy subsidies and support. Green Fraction Chairman Anton Hofreiter bellowed at the rally:

We need the wind turbines in order to save the foundations of our life, to rescue this planet, and our children!”

Increasingly persons like Hofreiter are finally beginning to be depicted by the ARD and Germany’s once ultra-green media as the charlatans of yesterday, still peddling snake oil that has long lost its magic.

It turns out that at the protest rally in Berlin most of the protesters who showed up were wind industry workers who were paid a day’s wages to show up – travel and accommodation costs included. Also speaking at the rally was the BUND itself.

Top CDU politician Michael Fuchs sums it up on the wind industry lobby:

It’s all about massive business interests. Totally massive business interests. Never have I experienced from any other lobby such a brutal approach, that parliamentarians have been pressured so much because of personal interests.”

Germany’s once loved wind industry is now looking more and more like a hated villain.

Tipping Points Postponed Again: Arctic Sea Ice Refuses To Melt …No Real Shrinking In 10 Years!

Japanese climate blogger Kirye caught my eye here at Twitter when posting a comparator chart of Arctic sea ice extent (and thickness) for 2007, 2015 and this year (2016) for September 4. In a nutshell, what is all the alarm about?

She comments that “Arctic ice is not doomed in the real world.” Clearly Arctic sea ice this summer will most likely not set a new record. There’s far more ice up there then what global warming alarmists hysterically projected earlier.

Also a recent chart of Arctic sea ice extent by the National Snow Ice and Data Center (NSIDC) shows that current sea ice extent is some half a million square kilometers over the 2012 level:

NSIDC_09_2016

Source: NSIDC

Clearly over the past years Arctic sea ice has refused to have anything to do with the often claimed “death spiral” and alarmists are always forced to go back a number of years in order to get the sharp downward overall trend they want to see.

Lately, however, it has not been downward at all.

No downward trend over past decade

Looking back at the past 10 years, we see there has been practically no downward trend whatsoever. A chart generated at Woodfortrees here for the past 10 years clearly illustrates this:

WFT_sea ice 07-17

No melt in 10 years! Chart: Woodfortrees

Clearly the Arctic is nowhere near a death spiral, and the polar ice has in fact defied the models and the many earlier predictions that it would disappear by 2015 altogether. With all that ice still up there, it’s time for the sea ice and global warming modelers to discard their equations – and to start over again from scratch.

With millions of square kilometers of ice still up there reflecting summer radiation back into space, it’s time readjust the energy budget.

Tipping points postponed again!

 

Distinguishing Between ‘Safe’ or ‘Dangerous’ Warming Is Easy: ‘Dangerous’ Warming Is Red

When Michael Mann and the IPCC coordinated efforts to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear from the paleoclimate record in the early 2000s, they employed the visually slick and effective tactic of adding red to the “dangerous” warming trend, and blue to the “safe” cooling trend.  The original Mann et al. (1998, 1999) graph that claimed to reconstruct  surface temperatures for the entire Northern Hemisphere (by extrapolating from a few select trees located in North America) was published without color.  The graph’s red “hockey stick” blade effectively allowed readers to see for themselves just how “dangerous” modern warming really is .

Holocene Mann Hockey Stick

The IPCC has since abandoned Michael Mann’s (Mann et al., 1998, 1999) artwork depicting late-1990s Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures as +0.9°C warmer than they were during Medieval times.  (For example, the 2013 IPCC report even acknowledges that many NH regions were as warm or warmer than present during the “Medieval Climate Anomaly”.)

Removing the Mann “hockey stick” graph from the paleoclimate record has come at a cost, though.  In many of the graphs of the Middle and Late Holocene constructed since then (with some exceptions), it has become much more difficult to distinguish between warming that is “safe” (for example, warming that will not endanger the lives of polar bears) and warming that is “dangerous” (for example, warming that will endanger the lives of polar bears).

The difficulty distinguishing between “safe” and “dangerous” warming arises because, unlike Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, many recent millennial-scale reconstructions just don’t show enough of a difference between the past climate and the present one to know which is which.   In fact, many reconstructions depict the 20th/21st centuries as not any warmer — and in some cases, cooler — than temperatures from a few hundred to a few thousand years ago.  This makes the detection of “dangerous” warming even more problematic.

Although it helps to add the color red to aid in deciphering which warming trend is “dangerous” and which is “safe”, sometimes even the additional coloration isn’t  enough to tell a difference.  For example, consider Esper et al. (2012) .  In the main graph from the paper (a), the authors redden the 20th/21st centuries to aid in identifying the warming that is “dangerous” versus that which is blue and thus “safe”.    However, the long-term trend is one of cooling, not warming, and the secondary graph (b) even shows that Northern Europe has been cooling overall since the 1940s or so.  This can become confusing for the reader concerned about detecting “dangerous” warming.

Esper et al., 2012

Esper et al 2012

So . . . as a service to those who may not be able to find the “dangerous” warming in modern scientific publications, below is a helpful guide with easy-to-understand pointing devices (arrows),  labeling (“Safe” versus “Dangerous Warming”), and red coloration embedded into the paper’s graphs.   The consistently-used bright red hue on the arrow tracking the graph’s “Dangerous Warming” allows readers to locate the “Dangerous Warming” right away — without needing to scan the entire graph.   With practice and repetition using these 20+peer-reviewed scientific papers, the average reader will ultimately become adept at distinguishing between the “dangerous” warming that kills polar bears and the “safe” warming that doesn’t kill polar bears.

Naulier et al., 2015  (China)

Holocene Cooling China Naulier15 copy

Matskovsky and Helama, 2015   (Finland, Sweden)

Holocene Cooling Sweden Finland MatsHel15 copy

Gennaretti et al., 2014  (North America)

Holocene Cooling North America Gennaratti14 copy

Esper et al., 2014 (Northern Europe)

Holocene Cooling Northern Europe Esper14 copy

Kolansky et al., 2015  (Pacific Ocean)

 

Holocene Cooling Pacific Kalansky15 copy

Meyer et al., 2014 (Russia)

Holocene Cooling Russia Meyer14 copy

Grudd et al., 2002 (Sweden)

Holocene Cooling Sweden Grudd02 copy

Gajewski, 2015 (Canadian Arctic, Greenland)

Holocene Cooling Canada Arctic Greenland Gajewski15 copy

Loomis et al., 2015 (Northern Africa)

Holocene Cooling North Africa Loomis15 copy

Munz et al., 2015  (Arabian Sea)

Holocene Cooling Arabian Sea Munz15dw

Rebolledo et al., 2015  (Chile)

Holocene Cooling Chile Rebolledo15 copy

Drinkwater, 2006 (northern North Atlantic, Greenland)

Holocene Cooling Greenland Drinkwater06 copy

Antinao and McDonald, 2013  (Tropical Pacific, California)

Holocene Cooling Pacific Antinao13 copy

Eldevik et al., 2014 (Norway, Norweigan Sea)

Holocene Cooling Norway Sea Eldevik14 copy

July surface coastal temperature for coastal Norway

Holocene Cooling North Atlantic Norwegian Sea Eldevik14 copy

Reconstructed temperature anomalies for the Norwegian Sea

Hu et al., 2015  (South China)

Holocene Cooling China Hu15 copy

Cook et al., 2009  (Canada)

Holocene Cooling Canadian Arctic Cook08 copy

Yan et al., 2015 (South China Sea)

Holocene Cooling South China Sea Yan15 copy

Ault et al., 2013 (Equatorial Pacific)

Holocene Cooling Equatorial Pacific Ault13 copy

Kylander et a., 2013  (Sweden)

Holocene Cooling Sweden Kylander13 copy

Fortin and Gajewski, 2016 (Canadian Arctic)

Holocene Cooling Canadian Arctic Fortin16 copy

Peak Holocene temperatures occurred prior to 5.0 ka [5,000 years ago], a time when overall aquatic and terrestrial biological production was high. Chironomid-inferred summer air temperatures reached up to 7.5°C during this period. The region of Lake JR01 cooled over the mid- to late Holocene, with high biological production between 6.1 and 5.4 ka. Biological production decreased again at ~ 2 ka and the rate of cooling increased in the past 2 ka, with coolest temperatures occurring between 0.46 and 0.36 ka [460 and 360 years ago], coinciding with the Little Ice Age. Although biological production increased in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time

 

Climate Propaganda: German Augusts In Fact Cooling Over Past 20 Years, Now Barely Above 1930s Levels!

What’s wrong here? August in Germany is not getting warmer

By Josef Kowatsch and Sebastian Lüning
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

According to the German DWD national weather service August 2016 recorded a mean temperature of 17.7°C. The start of the month was really cool, but the last part of the month the temperature climbed to peak summer levels, and thus compensated for the otherwise sub-par summer. No record temperature was set, with the month’s high some degrees below the record of over 40°C set for a few minutes in 2015.

Using the station network operated by the DWD, which covers all of Germany, and looking over the long term (Figure 1), we can discern four segments since 1931:

1) It was warm during the Nazi times.
2) After the war, mean temperatures dropped, and cool Augusts persisted until 1975.
3) Beginning in 1975 a rapid rise took place until a new temperature high was reached.
4) Since the peak in 2003, the temperatures for the month of August have dropped again. In total the current temperature level is higher than in 1931.

Figure 1: Temperature in Germany for August since 1931. Chart: Kowatsch. Data source: DWD.

To make the trend look more dramatic than it really is, some reporters are using a trick: They like to start the trend at the bottom of a cold period. Many start their chart at 1961 (Figure 2). Clearly this is near the bottom of the 1960s cold period and thus it makes August mean temperatures look as if they are rising rapidly.

August has gotten much warmer over the past 55 years. According to the linear trend line, the mean temperature was near 16°C in 1961, while today we are close to 18°C.

Figure 2: Temperature in Germany for August since 1961. Chart: Kowatsch. Data from DWD.

However, Germany’s mean August temperature has stagnated over the past 29 years at a level of 1988. A temperature plateau has been established (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Temperature in Germany for August since 1988. Chart: Kowatsch. Data from DWD.

What’s interesting is a look at the last 20 years (Figure 4). The summer month of August has shown a distinct cooling trend over the past 2 decades.

Figure 4: Temperature in Germany for August since 1997. Chart: Kowatsch. Data from DWD.

Thus it’s worth keeping these facts in mind whenever the German media blare out headlines of extreme summer heat. Here it pays to maintain a cool head in order to distinguish between emotions and reality.

 

Climate Site Slams Germany’s DWD Weather Service For “Heating Up” Summer Press Release

The mean temperature for Germany in August, 2016, was 17.7°C, which turns out to be 0.2°K colder than the figure reported in the overheated August 30, 2016 press release issued by the German DWD national weather service.

The August result makes the month 0.7°C warmer than the 1981-2010 mean. Nothing extraordinary.

However, the DWD has had a habit of overstating monthly mean temperatures in its press releases to the media.

German climate and weather blogsite wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de here reports that this has been the fifth false monthly report by the DWD so far this year – suggesting that the DWD is indulging in climate warming propaganda.

What follows is a chart of August mean temperatures in Germany since 1881:

Die DWD-Grafik zeigt die Mitteltemperaturen im August in Deutsc hland von 1861 - 2016. Die Miteltemperatur lag im August nur bei 17,7°C und damit -0,2 K kälter als in der DWD-Pressemitteilung vom 30.8.2016. Quelle:

Source: DWD- data series and trends. Overall trend since 1990 is flat.

The DWD August press release shouted that “August 2016 was too warm!”

Overall the summer of 2016 (June, July, August) posted a preliminary mean of 17.8°C, which makes it 0.6°C colder than last summer.

The wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de site scoffs at the DWD claim that August “was too warm!”, reminding readers that snow fell down to elevations of 2000 meters in all three summer months, with record lows being set at a number of locations. The German site writes:

The 0.7°K deviation for the summer of 2016 in Germany is well within the normal range for mean summer temperature over the years – the summer was neither too cold nor too warm. It was quite normal. The DWD press release is false.”

The site points out that there was in fact only one single heat wave this summer, with maximum temperatures reaching above 30°C at least five days in a row or more, and it took place at the very end of August – and only in parts of Germany.

The big cities of Hamburg, Berlin, and Munich did not see a single heat wave in the summer of 2016, as the following charts illustrate:

 

Im Sommer 2016 gab es in Hamburg keinen einzige Hitzewelle mit Tmax mindestens 30°C an mindstens fürnf auseinander folgenden Tagen. Quelle:

 Source: www.niederschlagsradar.de=temperature

Im Sommer 2016 gab es in Berlin keine einzige Hitzewelle mit Tmax mindestens 30°C an mindstens fünf aufeinander folgenden Tagen. Quelle:

Quelle: www.niederschlagsradar.de=temperature

Im Sommer 2016 gab es in München keine einzige Hitzewelle mit Tmax mindestens 30°C an mindestens fünf aufeinander folgenden Tagen. Quelle:

Source: www.niederschlagsradar.de=temperature

The wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de site suggests that the DWD is exaggerating to make it look like Germany had a hot summer when in fact it was nothing of the sort. The site writes: the DWD August 30th press release tried to produce the impression of multiple widespread heat waves in Germany this summer, when in fact this was not the case at al.

Moreover an NOAA reanalysis of Europe up to August 28 shows that the greater part of the European continent had a much cooler than normal August 2016:

Die NOAA-Reanalyse der Abweichungen der 2m-Temperaturen vom international üblichen und von der WMO empfohlenen modernen Klimamittel 1981-2010 zeigt große Teile Europas vom 1. bis 28. August 2016 unterkühlt (blaue Farben). Quelle:

Source: www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/composites/day/

Over the past months global temperatures have cooled, Germany is much cooler than it was 1 year ago, and the area of thick Arctic ice has tripled in size over the past four years. Yet, that doesn’t keep the DWD from announcing a summer that was “too warm” with a deviation of only +0.7°C.

 

Rare Event! Millions of Children Under 12 See First Ever Hurricane Hit Florida!

Accuweather here writes that hurricane Hermine is the first to make landfall in Florida since Wilma way back in October 2005, 11 years ago.

Hurricane Hermine

Chart: NOAA, public domain

In the heydays of global warming, in the early 2000s, scientists and activists loudly claimed hurricanes would become more frequent and even more powerful due to global warming supercharging – things would only get worse. And unless we changed our fossil-fuel indulgent lives, Mother Nature would certainly punish mankind like never before.

Odds: 1 in 2300!

Yet, since those hysterical days, hurricane activity over the East Coast has unexpectedly all but disappeared. Not a major hurricane (Cat 3 – 5) has hit the US east coast in close to 4000 days, thus making the period the quietest in recorded history. The whopping odds of this according to one estimate was only 1 in 2300. Read here and here.

Rare! Children see first east coast hurricane ever!

This means that almost all children under 14 have no or barely any recollection of a major hurricane hitting the US east coast.

For Florida, ABC News here reports that Hermine is the first hurricane of any category to hit the state in a decade.

In summary, the exact opposite of what climate experts predicted in 2005 has in fact happened. They could not have been more wrong. Hermine it turns out, just barely made hurricane status. ABC writes:

The Category 1 storm hit just east of St. Marks around 1:30 a.m. EDT with winds around 80 mph, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center. Hermine later weakened to a tropical storm as it moved farther inland.”

The latest is that Hermine has weakened to a tropical storm and is located over Georgia. The track for the next hours is shown below.

Hurricane Hermin_2

Chart: NOAA

Though it’s early, the storm could pose a threat to southern New England.

Of course one calm 10-year period of hurricane activity does not mean it’s going to stay that way by any means. It’s just a question of time before hurricane activity naturally picks up again.

 

New Papers Confirm Sea Levels Aren’t Rising Fast Enough — Coastal Land Area Growing, Not Shrinking

A year ago, several geologists (Kench et al., 2015) published a paper in the journal Geology that revealed a curious phenomenon occurring along island coasts in the tropical Pacific.  Despite some of the highest rates of sea level rise in the world in this region (over 5 mm/yr  on average since the 1950s), the total land area for these islands has not only not shrunk while sea levels were rapidly rising, the coastal land area has expanded — by a net +7.3% — over the last 118 years.

Kench et al., 2015

“The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). “

Then, a few days ago, 6 scientists (Donchyts et al., 2016) published a paper online for the journal Nature confirming that the curious phenomenon in the tropical Pacific — coastal land growth exceeding recent sea level rise — has also been occurring across the world, or on a net global scale, since the mid-1980s.

Donchyts et al., 2016

Earth’s surface water change over the past 30 years [1985-2015]

“Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”

The succinct translation is that sea levels aren’t rising fast enough to offset land area expansion.  The world’s sea coasts are growing, not shrinking.

Scientists Surprised?

Interestingly, in the BBC press release for their Nature paper, the Donchyts et al. scientists expressed surprise (“the most surprising thing”)  that coastal land growth has offset the recent sea level rise, and admitted that their findings ran contrary to expectations.

BBC  [press release]

Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists’ surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).

We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.  “We’re were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.”

The researchers said Dubai’s coast had been significantly extended, with the creation of new islands to house luxury resorts.

China has also reconstructed their whole coast from the Yellow Sea all the way down to Hong Kong,” said Dr Baart.

Shoreline Changes Are Not Primarily Determined by Climate

It’s a little puzzling that scientists should be surprised that the Earth’s coasts aren’t shrinking.  After all, relative sea level changes are not the predominant determinative factor affecting the growth or recession of land area.  Coastal erosion and accretion, tectonic uplift and subsidence…are far more influential.

Along the coasts of Alaska, for example, the land surface has been rapidly rising (uplift) for many decades.  Consequently, relative sea levels are falling in this region at a rate of -5 to -10 mm/yr (-2 to -4 inches per decade) according to NOAA tide gauges.

NTZ Alaska Sea Level

Along the U.S. Gulf Coast, on the other hand, the land surface has been on a long-term sinking (subsidence) trend.  Consequently, relative sea levels are rising at rates of +5 to +10 mm/yr (+2 to +4 inches per decade) according to NOAA tide gauges.

NTZ Gulf Sea Level

 

Obviously, these regional sea level trends are only very minimally — if at all —  connected to climate-related sea level changes — or, for that matter, anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

As Testut et al. (2016) concluded in a paper published online a few months ago, “sea level rise is not the primary factor controlling shoreline changes.”  It’s the “non-climate” factors that predominantly determine relative sea level changes over time.

Testut et al., 2016

We show that Grande Glorieuse Island has increased in area by 7.5 ha between 1989 and 2003, predominantly as a result of shoreline accretion [growth]: accretion occurred over 47% of shoreline length, whereas 26% was stable and 28% was eroded. Topographic transects and field observations show that the accretion is due to sediment transfer from the reef outer slopes to the reef flat and then to the beach. This accretion occurred in a context of sea level rise: sea level has risen by about 6 cm in the last twenty years and the island height is probably stable or very slowly subsiding. This island expansion during a period of rising sea level demonstrates that sea level rise is not the primary factor controlling the shoreline changes. This paper highlights the key role of non-climate factors in changes in island area, especially sediment availability and transport.”

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, a renowned sea-level expert who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed scientific publications during his career, has recently confirmed there has been a lack of climate-related sea level rise in areas of the world where disastrous climate-related sea level rise has been assumed to already be occurring: the Maldives and along the coasts of Bangladesh.   Severe coastal erosion can explain the relative sea level changes in these regions.  In fact, Mörner reports that the Indian Ocean as a whole has been “virtually stable over the last 40-50 years.”

Mörner, 2016

“Coastal erosion is caused by many different processes like changes in prevailing wind direction, coastal currents, re-establishment of a new equilibrium profile, sea level rise, sea level fall, exceptional storms, hurricanes/cyclones, and tsunami events. These coastal factors are reviewed with special attention to effects due to changes in sea level. In the Indian Ocean, sea level seems to have remained virtually stable over the last 40-50 years. Coastal erosion in the Maldives was caused by a short lowering in sea level in the 1970s. In Bangladesh, repeated disastrous cyclone events cause severe coastal erosion, which hence has nothing to do with any proposed sea level rise. Places like Tuvalu, Kiribati and Vanuatu – all notorious for an inferred sea level rise – have tide gauges which show no on-going sea level rise. Erosion is by no means a sign of sea level rise. Coastal erosion occurs in uplifting regions as well as in subsiding regions, or virtually stable areas. Coastal morphology provides excellent insights to the stability.”

Scientists: Sea Levels Are Barely Rising — And The Rise Is ‘Not Anthropogenic In Origin’

On second thought, perhaps it is defensible that scientists are surprised today’s “rapid” sea level rise has not already inundated the world’s coasts like it does in doomsday movies.  After all, this sea-levels-are-dangerously-rising narrative has become so commonly headlined in the popular media that it is effectively considered an unquestioned “fact” that needs no further investigation.

But some scientists have actually taken the time to investigate relative sea level rise in long-term records from tide gauges.  And what they have found is that in some locations sea levels are rising, in other locations sea levels are falling, and that most of the world’s tide gauges show that sea levels are stable, with no significant trends either way.  In fact, scientists have found that the overall rate of rise from the 19th/20th centuries to now — including the most recent decades  — has only been about 0.3 mm/yr to 1 mm/yr, which is about 1 to 4 inches per century.  These modest rates are well within the range of natural variability.

Beenstock et al., 2015

“Using recently developed methods for nonstationary time series, we find that sea levels rose in 7 % of tide gauge locations and fell in 4 %. The global mean increase is 0.39–1.03 mm/year.”

Parker and Ollier, 2016

“Tide gauges provide the most reliable measurements, and best data to assess the rate of change. We show as the naïve averaging of all the tide gauges included in the PSMSL surveys show “relative” rates of rise about +1.04 mm/year (570 tide gauges of any length). If we consider only 100 tide gauges with more than 80 years of recording the rise is only +0.25 mm/year. This naïve averaging has been stable and shows that the sea levels are slowly rising but not accelerating.  … We conclude that if the sea levels are only oscillating about constant trends everywhere as suggested by the tide gauges, then the effects of climate change are negligible, and the local patterns may be used for local coastal planning without any need of purely speculative global trends based on emission scenarios.”

Furthermore, even in the regions of the world where sea levels are indeed rising, and rising rapidly (i.e., the tropical Pacific), scientists have acknowledged that an anthropogenic fingerprint cannot even be detected in the sea level rise trends.  Natural oscillations related to internal ocean processes are predominantly what drive sea level changes, not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Palanisamy et al., 2015

“[B]y making use of 21 CMIP5 coupled climate models, we study the contribution of external forcing to the Pacific Ocean regional sea level variability over 1993–2013, and show that according to climate models, externally forced and thereby the anthropogenic sea level fingerprint on regional sea level trends in the tropical Pacific is still too small to be observable by satellite altimetry.”

“Furthermore, regressed CMIP5 MME-based sea level spatial trend pattern in the tropical Pacific over the altimetry period do not display any positive sea level trend values that are comparable to the altimetry based sea level signal after having removed the contribution of the decadal natural climate mode. This suggests that the residual positive trend pattern observed in the western tropical Pacific is not externally forced and thereby not anthropogenic in origin. In addition the amplitude of the sea level spatial trend pattern from regressed CMIP5 MME is low over the altimetry period in the tropical Pacific. This amplitude is significantly lower than the expected error in trend patterns from satellite altimetry (in the order of 2 mm yr-1 to 3 mm yr−1, Ablain et al 2015, Couhert et al 2015) and suggest that satellite altimetry measurement is still not accurate enough to detect the anthropogenic signal in the 20 year tropical Pacific sea level trends.”

Hansen et al., 2016

“[T]he large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world’s best recorded region.”

Summary

To summarize, the world’s shorelines have been growing, not shrinking, in recent decades.  This growth or relative net change in coastal land area is primarily related to the effects of non-climatic processes such as coastal erosion (or the lack of it) and subsidence and uplift trends —  just as the loss of coastal land area in some locations is predominantly due to these same natural non-climatic processes.   Tide gauges averaged from all over the globe indicate that sea levels are rising very modestly, and well within the range of natural variability.  In the regions of the world where sea levels are rising, the rise is predominantly due to internal processes, as an anthropogenic fingerprint in sea level rise trends has not been detectable.

Of course, the above analysis does not fit the narrative of anthropogenically-induced dangerous sea level rise that will wipe out coastal cities and lead to the catastrophic displacement of 100s of millions of people world-wide in the coming decades.  Perhaps this is why some may find this summary of scientific conclusions undermining this popular doomsday narrative so . . . surprising.

“Dominating Factor”…Leading Warmist Climatologist Concedes Natural Oceanic Cycles Directly Related To Troposphere Temperature

Renowned climate scientist Prof. Mojib Latif used to often appears on television, radio and speeches all over Germany to spread the word of an impending human-made climate catastrophe.

Hat-tip Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

One of the highlights of Latif’s many appearances was the CO2 “fingerprint” in the atmosphere, which according to Latif is supposed to confirm the greenhouse effect. Up in the stratosphere it is supposed to cool because heat would be trapped by CO2 in the troposphere below. This of course always impressed his gullible audiences.

Profound reversal

However, it now appears that the distinguished German scientist is now changing his mind profoundly. In a recent press release he and his fellow co-scientists in Kiel, Germany, conceded that the cooling is likely more a part of the 60-year PDO ocean cycle.

What follows is the press release from the Kiel-based Geomar research institute dated 26 July 2016:

Middle atmosphere in sync with the ocean

Latif GeomarRelationship between decadal variations in temperatures in the Pacific and the tropopause identified.

26 July 2016/Kiel. In the late 20th century scientists observed a cooling at the transition between the troposphere and stratosphere at an altitude of about 15 kilometers. They believed this development in the so-called tropopause was caused by human influences. Climate scientists from Kiel and Bergen (Norway) have now published a study in the international journal Scientific Reports showing that the cooling could also be part of a natural decadal variation which is controlled by the water temperature of the Pacific.

Water plays a major role for our planet not only in its liquid form at the surface. In the atmosphere too, it considerably affects our lives as well as weather and climate. Clouds and rainfall are one example. Water vapor, the gaseous form of water, also plays a prominent role on Earth. It is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, without it the Earth would be a frozen planet. For climate variations, water vapor is particularly important in the stratosphere at altitudes between 15 and 50 kilometers. How much of the gas actually reaches the stratosphere mainly depends on the temperature at the transition between the lowest atmospheric layer, the troposphere, and the overlying stratosphere. This boundary layer is called the tropopause.

Now scientists of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, together with a colleague from Bergen (Norway), were able to demonstrate for the first time that natural fluctuations in water temperatures of the Pacific – which occur on decadal timescales – are directly related to the temperature of the tropical tropopause. “It has long been thought that human influences already affected the tropopause. However, it seems that natural variability is still the dominating factor,” says Dr. Wuke Wang from GEOMAR, lead author of the study just published in the international journal Scientific Reports.

For their study, the researchers used observations for the period 1979-2013 and also climate models. “We were thus able to extend the study period to nearly 150 years. The model allows us to easily look at both human and natural influences and to separate their impacts from each other,” explains Prof. Dr. Katja Matthes, climate researcher at GEOMAR and co-author of the study.

A well-known climatic phenomenon is the so-called Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). “This natural variation with decadal timescale leads to anomalously high or low water temperatures of the Pacific,” explained Dr. Wang. The PDO influences the climate and ecosystems in the Pacific region and also the global mean temperature of the Earth.

The model simulations show that the fluctuations in water temperatures also affect the wind systems over the tropical and subtropical Pacific. This in turn also alters the air transport between the lower and upper layers of the troposphere, ultimately regulating the temperatures at the boundary to the stratosphere. “We were now able to demonstrate these relationships for the first time,” said Dr. Wang.

Thus, the current study contradicts earlier hypotheses about the temperature variability of the tropical tropopause. As early as in the late 20th century, scientists had seen a cooling trend there which began in the 1970s. They traced this observation back to anthropogenic causes, in particular the increase in greenhouse gases. “However, this assumption was based on a rather patchy data base and simplified climate models. Our study shows that the cooling of the tropical tropopause does not have to be a one-way street but could also be part of a natural fluctuation which extends over several decades,” Professor Matthes emphasized.

This knowledge is also of paramount importance for the general climate research. The temperature of the tropopause decides on the input of water vapor into the stratosphere: The higher the water vapor content in the stratosphere, the higher the increase in surface temperatures. Anthropogenic climate change also has an effect on the temperature of the tropopause, and this effect could become more evident in the coming decades. “Only if we can clearly distinguish natural variability from anthropogenic influences, we can make reliable forecasts for the future development of our climate,” Prof. Matthes summarizes.

Scientific Paper:

Wang, W., K. Matthes, N.-E. Omrani, and M. Latif, 2016: Decadal variability of tropical tropopause temperature and its relationship to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Scientific Reports, 6:29537, DOI: 10.1038/srep29537″

Chart credit: Geomar, Kiel-Germany

 

Warming Not Global… Joe Bastardi: “Most Of The Global Warming Is Happening At The Arctic And Antarctic.”

At his Satuurday Summary, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi looks at August global temperature (starting at about the 3:30 mark) and serves up a few intersting observations.

“Global” warming confined to the poles, in wintertime

First he reminds us that the “global” warming is pretty much confined to the poles, and that during the winter time. Warming during the summertime has been very small, “much to the chagrin of people who want the Arctic ice cap to disappear … Summers are not getting warmer in the Arctic”. He summarizes:

Summers are not getting warmer in the Arctic, and they are not getting warmer in the Antarctic – their summers. The winters are getting warmer and that’s where most of the global warming is. […] Most of the warming is happening in the Arctic, and in the Antarctic during their winters, not in third world countries… “

He then tells listeners that warming is hardly occurring 20° North and south of the equator. In summary the warming is mostly confined to the poles, and it isn’t even year round.

“Phony ideas” about how warm it is getting

The veteran meteorolgist then scoffs at the claim that 0.02°C warming per decade is going to cause mass migrations of populations:

Do you actually think that people can detect, and get migrational patterns, because people detect 0.02°C increase in temperatures? Cut me a break!”

“Probably one of the least ice melt seasons on record”

At 6:10 he looks at Arctic sea ice, saying that it is not going to reach a new record low, as many were hollering about earlier this year. The ice melt rate over the summer has been too slow. Joe says:

Chances are that we had probably one of the least ice melt seasons on record.”

Joe_SatSum 0827

One reason this is so, Joe adds, is because summers have not been warming up there.

 

30 Scientific Papers Reveal Inverse CO2 – Sea Level Signal: As CO2 Rises, Sea Level Falls

According to the IPCC (2013),  global sea levels rose by less than two-tenths of a meter (0.19 m) between 1901 and 2010.  Considering the scientific record of long-term sea level trends from locations across the globe, this small <0.2 m change in sea levels over the course of the last 110 years does not even fall outside the range of natural variability.

Sea levels have commonly risen and fallen at amplitudes much greater than two-tenths of a meter.   As Harris et al. (2015)  confirm, “relative sea-level variations of 1 m were common throughout the Holocene.”

For example, consider Bracco et al. (2014).  These scientists found that sea levels along the coasts of South America were a full 4 meters higher than they are now between 5,500 and 6,000 years ago.  Then, over the course of just a 400-year time span  (between 4,700 -4,300 years ago), sea levels dropped by a full 3 meters (to +1 meter above today’s levels), then rose by 2 meters (to +3 meters above today’s levels), and then fell to current levels after 4,300 years ago.   Here’s what these long-term sea-level oscillations look like graphed (Fig. 5):

NTZ Sea Level Highstand Uruguay Oscillation

These rapid variations in sea levels pose critical explanatory problems for advocates of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) supposition that human CO2 emissions, and not internal Earth-system dynamics, are what drive sea level changes.  Specifically, AGW advocates presume that rising CO2 concentrations cause sea levels to rise (and lowering CO2 concentrations cause sea levels to fall).  A large volume of rapidly accumulating scientific evidence not only does not support this CO2-rise-causes-sea-level-rise supposition, it suggests that a long-term  inverse correlation could just as easily be formulated: As CO2 rises, sea levels decline.

To illustrate this, consider the Bracco et al. (2014) graph above depicting meters-per-century variations in sea levels with the corresponding CO2 concentration recorded for each period.   Notice that the highstand period (5,000 to 6,000 years ago) had lower concentrations of CO2 than the following millennia that subsequently had higher CO2 concentrations.  Also, consider that there was no significant change in CO2 levels during the 400 years of rapid sea level changes.  Finally, notice that the last 200 years of sea level changes (if there have been any) are undetectable on this scale at this location even though CO2 concentrations were rising from 280 ppm to 400 ppm during this period.

NTZ Sea Level Highstand Uruguay Oscillation copy

And this isn’t just true for the coasts of South America.  In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, a non-correlation — or inverse correlation — for CO2 and sea level (as CO2 rises, sea levels fall) has been reported by scientists for dozens of locations across the globe just in the last few years alone.  Graphs (with CO2 ppm concentrations, text, and arrows added) for a few other locations are shown below.

Prieto et al., 2016  (Argentina, Uruguay)

NTZ Sea Level Highstand UruguayArgentina CO2 copy

Dura et al., 2016  (Vancouver Island)

NTZ Sea Level Highstand Vancouver2 CO2

Kench et al., 2014  (central Pacific Ocean)

NTZ Sea Level Highstand CO2 Pacific copy

But not only is the CO2-rise-causes-sea-level-rise AGW supposition dubious, so is the entire paradigm of an alarming and catastrophic human-caused sea-level rise future.

Consider Bangladesh.   According to Rashid et al. (2013), the mean sea level was “at least 4.5 to 5 m higher” 6,000 years ago than it is today.  At that time, CO2 levels ranged close to 265 ppm, or 135 ppm lower than today’s 400 ppm.   Not only that, but for the last 1,500 years, there has been no noticeable difference in the shoreline near Bangladesh — despite the rapidly rising CO2 levels during this period.

Rashid et al., 2013  (Bangladesh)

[T]he highest RSL [relative sea level] transgression in Bangladesh at approximately 6000 cal BP, being at least 4.5 to 5 m higher than the modern m.s.l. [mean sea level]  After this phase, the relative sea level started to fall, and consequently, a freshwater peat developed at approximately 5980–5700 cal BP. The abundant mangrove pollens in the salt-marsh succession shows the regression at approximately 5500 cal BP, when it was 1–2 m higher than the modern sea level. The curve indicates that at approximately 5000 cal BP and onwards, the RSL started to fall towards its present position, and the present shoreline of Bangladesh was established at approximately 1500 cal BP and has not noticeably migrated inland since.”

It was recently pointed out that there are 4 newly published papers confirming that natural variability largely explains recent sea level fluctuations, not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.    Scientists also continue to publish papers (about 30 are compiled here) that indicate relative sea levels across the globe were often meters higher than they are now as recently as a few thousand years ago . . . when CO2 concentrations were much lower and anthropogenic CO2 emissions were non-existent.

In sum, scientists are increasingly finding that is difficult to even detect an anthropogenic signal in the noise of strong natural sea level variability spanning decades to millennia.  So at what point did it become “settled science” or “basic physics” that raising or lowering CO2 concentrations cause sea levels to rise or fall?

Prieto et al., 2016  (Argentina, Uruguay)

“Analysis of the RSL [relative sea level] database revealed that the RSL [relative sea level] rose to reach the present level at or before c. 7000 cal yr BP, with the peak of the sea-level highstand c. +4 m [above present] between c. 6000 and 5500 cal yr BP (depending on the statistical method used) or at c. 7000 cal yr BP according to the ICE-6G model prediction, gradually falling after this time to the present position … Particularly for the Río de la Plata (RDP), a Holocene RSL curve was presented by Cavallotto et al. (2004) based on 14 uncalibrated 14C ages from selected samples from the southwestern coast of the RDP (Argentina). This RSL curve was re-plotted by Gyllencreutz et al. (2010) using the same index points and qualitative approach but using the calibrated ages. It shows rising sea-levels following the Last Glacial Termination (LGT), reaching a RSL [relative sea level] maximum of +6.5 m above present at c. 6500 cal yr BP, followed by a stepped regressive trend towards the present (Fig. 2a).”

Dura et al., 2016  (Vancouver Island)

“In northern and western Sumatra, GIA models predict high rates (>5 mm/year) of RSL [relative sea level] rise from 12 to 7 ka, followed by slowing rates of rise (<1 mm/year) to an RSL [relative sea level] highstand of <1 m (northern Sumatra) and 3 m (western Sumatra) between 6 and 3 ka [6,000-3,000 years ago], and then gradual (<1 mm/ year) RSL fall until present (Fig. 7a, b).”

Sander et al., 2016  (Denmark)

Results: The data shows a period of RSL[relative sea level] highstand at c. 2.2 m above present MSL [mean sea level] between c. 5.0 and 4.0 ka BP [5,000 to 4,000 years before present] .After that, RSL drops by c. 1.3 m between c. 4.0 and 3.4 ka BP to an elevation roughly 1 m above present MSL. Since then, RSL has been falling at more or less even rates.”

Lee et al., 2016  (Southeast Australia)

“The configuration suggests surface inundation of the upper sediments by marine water during the mid-Holocene (c. 2–8 kyr BP), when sea level was 1–2 m above today’s level.”

Yokoyama et al., 2016  (Japan)

The Holocene-high-stand (HHS) inferred from oyster fossils (Saccostrea echinata and Saccostrea malaboensis) is 2.7 m [above present sea level] at ca. 3500 years ago, after which sea level gradually fell to present level.”

Long et al., 2016  (Scotland)

“RSL [relative sea level] data from Loch Eriboll and the Wick River Valley show that RSL [relative sea level] was <1 m above present for several thousand years during the mid and late Holocene before it fell to present.”

May et al., 2016  (Western Australia)

“Beach ridge evolution over a millennial time scale is also indicated by the landward rise of the sequence possibly corresponding to the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand of WA [Western Australia] of at least 1-2 m above present mean sea level.”

Haghani et al., 2016  (Caspian Sea)

Caspian Sea (CS) water level has fluctuated repeatedly with an amplitude of larger than 25m during the Holocene without any link with the eustatic sea level. …. The data from the Langarud sequence indicate that the CSL [Caspian Sea level] rose to at least −21.44m during that time (i.e. >6m higher than at present), as Langarud was probably not on the shore itself but was affected by distal brackish water flooding. This result is in line with historical findings about the CSL high-stand during the 14th and the early 15th centuries.  … This massive brackish water invasion would have caused a serious disruption to food supply to Persia.”

Chiba et al., 2016  (Japan)

Highlights

“We reconstruct Holocene paleoenvironmental changes and sea levels by diatom analysis.  Average rates of sea-level rise and fall are estimated during the Holocene.  Relative sea level during Holocene highstand reached 1.9 m [higher than today] during 6400–6500 cal yr BP [calendar years before present].”

Leonard et al., 2016  (Great Barrier Reef)

Holocene sea level instability in the southern Great Barrier Reef, Australia

RSL [relative sea level] stabilised ~0.2 m above present levels by 900 yr BP. While the mechanism of the RSL instability is still uncertain, the alignment with previously reported RSL oscillations, rapid global climate changes and mid-Holocene reef “turn-off” on the GBR are discussed.”

Clement et al., 2016   (New Zealand)

“In North Island locations the early-Holocene sea-level highstand was quite pronounced, with RSL [relative sea level] up to 2.75 m higher than present. In the South Island the onset of highstand conditions was later, with the first attainment of PMSL being between 7000–6400 cal yr BP. In the mid-Holocene the northern North Island experienced the largest sea-level highstand, with RSL up to 3.00 m higher than present.”

Zondervan, 2016  (Great Barrier Reef)

“Complete in-situ fossil coral heads have been found on beach rock of One Tree Island, a small cay in the Capricorn Group on the Great Barrier Reef. Measurements against the present low-tide mark provide a [Holocene] high stand of at least +2.85 m [above present sea levels]  … Although the late Holocene high stand has been debated in the past (e.g. Belperio 1979, Thom et al. 1968), more evidence now supports a sea level high stand of at least + 1- 2 m relative to present sea levels (Baker & Haworth 1997, 2000, Collins et al. 2006, Larcombe et al. 1995, Lewis et al. 2008, Sloss et al. 2007).”

Mann et al., 2016  (Indonesia/Strait of Makassar)

“Radiometrically calibrated ages from emergent fossil microatolls on Pulau Panambungan indicate a relative sea-level highstand not exceeding 0.5 m above present at ca. 5600 cal. yr BP

Wündsch et al., 2016  (South Africa)

“Compared to the present, mostly drier conditions and a greater marine influence due to a higher sea level are inferred for the period between 4210 and 2710 cal BP [calendar years before present].”

Engel et al., 2015  (Western Australia)

“The foredunes overlie upper beach deposits located up to >2 m above the present upper beach level and provide evidence for a higher mid-Holocene RSL [relative sea level].”

Lewis et al., 2015  (Northeastern Australia)

“[D]ata show a Holocene sea-level highstand of 1–2 m higher than present which extended from ca. 7500 to 2000 yr ago (Woodroffe, 2003; Sloss et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2013). The hydro-isostatic adjustment is thought to account for these 1–2 m sea-level changes to present levels over the past 2000 yr (Lambeck and Nakada, 1990; Lambeck, 2002).”

Lokier et al., 2015  (Persian Gulf)

Mid-Holocene transgression of the Gulf surpassed today’s sea level by 7100–6890 cal yr BP, attaining a highstand of > 1 m above current sea level shortly after 5290–4570 cal yr BP before falling back to current levels by 1440–1170 cal yr BP.”

Hein et al., 2015 (Brazil)

In southern Brazil, falling RSL [relative sea level] following a 2–4 m [above present sea level] highstand at 5 to 6 ka [5,000 to 6,000 years ago] forced coastal progradation.”

Reinink-Smith, 2015 (Kuwait)

“In northeastern Kuwait  …. a [sea level] highstand at ~ 5000–3500 cal yr BP [before present]. The berms are presently at ~ + 6 m above sea level, 2–3 m above the beach ridges. Human settlements were common on the ridge crests before and after the highstand [~6 m above present levels]. Regression to present-day sea level commenced after the highstand, which is when the sabkha began forming.”

Macreadie et al., 2015  (southeast Australia)

“[R]esults from other studies … suggest that high-stand, at perhaps 2 m above present msl [mean sea level] was achieved as early as 7000 radiocarbon years BP (7800 cal. years BP) and that sea-level has exceeded the present value for much of the mid- to late-Holocene.”

Bracco et al., 2014  (Uruguay/South America)

Highlights:

Sea level reached 4 m amsl [above mean sea level today] between 6000 and 5500 yr BP [before present].  A rapid sea level fall to about 1 m amsl [above mean sea level today] was inferred for 4700-4300 yr BP.  A further sea level increase to about 3 m amsl [above mean sea level today] was inferred after 4300 yr BP.  After 4300 yr BP there was a constant sea level a decline.”

Kench et al., 2014  (central Pacific Ocean)

[T]he mid-Holocene [sea level] highstand is reported to have peaked at approximately +1.1 m above present and was sustained until approximately 2000 years B.P. in the Marshall Islands (Figure 4).”

Strachan et al., 2014  (South Africa)

The mid-Holocene highstands culminated in a sea-level maximum of approximately 3 m above mean sea level (MSL) from 7300 to 6500 cal years BP and of 2 m above MSL at around 4000 cal years BP.  Thereafter, RSL dropped to slightly below the present level between 3500 and 2800 cal years BP13 Sea-level fluctuations during the late Holocene in southern Africa were relatively small (1-2 m); however, these fluctuations had a major impact on past coastal environments.  Evidence from the west coast suggests that there was a highstand of 0.5 m above MSL from 1500 to 1300 cal years BP or possibly earlier (1800 cal years BP), followed by a lowstand (-0.5 m above MSL) from 700 to 400 cal years BP.”

Rashid et al., 2014 (equatorial Pacific Ocean)

“Upon correction for isostatic island subsidence, we find that local relative sea level was at least ~1.5±0.4 m higher than present at ~5,400 years ago.”

Yamano et al., 2014 (New Caledonia, Southwest Pacific Ocean)

“Mba Island initially formed around ~ 4500 cal yr B.P., when sea level was ~ 1.1 m higher than at present.”

Eisenhauer et al., 2013 (French Polynesia)

In between 5.4 and 2 ka [5,400 – 2,000 years ago] minimum sealeveloscillated between 1.5 and 2 m for ~3 ka [3,000 years] but then declined to the present position after ~2 ka BP [2,000 years before present].  Based on statistical arguments on the coral age distribution HSLM is constrained to an interval of 3.5×0.8 ka. Former studies being in general accord with our data show that sea level in French Polynesia was ~1 m higher than present between 5,000 and 1,250 yrs BP and that a highstand was reached between 2,000 and 1,500 yrs BP (Pirazzoli and Montaggioni, 1988) and persisted until 1,200 yrs BP in the Tuamotu Archipelago

Lewis et al., 2013  (Australia)

[M]ost studies now recognise that sea levels around most parts of mainland Australia in the mid-Holocene reached between 1 and 2 m above present levels (e.g. Baker and Haworth, 2000a; Baker et al., 2005; Sloss et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2008; Perry and Smithers, 2011), studies purporting a higher level between 2 and 3 m cannot be discounted entirely (e.g. Hopley 1971, 1975, 1978, 1980; Searle and Woods, 1986; Woodroffe, 2009).”

Stattegger et al., 2013 (South Vietnam)

“[T]he last phase of deglacial sea-level rise from −5 to +1.4 m [occurred] between 8.1 to 6.4 ka [8,100 to 6,400 years ago]. The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka.[8,000-6,900 years ago]. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above +1.4 m [above present] was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to +1.5 m around 6.0 ka.”

YanTao et al., 2013 (South China)

“Using 1 m below the tidal datum as the upper limit of coral growth, the elevations of these dead corals predict a mid-Holocene sea level 1.5–3.4 m higher than the present level.”

Leading German Business Magazine Slams Climate Activists Attacking Valentina Zharkova …”Religious Warriors”

Here’s more fallout from the climate-religious attempts to suppress a scientist who dares to offer alternative ideas to global warming dogma.

Hat-tip Die kalte Sonne here.

Galileo silenced

On Augsut 16, 2016, in the German Wirtschaftswoche (Business Week) Cora Stephan looked at the dubious attempts to suppress and censor science.

Climate science that does not fit the global narrative
[…] No significant increase in the global mean temperature has taken place, a point that was even conceeded by climate scientist Mojib Latif, who is a follower of the greenhouse hypothesis. Yet no one is about to allow his research institute to be busted up, and especially not our ‘climate pope’ [Hans-Joachim] Schellnhuber. Also the ‘climate chancellow’ is well aware of the papal announcement of a climate catastrophe. The call on the guilty conscience of man is and remains a helpful instrument for rule in the sense of: if you do not do what you are told, then the world will come to an end. That not only works on children. No matter what ‘climate skeptics’ may tell us, with a bit of creativity every doomsayser brings reality in harmony with the theory. And the theory says that it is mankind that is causing a climate catastrophe with its emissions of CO2. Climate chancellor Angela Merkel here is infallible – even if recently she has had other things to worry about. […] Climatologists apparently attempted to suppress the publication of propositions [Zharkova’s]. They even refuse to exchange controversial ideas. Such behavior causes scientists to turn into religious warriors who feel automatically compelled to regard divergent opinions as blasphemy because articles of faith may never be falsified. What is correct? In all cases productive doubt, and always: The free exchange of ideas and hypotheses, the disentanglement of politics, morality and science. However foremost: the unconditional freedom of science.”

Read entire artcle (in German) at Wirtschaftswoche here.

 

German Scientists Slam Guardian’s Hyping Of A “Fringe Scientific Position” On Arctic Sea Ice

Arctic sea ice more stable than thought: once agin likely no new record melt

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

On June 14, 2016, Swiss flagship daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) reported on an imminent record ice melt in the Arctic:

Record ice melt in the Arctic: ‘heat wave ‘ over Greenland
Arctic sea ice is headed for a new record summer minimum. The disappearance of the ice sheet can initiate decisive climatic events. Arctic sea ice is currently melting faster than the record 2012 year. According to data from the Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) the polar ice cover this May (completely frozen or with a sea ice concentration of at least 15 percent) was about 580,000 square kilometers less than 2004; that corresponds to the size of France. The total sea ice area is still at 12 million aquare kilometers, or about one and half times the area of Australia. A new minimum is forseeable.”

Continue reading at the Neuen Zürcher Zeitung.

Was the alarmism justified? Looking at the official data from the NSIDC (Figure 1), the dotted green line depicts the sea ice extent for the record melt year 2012, the red line depicts 2016. In the first half of this year the melt rate was in fact at a record pace. In July, however, the melt slowed down. The fact is: Since July 2016 there is a lot more sea ice than at the same time in 2012. In mid September, when the ice typically reaches its minimum, we will have the final result.

 

Figure 1: Arctic sea ice extent. Source: NSIDC

On August 19, 2016, NASA issued a press release that foresaw the failure of reaching a new record minimum:

NASA Monitors the ‘New Normal’ of Sea Ice

This year’s melt season in the Arctic Ocean and surrounding seas started with a bang, with a record low maximum extent in March and relatively rapid ice loss through May. The melt slowed down in June, however, making it highly unlikely that this year’s summertime sea ice minimum extent will set a new record. “Even when it’s likely that we won’t have a record low, the sea ice is not showing any kind of recovery. It’s still in a continued decline over the long term,” said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “It’s just not going to be as extreme as other years because the weather conditions in the Arctic were not as extreme as in other years.” “A decade ago, this year’s sea ice extent would have set a new record low and by a fair amount. Now, we’re kind of used to these low levels of sea ice – it’s the new normal.”

This year’s sea ice cover of the Barents and Kara seas north of Russia opened up early, in April, exposing the surface ocean waters to the energy from the sun weeks ahead of schedule. By May 31, the extent of the Arctic sea ice cover was comparable to end-of-June average levels. But the Arctic weather changed in June and slowed the sea ice loss. A persistent area of low atmospheric pressure, accompanied by cloudiness, winds that dispersed ice and lower-than-average temperatures, didn’t favor melt.

The rate of ice loss picked up again during the first two weeks of August, and is now greater than average for this time of the year. A strong cyclone is moving through the Arctic, similar to one that occurred in early August 2012. Four years ago, the storm caused an accelerated loss of ice during a period when the decline in sea ice is normally slowing because the sun is setting in the Arctic. However, the current storm doesn’t appear to be as strong as the 2012 cyclone and ice conditions are less vulnerable than four years ago, Meier said.”

But curiously, the British daily The Guardian just a day earlier (18 August 2016) wrote that the Arctic sea ice was caught in the midst of a “death spiral”:

Time to listen to the ice scientists about the Arctic death spiral
The Arctic’s ice is disappearing. We must reduce emissions, fast, or the human castastrophe predicted by ocean scientist Peter Wadhams will become reality […] Because Wadhams says what other scientists will not, he has been widely slandered, attacked and vilified by denialists and politicians who have advised caution or non-action. But now he returns their fire, exhorting people to counter what he calls “the sewage flow of lies and deceit” emitted by the deniers. Above all, he says, people who study climate change should speak up and be prepared to risk the blighting of their careers and absence of honours. But he joins other climate researchers to cross lines that the public may still find unacceptable. He wants global action to find new ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, and is not afraid of nuclear power – both of which answers can be swallowed – but he also argues for a colossal, global research programme in geo- engineering. […]”

It certainly is a strange “death spiral” when there hasn’t been an increased melting in 4 years.

Also the reminder that we should be listening much more closely to sea ice scientist Peter Wadhams also sounds comical, especially when one closely considers the earlier forecasting performance of the climate-alarmism-prone scientist. In the following chart we find 30 different estimates for last year’s Arctic minimum issued before the ice melt season began (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Estimate forecast for the 2015 Arctic sea ice minimum from 30 different scientific groups. Source: SIPN.

Result: By a huge margin Peter Wadhams comes in as a straggler in last place, miles away from the real value of 4.5 million square kilometers. How embarassing.

And we’re supposed to be listening more closely to Wadhams?

Scientific colleague Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading was outraged about how the Guardian could hype up this scientific fringe position. At Twitter he expressed his irritation:

 

 

It doesn’t surprise us that science fringe Wadhams gladly cooperates with the no lesser extremist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Among others, Wadhams also appears in a publication together with Anders Levermann, who belongs to the hard core of the PIK climate alarmism group.

 

Glaring Falsehoods By German ZDF Public Television Aimed At Attacking Climate Science Skepticsm

As is the case in many countries, major media outlets are increasingly accused of having abandoned real investigative journalism, and rather have taken on the role of unquestioning propaganda mouthpiece for the state or a single political line. The following is an example in Germany.
=============================

German public television TV host/science journalist Harald Lesch (astrophysicist) attacks climate skepticism

By Carl-Otto Weiss, Physicist PhD

Lesch

German public television science journalist Harald Lesch plays it loose with the facts to mislead the public. Image cropped from ZDF, Fair Use.

Many opposition parties in Europe, the GOP party in the US, as well as governments of various countries like Australia, Poland, etc. view “global warming” with healthy amount of scepticism, or even as a “hoax”.  In Germany the newly minted AfD protest party added to its programme that the party does not support so-called “climate protection” schemes. The AfD is to Germany what the UKIP is to the UK, i.e. a very inconvenient thorn in the side of the splintering euro-political establishment.

The AfD justifies its opposition to climate protection initiatives based on three factors: 1) all predictions of global warming rest solely on model calculations which have failed all tests, 2) there is no single scientific result published proving significant global warming by man-made CO2, and 3) there is a large number of publications definitely disproving any possibility of a sizeable influence of CO2 on the Earth’s temperature.

On ZDF German public television, Harald Lesch one-sidedly challenged the AfD’s climate science position. On the argument that the models are unsuitable for predictions, he stated bluntly:

No model that has not stood the test against measurements or experiments can be published in the scientific literature.”

Mr. Lesch, an astrophysicist, is surely familiar with scientific literature, and thus really must know that any number of model calculations are published without being tested by experiments/measurements. Every natural scientist knows this. Very often a model rests on a new idea or insight, something, which in itself is certainly worth publishing, and, consequently, gets published.

Thus Lesch’s statement is, to say the least, quite surprising. Would any experienced scientist really have no idea of the scientific publication process – even of his own field?

Readers may find it of interest that the AfD is right now the only political party in Germany that is expressly against action to “fight climate change”, and has been very successful in convincing plenty of voters, thus making the other parties very nervous.

Lesch in fact never contacted EIKE

Next Leach attacked the climate science critics:

It is always the same people who try to undermine the credibility of trusted experts.”

Here the trusted experts are in fact not trusted by everyone – rather only by much of the mainstream media, and of course the governments who happen to pay the experts.

Here Lesch points the finger at EIKE (European Institute for Climate and Energy), which operates the most widely viewed German speaking website (here) on issues concerning climate science and energy policy and is the only independent German association of scientists that discusses climate questions. Lesch added:

Of course I try to discuss this with them. I even tried to get in contact with them by phone, but they do not answer.”

This is untrue. A check among all EIKE members reveals that no EIKE member has ever received any inquiry from Leash in any way, shape or form. In return, however, EIKE requested the ZDF TV station to arrange contact with Lesch. Sadly the public-funded ZDF TV station refused to let EIKE contact Lesch.

ZDF refuses to give sceptics time

Requests for a public discussion between EIKE and the publicly-paid Mr. Lesch continue to go unanswered.

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

Related reading:

NTZ comment: The constant falsehoods aimed at diminishing dissenting voices indeed can get frustrating. However, it is only a matter of time before the media shoot themselves one time too many and end up bleeding to death on their own.

 

Uncovered: Incoherent, Conflicting IPCC ‘Beliefs’ on Climate Sensitivity

For going on 3 decades now, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have estimated that the climate’s sensitivity to the doubling of preindustrial levels of CO2 (from 280 ppm to 560 ppm) may range between 1.5°C to 4.5°C due significantly to the assumed “dangerous” warming amplification from positive water vapor feedback.  Despite years of analysis, the factor-of-three difference between the lower and higher surface temperature range thresholds has changed little.  There apparently have been no breakthroughs in understanding the “basic physics” of water vapor amplification to narrow this range further.

The theoretical conceptualization for the surface temperature change resulting from CO2 doubling alone — without the “dangerous” amplification from  water vapor feedback — has also been in use, and unchanged, for decades.  Since the 1960s it has been hypothesized that if preindustrial CO2 levels were to be doubled to 560 ppm, the surface temperature change would amount to a warming of a non-alarming 1.2°C in the absence of other feedbacks.

Below are brief summaries from scientific papers (and the Skeptical Science blog) confirming that the IPCC and models claim doubling CO2 only results in 1.2°C of warming.

IPCC (2001) :

“[T]he radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes”

Skeptical Science :

“We know that if the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere doubles from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million  by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv, this will cause an energy imbalance by trapping more outgoing thermal radiation in the atmosphere, enough to directly warm the surface approximately 1.2°C.”

Gebhart, 1967 :

“The temperature change at the earth’s surface is ΔT=+1.2°C when the present [CO2] concentration is doubled.”

Hansen et al., 1981 :

“The increase of equilibrium surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 is ∼1.2°C.  This case is of special interest because it is the purely radiative-convective result, with no feedback effects.”

Lorius et al., 1990 :

“The radiative forcing resulting from doubled atmospheric CO2 would increase the surface and tropospheric temperature by  1.2°C if there were no feedbacks in the climate system.”

Torn and Harte, 2006 :

“An increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 275 to 550 ppm is expected to increase radiative forcing by about 4 W m2, which would lead to a direct warming of 1.2°C in the absence of feedbacks or other responses of the climate system”

 

IPCC: Dangerous future warming levels (3°C and up) are caused mostly by water vapor, not CO2

As mentioned, the IPCC authors have claimed that it is primarily due to the conceptualization of positive feedback with water vapor that the surface temperature response is projected  to reach the dangerous warming levels of 3.0°C and up as CO2 doubles to 560 ppm.

IPCC (2001) :

“The so-called water vapour feedback, caused by an increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a temperature increase, is the most important feedback responsible for the amplification of the temperature increase [from CO2 alone].”

In their 4th report, the IPCC acknowledged that humans have little influence in determining water vapor levels:

IPCC (2007) :

“Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.”

The main reason why IPCC authors have asserted that water vapor will do most of the “dangerous” projected warming, while CO2 will contribute a much smaller fraction, is apparently because the greenhouse warming effect from water vapor forcing is “two to three times greater” than that of carbon dioxide:

IPCC (2013) :

“Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The contribution of water vapour to the natural greenhouse effect relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2) depends on the accounting method, but can be considered to be approximately two to three times greater.”

Even NASA agrees that water vapor and clouds together account for 75% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 only accounts for 20%.

NASA  :

Carbon dioxide causes about 20 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect; water vapor accounts for about 50 percent; and clouds account for 25 percent. The rest is caused by small particles (aerosols) and minor greenhouse gases like methane.”

 

IPCC: Positive water vapor feedbacks are believed to cause dangerous warming

It is curious to note that the insufficiently understood positive water vapor feedback conceptualization is rooted in . . . belief.  Literally.   In the third report (TAR), the IPCC authors actually used the word “believed” to denote how they reached the conclusion that 1.2°C will somehow morph into 1.5°C to 4.5°C of warming due to amplification from feedbacks.

IPCC (2001) :

“If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”

IPCC climate sensitivity estimates have been based on hypotheticals, or the belief that water vapor positive feedback will cause another 1.8°C to 3.3°C of “extra” or “dangerous” warming (to reach upwards of 3.0°C to 4.5°C).  CO2 alone only causes 1.2°C of warming as it is doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.  Since when are modeled beliefs about what may possibly happen to global temperatures at some point in the next 100 years . . . science?

IPCC: Water vapor increased substantially since 1970 — but didn’t cause warming

If water vapor is the primary determinant of the “extra” and “dangerous” warming we are expected to get along with the modest 1.2°C temperature increase as the CO2 concentration reaches 560 ppm, then it is natural to ask: How much of the warming since 1950 has been caused by the additional CO2, and how much has been caused by the water vapor feedback that is believed to cause the extra, “dangerous” warming?

This last question arises because, according to the IPCC, there has been a substantial increase in the potent water vapor greenhouse gas concentration in the last few decades.  Specifically, in their 4th report, the IPCC authors claim there has been “an overall increase in water vapour of order 5% over the 20th century and about 4% since 1970“(IPCC [2007]).

Considering its abundance in the atmosphere (~40,000 ppm in the tropics), if water vapor increased by 4% since 1970, that means that water vapor concentrations could potentially have increased by more than 1,500 ppm in the last few decades.  The overall magnitude of this water vapor concentration increase is therefore more than 20 times greater than the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (~70 ppm) since 1970.

But even though the IPCC claims that (a) water vapor will cause most of the “dangerous” warming in the future, (b) water vapor climate forcing is “two to three” times greater than CO2 forcing within the greenhouse effect, and (c) water vapor concentrations have increased substantially since 1970, the IPCC simultaneously claims that (d) CO2 has caused most — if not all — of the warming since the mid-20th century anyway.   In the 5th report, the IPCC’s “consensus” statement reads like this:

IPCC (2013, 2014) :

“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

For advocates of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) projections, the “more than half” CO2 attribution apparently isn’t quantitatively strong enough.  After all, “more than half” could be interpreted as only slightly more than 50%.   To rectify this, Gavin Schmidt  — a primary overseer of NASA temperature adjustments — has calculated that the anthropogenic impact on climate has not  just been “more than half,” but more than 100%.   In a recent RealClimate blog entry, Schmidt  claims that humans have caused 110% of the global warming since 1950 — and that IPCC analysis (found in Fig. 10.5 in IPCC AR5) also supports an anthropogenic CO2 attribution of  “near 100%”.

Real Climate :

“The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar [in Fig. 10.5] (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”

 

Conflicting IPCC climate sensitivity feedback suppositions

The IPCC believes that the climate’s overall surface temperature sensitivity to the doubling of preindustrial CO2 ranges between 1.5°C to 4.5°C, with the projected higher warming levels due primarily to amplifying water vapor feedback.  This conceptualization appears to be in conflict with other IPCC suppositions.

On one hand, the IPCC reports have claimed that (a) water vapor is much more potent than CO2 within the greenhouse effect, that (b) the bulk of the 3.0°C and up “dangerous” warming that is believed to occur in the future will be forced by positive water vapor feedback, and that (c) water vapor  levels have significantly increased in recent decades (by 4% since 1970).

On the other hand, (d) water vapor is claimed to have caused right around 0% of the warming in the last several decades.

Summarily, these conflicting explanations or suppositions about what can happen, what will happen, and what has already happened to the climate due to water vapor feedback beg the questions:

Why hasn’t the “dangerous” water vapor warming found in models “kicked in” during the last several decades, when water vapor levels have increased (according to the IPCC)? 

Since it reportedly hasn’t yet, at what point in the future will the “dangerous” water vapor warming projections found in modeling finally show up in the temperature record?

Considering how fundamental climate sensitivity estimates are to climate science, and ultimately to the direction of political policies and energy production and consumption, these questions deserve to be answered . . . with something more substantive than what the IPCC authors have long believed to be true. 

“Preach Water, Guzzle Wine”… Swiss VP Doris Leuthard’s Hypocrisy On 500-Day “Solar Impulse” Flight

The energy restriction that the global climate change movement is calling for is arguably about driving the masses back into the mud, and putting a small, elitist class into palaces.

Any study would show that global warming regulators, activists and scientists are the worst offenders when it comes to carbon emissions. Think Al Gore, George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Hillary Clinton (e.g. private jet for travelling just 20 miles), to name just a few. The most alarmist climate scientists are constantly flying and attending lavish conferences.

Leuthard_WikipediaI’d even say that the aim goes far beyond us serving them instead of them serving us, rather, at least for some, it’s mostly about forcing us to worship them at their feet. This green movement as we know it is in large part tyranny disguised as rescuing the planet. 80% of the science is pure BS.

Photo right: Doris Leuthard. Credit: Website of the Swiss Federal Chancellery. Permission here.

Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt deliver another prime example of climate arrogance in their latest post, where they write “Preach water, guzzle wine.”

The latest surrounds Swiss Vice President Doris Leuthard of the Christian Democratic People’s Party (CVP) and her in Abu Dhabi celebrating the completion of the around-the-world trip by sun-powered aircraft Solar-Impulse, which de facto was carried around the world.

The two German authors quote an except from an article by Markus Schär of the Swiss Weltwoche No. 30/2016, who writes:

Using the federal parliamentary jet, Doris Leuthard (CVP) flew to Abu Dhabi. She celebrated Bertrand ­Piccard and André Borschberg, who circled the globe in the monster aircraft ‘Solar Impulse’, which was accompanied a charter jet with a 65-man crew and mobile hangar inside, and that in only 425 days more than Jules Verne’s hero (‘Around the World in 80 Days’) back in 1872. A reporter from Blick [daily] was told by Leuthard that ‘Switzerland must somehow show the world how we can set up a world without fossil energies in the future’. (When asked the question why Abu Dhabi was the starting point and destination, she conceded that Switzerland was ‘simply no country for sunshine’). The Parliamentary jet emitted some 80 tonnes of CO2 just for one trip, the same as driving a car for 30 years. Leuthard’s own Federal Ministry for Commercial Aviation recommends against emissions, a ‘reduction of personal travel distances.’ And: “refraining from midsize and long journeys.’”

Of course people like Leuthard have no intention whatsoever of drastically scaling back their own lifestyles.

Power is not about equality, rather it’s all about creating glaring inequality.

 

Global Warming-Pushing Media, Governments Refuted…Antarctic Peninsula Is In Fact Cooling, Study Finds

British Antarctic Survey: Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling since 1998

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

(German text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

Climate skeptics have been accused over and over again of fabricating the climate warming hiatus of the past 15 years. A poor argument because the hiatus has been established as an area of research on which a number of scientific groups are working.

The latest study on the subject comes from a group of the British Antarctic Survey (Turner et al. 2016) that was published on July 21, 2016, in the journal Nature. It is a study on the warming hiatus of the Antarctic Peninsula. Yes, you heard it correctly – also here it appears there has been a hiatus.

The surprise is justified – as the German media and authorities claim on a regular basis that the Antarctic Peninsula is among the most rapidly warming regions on earth.

For example on the website of the German Environment Office Umweltbundesamtes (UBA) of July 23, 2013:

The climate of Antarctica
Antarctica is the driest and coldest continent on earth. Temperatures reach the freezing point in the west during the warmest month of January, otherwise they are far below the mean temperature of -55°C. Also Antarctica is impacted by global climate change and it is foremost warming at the Antarctic Peninsula more than the rest of the world. […] Only a few areas of the Antarctic Peninsula reach temperatures above the freezing point on a regular basis during the summer. However, it is the Antarctic Peninsula on the west side of the continent that is strongly hit by global climate change. No region on earth is currently warming faster. The temperature data of a research station on the Antarctic Peninsula run by Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows an annual mean warming of up to 2°C over the past 50 years. For the entire continent a warming of about 0.12°C per decade has been shown.”

John Turner and his colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have combined and evaluated the temperature data from various research stations on the Antarctic Peninsula. Using the data it was possible to divide the trend into a warming phase of 1979-1997 and a cooling phase 1999-2014, the latter being the hiatus. The authors even write the result in the title of their Nature study:

Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability
Since the 1950s, research stations on the Antarctic Peninsula have recorded some of the largest increases in near-surface air temperature in the Southern Hemisphere1. This warming has contributed to the regional retreat of glaciers2, disintegration of floating ice shelves3 and a ‘greening’ through the expansion in range of various flora4. Several interlinked processes have been suggested as contributing to the warming, including stratospheric ozone depletion5, local sea-ice loss6, an increase in westerly winds5, 7, and changes in the strength and location of low–high-latitude atmospheric teleconnections8, 9. Here we use a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional warming since the late 1990s. The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate, with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer. Temperatures have decreased as a consequence of a greater frequency of cold, east-to-southeasterly winds, resulting from more cyclonic conditions in the northern Weddell Sea associated with a strengthening mid-latitude jet. These circulation changes have also increased the advection of sea ice towards the east coast of the peninsula, amplifying their effects. Our findings cover only 1% of the Antarctic continent and emphasize that decadal temperature changes in this region are not primarily associated with the drivers of global temperature change but, rather, reflect the extreme natural internal variability of the regional atmospheric circulation.”

Figure: Temperature curve of the Antarctic Peninsula since 1979 (black curve). The red lines depict the linear trends. The gray bars at 1998 mark the trend change from warming to cooling. Source: Turner et al. 2016.

Turner and his colleagues clearly show that a strong natural variability governs on the Antarctic Peninsula and that it goes far beyond the anthropogenic signal. The change from natural warming phases over to cooling phases is a well-known phenomenon that is shown by ice core studies on the climate development over the past 1000 years.

The BAS scientists warn of simplistic views on warming in the late 20th century. In addition to natural variability (ocean cycles) and CO2, here also the ozone hole could have played a role. The main part of the text in the study states:

The recent change in SAT [surface air temperature] trend can be set in a longer-term perspective through examination of regional ice core records. An ice core from James Ross Island, which is close to Marambio station, showed that the region experienced several periods of rapid warming and cooling in the last 1,000 years, and that the warming trend over the last 100 years was ‘highly unusual’, although not unprecedented. However, the period since the late 1970s includes the ozone hole, which is unique in the record.”

The warming rate of the Antarctic Peninsula indeed was high in the late 20th century, however according to ice core measurements, there was a 50-year interval when temperatures rose even faster than 1979-1997:

The Ferrigno ice core from the coast of West Antarctica shows a warming from the 1950s to the early twenty-first century that agrees well with the warming observed at Vernadsky. In the longer term, this record revealed marked decadal variability and, importantly, resolved a 50-year period in the eighteenth century when SATs increased at a faster rate than observed at Vernadsky over the second half of the twentieth century.”

The most important finding of the study: The alleged extraordinarily strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula in the late 20th century is well within the range of natural fluctuations. The paper states:

Therefore all these studies suggest that the rapid warming on the AP since the 1950s and subsequent cooling since the late-1990s are both within the bounds of the large natural decadalscale climate variability of the region.

Also see the article at t-online by Andreas Lerg.

 

Scientists: Ocean Temps Vary ‘Robustly’ and ‘Near-Synchronously’ with Solar Activity

According to scientists, ocean temperatures have fluctuated up and down within a range of around 1 to 2°C for the last 1,000 years.

During the Medieval Warm Period (~800 to 1,000 years ago) ocean temperatures were as warm or warmer than they are now.  This centennial-scale warming occurred during a period of high solar activity, or during the Medieval Maximum.

During the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1900 AD), ocean temperatures plummeted relative to the Medieval Warm Period.  This dramatic ocean cooling occurred during several long periods of low solar activity – the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton Minimums.

During the Modern Warming Period (1900-present), ocean temperatures have risen again.  This warming has coincided with a period of very high solar activity, the Modern Grand Maximum.

Below are several papers indicating that ocean temperatures have risen and fallen for the last 1,000 years in concert with solar activity, including the 20th Century Modern Grand Maximum.  As Sejrup et al. (2010) cogently write in the conclusion of their paper:

“The associated decade- to century-scale variation of estimated nSST [near sea surface temperature] ranges from 1 to 2°C, significantly larger than expected based on thermodynamic considerations alone. We suggest that this is due to a solar influence on the regional modes of atmospheric variability which, in turn, control the poleward transport and temperature of warm Atlantic surface waters. Our findings beg the question of why such a clear connection has not been detected previously.”

The Medieval Maximum, Little Ice Age Minimums, and Modern Grand Maximum

Rigozo et al., 2001

“[I]n the last 1000 years solar activity displayed a Great Medieval Maximum, 1100 – 1250 AD, followed by a period of lower solar activity until the start of the 20th century. … The Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton Minimums have been identified, as have the Medieval Maximum and the so-called Modern Maximum, starting near 1900.”

Zharkova et al., 2015

“The longest direct observation of solar activity is the 400-year sunspot-number series, which depicts a dramatic contrast between the almost spotless Maunder and Dalton minima, andthe period of very high activity in the most recent 5 cycles [1950s – 2000s], prior to cycle 24. … The records show that solar activity in the current cycle 24 is much lower than in the previous three cycles 21–23 revealing more than a two-year minimum period between cycles 23 and 24. This reduced activity in cycle 24 was very surprising because the previous five cycles were extremely active and sunspot productive forming the Modern Maximum.   We predict correctly many features from the past, such as: 1) an increase in solar activity during the Medieval Warm period; 2) a clear decrease in the activity during the Little Ice Age, the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum; 3) an increase in solar activity during a modern maximum in 20th century.”

Lockwood et al., 2009

“[T]he Sun has been unusually active over recent decades (Solanki et al. 2004; Vonmoos et al. 2006; Muscheler et al. 2007; Steinhilber et al. 2008). Solanki et al. (2004) used the 14C isotope abundance found in tree trunks and concluded that the Sun has been more active recently than at any time in the previous 8000 years and that it was as active as in recent decades for only 10% of the past 11000 years.”

Usoskin et al., 2014

[T]he modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19–23, i.e., 1950–2009) was a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia. Except for these extreme cases, our reconstruction otherwise reveals that solar activity is well confined within a relatively narrow range.”

Wang et al., 2010

“It is seen that a very active period that began in 1920, the so-called ‘current grand solar maximum’, will probably end during 2011-2027 … The current grand solar maximum started in 1920 and lasted for eight 11-year solar cycles.”

Robust Correlation: Ocean Temperatures and Solar Activity

Sejrup et al., 2010   (Norwegian Sea)

Response of Norwegian Sea temperature to solar forcing since 1000 A.D.

“Here we present an exceptionally well-dated marine sediment sequence in the eastern Norwegian Sea which records 1–2°C variations of temperature in northward flowing Atlantic waters that are robustly correlated with various estimates of solar activity spanning the last 1000 years. The temperature and solar proxy variations appear to be synchronous within dating errors, which, together with the large amplitude of the temperature signal and its correlation into central Europe, suggests strong coupling of the regional atmospheric and oceanic responses to the Sun. … Lowest isotope values (highest temperatures) of the last millennium are seen 1100–1300 A.D., during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and again after 1950 A.D. The largest and most sustained isotopic increases (coolings) are centered at ∼1500 A.D. and ∼1700 A.D., corresponding to the regional Little Ice Age. … The presence of medieval and 20th century warmth and Little Ice Age cooling in our records suggests a possible connection to known solar variations at these times (i.e., the Spører and Maunder minima and medieval and modern maxima, respectively). …  For the period after 1500 A.D., during which we have greatest confidence in the sediment age model, correlations with the various solar proxies range from ∣R∣ = 0.71 to 0.87 (all significant at >99%). … On balance, the observed relationship of nSST and solar proxies suggests a climate response to the Sun within the characteristic inertial timescale of the upper ocean, which is one to several decades. Recurrent, episodic volcanic forcing may also influence the ocean climate signal at this timescale, however, our results indicate that approximately 50–70% of the observed multidecadal to century-scale δ18O variation may be explained by solar forcing alone.”

Conclusion: “We have presented an oxygen isotopic proxy record of near-surface temperature of Atlantic waters from the area of their primary flow into the eastern Norwegian Sea and find that it is robustly and near-synchronously correlated with various proxies of solar variability spanning the last millennium. The associated decade- to century-scale variation of estimated nSST ranges from 1 to 2°C, significantly larger than expected based on thermodynamic considerations alone. We suggest that this is due to a solar influence on the regional modes of atmospheric variability which, in turn, control the poleward transport and temperature of warm Atlantic surface waters. Our findings beg the question of why such a clear connection has not been detected previously.”

Richey et al., 2007  (Gulf of Mexico)

“[C]entennial-scale sea surface temperature (SST) oscillations of 2–3 °C occurred during the past 1–2 [thousand years].  Two multidecadal intervals of sustained high Mg/Ca indicate that Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were as warm or warmer than near modern conditions between 1000 and 1400 yr B.P. [before present] Foraminiferal Mg/Ca during the coolest interval of the Little Ice Age (ca. 250 yr B.P.) indicate that SST was 2–2.5 °C below modern SST.

Four minima in the Mg/Ca record between 900 and 250 yr B.P. correspond with the Maunder, Spörer, Wolf, and Oort sunspot minima, suggesting a link between changes in solar insolation and SST variability in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Dramatic Variation in Ocean Temperature During MWP, LIA

Bertler et al., 2011  (Southern Ocean)

“Here we present new data from the Ross Sea, Antarctica, that indicates surface temperatures were ~ 2 °C colder during the LIA, with colder sea surface temperatures in the Southern Ocean and/or increased sea-ice extent, stronger katabatic winds, and decreased snow accumulation.   The McMurdo Dry Valleys [Antarctica] were 0.35°C warmer during the MWP than during ME [modern era], accompanied by warmer conditions in the Ross Sea.”

Keigwin, 1996   (North Atlantic)

“Results from a radiocarbonated box score [in the North Atlantic] show that SST was ~ 1°C cooler ~400 years ago (The Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and ~ 1°C warmer than today in 1,000 years ago (The Medieval Warm Period).”

Rosenthal et al., 2013 (Pacific Ocean)

“We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters [0-700 m] were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.”

Rosenthal 2013a

Newton et al., 2006  (Indo-Pacific)

[S]ea surface temperature and salinity records from the Makassar Strait, Indonesia, show a long-term cooling and freshening trend, as well as considerable centennial-scale variability during the last millenniumThe warmest temperatures and highest salinities occurred during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the coolest temperatures and lowest salinities occurred during the Little Ice Age (LIA).

Oppo et al., 2009 (Indo-Pacific)

“[T]he tropical Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) represents a major heat reservoir that both influences global atmospheric circulation and responds to remote northern high-latitude forcings. Here we present a decadally resolved continuous sea surface temperature (SST) reconstruction from the IPWP that spans the past two millennia and overlaps the instrumental record.  Reconstructed SST was, however, within error of modern values from about ad 1000 to ad 1250, towards the end of the Medieval Warm Period. SSTs during the Little Ice Age (approximately ad 1550–1850) were variable, and 0.5 to 1 °C colder than modern values during the coldest intervals.”

Sepulveda et al., 2009 (Tropical Pacific)

“We observed two different regimes of climate variability in our record [Patagoina, Chile]: a relatively dry/warm period before 900 cal yr BP (lower runoff and average SST 1°C warmer than present day [Medieval Warm Period]) and a wet/cold period after 750 cal yr BP (higher runoff and average SST 1°C colder than present day). Relatively colder SSTs were found during 750–600 and 450–250 cal yr BP, where the latter period roughly corresponds to the interval defined for the Little Ice Age (LIA).”

Ran et al., 2011 (Greenland Sea)

“Warm and stable conditions with relatively strong influence of the Irminger Current on the North Icelandic shelf are indicated during the interval AD 940–1300, corresponding in time to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). A considerable cooling at ∼ AD 1300 indicates the transition to the Little Ice Age (LIA) with increased influence of Polar and Arctic water masses deriving from the East Greenland and East Icelandic currents. An extended cooling period between AD 1300 and 1910 is characterized by approximately century-scale oscillations, with marked cold intervals at AD 1325–1375, AD 1460–1500, AD 1610–1670 and AD 1810–1910, separated by relatively mild spells. A two-step warming during the last 100 years is interrupted by three cool events around AD 1920, in the AD 1960s and in the late AD 1990s.”

Clinton Shuns Visit To Louisiana Flood Zone… Too Frail For The Heat And Humidity?

Too frail? Has Hillary Clinton shunned a visit to Louisiana because getting out and visiting flood victims would require her to spend extended time outside her fossil-fuel, air-conditioned comfort zone?

Hillary Clinton’s suspected major health issues refuse to go away as a political issue in this year’s election. The latest herehere and here.

Though claims that she may be “at death’s door” are certainly a stretch, her low frequency of appearances resembles a light workload one sees for a person in poor health.

A no-show in Louisiana

Yet another sign of poor health likely is Clinton’s absence from flood-stricken Louisiana. Heavy criticism has been launched at President Obama, who opted to play golf instead, but also at Clinton, who has mysteriously never shown up to lend support and let the victims know they are not alone. Moral support in times of crisis is crucial to the victims as they struggle to get back on their own feet.

How could Hillary not have shown up?

Trump is the only one who stepped up.

Not a picture of health

So why wouldn’t Clinton show up? Face it, the summertime climate in the Deep South region is hardly a favorable one for persons in poor health having to spend more than just a few minutes time outdoors fully exposed to the scorching heat and high humidity – away from their air-conditioned comfort zone. Hillary is probably unable to cope with it, and so was instructed by her doctor to just stay away. Especially the elderly and sick are advised to stay indoors and to drink plenty of fluids in times of heat.

And from appearance Clinton hardly projects a picture of health. She is pale, moves about cautiously, and often looks unsteady. She is also clearly overweight, and not just at the legs and hips, but at places where health experts agree are not where fat ought to be stored (visceral fat) – another sign of poor health.

Tucked away in air-conditioned comfort zone

A visit to flood victims would require Clinton to actually be out in the harsh elements, in full heat and high humidity for at least half an hour, something for which she likely is too frail to do. Trump, in contrast, was shown unloading supplies from a truck out in the burning sun and humidity. Clinton doing the same would be something her doctor would advise anyone in poor health not to do. Clinton sweating profusely and struggling to endure the heat would hardly make a good photo-op, and certainly not a heat stroke with cameras rolling.

To sick for a boat ride?

Clinton, who also claims to be a tireless warrior against man-made climate change and a champion of environmental protection, is also reported to have recently used her private jet and gas-guzzling SUV to travel a mere 20 or so miles. Ironically her protective, constantly air-conditioned comfort zones are powered in large part by fossil fuels, something she insists the rest of us should start learning to forego.

Martha's Vineyard

Image cropped from Google Maps

So why would she take a private jet to Nantucket instead of a boat?

Sure some people get queasy flying in an airplane, yet it is still in most cases far less turbulent than racing across the waves of the Atlantic in boat. The risk of sea sickness is much higher – especially when one’s health isn’t what it ought to be.

If Hillary Clinton is not up to visiting Louisiana, then she should issue a statement saying so. We could all understand and respect this. But instead, in typical Clinton style, she seems to cover it all up and insist she’s healthy. No one is buying it.

 

Austrian Solar Charts Expose “Small Sensation” …Fractures CO2 Warming Theory

What follows is a highly discomforting fact, and it’s not going to go away.
============================================

A small sensation goes unnoticed by the press: Solar activity indeed reached maximum value in late 20th century

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

Previously it was constantly claimed that solar activity couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the warming of the late 20th century because both curves fully diverged from each other. As proof, the following charts from Wikipedia were used:

Figure 1: Comparison of global temperature, CO2 and solar activity. From Wikipedia. Source: Leland McInnes at the English language Wikipedia [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons.

The problem

Solar activity is not made up merely by the shaky sunspots. The above figure is an update from 2014 and was provided by a user with a less than trustworthy name of “Kopiersperre”.

The updated curve for solar activity is available from the Austrian Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG) and research group PAGES:

Figure 2: Fluctuations in solar climate drive on millennial, century and decadal scales. Top: The 20th century had the strongest solar activity in 11,000 years (here 7000 years are shown). Middle: The powerful drive of the Medieval Period and the scant amount of solar drive in the following centuries, followed by the extraordinary jump to the current level. Bottom chart: Only when using the short-term scale do we clearly see the 11-year cycle (Fröhlich 2000 aktual., Wagner and others 2007). Figure source: ZAMG.

Figure 3: Solar activity over the past 400 years. White curve; Total Solar Irradiance (TSI); Yellow curve shows sunspots. Figure source: PAGES.

The great changes in understanding solar activity were illustrated by Matthes & Funke at the end of 2015 at a conference contribution on page 9 (old curve SATIRE-TS in red):

Figure 4: The new and old curves for solar activity during the past 165 years. Source: page 9 in Matthes & Funke 2015.

But it gets even better

The sun not only reached its maximum at the end of the 20th century, but was apparently stronger than at any time over the past 10,000 years. Matthes et al. showed this in a very recent publication in the journal Geoscientific Model Development Discussions in 2016:

Figure 5: Source: Figure 20 in Matthes et al. 2016

Mysterious retreat

By the way, the unusually powerful solar activity in the second half of the 20th century had been already reported on by Sami Solanki in Nature here more than 10 years ago. Afterwards he mysteriously retreated from the climate discussion. Is this perhaps the reason why solar scientists operate almost unnoticed below the media radar?

Discomforting questions

The unexpectedly strong sun casts especially discomforting questions that some would just prefer to dodge. Couldn’t the high solar activity have something to do with the 1980-2000 warming after all?

In any case, now no one can insist that the solar activity and temperature curves diverge and thus refute the relationship. The attribution has to be re-examined altogether. There is no alternative.