“For Fame And Fund”… Japanese Scientist Accuses Four Climate Researchers, IPCC, Of “Fake Science”

AGW scandal by four scientists and the IPCC

By Kyoji Kimoto, kyoji@mirane.co.jp,
July 30, 2017
(Background here, where Robert Cess admits error)

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the IPCC is a fake science developed by the following scientists for fame & fund, causing huge economic losses to the world. President Trump made a scientifically right decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and will liberate mankind from the AGW scam.

Dr. Syukuro Manabe (Born in 1931, Princeton Univ.), pioneer of AGW theory
Dr. Robert Cess (Born in 1932, Stony Brook Univ.), mechanics researcher
Dr. James Hansen (Born in 1941, NASA &Columbia Univ.), Venus researcher
Dr. Michel Schlesinger (Born in 1943, Univ. of Illinois), rocket engineer

In the farewell lecture held on October 26, 2001 in Tokyo, Manabe talked as follows:

Research funds have been $3 million per year and $120 million for the past 40 years. It is not clever to pursue the scientific truth. A better way is choosing the relevant topics to society for the funds covering the staff and computer cost of the project.”

Source: Dr. Syukuro Manabe’s Farewell Lecture and Interview held on October 26, 2001. Resume of “Climate Research: Breaking through difficulties” (in Japanese). http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~taikan/WebRep/2001/manabe2001/

The AGW theory is based on 1D radiative-convective model (RCM) giving the uniform warming of 1.2-1.3°C throughout the troposphere and the surface when greenhouse effect (GHE) increases with CO2 increase from 300ppm (1xCO2) to 600 ppm (2xCO2) by Manabe (1967) and Hansen (1981) (see Case B in Fig.1).

The uniform warming comes from Manabe’s careless idea on the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 to use the fixed lapse rate (temperature decrease with height) of 6.5°C/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 in his pioneer work of Manabe (1967) on the RCM as follows:

The observed tropospheric lapse rate of temperature is approximately 6.5°C/km. The explanation for this fact is rather complicated. It is essentially the result of a balance between (a) the stabilizing effect of upward heat transport in moist and dry convection on both small and large scales and (b), the destabilizing effect of radiative transfer. Instead of exploring the problem of the tropospheric lapse rate in detail, we here accept this as an observed fact and regard it as a critical lapse rate for convection.”

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

In Fig.1, the surface GHE warming varies as much as 100% with a LR variation in only 6%, while the lapse rate generally varies from 4°C/km to 10°C/km in the atmosphere. Therefore, the surface GHE warming of 1.2-1.3°C is theoretically meaningless though it is utilized in all general circulation models (GCMs) of the IPCC.

Another basis of the AGW theory is the calculations by Cess (1976) & Schlesinger (1986) furnishing the surface GHE warming of 1.2°C based on equation (1):

OLR = Eeff x Fr = Eeff x Stefan-Boltzmann constant x Ts^4  (see Fig.2)   (1)

Ts: surface temperature

Eeff: the emissivity of the earth-atmosphere system.

The calculations, however, are erroneous since Eeff is regarded as a constant in their differentiation of equation (1) with Ts though it is a variable as well as Ts as follows:

Eeff=OLR/Fr= (effective radiation temperature Te/ Ts) ^4    (2)

Here, OLR=240W/m2; Te= -18°C=255°K (K is absolute temperature)

Further, equation (1) is not in line with the energy budget of the earth (see Fig.2):

(a) At the surface, there are evaporation Fe and conduction Ft, being missed in (1).

(b) Equation (3) shows the GHE increase for 2xCO2 raises the upper troposphere temperature Tu instead of Ts because the OLR is governed by the Fu.

OLR=Fw (17%) + Fu (83%)                                            (3)

Fw: Function (Ts, IR opacity), decreasing as much as ~4W/m2 for 2xCO2

Fu: Function (Tu), increasing as much as ~4W/m2 for 2xCO2

What follows is the energy budget of the earth:

Fig. 2: Energy budget of the earth (adapted from Dorland, R.V. et al., 2006)

The IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007) claims the surface warming for 2xCO2 (climate sensitivity) is 3°C from the 14 GCMs studies as follows:

Climate sensitivity 3°C = surface GHE warming 1.2°C x amplification factor 2.5

The surface GHE warming of 1.2°C, however, has no theoretical basis as shown above. Actually the 102 GCMs studies showed much larger troposphere temperature increase than observations with balloon and satellite in the model comparison project (CMIP-5) for the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013) as shown below.

Figure 3: Source: U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 2 Feb 2016, testimony of John R. Christy, University of Alabama, Huntsville, http://docs.house.gov.pdf

In reality, the surface GHE warming is negligibly small from the masking effect of water vapor (0.4 vol. %) on the GHE increase for 2xCO2 with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. In contrast the GHE warming is around 1°C at the upper troposphere above 5km with the radiative forcing (RF) of ~4W/m2 for 2xCO2 due to scarce water vapor as follows:

At the surface: RF = ~1W/m2, GHE warming=0.15°C

At the upper troposphere: RF= ~4W/m2, GHE warming= ~1°C

Then, real climate sensitivity is around 0.15C at the surface because the amplification factor is 1.0 in this case. Kimoto (2015) obtained the surface climate sensitivity of 0.14-0.17C which was coincident with the observed climate sensitivity of 0.11-0.24C in five papers.

Hansen (1984) showed that 3D climate models utilized the surface GHE warming of 1.2-1.3C from the RCM studies by Manabe (1967) and Hansen (1981).

Meanwhile, he admitted that the RCM was fudged because its results strongly depended on the lapse rate used in an interview with Spencer Weart held on October 23, 2000 at NASA. An excerpt from the interview follows:

Weart: This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in.

Again, are you using somebody else’s…

Hansen: That’s trivial. You just put in…

Weart: … a lapse rate…

Hansen: Yes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have a 3D model to do it properly. In the 1D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers. So you try to pick something that has some physical justification. But the best justification is probably trying to put in the fundamental equations into a 3D model.

Source: Interview of James Hansen by Spencer Weart on 2000 October 23, Niels Bohr

Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD USA, www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/24309-1

On June 11, 1986, Hansen made the following erroneous prediction based on NASA’s climate model for fame & fund while he knew the model was fudged as shown above:

By the 2020s, according to NASA’s calculations, the average annual temperature across much of the United States will have risen by 9 degrees Fahrenheit or more.

Source: 1986 – The Year When Climate Fraud Reached A Tipping Point

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/1986-the-year-when-climate-fraud-reached-a-tipping-point/

Hansen (2016) scared society with superstorms and rapid sea level rise to warn COP21 of the necessity of harder CO2 regulations for the Paris Agreement. From the U.S. National Hurricane Center, however, the order of central pressure of hurricane at landfall of the U.S. is as follows:

Labor Day (1935, 892 hPa), Camille (1969, 909 hPa), Katrina (2005, 920 hPa), Andrew (1992, 922 hPa), Indianola(1886, 925 hPa), Florida Keys (1919, 927 hPa)

The strongest hurricane Labor Day hit in 1935 when the U.S. annual heat wave index stands out in the EPA graph for 1895-2015 as shown by the following article. Source: One Of The Most Fraudulent NOAA/EPA Graphs

https://realclimatescience.com/noaaepa-graphs/

Thus, CO2 increase had no relation to the hurricane strength governed by increasing solar activity and positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation index during 1930-1940. Further, the following article shows the sea level rise of 2-3 mm/year at Boston and Florida. The graph shows no acceleration claimed by the AGW scientists frequently. Source: Extreme Climate Fraud, And The Stakes For America, https://realclimatescience.com

(References)
– Cess, R.D., J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1976, 33, 1831-1843.
– Dorland, R.V. et al., 2006. KNMI Report 50010200, 99-101.
– Hansen, J. et al., Science 1981, 213, 957-966.
– Hansen, J. et al., Analysis of feedback mechanisms in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. (American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 1984), pp. 130-163.
– Hansen, J. et al., Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2016, 3761-3812.
– Kimoto, K., Energy & Environment, 2015, 26, 1055-1067.
– Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R.T., J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1967, 24, 241-259.
– Schlesinger, M.E., Climate Dynamics, 1986, 1, 35-51.

 

German E-Mobility Headed For Wall…”Ecological Performance Of The E-Car Is Truly Miserable!”

The online site of DW German public broadcasting has a report on electric cars, which are deemed by many as the solution to all of the climate’s and environment’s ills.

Turns out this is hardly the case – at least in Germany.

Over the past weeks much scorn has been aimed at Germany’s mighty automotive industry: VW, Mercedes, BMW and Porsche, to name some. Apparently for many critics they have stalled and moved too slowly in transitioning over the electric drive technology (a technology that would in fact most likely mean the end of the German auto industry itself).

The recent trouble is that evidence is emerging that Germany’s big automotive companies have been colluding in an effort to stonewall e-cars, and thus potentially violating German cartel laws. Now they could be facing billions in fines. The timing couldn’t be worse as the industry is already reeling from exhaust test manipulations and fraud. The situation is now so tense for German automakers that the DW writes:”every false word uttered could cost millions. Likely soon only the lawyers will be talking.”

But the Germany Energiewende (transition to green energies) is also struggling, and is just as disliked as the auto industry. It too is no longer greeted with open arms. Over the years it has turned into a multi-billion euro subsidy pit that has seen solar and wind companies fail on a large scale. The risk: a phase out of conventional power with no reliable green energy source in place to fill in.

What will happen when conventional power plants are shut down, as is the plan in Germany, and combustion engines get phased out? Everyone thinks the e-car is the answer, Böhme writes. But it isn’t and even the German greenie media is finally beginning to sense this. According to DW’s Henrik Böhme:

No one knows if it’s really going to work. the ecological performance of the e-car is truly miserable. You can drive a conventional Mercedes-E Class car 8 years before it reaches the same environmental burden as a Tesla.”

The problem, Böhme writes, is the “millions and millions” of lithium batteries that tens of millions of e-cars are going to need, which means huge mining operations, quantities of toxic processing and ultimately tremendous recycling problems. Also the supply of the raw material is limited, much of it coming from a notoriously politically unstable Rep. of the Congo.

Böhme summarizes:

The problem: When one sees just how amateurishly Germany is running its Energiewende, there is little hope that a transportation transition could work.”

 

Germany Experts Revise (Junk) Model Projections For Summer Precipitation After String Of Failures

Since the Met Office’s infamous prediction of “barbecue summers” and snowless winters, Germany’s “climate experts” too have made some awfully embarrassing and sorrowfully wrong model projections.

For example they too predicted that Central Europe’s winters would become snowless and summers would be more like the 2003 summer: long stretches of heat and drought conditions.

However, as I mentioned two years ago here, summers in Central Europe, particularly Germany, instead have seen normal or even above normal precipitation. And this reality did not escape German meteorologist Dominik Jung, who wrote at wetter.net in 2015:

Do you recall the climate prophets after the hottest and driest summer of all time in the 2003 prophesizing more drought summers? None of that has occurred. Of the 11 summers that followed, 7 were wetter than the long-term mean, i.e. too much rain. Moreover predictions of sustained heat waves failed to come true. Four summers turned out to be almost normal and only one single summer was about 15% too dry. The majority of the past summers saw no large heat waves. It was hot only for a few days, with really cooler days with thundershowers in between.”

It turns out that the German 2015 summer, according to the DWD German national weather service, did turn out to be drier than normal and the 2016 summer was only very slightly below normal (one could even argue it was normal) in terms of precipitation. That means from 2004 – 2016, 10 of 13 summers have been normal or above normal in precipitation.

This summer, 2017, is a very wet one thus far in Germany, and so it means 11 of the past 14 summers will be in contradiction to what the climate models projected earlier.

So have the modelers issued a correction and an apology? No, they haven’t. Instead they are now claiming that their models in fact had been projecting more heavy rains and flooding all along.

According to alarmist climate-propaganda site Klimaretter here, researchers at Germany’s Helmholtz Centre for Ocean sciences in Kiel (Geomar) issued last September new scenarios for the future that according to Klimaretter “shockingly match well with the current weather pattern in Central and South Europe“. Klimaretter writes:

Using the circulation models of the atmosphere, the scientists studied whether the rising temperatures of the Mediterranean have an impact on precipitation in Central Europe.”

And cites the paper’s author Claudia Vološčiuk:

Our results indicate that the rising temperatures are continuing to enhance the especially heavy rainfalls from low pressure systems from the Mediterranean.”

So forget the barbecue summers with protracted droughts for central Europe. Klimaretter and the fortune-tellers modelers now conclude that we now have to expect “more heavy rains, more floods and more damage“.

But what is in the future the projections of more rains don’t turn out? Not to worry. The alarmists will be able to fall back on recent projections by the DWD German Weather Service. According to Klimaretter:

They anticipate that Germany’s weather will become significantly ‘more variable’: phases of drought will alternate with phases of heavier precipitation.”

For readers not familiar with Germany’s climate, that’s the way it has always been in Central Europe. So no matter what happens, the DWD forecast will always be right — and alarmist sites like Klimaretter will always be able to claim the models were right.

So stay tuned for the next climate horoscope and hocus pocus from the climate institutes.

 

New Study: Electric Vehicle Use Does Not Reduce CO2 Emissions

Negligible 4.9% Emissions Difference

Between EVs And Petroleum Vehicles

 

According to a new paper published in the journal Issues in Science and Technology entitled “Electric Vehicles: Climate Saviors, Or Not?”, driving an electric vehicle (EV) rather than a conventional petroleum-powered vehicle effectively does nothing to reduce global-scale CO2 emissions.

This is because charging EVs on electricity grids that rely heavily on fossil fuel energy sources (coal) increases CO2 emissions.  In coal-reliant countries like China and Japan, owning and driving EVs contribute significantly more to CO2 emissions than using petroleum-powered vehicles.

Even in developing countries like Malaysia, EV use produces “substantial GHG emissions” because the electricity grid is “largely dependent on fossil fuels”.

Onn et al., 2017     EVs [electric vehicles] running with Malaysian electricity grid produce substantial GHG emissions. … [T]he benefits of grid-dependent EVs can only be harvested under the condition that their use is coupled with a low carbon electricity grid. Thus, it is an additional challenge for Malaysia’s that are largely dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation. … Overall the GHG emissions produced through the usage of EVs are substantial based on the well-to-wheel analysis, as the environmental profile of EVs is linked with the national grid.

Alternatively, for countries that rely heavily on non-carbon sources like nuclear power or hydropower to electrify their grids (France, Norway), charging and driving EVs rather than petroleum-powered vehicles can significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

The problem for CO2 mitigation and EV advocates is that fossil fuel-powered electricity grids are far more prevalent across the world.  And this will continue to be the case as “1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries“, which will “expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent” (New York Times, July, 2017).

In Energiewende Germany, wind and solar were supposed to replace the country’s gradually phased-out nuclear power.  But because wind and solar are intermittent and thus unreliable energy sources (when the wind doesn’t blow or the Sun doesn’t shine), the electricity used to charge EVs has to substantially come from the steadily-available fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil), which provide over 80% of Germany’s energy consumption share.   Consequently, charging an EV in Germany doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions to any significant degree, with one new study (cited below) indicating that there is just an 8.7% difference in CO2 emissions between driving an EV in Germany and driving petroleum-powered commercial van in Germany (Ensslen et al., 2017).


Using EVs Vs. Gasoline Vehicles Worldwide: A Negligible 4.9% CO2 Emissions Difference


In a new paper, Barkenbus (2017) analyzes the CO2 emissions associated with EV use in 5 countries: China, the U.S., Japan, Norway, and the Netherlands.  Together, 80% of the world’s EVs are owned and driven in these 5 countries.  China added 300,000 more EVs in 2016 alone.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), average emissions from conventional petroleum-powered vehicles can be directly compared to the the emissions from electricity-charged EVs by using the value grams (g) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilowatt hour (kWh).   The average emission value for petroleum-powered vehicles is the equivalent of 559 gCO2/kWh.   Emissions from charging EVs above that value would therefore be indicative of a net emissions increase compared to driving petroleum-powered vehicles.

As this graphical depiction shows, only one of the 5 countries (hydropower-reliant Norway) has achieved significantly lower CO2 emissions with EV use when compared to driving fossil fuel-powered vehicles.   China’s citizens – who almost doubled their EV ownership in one year (312,290 as of 2015, 300,000 more in 2016 alone) –  emit 711.88 gCO2/kWh by charging and driving their EVs using China’s fossil fuel-reliant electrical grid.  (711.88 gCO2/kWh is 27.3% greater than 559 gCO2/kWh.)  This means that purchasing and driving a petroleum-powered vehicle rather than an EV in China actually reduces CO2 emissions.

For the 5 countries listed above, the CO2 emissions associated with charging EVs averaged 531.9 gCO2/kWh.  This value is only 4.9% less than the CO2 emissions associated with driving petroleum-powered vehicles.

Had 2016 data been available for this analysis, China’s 300,000 additional EVs combined with its 711.88 gCO2/kWh emissions rate would have likely led to the conclusion that on a global scale, owning and driving an EV actually increases CO2 emissions more than owning and driving petroleum-powered vehicles do.


Barkenbus, 2017

These analyses make it clear that the widespread introduction of EVs, by itself, is insufficient to lead to reduced carbon emissions from the transport sector. Electricity grids need to incorporate greater levels of clean, renewable energy. Equally important, and less understood, electricity providers must incentivize public recharging of EVs when renewable energy generation is at its peak.
The global inventory of operating EVs, as of the end of 2015, totaled just over 1.25 million. … [A]lthough the number seems large in isolation, it still represents a minuscule portion of the personal vehicle inventory, no more than 0.1% of all such vehicles. … Five countries (China, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United States) are home to about 1 million EVs, roughly 80% of the total. The United States is the largest home, with something more than 400,000 EVs. China, currently number two on the list of EV owners with more than 300,000 vehicles, will likely soon overtake the United States.
Knowing where these cars are helps calculate their impact on climate emissions. The IEA reports the carbon intensity of national grids in , which can then be used to gauge emission rates for that country’s EVs. The IEA has also calculated that when EVs receive electricity with emission levels exceeding 559 gCO2/kWh, they, unfortunately, are net contributors to climate change when compared with conventional vehicles.
At the international level, therefore, the evidence is mixed. In some cases, EVs reduce CO2emissions, and in other cases, they actually result in more carbon emissions than would conventional vehicles.

German EV Drivers Emit 10 Times More CO2 Than French EV Drivers


As mentioned above, because German energy consumption share is substantially derived from fossil fuel sources, driving an EV in Germany has almost no impact (an 8.7% difference) in reducing CO2 emissions relative to driving petroleum-powered vehicles.

Driving an EV in neighboring France, however, substantially reduces CO2 emissions because the electricity charging an EV in France is predominantly supplied by “carbon-free” nuclear power.   Consequently, “CO2 emissions for charging EV in France are about 10 times lower than CO2 emissions of comparable ICEV [internal combustion engine vehicle] and about 10 times lower than charging in Germany.”


Ensslen et al., 2017

Our results indicate that charging in France causes only about ten percent of the carbon dioxide emissions compared to Germany, where the carbon intensity is more diverse [due to heavy fossil fuel dependency backing up intermittent wind and solar supplies in Germany].
During the evaluation period of six months about 3.2 tons of CO2 were emitted. As the major part of the electricity generated in France is based on “carbon-free” nuclear power, specific PTW [plant-to-wheel] CO2 emissions are substantially lower for the EV (16.4 g CO2/km in France compared to 147.1 g CO2/km for Germany).


EV Use In Germany Potentially Reduces CO2 Emissions By Just 8.7% Compared To Fossil Fuel Vehicles


Ensslen et al., 2017

The calculated EV [electric vehicle] emissions based on the French and German energy mix reveal significant differences between the two countries. Therefore, different reduction potentials are derived from the comparisons to comparable ICEV [internal combustion engine vehicle].  Assuming that the project vehicles would only be charged in Germany results in average time-dependent PTW [plant-to-wheel] CO2 emissions of about 147.1 g CO2/km. This is about 36% above the CO2 emissions calculated based on the norm consumption of the EV…
Comparing CO2 emissions according to norm consumption of a conventional Nissan NV200 [a petrol-powered commercial van with low-average fuel efficiency] also having an identical chassis (128 g CO2/km) with the CO2 emissions calculated based on the norm energy consumption of the project EV (11 g CO2/km in France and 108 g CO2/km in Germany) leads to the conclusion that EV usage in France (Germany) is – with regard to CO2 – more environmentally friendly than usage of comparable ICEV [internal combustion engine vehicle].
CO2 emission reduction potentials in France (Germany) consequently amount to 91.4 [France]% (15.6% [Germany]). However, additional efficiency losses in the batteries and the AC/DC charging unit (charging efficiency) increases the amount of energy needed for charging. This consequently also increases CO2 emissions and results in reduction potentials compared to ICEV [internal combustion engine vehicle] of about 90.7% in France and 8.7% in Germany.

PTW [plant-to-wheel] CO2 emissions for charging EV in France are consequently about 10 times lower than CO2 emissions of comparable ICEV [internal combustion engine vehicle] and about 10 times lower than charging in Germany. These results underline the effects of the different electricity generation mixes in France and Germany on operational, charging and time dependent CO2 emissions of EV.
Our results implicate that CO2 emission reduction potentials of EV could be used by charging them during windy and sunny hours in Germany. … For commuters only commuting within Germany we recommend shifting the load into periods with high shares of renewables, i.e. particularly into afternoon hours, when the sun is shining, or into windy periods.

Why Don’t EV Advocates Consider The Grid?


To summarize, then, owning and driving an EV currently does little to reduce CO2 emissions on a global scale.

More and more EVs are electrically charged in countries and regions that are heavily reliant on fossil fuels (i.e., 88% of China’s energy consumption  (2015) is derived from coal, oil and gas).

So why is it that advocates of CO2 emissions reductions are seemingly so disinterested in addressing the electricity grid issue while extolling the explosion of EV purchases and use?   Since CO2 emissions can actually increase when owning and driving EVs if the electricity that charges them is not sufficiently supplied by non-fossil fuel sources, why does this salient factor not resonate?

Or is the fervent push for EV ownership not really about CO2 emissions reductions after all?

New Studies Show Oceans Absorbing Atmospheric CO2 …”Putting Brakes On Climate Change”

South Polar Sea removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere

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

About half of the CO2 emitted by man gets absorbed by the oceans and so does not stay in the atmosphere. Here there are certain areas of the ocean that are especially efficient CO2 sinks, while others do not absorb so well. What follows is a look of the newest literature on the subject.

On September 15, 2015 the German daily Tagesspiegel presented some good news on climate change, reporting that the ocean was “a counter player against the greenhouse effect” and that the South Polar Sea was “putting the brakes on climate change“. It wrote:

Since 2002 the South Polar Sea has been taking in more carbon dioxide after it worked more slowly in the 1980s. […] The world oceans swallowed larger amounts of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the air, a quarter of man’s climate gas output disappears in its depths.”

Read (German) at the Tagesspiegel.

The Austrian daily Der Standard also reported on the study, describing the same process.

German daily Die Welt explained how it worked on 21 September 2015, as it reported on a paper in ‘Current Biology’, explaining that tiny animals consume away the CO2 in large amounts.

Since the 1980s the growth of the tiny moss animals (Bryozoa) in the region have almost doubled, reported David Barnes of the British Antarctic Survey in ‘Current Biology’.”

September 2015 saw a really large advance on the subject. On 18 September 2015 a paper by David Munro at al appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters confirming the welcome news of the trend of stronger CO2 intake by the Antarctic sea area. Also the Drake Passage is absorbing more CO2 than before:

Recent evidence for a strengthening CO2 sink in the Southern Ocean from carbonate system measurements in the Drake Passage (2002–2015)
We present a 13 year (2002–2015) semimonthly time series of the partial pressure of CO2 in surface water (pCO2surf) and other carbonate system parameters from the Drake Passage. This record shows a clear increase in the magnitude of the sea-air pCO2 gradient, indicating strengthening of the CO2 sink in agreement with recent large-scale analyses of the world oceans. The rate of increase in pCO2surf north of the Antarctic Polar Front (APF) is similar to the atmospheric pCO2 (pCO2atm) trend, whereas the pCO2surf increase south of the APF is slower than the pCO2atm trend. The high-frequency surface observations indicate that an absence of a winter increase in total CO2 (TCO2) and cooling summer sea surface temperatures are largely responsible for increasing CO2 uptake south of the APF. Muted winter trends in surface TCO2 also provide temporary stability to the carbonate system that is already close to undersaturation with respect to aragonite.”

What follows is the press release by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) on the article:

Southern Ocean removing carbon dioxide from atmosphere more efficiently

Scientists compile densest carbon data set in Antarctic waters

Since 2002, the Southern Ocean has been removing more of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, according to two new studies.

These studies make use of millions of ship-based observations and a variety of data analysis techniques to conclude that that the Southern Ocean has increasingly taken up more carbon dioxide during the last 13 years. That follows a decade from the early 1990s to 2000s, where evidence suggested the Southern Ocean carbon dioxide sink was weakening. The new studies appear today in the American Geophysical Union journal Geophysical Research Letters and the AAAS journal Science.

The global oceans are an important sink for human-released carbon dioxide, absorbing nearly a quarter of the total carbon dioxide emissions every year. Of all ocean regions, the Southern Ocean below the 35th parallel south plays a particularly vital role. “Although it comprises only 26 percent of the total ocean area, the Southern Ocean has absorbed nearly 40 percent of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide taken up by the global oceans up to the present,” says David Munro, a scientist at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) at the University of Colorado Boulder, and an author on the GRL paper.

The GRL paper focuses on one region of the Southern Ocean extending from the tip of South America to the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula (see Figure 1). “The Drake Passage is the windiest, roughest part of the Southern Ocean,” says Colm Sweeney, lead investigator on the Drake Passage study, co-author on both the GRL and Science papers, and a CIRES scientist working in the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. “The critical element to this study is that we were able to sustain measurements in this harsh environment as long as we have—both in the summer and the winter, in every year over the last 13 years. This data set of ocean carbon measurements is the densest ongoing time series in the Southern Ocean.”

The team was able to take these long-term measurements by piggybacking instruments on the Antarctic Research Supply Vessel Laurence M. Gould. The National Science Foundation-supported Gould, which makes nearly 20 crossings of the Drake Passage each year, transporting people and supplies to and from Antarctic research stations. For over 13 years, it’s taken chemical measurements of the atmosphere and surface ocean along the way.

By analyzing more than one million surface ocean observations, the researchers could tease out subtle differences between the carbon dioxide trends in the surface ocean and the atmosphere that suggest a strengthening of the carbon sink. This change is most pronounced in the southern half of the Drake Passage during winter (see Figure 2). Although the researchers aren’t sure of the exact mechanism driving these changes, “it’s likely that winter mixing with deep waters that have not had contact with the atmosphere for several hundred years plays an important role,” says Munro.

The Science paper, led by Peter Landschützer at the ETH Zurich, takes a more expansive view of the Southern Ocean. This study uses two innovative methods to analyze a dataset of surface water carbon dioxide spanning almost three decades and covering all of the waters below the 35th parallel south. These data—including Sweeney and Munro’s data from the Drake Passage—also show that the surface water carbon dioxide is increasing slower than atmospheric carbon dioxide, a sign that the Southern Ocean as a whole is more efficiently removing carbon from the atmosphere. These results follow previous findings that showed that the Southern Ocean carbon dioxide sink was stagnant or weakening from the early 1990s to the early 2000s.

In addition to the Drake Passage measurements, the Science paper uses datasets that represent a significant international collaboration, including carbon dioxide sampling from NOAA’s Ship of Opportunity Program. This program, led by Rik Wanninkhof of NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML) who is also a coauthor of the Science paper, is the world’s largest coordinated ocean carbon dioxide sampling operation. Despite all these efforts, the Southern Ocean remains undersampled. “Given the importance of the Southern Ocean to the global oceans’ role in absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide, these studies suggest that we must continue to expand our measurements in this part of the world despite the challenging environment,” says Sweeney.”

The temperature in the south polar region has a strong impact on the CO2 absorption capability of the South Polar Sea. Here the University of New South Wales mentioned this on 28 September 2015, citing the Nature Geoscience paper:

How ocean circulation changed atmospheric CO2

Scientists have struggled for the past few decades to understand why air temperatures around Antarctica over the past one million years were almost perfectly in synch with atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Both dipped down during glacial ice ages and back up again during warm interglacials. By contrast, temperature in the tropics and Northern Hemisphere was less closely tied to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. “This relationship between Antarctica temperature and CO2 suggested that somehow the Southern Ocean was pivotal in controlling natural atmospheric CO2 concentrations,” said Dr Maxim Nikurashin from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. “The key that unlocked the mystery was the colder atmosphere and extensive sea ice around Antarctica during the glacial period. Together they fundamentally changed top to bottom ocean circulation and enabled more CO2 to be drawn from the atmosphere.”

The researchers found in a paper published today in Nature Geoscience that during glacial periods when the atmosphere was colder and sea ice was far more extensive, deep ocean waters came to the surface much further north of the Antarctic continent than they do today. This meant that the nutrients brought up from the bottom of the ocean spent more time on the surface of the ocean as the currents moved them southwards before the flow encountered Antarctica and circled back down to the bottom of the ocean. Because the upwelled waters ran along the surface for a longer period of time, nutrients spent more time near the surface of the ocean where phytoplankton could feed on them for longer.

The biological processes that result from phytoplankton blooms directly take carbon out of the atmosphere. Some of this carbon then sinks to the bottom of the ocean when the phytoplankton die, locking it away in the deep sea for thousands of years. “The biological processes that take up carbon from the atmosphere even take place in and under the ice, if that ice is not too thick, which is why the biological processes persisted for a lot longer during cooler periods,” the authors said. “Our results suggest that this change in circulation and the consequent extended biological activity by itself took 30-60ppm of CO2 out of the atmosphere. That’s about one half of the glacial-interglacial change.”

However, when temperatures warm over the Antarctic regions, deep waters rise from the floor of the ocean much closer to the continent. This means nutrients are near the surface for a shorter time before returning to the deep ocean floor. With less time on the surface there is less time for the biological processes to take place and less carbon is taken out of the atmosphere. This is the situation we see today. “This finding is a major advance in understanding the natural carbon cycle, gained by applying a new understanding about how the “overturning circulation” of the Southern Ocean works,” said lead author Dr Andrew J Watson from the University of Exeter.

Paper: Southern Ocean buoyancy forcing of ocean ventilation and glacial atmospheric CO2. Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/ngeo2538.”

Climate Models Out Of Whack …Also Warming From Arctic Soot Underestimated

What follows is another report on how it’s “back-to-the drawing-board” for climate models.
==============================================

Climate models underestimate soot amounts and their warming effect in the Arctic

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translation/editing of German text by P Gosselin)

Soot (black carbon aerosol) is a climate warming aerosol. Some years ago we recognized that soot warms far more than earlier assumed. Thus we should have deducted a part of the warming of the past 150 years from CO2 and assigned it to soot. But that was not allowed politically, and so the models were fudged to make CO2 a powerful climate factor in the end. A rotten compromise which we already described 5 years ago in our book “Die kalte Sonne”.

What’s the latest in the research of soot? Already in 2013 in PNAS a paper appeared authored by von Thomas Painter et al investigating the surprisingly early and abrupt glacier retreats in the Alps. When studying the ice they found a strong increase in soot from this time, which had something to do with the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid 19th century.

The authors concluded that the melting of the Alps glaciers was impacted significantly by the rise in soot. Here’s the abstract:

End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon
Glaciers in the European Alps began to retreat abruptly from their mid-19th century maximum, marking what appeared to be the end of the Little Ice Age. Alpine temperature and precipitation records suggest that glaciers should instead have continued to grow until circa 1910. Radiative forcing by increasing deposition of industrial black carbon to snow may represent the driver of the abrupt glacier retreats in the Alps that began in the mid-19th century. Ice cores indicate that black carbon concentrations increased abruptly in the mid-19th century and largely continued to increase into the 20th century, consistent with known increases in black carbon emissions from the industrialization of Western Europe. Inferred annual surface radiative forcings increased stepwise to 13–17 W⋅m−2 between 1850 and 1880, and to 9–22 W⋅m−2 in the early 1900s, with snowmelt season (April/May/June) forcings reaching greater than 35 W⋅m−2 by the early 1900s. These snowmelt season radiative forcings would have resulted in additional annual snow melting of as much as 0.9 m water equivalent across the melt season. Simulations of glacier mass balances with radiative forcing-equivalent changes in atmospheric temperatures result in conservative estimates of accumulating negative mass balances of magnitude −15 m water equivalent by 1900 and −30 m water equivalent by 1930, magnitudes and timing consistent with the observed retreat. These results suggest a possible physical explanation for the abrupt retreat of glaciers in the Alps in the mid-19th century that is consistent with existing temperature and precipitation records and reconstructions.”

Today thanks to satellite measurements, we have a more exact, full surface picture of glacier albedo. However here there are “cases” that dodge this. This is how Dartmouth College im October 2015 admitted that the supposed changes in albedo in northern Greenland were not in any way real, but could be traced back to a worsening of the satellite sensors, i.e. an artefact of measurement.

In March 2016 a more precise evaluation by a team led by Marco Tedesco appeared in the The Cryosphere. They found a slight decrease in albedo in Greenland over the time period 1981-2012, whereby during the 1981-1996 period there was no detectable trend. Soot measurements from northern Finnland provided hope. In the last 40 years soot concentration in the atmosphere dropped steadily thanks to falling emissions.

The Japanese research center RIKEN made a complaint in May 2016 that climate models assumed too little soot in the Arctic regions. In reality there was far more:

Current atmospheric models underestimate the dirtiness of Arctic air

Black carbon aerosols—particles of carbon that rise into the atmosphere when biomass, agricultural waste, and fossil fuels are burned in an incomplete way—are important for understanding climate change, as they absorb sunlight, leading to higher atmospheric temperatures, and can also coat Arctic snow with a darker layer, reducing its reflectivity and leading to increased melting. Unfortunately, current simulation models, which combine global climate models with aerosol transport models, consistently underestimate the amount of these aerosols in the Arctic compared to actual measurements during the spring and winter seasons, making it difficult to accurately assess the impact of these substances on the climate.

To find out if these inaccuracies could be mitigated, a team of scientists decided to use the Japanese K computer to perform fine-grained simulations of how black carbon aerosols are transported to and distributed in the Arctic region. By using smaller grids—with spacing of just a few kilometers rather than several tens of kilometers as in conventional current models—they were able to show that they could more realistically model the amount of black carbon aerosols, mitigating the underestimation in more coarse-grained models. Their finest model used 3.5 kilometer grids broken up vertically into 38 layers, so that it required 1.6 billion grids to cover the globe. The simulation, done on the 10-petaflop K computer, still required 17 hours to perform the two week simulation.

According to Yousuke Sato of the RIKEN Advanced Institute for Computational Science (AICS), ‘this research shows that powerful supercomputers, by performing more fine-grained simulations, can help us to model weather and climate patterns in a more realistic way. We have to note, however, that while our model reduced the underestimation, it did not completely eliminate it. Further generations of even more powerful computers will allow us to run simulations that may be able to make even more realistic simulations and help us to understand the mechanism through which these aerosols are transported.’

‘It is also known,’ continues Sato, ‘that current models do not realistically model the vertical distribution of the aerosols, and we believe that finer measurements could help there as well. Unfortunately there were no vertical measurements taken in November 2011, the time we chose to model, so we plan in the future to do simulations for time periods for which actual measurement data exist.’

The research, published in Scientific Reports, was carried out by AICS in collaboration with the University of Tokyo, the National Institute of Environmental Studies, Kyushu University, and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.

Reference: Yousuke Sato, Hiroaki Miura, Hisashi Yashiro, Daisuke Goto, Toshihiko Takemura, Hirofumi Tomita, and Teruyuki Nakajima, ‘Unrealistically pristine air in the Arctic produced by current global scale models’, Scientific Reports, doi: 10.1038/srep26561″

The consequences of the climate model misassumptions are clear: Less soot in the models also means less warming by soot. This is how the observed Arctic warming can be foremost assigned to CO2.

If one now increases the soot in the models, then it becomes necessary to deduct a part of the warming effect from CO2, and of course CO2-climate sensitivity drops accordingly. No matter where one looks, CO2 keeps taking a greater share of the climate cake than it should. It’s an error that is systematic.

 

4 New Papers: Modern Warming Is Substantially Artificial, Traced To Urbanization, Bias

Scientists: Temperature Data Contamination

Accounts For 33% – 75% Of Modern Warming

Urban heat from paved roads, buildings, and machinery can artificially inflate temperatures substantially above measured temperatures from non-urban areas.  This introduces a significant non-climatic warming bias into long-term records.

Heat from an urban (or highly populated) environment can artificially raise temperatures by as much as 3°C to 10°C relative to nearby rural locations.   This is true even for villages in the Arctic.


Imhoff et al., 2010     On a yearly average, urban areas are substantially warmer than the non-urban fringe by 2.9°C 

Konstantinov et al., 2015     This article presents the results of a study of the urban heat island (UHI) in the city of Apatity [Russian Arctic] during winter that were obtained according to the data of field meteorological measurements and satellite images. Calculations of the surface layer temperature have been made based on the surface temperature data obtained from satellite images. …  As a result of the analysis of temperature fields, an intensive heat island (up to 3.2°C) has been identified

Kim, 1992     The results indicate that urban heating is attributable to a large excess in heat from the rapidly heating urban surfaces consisting of buildings, asphalt, bare-soil and short grasses. In summer, the symptoms of diurnal heating begin to appear by mid-morning and can be about 10°C warmer than nearby woodlands.

Artificial Warming From Urban Bias A ‘Substantial Portion’ Of Overall Global Trend


Scientists were at one time concerned that artificial warming biases from expanding urbanization might contaminate the measured surface temperature record.

As recently as the late 1980s it was concluded that the “artificial warming” from urban heat could add an extraneous 0.1°C to 0.4°C of warming per decade in some regions, and that the non-climatic warming attributed to urbanization exceeds the observed overall long-term trends after the 1950s.  In other words, a substantial portion of the warming since the mid-20th century could be attributed to artificial heat.


Karl and Quayle, 1988     Karl et al., 1988) has shown that at some ‘sun belt’ cities in the West, the rise of temperature that can be attributed to the urban heat island is as much as 0.3 to 0.4°C per decade. In the East, the rise is over 0.1°C per decade. … The artificial warming in the primary station network, relative to the climate division data, is nearly 0.17°C over the past 34 years [1950s]. Such trends are at least as large as any of the observed trends over the United States (Karl, 1988) or the globe (Jones and Wigley, 1987).

Karl and Jones, 1989     Results indicate that in the United States the two global land-based temperature data sets have an urban bias between +0.1°C and +0.4°C over the twentieth century (1901-84).  … The magnitude of this urban bias in two global, land-based data sets was found to be a substantial portion of the overall trend of global and regional temperatures.

Modern Temps Rising 0.05°C – 0.12°C/Decade…Urban Heat Bias Rising Faster


The IPCC considers the year 1750 as the starting point for the radiative anthropogenic influence on climate, due principally to fossil fuel burning and concomitant CO2 emissions.  Since 1850, CO2 concentrations have risen from 285 ppm to 400 ppm.  During these ~165 years, the IPCC has concluded that surface temperatures have warmed by 0.78°C.  This is a warming rate of only 0.05°C per decade for 1850-2012 — which happens to be the same rate of warming over the 1998-2012 period.   Temperatures are rising at a rate of 0.12°C per decade during 1951-2012.


IPCC AR5 (2013):     The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85°C over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 °C, based on the single longest dataset available 4 (see Figure SPM.1). … [T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 °C per decade).

As suggested above, (a) non-climatic urban heating may artificially add 0.1°C per decade (or more) to the temperature record; (b) the overall surface temperature record is only rising at a rate of +0.05°C to +0.12°C per decade;  therefore, (c) this would imply that all or nearly all the warming since 1850 or 1950 may be attributed to rapidly expanding urbanization and measurement bias, not climate change.


4 New Papers Highlight Artificial Warming Bias, Adjustments


Four new studies can be added to a large collection of scientific papers documenting an accelerating artificial warming bias.


1. Urbanization Adds +0.13°C Per Decade To Temp Record


Liao et al., 2017     We examine the urban effect on surface warming in Eastern China, where a substantial portion of the land area has undergone rapid urbanization in the last few decades. Daily surface air temperature records during the period 1971–2010 at 277 meteorological stations are used to investigate temperature changes. Owing to urban expansion, some of the stations formerly located in rural areas are becoming increasingly influenced by urban environments. To estimate the effect of this urbanization on observed surface warming, the stations are dynamically classified into urban and rural types based on the land use data for four periods, i.e. 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010. After eliminating the temperature trend bias induced by time-varying latitudinal distributions of urban and rural stations, the estimated urban-induced trends in the daily minimum and mean temperature are 0.167 and 0.085 °C decade−1, accounting for 33.6 and 22.4% of total surface warming, respectively. The temperature difference between urban and rural stations indicates that urban heat island intensity has dramatically increased owing to rapid urbanization, and is highly correlated with the difference in fractional coverage of artificial surfaces between these two types of stations. This study highlights the importance of dynamic station classification in estimating the contribution of urbanization to long-term surface warming over large areas.

2. ‘Very Likely’ GISS Artificial Warming Bias Of 0.65°C/Century (Globe)


Parker and Ollier, 2017     The global reconstructions as GISS (Hansen et al. 2010, GISTEMP Team 2017) are artificially biased upwards to reproduce the carbon dioxide emission trend, but the strong natural oscillation signal prevails. The very likely overrated warming rate since 1880 is 0.00654°C/year or 0.654°C/century. This rate increases to 0.00851°C/year or 0.851°C/century by considering the data only since 1910. The warming rate cleared of the oscillations is about constant since the 1940s.
As there is no way to perform a better measurement going back in the past, there is no legitimate way to correct recorded data of the past. Therefore, we should stick to the raw data.

2. Australia Has ‘Warmed’ By 0.04°C Since  1800s…BOM Artificially Inflated Temps


Parker and Ollier, 2017 (Continued)     Table 1 presents the warming trend for the 30 longest temperature records of Australia collected in a single location, with measurements started before 1900 and continued until after 1985.  … In the 30 locations, the monthly mean maximum temperature is warming 0.0004°C/year, or 0.04°C/century. That means there is no change within the limits of accuracy of the measurements.

A definitive statement about the BOM procedure is provided by Parker (2016). The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v2 temperature time series (GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, 2012) in Alice Spring and all the 36 other stations located in a circle of 1,000 km from Alice Springs do not show any warming.

There are stations covering different time windows having very close patterns of temperatures. In this circle of 3,141,593 km2 (roughly 50% of Australia) that is mostly underdeveloped, none of the stations […] actually has a warming trend. … It is therefore only an artefact by BOM to produce the warming. Homogenization is supposed to be used to account for upwards biases such as Urban Heat Island, not to introduce upwards biases.

As noticed by Parker (2015a), the ACORN adjustments of Australian temperatures are in the wrong direction, inevitably in the direction to produce a warming much larger than the legitimate. In the centre of Australia, all the stations available in a circle of radius 1,000 km were showing very little or no warming, as still acknowledged in the GHCN v2 data set up to October 2011 (Fig. 6). To move from a scattered population of stations with unequal time coverage and many missing data but both uniformly not warming to produce the largest warming trend for Australia as depicted by the BOM it only requires many administrative corrections and the development of an ad-hoc procedure to compute spatial trends.
We should also consider the role of the Bureau of Meteorology. The climate trend maps compiled by Bureau of Meteorology in their climate change section are completely unreliable, as the alleged increasing temperature is obtained by lowering temperatures of the past by “adjustments”.
The longest of the Australian temperature records that were considered the most reliable by Bureau of Meteorology on February 2009 (BOM 2009) are still available as raw temperatures in the climate data online section and consistently show no warming and no increased extreme events within the limit of accuracy of measurements.

3. Moving Stations, ‘Adjustment’ Bias Adds +0.47°C  To Temp Record Since 1800s


Dienst et al., 2017     We here assess these influences and demonstrate that even in villages urban heat island biases might affect the temperature readings. … Due to the station movement from the village centre to the outskirts, the net correction results in an additional warming trend over the past 155 years. The trend increase is most substantial for minimum temperatures (+0.03 °C /10 years−1) [+0.47°C over 155 years] . … An increase in trend is even more severe if the 20th century is regarded exclusively, displaying a rise in annual mean temperature trend by +0.03 °C /10 years−1 and +0.07 °C /10 years−1 in annual minimum temperatures, respectively.  … The adjustment of the Haparanda station record results in an increased warming trend.

4. Rapidly Increasing Urbanization To Add 2.4°C To Temps By 2100


Levermore et al., 2017     The urban heat island intensity in Manchester has a highly significant rising trend which by the end of the century could add 2.4 K to the average annual urban temperature, on top of the predicted climate change increase. An analysis of the urban morphology showed that the urban site had indeed become more urban over 9 years of the study, losing green spaces which mitigate against the UHII [urban heat island intensity].

Below are several more scientific papers supporting the conclusion that a substantial portion of modern warming can be traced to urbanization, bias, and measurement contamination.


‘Data Contamination’ Accounts For ~50% Of Warming During 1980-2002


McKitrick and Michaels, 2007     [E]xtraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.

Urbanization Accounts For 65-80% Of Warming Trend Since 1960s


Ren et al., 2007     The annual urban warming at the city stations can account for about 65∼80% of the overall warming in 1961∼2000, and about 40∼61% of the overall warming in 1981∼2000.

Urbanization Adds 0.2 °C/Decade, Half Of  Athens’ Warming Since 1970


Founda et al., 2015     Highlights: UHI [the Urban Heat Island effect] accounts for almost half of Athens’ warming.
The study explores the interdecadal and seasonal variability of the urban heat island (UHI) intensity in the city of Athens. Daily air temperature data from a set of urban and surrounding non urban stations over the period 1970–2004 were used. Nighttime and daytime heat island revealed different characteristics as regards the mean amplitude, seasonal variability and temporal variation and trends. The difference of the annual mean air temperature between urban and rural stations exhibited a progressive statistically significant increase over the studied period, with rates equal to +0.2 °C/decade. A gradual and constant increase of the daytime UHI intensity was detected, in contrast to the nighttime UHI intensity which increases only in summer, after the mid 1980s.

A+217 to +562% Artificial Warming Detected In Western U.S. Due To ‘Artifacts’


Oyler et al., 2015     Artificial Amplification of Warming Trends …Western United States     Observations from the main mountain climate station network in the western United States (US) suggest that higher elevations are warming faster than lower elevations. This has led to the assumption that elevation-dependent warming is prevalent throughout the region with impacts to water resources and ecosystem services. Here, we critically evaluate this network’s temperature observations and show that extreme warming observed at higher elevations is the result of systematic artifacts and not climatic conditions. With artifacts removed, the network’s 1991–2012 minimum temperature trend decreases from +1.16 °C decade−1 to +0.106 °C decade−1 and is statistically indistinguishable from lower elevation trends. Moreover, longer-term widely used gridded climate products propagate the spurious temperature trend, thereby amplifying 1981–2012 western US elevation-dependent warming by +217 to +562%. In the context of a warming climate, this artificial amplification of mountain climate trends has likely compromised our ability to accurately attribute climate change impacts across the mountainous western US.

‘Half Or More’ Of Recent Warming Due To Urban Growth


Hughs and Balling, 1996     The long-term mean annual temperature record (1885 –1993) shows warming over the past century, with much of the warming occurring in the most recent three decades. However, our analyses show that half or more of this recent warming may be related to urban growth, and not to any widespread regional temperature increase.

24% – 44% Of Overall Warming Due To Urbanization


Yang et al., 2011     [R]apid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China. Overall, UHI [urban heat island] effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively. The UHI trends are 0.398°C and 0.26°C decade−1. The most substantial UHI effect occurred after the early 2000s, implying a significant effect of rapid urbanization on surface air temperature change during this period.

Long-Term New Zealand-Wide Temps Artificially Inflated By Factor Of 3


de Freitas et al., 2015     New Zealand’s national record for the period 1909 to 2009 is analysed and the data homogenized. Current New Zealand century-long climatology based on 1981 methods produces a trend of 0.91 °C per century. Our analysis, which uses updated measurement techniques and corrects for shelter-contaminated data, produces a trend of 0.28 °C per century.

Sea Level Rise At German Coast Slowing, Contradicting German DWD Weather Service Hysteria

Manfred Knake here at the European Institute For Climate And Energy (EIKE) writes that the sea level at the German coasts is not rising as fast as Germany’s DWD national weather service would like the public to believe it is. lately press releases related to climate by the DWD have been bordering on hysteria.

For example in June the DWD reported that a “tornado” over Hamburg, which quickly morphed in the media as a devastating weather event. Today it would be easy to argue that with some aspects, the DWD has turned into a political Organisation.

Just recently in the run-up to the G20 summit in Hamburg, the DWD issued a press release warning of dramatic peril from sea level rise coming stemming from global warming. It wrote that coastal cities will see “considerable risks for living space for hundreds of millions of people. built structures and insfratsucture worth trillions of dollars are imminently threatened by sea level rise. Today’s emissions will lead over the long term laxtensive coastal strips of land being being below the sea level.”

The DWD then went on to call for urgent “fact-based” action to be taken by world leaders.

The DWD in its press release mentioned that Germany’s coasts has seen sea level rise 10-20 cm over the last century, which is correct.

However the current rate of rise has in fact slowed down, according studies by the University of Siegen: 1.7 mm/year [5], Knake writes. Before that officials had assumed 2.5 mm/year. That means German coastal sea level rise is a full one third below what was previously thought.

The tide gauge at the Cuxhaven-Germany port shows no dramatic rate rise at all:

Quite to the contrary, sea level rise at Cuxhaven has in fact slowed down slightly. Source: Bundesamt für Schifffahrt und Hydrographie Hamburg.

Another huge fear is rising storm surges. But here too Knake shows that they have been decreasing signficantly over the past quarter century:

Another point of alarm (mis)used by the DWD is the increasing frequency and intensity of thunderstorms, but Knake also shows that the trend has been more the opposite of what the public is often to believe:

The trend for the number of thunderstorms in the summer (lower trend line), and the number of thunderstorms each year (upper line) have been slowing in Germany since 1900. Chart: by Stefan Kämpfe

If people and institutes want leaders to do the right thing, then a good place to start is to get back to reality and away from hysteria promotion.

Spate Of Recent Papers: Climate Models Still Unable To Reproduce Even Most Fundamental Cycles!

Can we really afford this? Model failures with ocean cycles

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translation/editing of German text by P Gosselin)

The 60-year ocean cycles govern global temperature development. Yet climate models are still unable to reproduce the empirically well established relationship. Naturally this is all very embarrassing and has since become the object studies on cause-research.

Gerald Meehl et al looked into the problems in September 2014 in Nature Climate Change. The authors conceded errors and were annoyed that they had not achieved better hindcast results early on. Only when the models are able to reproduce the known developments are they good enough to be used for making prognoses for the temperature developments of the future. Actually this is something that is a matter of fact, but climate modelers simply brushed is all aside in the midst of all the climate panic.

Here Meehl et al have thus made a great contribution to science, as it clearly turns out. What follows is the paper’s abstract, Meehl et al. 2014:

Climate model simulations of the observed early-2000s hiatus of global warming
The slowdown in the rate of global warming in the early 2000s is not evident in the multi-model ensemble average of traditional climate change projection simulations1. However, a number of individual ensemble members from that set of models successfully simulate the early-2000s hiatus when naturally-occurring climate variability involving the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) coincided, by chance, with the observed negative phase of the IPO that contributed to the early-2000s hiatus. If the recent methodology of initialized decadal climate prediction could have been applied in the mid-1990s using the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 multi-models, both the negative phase of the IPO in the early 2000s as well as the hiatus could have been simulated, with the multi-model average performing better than most of the individual models. The loss of predictive skill for six initial years before the mid-1990s points to the need for consistent hindcast skill to establish reliability of an operational decadal climate prediction system.”

Just a month later in October 2014, Sergey Kravstov et al documented in the Geophysical Research Letters the close relationship of the global ocean cycles. The team led by Judith Curry saw a sort of stadium wave effect: The ocean cycles in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans are all simultaneously active, however have a time shifts of years to decades with respect to each other. Here again the paper’s authors criticize the climate models, which are unable to replicate the oscillations. The paper’s abstract:

Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century
The bulk of our knowledge about causes of twentieth century climate change comes from simulations using numerical models. In particular, these models seemingly reproduce the observed nonuniform global warming, with periods of faster warming in 1910–1940 and 1970–2000, and a pause in between. However, closer inspection reveals some differences between the observations and model simulations. Here we show that observed multidecadal variations of surface climate exhibited a coherent global-scale signal characterized by a pair of patterns, one of which evolved in sync with multidecadal swings of the global temperature, and the other in quadrature with them.In contrast, model simulations are dominated by the stationary—single pattern—forced signal somewhat reminiscent of the observed “in-sync” pattern most pronounced in the Pacific. While simulating well the amplitude of the largest-scale—Pacific and hemispheric—multidecadal variability in surface temperature, the model underestimates variability in the North Atlantic and atmospheric indices.”

Also see a discussion of the at Judith Curry’s website.

Now two and half years later, on June 15, 2017, Sergey Kravtsov piled on yet another paper in the Geophysical Research Letters. He examined the climate simulations with respect to temperature oscillations and found something sobering: The models were neither able to get a hold on the amplitude nor the spatial distribution pattern.

The unavoidable consequence: The models in their current form are not suited to reproduce the real temperature trends, let alone project the future temperature trends.

That’s a bitter finding that policymakers prefer not to hear. Abstract of Kravtsov 2017:

Pronounced differences between observed and CMIP5-simulated multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century
Identification and dynamical attribution of multidecadal climate undulations to either variations in external forcings or to internal sources is one of the most important topics of modern climate science, especially in conjunction with the issue of human-induced global warming. Here we utilize ensembles of twentieth century climate simulations to isolate the forced signal and residual internal variability in a network of observed and modeled climate indices. The observed internal variability so estimated exhibits a pronounced multidecadal mode with a distinctive spatiotemporal signature, which is altogether absent in model simulations. This single mode explains a major fraction of model-data differences over the entire climate index network considered; it may reflect either biases in the models’ forced response or models’ lack of requisite internal dynamics, or a combination of both.

Plain Language Summary:
Global and regional warming trends over the course of the twentieth century have been nonuniform, with decadal and longer periods of faster or slower warming, or even cooling. Here we show that state-of-the-art global models used to predict climate fail to adequately reproduce such multidecadal climate variations. In particular, the models underestimate the magnitude of the observed variability and misrepresent its spatial pattern. Therefore, our ability to interpret the observed climate change using these models is limited.

The subject of ocean cycles is a very current topic in climate science.

In June 2017 anew paper by Shuai-Lei Yao et al appeared in Nature Climate Change. The authors examined the regional patterns of warming and pause phases of the last 150 years.

They summed up the findings very easily: During strong global warming phases, all oceans work in unison and contribute to the warming. And when global warming stagnates, as it is currently, the trends of the different oceans compensate each other. The oceans work against each other, one could say. Abstract:

Distinct global warming rates tied to multiple ocean surface temperature changes
The globally averaged surface temperature has shown distinct multi-decadal fluctuations since 19001, 2, 3, 4, characterized by two weak slowdowns in the mid-twentieth century and early twenty-first century and two strong accelerations in the early and late twentieth century. While the recent global warming (GW) hiatus has been particularly ascribed to the eastern Pacific cooling5, 6, causes of the cooling in the mid-twentieth century and distinct intensity differences between the slowdowns and accelerations remain unclear7, 8. Here, our model experiments with multiple ocean sea surface temperature (SST) forcing reveal that, although the Pacific SSTs play essential roles in the GW rates, SST changes in other basins also exert vital influences. The mid-twentieth-century cooling results from the SST cooling in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic, which is partly offset by the Southern Ocean warming. During the recent hiatus, the tropical Pacific-induced strong cooling is largely compensated by warming effects of other oceans. In contrast, during the acceleration periods, ubiquitous SST warming across all the oceans acts jointly to exaggerate the GW. Multi-model simulations with separated radiative forcing suggest diverse causes of the SST changes in multiple oceans during the GW acceleration and slowdown periods. Our results highlight the importance of multiple oceans on the multi-decadal GW rates.”

The corresponding press release from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 13 June 2017:

Understanding Multi-decadal Global Warming Rate Changes

A long-standing mystery is that, despite the persistently increased greenhouse gases emissions throughout the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the globally-averaged surface temperature has shown distinct multi-decadal fluctuations since 1900, including two weak global warming slowdowns in the mid-twentieth century and early twenty-first century and two strong global warming accelerations in the early and late twentieth century. The multi-decadal global warming rate changes are primarily attributed to multiple ocean surface temperature changes, according to research by Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Australian Bureau of Meteorology. It is the net impact of multiple ocean surface temperature changes, rather than a single ocean basin change, that plays a main driver for the multi-decadal global warming accelerations and slowdowns. Understanding and quantifying the respective role of individual ocean basin in the multi-decadal global warming accelerations and slowdowns, under the forcing of the sustained increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, could help achieve a more accurate estimate of the future global warming rate to better meet the global warming target of the Paris Conference reached in December 2015–no more than 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

The new finding of the importance of multiple ocean surface temperature changes to the multi-decadal global warming accelerations and slowdowns is supported by a set of computer modeling experiments, in which observed sea surface temperature changes are specified in individual ocean basins, separately. The results are published in “Distinct global warming rates tied to multiple ocean surface temperature changes”, in the June 12 online issue of Nature Climate Change.

“Our results identify multiple ocean surface temperature change as a major driver for global mean surface temperature changes on multi-decadal timescales. The paramount importance of multiple ocean basins in determining the global warming rates provides a new insight to improving global and regional climate projections.” states the corresponding author Gang Huang from Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).

“The results elucidate the relative contributions of individual ocean surface temperature changes to the multi-decadal global warming rate changes, and could help improve our understanding of global warming fluctuations under steadily increased emissions of atmospheric greenhouse gases.” says Jing-Jia Luo, the corresponding author of the study and climate scientist at the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia. “It reveals a fact that we need to explore climate change in a more global perspective. This could stimulate an integrated strategy and coordinated effort toward understanding the causes of regional ocean changes.”

“Our study provides a novel perspective for understanding and projecting individual ocean basin’s impacts on global warming,” explains co-author Dr. Shuai-Lei Yao from CAS Institute of Atmospheric Physics. “While the tropical Pacific was generally regarded as a key contributor to the multi-decadal global warming rate changes, other ocean basins, including the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic and the Southern Ocean, also exert important effects. “

By the way, a pioneering paper on ocean cycles was written by Klyashtorin & Lyubushin 2007 (pdf here), which had practical application, namely the fish supply cycles:

CYCLIC CLIMATE CHANGES AND FISH PRODUCTIVITY

To end, here’s an advisory on a very special ocean (bi-)cycle (Image here).

Swiss Daily, German Scientist Slam Reporting U of Exeter Antarctic Findings… “An Abuse Of Science”!

A commentary appearing here at the Swiss Baseler Zeitung (BAZ) slams a recently published British paper on moss growth in Antarctica that gave the impression the south polar continent was greening up due to climate change.

The BAZ writes that the paper is an example of “how today science is manipulated and used for political purposes“.

A team of scientists led by Dr. Matt Amesbury of the University of Exeter issued a press release claiming that Antarctica was “greening due to climate change.”

German language media outlets like Spiegel wasted no time in blaring out the dramatic news, giving unwitting readers the impression that the entire continent was rapidly losing all its ice and becoming vegetated. However, upon closer examination that “greening” of the South Pole is actually some moss growing near the very tip of the Antarctic peninsula, 65° south latitude!

The whole affair is a complete intentional public deception. It’s since become another classic example of scientists and media ruining the reputation of science over the long term for the sake of short-term climate hype and attention grabbing.

The BAZ calls the whole media handling “an abuse of science”.

The Basel, Switzerland-based Swiss daily writes that professor Fritz Vahrenholt decided to examine how the results of the British study morphed into spectacular reports of a “greening” Antarctica in the media. According to Vahrenholt,, and entire series of errors was committed by the scientists.

The first major error the media made was making the three tiny islands located near the tip of the Antarctic peninsula where the study took place look as if they were talking about all of Antarctica.

The BaZ:

Vahrenholt said that would be like making an increase in fires on a British island into the headline: ‘Europe is burning!'”

The second mistake, the German professor points out, is the media claim that the area of study did not suddenly turn green and that there’s been moss and plants on the islands “for hundreds of years” already.

Cooling since 2000

Another deceptive claim made is that the area has been warming, but the study examined the temperatures over periods ranging from 1950 to 2000. “Why not use the temperature data up to the present?” Vahrenholt asks. Looking at the complete temperature chart provided by the BaZ and Vahrenholt, one finds that summers in the the area of study have in fact been COOLING since before 2000!

Average summer temperature value of the three stations used between 1978 and 2016, with 20-year smoothing. Chart: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt/BaZ.

Vahrenholt tells the BaZ that it’s clear why the study stopped at the year 2000: because that endpoint was purposely selected to produce the greatest rate of warming. And depending on which datasets are examined: “from 1999 to 2014 the Antarctic Peninsula even cooled at half a degree per decade”. Something that the British study simply left out.

Highly exaggerated climate models

The British University of Exeter scientists also identified other factors other than temperature impacting the growth of moss, but these were sloppily handled in the reporting of the results to the public. What was left was the preposterous impression of a greening Antarctic continent.

Vahrenholt also points out that the climate models for the Antarctic Peninsula have been massively over-projecting the warming, and that it in fact growing only at a tiny fraction of what was predicted.

The BaZ commentary concludes:

Amesbury and his team from the University of Exeter indeed did not tell lies, but important scientific data and relationships were left out so that their study would fit the scientific trend and prejudice of journalists.”

Scientists Find At Least 75% Of The Earth Has Not Warmed In Recent Decades

 The ‘Real Proxy’ Temperature Record 

Hints Near-Global Cooling Has Begun

As a new scientific paper (Turney et al., 2017) indicates, the Southern Ocean encompasses 14% of the Earth’s surface.  And according to regional temperature measurements that have apparently not been subjected to warming “corrections” by data adjusters, the Southern Ocean has been cooling in recent decades.

The Northern Hemisphere embodies the top half (50%) of the world’s surface.  And according to many scientists’ temperature reconstructions using proxy evidence (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) from numerous locations North of the equator, there has been no net warming in the Northern Hemisphere since the 1940s.

Antarctica (2.7%) and the Indian Ocean (14.4%) together represent about 17% of the Earth’s surface.  Neither Antarctica nor the Indian Ocean have been observed to have warmed since the 1970s, with Antarctica exhibiting a cooling trend.

Just these regions of the globe alone represent more than 75% of the Earth’s surface.  A net non-warming (cooling) trend in these regions in recent decades is highly inconsistent with commonly accepted instrumental data sets (such as NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT) which show an abrupt recent warming trend – especially since the 1980s.


Is Ice Core Evidence More Reliable Than Heavily Adjusted Instrumental Record?


Earlier this year, an intriguing paper published by Steiger et al. (2017) contrasted the instrumental temperature record (which showed dramatic recent warming) with the global-scale temperature record as revealed by “real proxy” evidence from ice cores.  The reconstructions using proxy evidence showed a global warming trend during the first half of the 20th century, and then no significant net warming thereafter.


Steiger et al., 2017

“Through several idealized and real proxy experiments we assess the spatial and temporal extent to which isotope records can reconstruct surface temperature, 500 hPa geopotential height, and precipitation. We find local reconstruction skill to be most robust across the reconstructions, particularly for temperature and geopotential height, as well as limited non-local skill in the tropics.  These results are in agreement with long-held views that isotopes in ice cores have clear value as local climate proxies, particularly for temperature and atmospheric circulation.”


Interestingly, the Steiger et al., (2017) “real proxy” global temperature trends during the modern era seem to align with hundreds of other regional proxy temperature reconstructions that permeate the recently-published scientific literature.

Scientists have previously acknowledged that (a) an artificial (urbanization) warming bias of more than 0.1°C per decade existed in the post-1970s instrumental records, (b) 1/3rd of the oceans hadn’t even been sampled (temperatures) yet as of the 1990s, and (c) overseers of temperature data sets just “made up” temperatures in places where there was no data.  Therefore, could it be possible that “real proxy” temperature reconstructions are more reliable and authentic than the data from thermometers corrupted by urbanization and bias?

Below is a compilation of about 65 graphs from peer-reviewed scientific papers indicating that recent decades are no warmer (and in several cases cooler) than the instrumental data sets suggest.

For large regions of the globe, cooling may have already begun.


Southern Ocean (Pacific) – Cooling Since 1979


Turney et al., 2017

Occupying about 14% of the world’s surface, the Southern Ocean plays a fundamental role in ocean and atmosphere circulation, carbon cycling and Antarctic ice-sheet dynamics. … As a result of anomalies in the overlying wind, the surrounding waters are strongly influenced by variations in northward Ekman transport of cold fresh subantarctic surface water and anomalous fluxes of sensible and latent heat at the atmosphere–ocean interface. This has produced a cooling trend since 1979.”


Jones et al., 2016


Fan et al., 2014

Cooling is evident over most of the Southern Ocean in all seasons and the annual mean, with magnitudes approximately 0.2–0.4°C per decade or 0.7–1.3°C over the 33 year period [1979-2011].”


Wei et al., 2015


Northern Hemisphere – No Net Warming Since 1940s


Büntgen et al., 2017


Schneider et al., 2015


Stoffel et al., 2015


Indian Ocean (Arabian Sea) – No Net Warming Since 1970s (1750)


Zinke et al., 2016


Munz et al., 2015


Asia – No Net Warming Since 19th Century


 

Sunkara and Tiwari, 2016


Zafar et al., 2016


Köse et al., 2017


Krusic et al., 2015


Thapa et al., 2015

[T]emperature in Central Asia and northern Hemisphere revert back towards cooling trends in the late twentieth century.”


Yadav, 2009

The decreasing temperature trend in late 20th century is consistent with trends noted in Nepal (Cook et al. 2003), Tibet (Briffa et al. 2001) and Central Asia (Briffa et al. 2001).


Hantemirov and Shiyatov, 2002


Yan et al., 2015


Zhu et al., 2016


Li et al., 2011


Fan et al., 2009


Zhu et al., 2016

“[W]e should point out that the rapid warming during the 20th century was not especially obvious in our reconstructed RLST [surface temperatures].”


Li et al., 2017


South America – No Net Warming Since Mid-20th Century


Silveira and Pezzi, 2014


Elbert et al., 2013


De Jong et al., 2016

“…the period just before AD 1950 was substantially warmer than more recent decades.”


de Jong et al., 2013


Europe – No Net Warming Since Mid-20th Century


Esper et al., 2014


 Tejedor et al., 2016


Büntgen et al., 2017


Zywiec et al., 2017


Rydval et al., 2017


Matskovsky and Helama, 2015


Moreno et al., 2016


Antarctica – Cooling Since 1960s-1980s


Mayewski et al., 2017


Schneider et al., 2006


Goursaud et al., 2017

Turner et al., 2016


Miles et al., 2013


Doran et al., 2002

“[O]ur spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn.”


Greenland, Arctic – No Net Warming Since 1930s, Cooling Since 2005


Zhao et al., 2016


Box et al., 2009

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


Kobashi et al., 2017

For the most recent 10 years (2005 to 2015), apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010, mean annual temperatures at the Summit exhibit a slightly decreasing trend in accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling.”


Hanhijärvi et al., 2013


Iceland – No Net Warming Since 1930s-1940s


Chandler et al., 2016


Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017


Butler et al., 2013


Northern North America – No Net Warming Since 1930s


Wilson et al., 2017


Pitman and Smith, 2012


Fortin and Gajewski, 2016

“…in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time.”


Viau and Gajewski, 2009


Eastern U.S. – No Net Warming Since Mid-20th Century


Tipton et al., 2016


Ellenburg et al., 2016


Christy and McNider, 2016


Soon et al., 2015


North Atlantic – No Net Warming Since 1800s…Cooling Since 2005


Rosenthal et al., 2017


Reynolds et al., 2017


de Jong and de Steur, 2016


Serykh, 2016


Li et al., 2017


Duchez et al., 2016

“The SST anomaly field for June 2015 shows temperatures up to 2 °C colder than normal over much of the sub-polar gyre with values that are the coldest observed for this month of the year in the period 1948–2015 indicated by stippling.


Saenger et al., 2011

“A prominent feature of this record is the ∼1°C warm anomaly that occurred between 1930 and 1950. …Carolina Slope SST does not exhibit the warming trend seen in the AMO since the 1970s suggesting that other factors also impact SST variability at our site.”


New Zealand, Australia – No Warming Trend Since 1950s


de Frietas et al., 2015


O’Donnell et al., 2016

Blaming 0.01% Of Atmosphere As Insane As Blaming 0.6% Of Human Race For World’s Ills

What follows later, below, is a short commentary by Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning recently appearing at Die kalte Sonne site here. Indeed, it’s truly mind-boggling how a single person or a trace gas now gets all the blame for every weather problem. The hysteria-filled Dark Ages of the Inquisition are back.

Torches and pitchforks.

For example, The Mail here just reported how a team of scientists led by Professor James Hansen, NASA’s former climate science chief, even proposes a sort of final solution: immediately removing CO2 from our societies altogether, and then removing it from the atmosphere.

This is hysteria. Blaming 0.01% of the atmosphere (CO2) for bad weather is truly as insane as blaming all the world’s problems on 0.6% of the population (Jews) in the 1930s.

Manmade catastrophic climate change is a grotesque hysteria propagated by state-sponsored activist scientists and hundreds of billions a taxpayer money (99% wasted).

As a whole climate is a highly complex system involving almost countless variables. Singling out just one of these (a tiny one) and blaming all weather ills on it is an intellectual and scientific folly of breathtaking proportions.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are in fact at a geologically-historically puny 400 parts per million (and 100 parts per million of that may be attributed to man, i.e. 0.01% of the atmosphere). Historically the earth still finds itself at the very low end in terms of CO2 in the atmosphere. An honest look at the entire body of science shows us that CO2 is in fact a bit player at best, and at the current juncture catastrophic manmade warming science is entering the realms of mass fraud.

Historical “nearsightedness”

What follows is Vahrenholt’s and Lüning’s report in English. I’m glad to see that there are at least two German scientists (there are in fact others) who opted to stay off the loon bandwagon and want nothing to do with all the madness.
=============================

By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning

In the “Blog der Republik” on June 9, 2017, the current drought in South Africa, no time was wasted with connecting it to climate change. No question about it, Trump is to blame for the water shortage!

Even that US-President Trump denies climate change, Capetown is suffering under dramatic drought.
The South African metropolis of Capetown is suffering from one of the worst drought in 113 years. Drastic emergency rules will force water saving. To do this drastically increased prices and much communication work will contribute to the effort. Just a drop in the bucket and too late? Even though the drama had been foreseen years ago, policymakers relied solely on winter rains – which have not appeared once again. Now the citizens and economy are suffering […] And even as US President Donald Trump denies climate change, in South Africa the consequences cannot be ignored.”

Read more at Blog der Republik

It never ceases to amaze how little the commentators know about the history of the climate. Because of this historical nearsightedness, they construct adventurous interrelationships. Indeed the first question to be asked is whether winter rains had always been steady, or if there have been variations in the past. If the rain fluctuated, what was the driving mechanism behind it? Once again that brings us to our Project on Medieval Climate Anomalies, which records historic precipitation changes in addition to the temperature changes. One click on the project map is all it takes to identify the studies on winter rains of Capetown.

Studies of the offshore sediment boring GeoB 8323 as well in Lake Verlorenvlei, Princessvlei Lake and Katbakkies Pass show that winter rains were reduced over 200 years, 1000 years ago. These are the yellow-colored dots on the map (as well as a nearby red point). When you click on the dots, you can even open the most important diagrams that show the documented historical fluctuations in winter rain.

Amazonian Cold Snap Grips South America…Veteran Meteorologist Calls It “Spectacular”

Yesterday at Twitter here meteorologist Joe Bastardi, a well-known climate science antagonist, directed our attention to the NCEP temperature situation for South America. Yikes!

The massive scale of the cold is of Amazonian proportions, with temperatures well below normal across the entire continent. Bastardi even called the cold “spectacular”.

Recently snow was reported to have fallen in Santiago, Chile. According to the Washington Post here, “heavy, wet snow weighed down tree branches, which snapped power lines. Up to 350,000 homes lost power“. In some places 40 cm of snow blanketed the ground. The AP also reported

Chile’s Meteorological Office said it was the biggest snowfall in the capital in 46 years.”

For Santiago, it was the first snowfall the city had seen since 2011. What follows is the 7-day forecast anomaly for the Latin American continent. Cold is forecast to remain:

Chart cropped here.

Things in the Arctic, at the opposite hemisphere, are not improving. Paul Homewood here writes DMI June sea ice data shows “a steady recovery in extent since the low in 2010” and that sea ice extent is where it was 11 years ago.

Climate alarmism’s “canary in the coal mine” Greenland also is behaving opposite of what global warming scientists predicted. It’s surface ice mass budget has been hovering at near record high levels.

accumulatedsmb
Source: www.dmi.dk/surface-mass-budget/

Swiss Physicist Concludes IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’…CO2 A ‘Very Weak Greenhouse Gas’

 CO2 Contributed Only 0.12°C

 To Global Temps Since 1850


A Swiss scientist known to have published hundreds of scientific papers in physics journals has authored a new scholarly paper that casts serious doubts on the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas influencing Earth’s temperatures.

This paper has been added to a growing volume of peer-reviewed scientific papers that seriously question estimates of a high climate sensitivity to significant increases in CO2 concentrations.

60 Low (<1°C) CO2 Climate Sensitivity Papers

The link above contains a compilation of over 60 scientific papers with “extremely low” (numerically ranging from 0.02°C to <1°C) estimates of the climate’s sensitivity to a 100% increase in CO2 concentrations (i.e., an increase from 285 ppm to 570 ppm).

Below are some of the key user-friendly (non-technical) points from Dr. Reinhart’s paper entitled Infrared absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide.  

A summarizing conclusion from the calculations may be that if we doubled today’s concentration (400 ppm) to 800 ppm, the consequent temperature response would be less than 1/4th of a degree Celsius.  Even with a ten-fold increase in today’s CO2 concentration (400 ppm) to 4,000 ppm, the resulting temperature change would amount to just 0.8°C.


Reinhart, 2017

Abstract

Over 200,000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations. If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T [temperature increase of] < 0.24 K. At the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K.

CO2 ‘Very Weak’, IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’

Based on all these facts, we conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. We emphasize that our simplifying assumptions are by no means trying to minimize the absorption potential of CO2. To the contrary, they lead to overestimating the limiting values. The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.

[W]e conclude that the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC AR5 lack robust scientific justification. The main problem is probably caused by the lack of considering the occupation probabilities of the energy levels.

Temperature Changes In Response To Large CO2 Concentrations (800 ppm – 4,000 ppm)

We have calculated ∆Fmax and ∆Tmax for four concentrations namely 400 ppm, 800 ppm, 2000 ppm and 4000 ppm. The results are listed in Table I. They can be quite accurately fitted with logarithmic concentration dependence.

A doubling [to 800 ppm] of the present level of CO2 [400 ppm] results in ∆T [temperature change] < 0.24 K.

The tenfold value of [the present CO2 concentration, or 4,000 ppm] yields ∆T [temperature change] < 0.80 K.

At pre-industrial times, we had cco2 = 285 ppm. The resulting temperature increase [since pre-industrial] according to Eq. (11) only amounts to ∆T < 0.12 K.

Solar Activity Correlates With Temperature, Non-Positive Feedbacks

Lu [and co-authors, 2013] establishes a correlation of ∆T with solar activity, cosmic rays and ozone reactions with fluorocarbons in the stratosphere. According to his result, CO2 only plays a minor role in the temperature evolution since pre-industrial times. Our calculation is compatible with his finding.

There remains the question of the existence of feedback. This effect is thought to amplify or attenuate a small temperature change. Such mechanisms are easy to imagine, but they are extremely difficult to quantify and to observe. Lindzen has tried to observe feedback by complicated correlation studies. He found a tendency to negative feedback that attenuates induced temperature changes because, in this perspective, the weak CO2 concentration effect is not magnified.

Conclusion

Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change. The observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times is close to an order of magnitude higher than that attributable to CO2. We find that the increase of CO2 only might become dangerous, if the concentrations are considerably greater than 4000 ppm. At present rates of increase this would take more than 200 years. Therefore, demands for sequestering CO2 are unjustified and trading of CO2 certificates is an economic absurdity. The climate change must have a very different origin and the scientific community must look for causes of climate change that can be solidly based on physics and chemistry.

Wind Energy’s 8 Serious Disadvantages: Hurts Everything From Wealth To Health

What follows is a list of reasons compiled by this German site here on why wind is a poor source of power.

There are eight disadvantages that cannot be ignored, the site writes. What follows are the eight reasons along with my own descriptions.

1. Unstable, erratic power supply

The wind doesn’t blow constantly, and so the supply is unstable and wildly fluctuating. In many locations the wind may disappear for days or even weeks at a time. Then in periods of high winds the power grid can become overloaded, or the turbines have to be shut down to avert serious mechanical damage. Overall wind turbines in Germany put out only a lousy 18% of their installed rated capacity.

2. Wind turbines are expensive

The ROI for turbines can take many years, and makes sense only in places where the wind blows often, e.g. coastal areas, offshore or hill tops. But that makes the installation far more expensive. Many investors have seen very disappointing results from wind projects. Moreover in Germany, electricity prices have skyrocketed over the past years in large part due to the mandatory feed-in of wind energy.

3. Excess power is extremely difficult to store

So far scientists and engineers are a long way from finding a solution for storing electricity. Batteries are expensive and heavy, and require massively extensive mining operations. Pump storage techniques are possible only in limited places, and they too are horribly inefficient. Converting wind-generated electricity into a gas such as hydrogen and then back into electricity when wind is calm is expensive and inefficient as well.

4. Destruction of natural habitat

As installing wind turbines in residential areas is problematic, wind parks often are located in rural or natural areas – even in the middle of forests. This entails the industrialization of natural habitats. Plants and wildlife lose their habitats, or are adversely affected. Areas are often deforested to make way for the turbines. Access roads rip though the forests, permanently damaging or even destroying the local biotope. The same is true for offshore turbines. Turbines often pose a hazard to endangered species.

5. Bird kill: death from turbine blades

If industrializing natural landscape were not bad enough, wind turbines are also a real hazard to migrating birds. Each year millions of birds are (unnaturally) killed by wind turbines worldwide. According to Nature, up to 440,000 birds are killed in the USA each year. Conventional power plants on the other hand, do not kill anywhere near as many birds. Wind turbines also kill many bats.

6. Danger from flying ice

In the wintertime, ice is known to form and build up on the blades, only later to dislodg and be thrown projectiles, posing a danger to people and property located nearby. Already near misses have been recorded.

7. Aesthetics and property values

In early times wind turbines were a fascination. But today they are much larger in size and people have grown tired of their ugliness. In North Germany, for example, it is often difficult to leave your home without having to see one. In Germany there have been literally hundreds on citizens initiatives against the construction of wind parks. People are fed up with the industrial blight in the middle of Natur that wind energy really is.

Ugly wind turbines seriously depress property values.

8. Wind turbines produce noise and infrasound

Wind turbines are not quiet. Moreover they produce infrasound: low frequency sound below the human threshold of hearing. However, infrasound is sensed by the inner ear as pressure pulses that have been scientifically found to make people ill and even damage their health.

Euopean Climate Institute EIKE Says Antarctica Ice Calving “Totally Normal”, Natural Causes

The Vice President of the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) Michael Limburg wrote that the recent ice chunk breaking off the Antarctic ice shelf has everything to do with natural cyclic calving, and that the media reporting has been mostly alarmist hype. EIKE writes:

Antarctic ice shelf breaking is a totally normal process – the Antarctic has in fact gotten colder over the pst 30 years.

Germany’s number one tabloid, Bild, blared out the headline on July 13: “South Pole Breaking Apart!” and quoted alarmist climate scientist Mojib Latif: who warned it is a “warning shot to mankind”.

Bild Leipzig July 13, 2017, thanks to Dietmar Ufer

Climate scientist Mojib Latif called it a “warning shot for mankind”. Source: Bild

Mostly drama and hype

However, EIKE writes that such media reports are mainly drama and hype, and that natural mechanical forces and oceanic currents are behind the calving. EIKE cites facts from the Bremen Germany-based Alfred Wegener Institute.

Antarctic sea ice extent has in fact been growing over the past 4 decades, defying global warming. Source: Die kalte Sonne.

EIKE reminds that the recent ice mass breaking off will have no effect on sea level at all because the ice had already been floating on the ocean surface, and that even if the broken off mass had fully displaced the sea water, the magnitude of the resulting global sea level rise would not have been detectable.

Compared to the total Antarctic ice mass, the broken ice chunk with its 1 trillion-ton mass is only 1/26,000 of the entire ice mass at the South Pole.

Sea level rise not accelerating

Moreover, sea level over the past years has slowed down, and not accelerated, EIKE writes:

Slowing sea level rise from 1993 to 2012, Chart: K.E. Puls

Sea level rise stable

Granted the EIKE chart used above is somewhat outdated, and sea level rise has not been slowing down. Paul Homewood here takes an objective look at sea level rise and writes that alarmists use “two tricks” to back up claims of accelerating sea level rise:

1) They splice the satellite record, which only started in 1993, onto the tidal gauge records.

According to satellites, sea levels have been rising at 3.4mm/yr. Whether this figure is right or not, no half competent scientist would dream of splicing two totally different sets of data together in such a way.

Worse still, their banner figure of 3.4mm includes what is known as glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), which accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle.

In other words, if the basins were not

1) They splice the satellite record, which only started in 1993, onto the tidal gauge records.

According to satellites, sea levels have been rising at 3.4mm/yr. Whether this figure is right or not, no half competent scientist would dream of splicing two totally different sets of data together in such a way.

Worse still, their banner figure of 3.4mm includes what is known as glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), which accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle.

In other words, if the basins were not getting larger, sea levels would rise more. To account for this, they add 0.3mm a year to their sea level figures.

This is all well and good, if it were not for the fact that tidal gauges do not include such an adjustment, so the comparison of satellites and gauges becomes incompatible.

2) They compare recent sea level rise with the 20thC average.

However, sea levels were not rising at an even pace during the last century. There were times when it was rising at rates similar to today, and others, notably between 1950 and 1980 when global temperatures were falling, which saw a lower rate of rise.

As the IPCC stated in its 2013 AR5 report:

It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. Tide gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate during the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950

http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_observedchanges.php#node11

So, the current rate of rise is not unprecedented, and does not “prove” that the rise will continue to accelerate. Indeed, if the 20thC record is anything to go by, it could well slow down again, as part of a natural cycle.”

Moreover a recent analysis of tide gauges, where people actually live, sea level was shown to be stable or falling at half of the locations.

Caving To Trump On Climate? Paris Accord Still Up For Talks, Says Macron At Press Conference

Before getting to the yesterday’s Trump/Macron press conference, first I wish to bring up the nice reaction we got from Curtis Stone, the urban farmer I featured here a couple of days ago here in a less than flattering manner. (Now I wish I had not been so hard on him).

Here’s the comment he left:

Hey Pierre, a friend of mine forwarded this article you wrote about me. I want to thank you for it and let you know that I agree with most of what you said in the article. That video you found on me is pretty old. I have changed my views a lot in the last number of years. I am very pro free market and also think man made climate change is BS! Anyways, thanks for the article. I had a good laugh reading it. I can’t believe how much I’ve changed since then.

Best.
Curtis Stone”

You see, people do grow out of phases. The good news is that once someone figures out a complex issue like climate, they never go back and ‘unfigure’ it out. The alarmists have lost one.
================================================

Macron Budges On Climate

New signals coming from Paris?

After Trump rejected the Paris Accord weeks earlier, Europeans huffed and vowed that the Paris Accord was not up for any negotiation. Signatories, led by Germany and France, them seemed to move to isolate the United States and President Donald Trump. But now it seems Macron his softened the line a bit.

Trump offering “commitments”, Macron open to talk

At mentioned “commitments” from Trump and that they were open to talk about the climate accord.

 

At the 16:20 mark of the video above when asked by a reporter about Trump possibly getting back onboard the Paris climate accord, Macron replied by confirming there were indeed “a number of disagreements” on the issue, but that the climate disagreement “should not have an impact on the other topics“.

The French President affirmed that they “share the same views some major common goals on many other topics, all other topics.” Macron the stated on climate:

Next, well of course President Trump…will tell you about it, but he’s made a number of commitments, that we are going to be working together and my willingness to continue to work with the United States and the President on this very major topic. I understand that it’s important to save jobs and that being said, we shall leave the United States of America work on what it’s roadmap and to continue to talk about it.”

Will “continue talking”

Before Macron emphasized his strong commitment to the Paris Accord, he added:

I believe there is a joint willingness to continue talking about this, and to try and find the best possible agreement.”

From the press conference we can gather that Trump “made some commitments, though no details on this were provided. Moreover it is made clear that they are going to keep discussing the issue, which means that the Accord may be not yet set in stone after all.

 

New Paper Indicates Subantarctic Glacier Retreat More Extensive In 1700s Than Now

2nd Highest Subantarctic Glacier Advance

Of Last 1,000 Years Occurred 50 Years Ago

Yesterday we learned that a giant iceberg just split off from the Antarctic Peninsula.

Most media outlets were uncharacteristically mild with their declarations of concern.  Even The Guardian pointed out that the breakup of the ice is naturally occurring, glaciologists are “not unduly concerned about it“, and while the event “might look dramatic, experts say it will not itself result in sea level rises.”

Rolling Stone‘s Jeff Goodell, on the other hand, was not quite so apt to dismiss the importance of the Antarctic ice “crack-up“.  He insisted that there is a certain big-deal connection between the calving of the Larsen C ice shelf and both catastrophic sea level rise…

Given that Antarctica contains enough ice to raise sea levels about 220 feet … the break-up for Larsen C is certainly a big deal.”

…and human-caused “cooking the planet”.

“It is also well-timed politically. Larsen C has broken off just a month or so after President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, when people around the world are wondering just how much time we have left before the climate spins out of control – and what to do about it. A story in New York magazine about how climate change is cooking the planet kicked up a lot of debate about the usefulness of fear in inspiring political change. Meanwhile, the responsibility for the Larsen C crack-up is already being doled out: Climate activists have launched a campaign to rename the now-liberated Larsen C ice shelf as the Exxon Knew 1 iceberg.”


Scientists: The Antarctic Peninsula Has Been Rapidly Cooling Since 1999


Apparently Jeff Goodell hasn’t been keeping up with the latest cryosphere science.

It is now well established in the scientific literature that the Antarctic Peninsula  – the location of the Larsen C ice break-up – has been cooling since the 21st century began.  In fact, the Antarctic Peninsula as a whole is cooler now than it was in 1979 (+0.32 °C per decade for 1979-1997, but -0.47 °C per decade during 1999-2014).

Glacier retreat in the region has begun to slow down or shift to surface mass gains.

And the ocean surrounding Antarctica as a whole (the Southern Ocean) has also been cooling since 1979, consistent with the overall trend of sea ice growth during this time period.


Turner et al., 2016

“Here we use a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional [Antarctic Peninsula] 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.”


Oliva et al., 2017

“However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of −0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. … This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP [Antarctic Peninsula], including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.”


Fan et al., 2014

Cooling is evident over most of the Southern Ocean in all seasons and the annual mean, with magnitudes approximately 0.2–0.4°C per decade or 0.7–1.3°C over the 33 year period [1979-2011].”


Comiso et al., 2017     

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been slowly increasing contrary to expected trends due to global warming and results from coupled climate models. After a record high extent in 2012 the extent was even higher in 2014 when the magnitude exceeded 20 × 106 km2 for the first time during the satellite era. … [T]he trend in sea ice cover is strongly influenced by the trend in surface temperature [cooling].”


New Paper Indicates Subantarctic Glacier Retreat Higher In Late 1700s, 1100-1550 AD


A new scientific paper reveals that modern rates of glacier recession – including the recent fate of the Larsen C ice shelf – are well within the range of natural variability.

Van der Bilt et al. (2017) have produced a glacier reconstruction for Southern Ocean islands near Antarctica (South Georgia) indicating glacier recession was more pronounced than today during the late 18th century, and that the second highest glacier advance of the last 1,000 years occurred in the 1960s and 1970s.  Only the peak glacier advances of the late 1600s were more extensive than the advances of ~50 years ago.

Similar to the recent Antarctic Peninsula and Southern Ocean cooling and nearly 4 decades of sea ice growth described above, this millennial-scale record of glacier retreat and advance supports the position that humans and variations in carbon dioxide concentrations do not play an influential role in determining the fate of polar ice.


Van der Bilt et al., 2017

Late Holocene glacier reconstruction reveals retreat behind present limits…

“Regional palaeoclimate evidence from the adjoining Southern Ocean region also reveal contemporaneous shifts. For example, reconstructed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) west of the Antarctic Peninsular rose 3 °C in less than a century (Shevenell et al., 2011). … Following the termination of a Late Holocene glacier maximum around 1250 cal a BP, warming created conditions unfavourable for glacier growth during the regional expression of an MCA [Medieval Climate Anomaly] between 950 and 700 cal a BP (Villalba, 1994). From 500 cal a BP [years before present], the Hamberg overspill glacier rapidly retreated behind its present-day position, possibly driven by local warming and/or major shifts in regional atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns (Moy et al., 2008; Shevenell et al., 2011; Abram et al., 2014; Foster et al., 2016).”


To further put yesterday’s ice “crack-up” news into a long-term context, scientists have found there was a widespread (∼280,000 km2 ) collapse of the “world’s largest” ice shelf that occurred between 4,000 and 1,500 years ago.   Retreat rates averaged about 10 kilometers per century during this period.

Of course, this ice sheet collapse occurred while CO2 concentrations hovered near a stable 275 parts per million (ppm), which is about 130 ppm lower than today’s CO2 levels.

Succinctly, the Larsen C ice shelf calving event is not unusual, unprecedented, or even remarkable in the context of Antarctica’s long-term natural variability.


Yokoyama et al., 2016

Widespread collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf during the late Holocene

The Ross Sea is a major drainage basin for the Antarctic Ice Sheet and contains the world’s largest ice shelf. Newly acquired swath bathymetry data and sediment cores provide evidence for two episodes of ice-shelf collapse. Two novel geochemical proxies, compound specific radiocarbon dating and radiogenic beryllium (10Be), constrain the timing of the most recent and widespread (∼280,000 km2) breakup as having occurred in the late Holocene. … Breakup initiated around 5 ka, with the ice shelf reaching its current configuration ∼1.5 ka. In the eastern Ross Sea, the ice shelf retreated up to 100 km in about a thousand years. Three-dimensional thermodynamic ice-shelf/ocean modeling results and comparison with ice-core records indicate that ice-shelf breakup resulted from combined atmospheric warming and warm ocean currents impinging onto the continental shelf.”

Swiss Daily: “Record Cold July In Greenland”…Alarmists “Struggling To Explain” As Arctic Island Cools

We have all heard about the record-breaking ice mass balance and cold temperature reading of -33°C recently set in Greenland — the Arctic island that is supposedly the canary in the climate coal mine.

It turns out that things up there are colder than we may be led to believe and that the alleged warming there is fiction.

Hat-tip: Gerti

Struggling to explain

The Swiss online Baseler Zeitung (BAZ) here reports: “In Greenland July this year has been the coldest ever. That has left climate catastrophists struggling to explain it.

Citing the Danish Meteorological Institute, the BAZ comments that the -33°C reading earlier this month was “the coldest July temperature ever recorded in the northern hemisphere“, smashing the previous record of 30.7°C.

Expanding ice mass, media ignore

The BAZ adds that also the “ice cover has grown strongly over almost all of Greenland“.

But this has been ignored, as the Switzerland-based daily also bravely writes that “most journalists and media leaders are active or passive members of the green-socialist Climate Church and the new religion of the post-Christian western world” and acknowledge only things that fit their world narrative. This likely explains why there’s been no word about the record cold in Greenland. Why? The BAZ comments:

It casts the central prophesy of a continuous and ultimately lethal global warming, for which we are ourselves to blame, into question.”

Greenland has been cooling

Recently NTZ reported here that Greenland in fact has been cooling over the past decade, as three recent studies alarmingly show us. According to one published in May of this year by a team of researchers led by Takuro Kobashi of the University of Bern, mean annual temperatures at the summit of Greenland have been showing “a slightly decreasing trend in accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling“. See chart below.

Greenland’s temperatures headed in the wrong direction, defying climate model projections. Underlying chart source: Kobashi et al., 2017.

Warm optimum near an end?

The team by Kobashi also show that the Greenland Summit temperature have not risen in 90 years, and that Greenland was far warmer earlier in the Holocene:

Greenland temperatures were much warmer over past 10,000 years than they are today.

One has to wonder if the current optimum may be nearing an end. History shows that the earth’s surface temperature is in fact highly unstable and that most optimums don’t last much beyond 10,000 years. We need to ask ourselves what could be done to avert the catastrophe that a new ice age would bring with it. The overall trend does not bode well.

Urban Farming Is Not A Planet Savior…More A Lifestyle For Modern Hypocrites And Ingrates

Urban farming seems to be one of the latest trends among activists obsessed with environmental-footprints, and is being billed by some as the solution for all the world’s ills.

In the following video urban farmer Curtis Stone is just the latest example of how people can get intoxicated by a dogma, become blind to their own hypocrisy, and be unable to even begin to grasp the complex socio-economic system we live in and rely on for our prosperity.

Of course there are a lot of positive points with what Stone preaches: short supply chains, fresh and nutritious produce and effective use of resources. But he makes the mistake of viewing his lifestyle as the world-saving religion that needs to be imposed onto everyone else. If only everyone became urban farmers like him, all the world’s ills would surely go away. The reality, however, is that nothing could be more naive.

“Urban farmer” Curtis Stone despises the “destructive” global economy, yet gladly relies on fossil-fuel powered equipment, petroleum-based attire, modern eyewear, and computers. Image cropped here.

Like so many artsy-activist types, Curtis fails to realize that his current lifestyle is made possible only by the free-market, industrialized global system itself. In the video he says:

Every action you take in the global economy is destructive to the environment, it is destructive – it causes social inequity, wipes out indigenous cultures, forests – you name it. Everything we do, whether it’s buying a can of Coke, driving your car, or whatever we do is destructive. I’m really excited about getting to the point where everything we do is a reflection of what happens in nature. Everything creates more life, creates more soil fertility, purifies the air.”

He then adds that we need to get away from the growth-based economy. His answer: “If we have things we can trade and we grow food and everybody is fed, that sounds like a good economy to me.”

Well, that just happens to be the free market economy, the very one he criticized just moments earlier. But Stone’s free-market version is one that resembles the Flintstones: scaled back with only limited small technology. It’s backwards, and it could never feed 8 billion people.

I’m OK, you’re not okay

Stone’s problem is that he still does not have an inkling of how the modern economy works and where the very tools, equipment and technical foundation he (obliviously) relies on come from.

Note how early in the video he recommends a 2-stroke-engine-powered rototiller. He also uses hundreds of square yards of plastic film, made from fossil fuel petroleum, to protect the plants from nature. The bicycle he rides neither fell from the sky nor grew from a tree, but is one that was produced by today’s modern, free market industrial economy, with its parts coming from all over the world. He wears sweat-shop-made clothing and footwear, and not fig leaves and ferns. His spectacles are probably made using European-ground lenses and frames made from wire drawn in Mexico. Early in the video he talks about how his “business” is run and how to earn money. He doesn’t pack his fresh produce in a sack made of hide, rather in plastic commercial food bins. Stone also uses his PC notebook to make his presentations across the country.

His view of today’s global economy is as narrow as it is hypocritical.

he fails to realize that it is the growth-based economy that allowed humans to go from clubs and stone wheels to a foot-propelled bicycle and plastic vegetable tubs. And had it not been for the rampant human stupidity and dogma getting in the way over the eons, mankind would surely have reached bicycles and rototillers hundreds of years earlier.

Clueless ingrate

If you want to convince anyone your philosophy is the real thing, then do what you are doing with nothing more than sticks and stones, and be successful at it. If you pull that off, then we’d believe you. Don’t preach like Al Gore does, and then hop on fossil-fuel powered private jets to spread your gospel. Travel to your speeches bare-footed, donning your best fig leaf. And never mind using a notebook and projector.

It’s wonderful Stone enjoys what he is doing and that many people appreciate all the fresh produce he grows and markets. Yes, some of his ideas are good and worth applause. Unfortunately, some people get a good idea and suddenly believe they are God’s Gift to mankind.

There are lots of other people out there doing good things; you’re not the only one. Stone, you need to climb down from your high horse and say thanks to those who made it possible for you, and not deplore them like a clueless ingrate jerk would do.