Major Blow To Wind Power …Bavaria’s Highest Court Upholds 10H Rule! Shoots Down Industrialization Of Idyllic Landscape

Environmental sanity prevails

Bavaria’s highest constitutional court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) has just upheld the southern German state’s hotly contested 10 H wind turbine permitting rule which has been in effect since February 2014.

The Court ruled that the requirement is indeed constitutional. Full story here.


Bavaria’s highest court rescues the state’s idyllic landscape from wind turbine industrialization. Photo: Thomas Wolf,, CC BY-SA 3.0 de.

The ruling represents a major landmark victory for wind energy opponents, who have been increasingly shocked by the rampant destruction of Germany’s countryside and natural landscape. They greeted the ruling with loud cheers.

Major setback for Big Wind

The Court’s decision marks a huge setback for the German wind industry, climate protection activists, and for the Germany’s once highly touted Energiewende as a whole.

The Bavaraian Green party reacted angrily to the Court’s ruling. According to BR24 leading Green Party official Eike Hallitzky tweeted:

10H remains amok energy policy. Us Greens are going to continue fighting for climate protection. With all our might!”

Wind turbine proponents were hoping to erect up to 4000 wind turbines in Bavaria, one of the country’s most fabled and idyllic regions and home to world renowned sights such as the Neuschwanstein Castle (see above).

The Court’s ruling sends a crystal clear message to the rest of the country, and to Europe: People have had it with watching their landscape being ruined today in order to maybe theoretically protect the climate of the year 2100.

After more than 2 years of legal battling, the Bavarian high court’s ruling was awaited with uncharacteristically high suspense from both proponents and opponents of wind energy. Wind energy supporters insisted the 10 H regulation violated the law.

Over the past months wind projects across Germany have been met with increasingly fierce opposition.

Under the 10 H rule, wind parks can be installed only if they have a minimum distance that is ten times the turbine’s height away from residential homes. That means a 200-meter tall turbine needs to be at least 2 kilometers away from the nearest residential area before it can be approved.

In Bavaria that would make the construction of most wind park projects virtually impossible.

German public broadcasting SAT1 BAYERN here wrote yesterday:

The opponents are not in any way old nuclear power protesters. Among the environmentalists there is bitter discourse, as the price for clean wind energy is the total industrialization of the landscape. […] . In densely populated Germany, open views of natural scenery are becoming rare. For this reason some CSU parliamentarians in the state parliament find the love for wind parks by the Greens rather peculiar.”

Germany has some 26,000 turbines in operation producing some 85 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually – which is less than the country’s remaining 8 nuclear power plants. SAT1 writes that wind turbines “are also no efficient form of energy generation, as a glance at the power business shows.”

SAT1 adds that without subsidies, most turbines would not even turn a profit.

In total Germany already pays out about 25 billion euros annually in subsidies for green energy. Nevertheless CO2 emissions have not dropped in 7 years. In other words: well over 100 billion euros have bought nothing.

SAT1 concludes on wind energy in Bavaria:

Clean energy supply with today’s technology is incompatible with the landscape that took 2000 years to form.”


Retired Professor On Germany’s CO2 Reduction Effort: “Totally Idiotic What We Are Doing”

Two days ago I wrote of an interview with physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, published at the website of the German Employers Association (DAV) here, on the minimal role of CO2 on the world’s climate.


German professor calls climate protection a “dangerous, undemocratic ideology”.

Due to the length of the interview I focused only on a part of it. Today I will write on the other important comments made by Prof. Lüdecke relating to climate models, Germany’s energy policy and the climate protection ideology.

Decarbonization “gross nonsense”

On the endeavor to “protect the climate” through cutting CO2 emissions, something often called decarbonization, Lüdecke calls it “gross nonsense” and tells us that a changing climate is “a law of nature“. He adds that there is no evidence that CO2 is “harmful to the climate” and that it strongly warms it”.

Lüdecke tells the DAV that strong warming is found only in models that use dubious assumptions and effects:

Whether or not these effects are based on reliable data is of no interest to the modelers. This is how one gets the temperature rise that one desires.  The only problem is that these models have not been able to reproduce the past. The climate models simply don’t work. They are wrong. Amazingly that does not bother the climate alarmists.”

The retired German professor also slams the media for uncritically blaring out every alarmists claim, no matter how foolish it may be, and shutting out reasonable voices. Whenever an alarmist prediction fails to appear, “a new one such as ocean acidification gets paraded out in the public“.

On Germany’s trillion-euro attempt to curb CO2 emissions, Lüdecke calls the effort “absurd”, claiming that the country’s share of global CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the total emitted globally, and that the government’s target would result in a temperature difference of “only a few thousandths of a degree over the next 20 years“. He calls it a “purely political agenda“, summarizing:

Factually it is therefore totally idiotic what we are doing.”

On sea level rise and ice melt, Lüdecke reminds us that sea level rise is happening at a perfectly normal range of 1 to 3 mm per year, depending on the data source, and that there is no evidence of anything alarming happening. To put things into there proper context, he tells the readers that it would take Greenland ice 5000 years to melt even if the temperature rose 5°C. “By then we’ll likely be already well into another ice age.”

Greenland temperature has dropped 2.5°C

A warming of Greenland is very unlikely, according to Lüdecke:

A scientific publication using data from ice core analyses show that the mean temperature of Greenland has fallen 2.5°C over the past 8000 years.”

Brutal dictator

On what is driving the climate alarmism, Lüdecke tells the DAV:

It’s all an ideology, a mixture of well-known Marxism, Nature Romanticism and the interests of powerful investors and politicians. […] not at all about good, but rather about a brutal dictator that wants to tell us which lights to use, that we’re no longer allowed to eat meat – in short, how we are to live.” […]

The aim of the eco-ideology is in reality another society – undemocratic and dictatorial. Ecology here is only an instrument. […]

Climate change is a dangerous undemocratic ideology.”


Global Cool-Down In The Works …Latest U.S. Scripps Institute Data Indicate Super-Charged La Niña!

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi at Twitter posted a chart from Scripps Oceanography Institute, which does put out some excellent work despite a fair amount climate science activism from a few of its scientists.

According to the Weatherbell meteorologist, Scripps has forecast a La Niña under -2.0 over five consecutive month, as the following chart shows:

Scripps ENSO May 2016

While it’s still questionable that the La Niña will arrive already this summer, there is rapidly diminishing doubt that it will be hitting the globe hard by wintertime. Joe adds:

The implication of the SCRIPPS forecast with the ONI is it would more than counter the recent strong el nino, over a multi year period”

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology writes here (April 26, 2016):

Eastern tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures have cooled significantly in the past fortnight, and are now approaching neutral levels. As temperatures under the surface are below average, more surface water cooling is expected. However the atmosphere is only slowly responding to these changes, and hence the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and cloudiness near the Date Line continue to fluctuate around El Niño thresholds.

Six of eight international climate models suggest the tropical Pacific Ocean will return to neutral levels within the next month. By September, seven of eight models suggest La Niña thresholds are likely. However, individual model outlooks show a large spread between neutral and La Niña scenarios.”

The following chart from Wikipedia gives an overview of all La Niña events occurring since 1900.

La Ninas since 1900

Source: Wikipedia here.

Note how in the above figure a lack of La Niña events persisted from 1976 to 1998, a time that saw the globe warm some 0.6°C. Since 1998 the frequency of La Niña events has increased with global temperatures remaining flat. Back in the early to mid 1970s, a time of frequent La Niña events, much of the media warned of a coming little ice age. For example in 1974 German Spiegel news magazine warned that the chances of warming were less than 1 in 10,000! A number of scientists sounded the ice age alarms, blaming it in part on sinful human activity.

By 1986, with La Niña events having been absent close to 10 years, Spiegel flipped and began its spectacular warnings of global warming, showing a semi-submerged Cologne Cathedral on the cover of a 1986 magazine. by 1988, James Hansen was before Congress prophesizing the end of the world.

Significant midterm climate cooling in the pipeline?

The oncoming La Niña in combination with weakened solar activity and a flip towards the cool phase by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) may soon be all working in tandem to set up months of global cooling ahead, which means a likely resumption in the overall global warming pause over the latter part of the current decade.

Global temperature over the years ahead will hinge in part on how frequently La Niña events occur.


Retired German Climate Scientist: “No Man-Made Signal Found” …”Climate Protection A Dangerous Ideology”

The website of the German Employers Association (DAV) has posted a comprehensive interview by Holger Douglas with physicist and climate scientist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, concerning the role of CO2 on the world’s climate.

Photo: Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke


Lüdecke, who has authored numerous climate science publications in climate science journals, is sure that the role of CO2 on climate is grossly overstated and riddled with alarmist hype.

Polar bear population “growing”

On polar bears, Lüdecke says there is “no trace” of the animal disappearing due to climate change and that the polar bear population has in fact been climbing. Moreover, the polar bear has been around for “hundreds of thousands of years“.

Climate sensitivity much weaker than assumed

On the subject of the greenhouse effect and radiation outwards into space, Lüdecke reminds that the climate system involves countless, poorly understood complexities, such as cloud cover and water vapor. In the interview he tells:

Water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and acts to enhance the warming effect. We call this feedback, as the warming is magnified more by it then it is alone by the radiation effect. But the other assumption claims: The opposite is correct! More water vapor in the air leads to more clouds that cool.”

On which effect is true, Lüdecke tells the DAV:

The theory of a feedback is not confirmed by measurements. According to the theory, the altitudes over the tropics at about 5 to 7 kilometers are supposed to be showing a clearly measurable heating zone that is referred to as the ‘Hot Spot’. No one has found it. Everything points to the pure radiation effect being weaker and not enhanced.”

No human fingerprint

The retired, independent physicist then tells the DAV that “man’s influence on the climate still cannot be filtered from the climate noise even today” and that today’s climate and weather changes are no different than what was observed hundreds of years ago, citing the IPCC itself:

There is not a single bit of scientific justification to claim: Here we are seeing unusual climate developments that can be only attributed to humans.”

Lüdecke suspects that the cyclic nature of climate natural climate change is caused mainly by the sun’s activity, naming the De Vries/Suess 200-year cycle and the 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle as examples.

He also confirms the recent “18-20 year” global warming pause and reminds us that in geological terms, the Earth today in fact finds itself in a ice age period, which is typically defined as one that sees the poles frozen over – as is the case today.

On proxies the retired climate scientist says that care has to be exercised in interpreting the data they yield. The DAQV asks whether there is a relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration. Lüdecke replies:

No, there’s nothing to see there.”

CO2 concentration in fact historically low

Lüdecke also points out that today’s atmospheric CO2 levels are in fact close to historical lows, and that elevated concentration bring a number of advantages to the ecosystems, foremost a greener planet with better plant growth.

Also, man’s CO2 emissions pale against those from the oceans and natural environment.

Ocean acidification “an alarmist myth”

On whether the threat of ocean acidification exists, Lüdecke dumps cold water on that claim:

No, ocean acidification is another myth of the alarmists. Every chemists you talk to on ocean acidification being a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 will roll his eyes. […]

Also the supposed sensitivity of corals to CO2 in sea water is an alarmist myth.”

“Dangerous, undemocratic ideology”

At the very end of the interview, Lüdecke comments on climate protection as a movement:

Here I allow myself to state very clearly: Climate protection has nothing to do with protecting nature. Climate protection is a dangerous, undemocratic ideology.”

In the next post, we will look at what Prof. Lüdecke says in the rest of the interview concerning climate models and the energy trend in Europe.


The 85-Year “Pause”

By Ed Caryl

Yes, you read that right. There has been NO warming in 85 years.

There are many surface land stations with records going back more than 100 years. Some records exist back to 1880 and earlier. GISS cuts the records off at 1880. There are many gaps in these records before 1930, and all the 20th Century warming occurred before then.

How do I know this? I scanned the GISTemp web site for locations with long records, that were as continuous as possible, with a variety of satellite brightness indexes. Because the U. S. Weather Bureau was especially diligent in setting up measurement stations, 60% in this study are U. S. Over the rest of the world it was very difficult to find stations with both long, continuous records, and a zero satellite brightness index. I stopped searching after finding a total of 50 stations.

The satellite brightness index is used by GISS as a proxy for population and thus a proxy for urban warming. It is then used to calculate the amount of “homogenization” to apply to cities and towns. Locations with a brightness index (BI) of 10 or less is considered “rural” and no homogenization correction is applied to those with zero brightness. However, Time of Observation (TOBs) and move corrections are still applied to these stations. GISTemp has downloadable temperature data for: Unadjusted temperature, Adjusted temperature (TOBs and move adjustments), Adjusted and Cleaned data (Cleaning removes data considered unreliable in some way) and Homogenized data. For the 50 stations, Unadjusted, Adjusted and Cleaned, and Homogenized monthly data were downloaded. Of these, 20 stations are considered rural, with a BI of 10 or less. 15 are towns with BI between 11 and 32, and another 15 are cities with a brightness index of more than 32. I attempted to select pairs or triplets of locations that had a large city with close by rural stations. This was easy in the U. S., with the high density of stations, but more difficult in the rest of the world where stations might be separated by hundreds of kilometers.

For all the 150 resulting temperature records, the linear trends for each from 1930 to the present was calculated using Excel. This gives the annual trend numbers in degrees C. Here are summaries of that data presented as bar charts for each group of locations, rural, medium sized towns, and large cities; the bars are for summer and winter data. Summer is June, July, and August in the northern hemisphere, and December, January, and February in the southern. Winter is the reverse of that.

Rural Trends

Figure 1 is the rural data. Unadjusted data indicates summer cooling at these stations since 1930. Even the adjusted and homogenized data indicate less than 0.125°C summer warming in 85 years. This is statistically NO warming in the summer. Winter warming is about 1° over 85 years. This may all be due to increasing population and home heating around these stations.

Town Trends

Figure 2 is for towns with BI from 11 to 32. For example, towns like North Platte, Nebraska, Godthaab-Nuuk, Greenland, and Bismarck, North Dakota. The Unadjusted summer trend is almost zero, with the adjusted and homogenized summer trends less than 0.4°/85 years. The winter trends are much higher at 1.36° in 85 years. All of the summer trend increase is due to adjustments; as is nearly half the winter increase.

City Trends

Figure 3 shows the big cities, like Tokyo and New York. It is expected that these locations would have high urban heat island affecting temperatures in summer and winter. Again, adjustments have increased both summer and winter temperature trends, though not as dramatically as for the smaller towns. Homogenization is supposed to correct for this, but has failed to do so for summer trends, and has only made the winter trend slightly less than the rural winter.

This has led to the strange result that medium size towns are supposedly warming faster than large cities by almost 50%.

All of the trend increase in the last 85 years is due to mankind’s desire to keep warm in winter. This inside warmth leaks out into the surrounding environment and is measured by the local weather stations. This, combined with tinkering with the data, has produced all the warming in the last 85 years. There is clearly no warming, and perhaps some modest cooling, in the summer, and all the winter warming is due to direct heating by mankind keeping warm. Shorter term trends, like the 70’s cooling, are due to natural cycles. There is no “hockey-stick”! No “Solution” is necessary.

Here is the list of the stations used. There are nine stations with negative annual temperature trends. They are highlighted in blue. Three of those are large cities. Five more have trends between zero and 0.0025°C/year. Most of those are rural.

50 Stations 150 Stations 2

There is more analysis to be done on this data for future articles.

Dutch Geologist Calls Climate Science A “Mass Hysteria” …”Historians Will Shake Their Heads In Disbelief”

Book review: “The Fable of a Stable Climate” on image to enlarge.
By Dr. Hans Labohm
(Edited/condensed by P. Gosselin)

Gerrit van der Lingen has recently published a fascinating book, “The Fable of a Stable Climate, the writings and debates of a climate realist.

Most of the public information about the climate comes from scientists who studied the weather and weather processes and who consider temperature data of 150 years already a long period. For geologist and paleoclimatologist van der Lingen this is only a heartbeat in the geological history, which forms the only correct context for judging the present climate developments.

Ideology vs pure science

While studying climate change in the past van der Lingen realised that the present belief in man-made catastrophic global warming caused by CO2 emissions is not supported by the science and that it seems the debate is one between ideology and pure science.

The first chapter of his book an overview giving a clear overview of the climate debate, with all its high and low points. It draws attention to important participants, protagonists as well as antagonists. What really surprises Gerrit van der Lingen is how it is possible that intelligent people have been taken in by the AGW hypothesis and seem to have lost all sense of reality as a consequence.

British science delegation misbehaviour

One salient detail in the book pertains to the Russian position in relation to the Kyoto Protocol. The Russians had a few questions on which they never received an answer. In 2004, they decided to organise a climate conference in Moscow, independently of the UN IPCC climate panel, and with the co-operation of a number of climate sceptics. At the end of this conference, Andrei Illarionov, then economic advisor of president Putin, presented his impressions.

Yuri Antonovich and I have mentioned the fact that this is the first seminar of its kind that we have managed to arrange and it was accidental. Over almost a year we have repeatedly asked our foreign partners who advocate the Kyoto Protocol and who insist that Russia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and we have invited them to meet and discuss these issues, present arguments and counter-arguments and discuss them jointly. But we have not received any reply for a year. These people persistently refused to take part in any discussion.

Nine months ago, at an international climate change conference in Moscow, ten questions concerning the essence of the Kyoto Protocol and its underlying theory were submitted to the IPCC. We were told that the reply would be given within several days. Nine months have passed since then but there has been no reply, even though we have repeated our inquiries on these and the growing number of other related questions.

Instead of getting replies to our questions, we kept on hearing that replies did not matter. What was important is that whether or not Russia trusts Britain, the European Union and the countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and that have been exerting unprecedented pressure on Russia to ratify it. This is why it was so important for us to arrange a real meeting and a real discussion of real problems with the participation of foreign scientists who have different views in order not to stew in one’s own juice, as Yuri Antonovich put it, but to hear the arguments not only of our Russian scientists but also the arguments and counter-arguments from scientists in other countries.

We did get such an opportunity and over the past two days we heard more than 20 reports, we held detailed discussions, and now we can say that a considerable number of the questions we formulated and raised have been somewhat clarified, just as some other questions have.”

Andrei Allarionov continued describing in detail the misbehaviour of the British delegation under the leadership of Sir David King, then the most important advisor of the British government, who did his utmost to sabotage the meeting, among others by requiring that climate sceptics not be allowed to present their presentations, and by stalking out of the meeting.

Ideology, not science

Illarionov compared the AGW with an ideology:

The next point brings us directly to the Kyoto Protocol, or more specifically, to the ideological and philosophical basis on which it is built. That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared … with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the 20th century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkoism and so on. All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other way than myth, nonsense and absurdity.”

The Moscow climate conference leaves no doubt that the Russian Academy of Sciences cannot be considered as supporters of the AGW dogma – a thesis that is part of the standard repertoire of the disinformation by climate alarmists.

“Rubbish in – gospel out”

The book also looks at all important themes of the climate debate are discussed in short, clear analyses, and all allegations of the climate alarmists are tested against measurements and observations, and are refuted. In the end all warming hysteria is not based on science, but only on non-validated computer models. As is often said: Rubbish in – gospel out.

At the end of the book, Gerrit van der Lingen sighs:

When future historians will be studying the present global mass hysteria about alleged catastrophic man-made global warming (MMGW), they will most likely shake their heads in total disbelief. They may well compare it with other such historic irrational hysterias, like the tulipomania in Holland in the 17th century. […]

The belief that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause, or will cause catastrophic global warming is a […] totalitarian belief. It does not allow ‘critical discussion’. Those scientists who try are vilified. Over the years I collected the following abuses: ‘climate change deniers’, ‘cashamplified flat-earth pseudo scientists’, ‘the carbon cartel’, ‘villains’, ‘cranks’, ‘refuseniks lobby’, ‘polluters’, ‘a powerful and devious enemy’, ‘profligates’. The list is endless. […]

By saying that the science of climate change is ‘settled’ and not open to further discussion, clearly shows that the belief in man-made global warming is not based on proper science, but is a neo-Marxist, intolerant ideology. It is anti-science, anti-capitalist, anti-democracy, anti-growth, anti-humanity, anti-progress.”

All in all, “The Fable of a Stable Climate” shows a wide and solid knowledge of the subject. Moreover Gerrit van der Lingen has the talent to very clearly explain the complicated problems, which make his writings very accessible for a broad public. In other words: his book reads like a riveting novel.

The book has 418 pages and many illustrations and graphs, as well as extensive reference lists, and is available in both paperback and Kindle, can be ordered at


Unsustainable Folly: Cost Of Germany’s “Energiewende” To Soar To €31 Billion In 2016 Alone!

According to the Institute of German Business (IW) the cost of Germany’s once highly touted “Energiewende” (transition to green energy) will soar to a whopping €31 billion ($35 billion) in 2016 alone, thus further burdening the already ailing German consumer.

Hat-tip: Gerti.

That’s a huge sum of money for the country of 80 million citizens. So, for all that money, are they now getting more beautiful weather and great results cutting back “climate-harmful” CO2 emissions? You’d certainly hope so. Sadly, the answer is s big fat “NEIN”.

Nothing in return for the money

In fact Germany’s CO2 emissions have not dropped at all over the past 7 years, and even went up a percentage point last year. Moreover, weather conditions continue today as they always have: typically rainy, cool, gray, windy and raw. For the roughly €1200 or so per year the average household has to fork out each year, it all sounds like an awfully raw deal (unless you happen to be one of the lucky few making money hand over fist in the scam). And that €1200 figure is only going to go up rapidly in the years ahead.

The writes that the 2016 figure is about 3 billion (11%) more than a year earlier (2015). That’s unsustainable burden growth.

“Grid stabilization” adding to the costs

One reason for the ever increasing costs, the site writes, is the “costs for power grid stabilization“. As more highly fluctuating, weather-dependent power comes online, the costlier the grid stabilization measures become. What was once a highly stable energy supply system requiring intervention only a dozen times per year, now requires tens of thousands of interventions by the grid operators each year.

Often times wind and solar parks are forced to be taken offline to prevent the grid from getting toasted by power surges from wind gusts and sun bursts. In such cases, the wind and sun park operators are paid whether they produce or not. Last year consumers were saddled with over half a billion euros from such “unproduced energy” costs. The Energiewende is morphing into a central planning folly of the scale matched only by the Venezuelan Chavez communists.

30% higher electric bills by 2030

Another reason cited for the exploding costs is the continued new installation of wind and sun energy generation systems. Thus it is little wonder that that leading German politicians, such as Michael Fuchs, are getting antsy and calling a stop of the construction of new wind parks for which there are no power transmission lines. If this is not done, Fuchs says, German households face 30% higher electric bills already by 2020.

Just a matter of time before the fuses start blowing.


Central Europe April 2016 Comes In Somewhat Cooler Than Normal …As Cold Lingers Into The Start Of May

It’s early May and most of the oaks in northern Germany are just beginning to see their leaves come out.

Spring has definitely arrived late this year. Fortunately that is about to change as warm temperatures are forecast for upcoming long holiday weekend.

Germany’s DWD national weather service has published the preliminary weather results for Germany for the month of April 2016. Data recorded by its approximately 2000 weather stations placed across the country show that the month was 0.3°C cooler than the 1981 – 2010 long-term meteorological mean.

The month started on the warm side, but the second half deteriorated as air Arctic plunged across the country, delivering unexpected late April snows and frosty .conditions.

Yesterday, May 1st, even saw half a meter of fresh snow at the Northern Italian Prali Ski Area!

The bitter cold has hit southern Germany’s winemakers hard, so reports the online SWR here:

The cold nights of the past week have damaged the blossoms of the vineyeards across vast areas of Rhineland Palatinate. In unfavorable areas massive losses are feared.”

Precipitation for April 2016, the DWD reports, was exactly normal with 58 liters of precipitation falling per square meter. All in all April was an entirely a normal one with no sign of any climate change. If anything, it was right colder than it is supposed to be.


North Atlantic Heat Content Plunges… Meteorologist Warns Of “Serious Implications” On US Climate, Sea Ice!

Paul Dorian of the excellent weather science site Vencore Weather here brings us up to date on the latest on one of the most powerful natural cycles driving our North Atlantic climate: North Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST) cycles.

Here I’ll sum up the main points. Of course do read the entire post at Vencore for all the details.

In a nutshell the sites writes that the North Atlantic “is now showing signs of a possible long-term shift back to colder-than-normal sea surface temperatures (SST) and this could have serious implications on US climate and sea ice areal extent in the Northern Hemisphere”.

Vencore supplies the following chart of North Atlantic heat content (0 – 700 meters deep):

Global monthly heat content anomaly (GJ/m2) in the uppermost 700 m of the North Atlantic since January 1955. The thin line indicates monthly values and the thick line represents the simple running 37 month (c. 3 year) average. Data source: National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC), Last period shown: October-December 2015.

Global monthly heat content anomaly (GJ/m2) in the uppermost 700 m of the North Atlantic since January 1955. The thick line represents the simple running 37-month (c. 3 year) average. Data source: National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC), Last period shown: October-December 2015.

The next chart Vencore provides below is one of Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST) since the 1870s.

Clearly we see that huge climate driver has been cyclic and that the past 20 years have been marked by very warm SSTs.

Observed AMO index, defined as detrended 10-year low-pass filtered annual mean area-averaged SST anomalies over the North Atlantic basin (0N-65N, 80W-0E), using HadISST dataset (Rayner, et al., 2003) for the period 1870-2015.;  courtesy NCAR:

Observed AMO index, filtered annual mean area-averaged SST anomalies over the North Atlantic basin (0N-65N, 80W-0E), using HadISST dataset (Rayner, et al., 2003) for the period 1870-2015.;  courtesy NCAR:

Little wonder the North Atlantic region has been seen warmer than normal conditions over the past 2 decades.

But that warmth appears to be waning as the North Atlantic is now heading toward its cool phase. That cooling down is confirmed by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC).  Note how the transitions take place quickly, in a matter of just a few years.

Serious impacts on sea ice and winters

Vencore writes that the North Atlantic cooling is likely going to have some “significant impacts on Northern Hemisphere (NH) sea ice areal extent over the coming decades“, and thus could be a major blow to climate science forecasts of a melting Arctic. If the North Atlantic cooling continues, then Vencore warns we should expect Arctic sea ice to return to 1990s levels, if not even greater.

The cooling North Atlantic will also have serious ramifications for North America’s climate. Vencore reports that winters over large parts of North America are much colder during cool North Atlantic phases, and significantly warmer during the warm phases. So if these trends should continue, it means that the days of the global warming scare are numbered, or they will have to move to the other hemisphere.


Devastating Finding: New Study Deems Solar PV Systems In Europe “A Non-Sustainable Energy Sink”!

Despite hyped claims, much doubt has emerged over the years on whether or not renewable energies such as wind and sun would able to substitute fossil and nuclear energy.

Europe’s PV energy systems are not working out, new study finds. Photo: Prof. Knut Löschke. Source:

Getting a sound answer to that question naturally would have been a reasonable step to take long before countries rushed to invest tens of billions of euros in solar in cloudy northern Europe.

A brand new paper by Swiss researchers Ferruccio Ferroni and Robert J. Hopkirk published by the Journal of Energy Policy now further intensifies that doubt, finding that solar power remains an inefficient way to produce energy in most cases. It’s beginning to appear that Europe has wasted tens of billions of euros in a mass energy folly.

Thus it should not surprise anyone that Germany’s fossil fuel consumption has not been falling over the past years.

The paper’s abstract states:

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

So is solar energy a worthwhile alternative in places like Europe? The authors conclude that it is not. They write in the conclusion that “an electrical supply system based on today’s PV technologies cannot be termed an energy source, but rather a non-sustainable energy sink” and that “it has become clear that photovoltaic
energy at least will not help in any way to replace the fossil fuel“.

The authors add that “photovoltaic technology would not be a wise choice for helping to deliver affordable, environmentally favourable and reliable electricity regions of low, or even moderate insolation“.

Sounds like much of Europe has wasted very huge sums of money.

Up! Up! And Away! Leading Daily Die Welt Reports: “Electricity In Germany More Expensive Than Ever”

Electricity Prices GermanyThe online German national daily Die Welt has a piece by business journalist Holger Zschäpitz on Germany’s sky-high, ever climbing electricity prices.

Hat-tip: Reader Stefan B.

Awhile ago it looked as if prices had finally stabilized. But now Zschäpitz writes that German electricity prices, already among the highest in the world, have jumped once again.

To put the situation in perspective he writes: “Power consumers are now more burdened than automobile drivers” — who are brutally taxed to begin with. In Germany, even in these times of rock-bottom petroleum prices, motorists still cough up some 5 euros ($5.60) every single US gallon for gasoline they buy. Recently, proposals have been made to tax large cars even more, and to massively subsidize electric cars (which would be forced to charge up on the exorbitantly expensive electricity).

According to a recent analysis, writes Zschäpitz, “Consumers are now paying more for their power than ever before” — some 30.27 euro cents per kilowatt hour. Families today are paying 21% more for electricity than they did 5 years ago.

So what is driving the rapid upward price spiral?

Zschäpitz reports that it’s due mostly to the “Energiewende” – Germany’s push away from nuclear and fossil generated power to renewables such as wind, solar and biogas. Also driving the price are the energy price breaks that are granted to big power consumers, and liability costs for offshore wind parks. Moreover Zschäpitz reports that consumers are also forced to pick up the tab for upgrading the power grid so that it is able to handle the wildly fluctuating power supply from wind and sun.

In the meantime, Germany’s CO2 emissions have been rising, and thus consumers are not really getting anything for the massive amounts of money.

To illustrate the distortion gripping the German power market, Zschäpitz tells readers that today only 27% of the power price is made up of “pure raw material costs”. The electricity production cost by itself has in fact “fallen by 25% over the past few years“. However this cost reduction has been offset and more by other feed-in and grid operating surcharges levied as a result of the Energiewende. This leads Die Welt’s Zschäpitz to conclude:

Thus power consumers are now more burdened with state taxes and fees than automobile drivers.”

For relief, power consumers do have the option of switching to private power providers, and doing so is non-problematic, Zschäpitz writes. However one thing is sure: Electricity prices are expected to keep rising.


Studies Suggest Volcanic Activity Had Profound Long-Term Impact On Past Climate …CO2 Is No Explanation

Guest author Kenneth Richard examines the impacts of past volcanoes on climate. The findings will surely be controversial. (Title above is my own). -PG

Volcanic activity explains long-term climate change better than CO2

By Kenneth Richard

Long-term (decadal and even centennial-scale) volcanic influence on climate has recently gained more and more attention in the scientific literature.  Previously thought to influence surface temperatures for only a few years at a time, there is now a growing body of evidence suggesting volcanic aerosols may significantly affect both short and long-term climate changes by blocking solar radiation from heating the oceans’ surface waters.

When specifying the factors contributing to decadal and centennial-scale temperature changes, solar activity and greenhouse gases are usually thought to top the list. And since 93% of the heat from global warming ends up in the oceans (IPCC, 2013), the focus necessarily should be on what mechanisms contribute most to variations in ocean heat content (OHC) and sea surface temperatures (SST).

Back in 2013, Rosenthal et al. published a paper in Science on millennial-scale ocean heat content variations (Pacific). As the graph (Fig. 4B from the paper) below illustrates, the authors document a dramatic cooling of the 0-700 m layer between the Medieval Warm Period (~1000 CE) and Little Ice Age (1600-1800 CE). While OHC has risen since the depths of the Little Ice Age, modern ocean temperatures are still significantly cooler (-0.65°C) than what they were just 1,000 years ago, or during the Medieval Warm Period.



In a Rosenthal et al 2013 paper, he writes:

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

The causal explanation for this dramatic ocean cooling during the last millennium has generally not been forthcoming from those who attribute variations in temperature/heat content predominantly to variations in carbon dioxide. After all, there was essentially no change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (which centered around ~275 ppm) between ~1000 CE and 1600-1800 CE, implying that CO2 forcing cannot explain the long-term changes in OHC.

There are literally hundreds of scientific papers that have been published suggesting that tracts of low solar activity (i.e., Oort, Spörer, Maunder, Dalton Minimums) are well correlated with decadal- and centennial-scale cooling periods. It is also well-documented that the Medieval Maximum and Modern Grand Maximum (~1920 to ~2010) of very high solar activity are well correlated with the last two warm periods. However, the solar activity explanation is deemed quite controversial, as it is presumed that long-term variations in the Sun’s energy output are too small to have a significant impact on climate changes.  So as not to veer off track or stumble through this controversy, a more indirect explanation for global warming and cooling trends is succinctly referenced here.

In 2015, the authors of the Pages2k (2013) “global” temperature reconstruction for 0-2000 CE released their Ocean2k record of sea surface temperatures (SST) entitled “Robust global ocean cooling trend for the pre-industrial Common Era“.  Below is the definitive graph from the paper depicting this robust global ocean cooling (which conspicuously conceals the post-1900 SST record). The paper itself indicates that the 1,000-year (kyr) cooling trend for global ocean temperatures changed by a modest ~0.1°C (from about -0.45°C kyr to -0.35°C kyr) with the inclusion of the 1800 to 2000 (“anthropogenic”) SST record:


Source: here.

 McGregor et al., 2015 (Ocean2K):

Our best estimate of the SST cooling trend, scaled to temperature units using the average anomaly method (method 1), for the periods 1–2000 CE is –0.3°C/kyr to –0.4°C/kyr, and for 801–1800 CE is –0.4°C/kyr to –0.5°C/kyr

While intriguing that the authors of the Ocean2k reconstruction effectively acknowledge that global ocean surface temperatures haven’t fallen out of the range of long-term natural variability when including the last ~200 years, even more interesting is the physical mechanism suggested for this long-term ocean cooling: a centennial-scale decrease in surface incident solar radiation (SSR) via the aerosol dust-veiling effects of “explosive volcanism.”  Here is the summary from the paper’s abstract:

Climate simulations using single and cumulative forcings suggest that the ocean surface cooling trend from 801 to 1800 CE is not primarily a response to orbital forcing but arises from a high frequency of explosive volcanism. Our results show that repeated clusters of volcanic eruptions can induce a net negative radiative forcing that results in a centennial and global scale cooling trend via a decline in mixed-layer oceanic heat content.”

Another 2015 paper by Pausata et al. published in PNAS explains how the direct, short-lived (2 to 3 years) effects of volcanic eruptions indirectly influence major long-term decadal-scale (25-35 years here) ocean oscillations (AMOC, ENSO), which, in turn, heavily influence climate.

Large volcanic eruptions can have major impacts on global climate, affecting both atmospheric and ocean circulation through changes in atmospheric chemical composition and optical properties. The residence time of volcanic aerosol from strong eruptions is roughly 2–3 y. Attention has consequently focused on their short-term impacts, whereas the long-term, ocean-mediated response has not been well studied. Most studies have focused on tropical eruptions; high-latitude eruptions have drawn less attention because their impacts are thought to be merely hemispheric rather than global. No study to date has investigated the long-term effects of high-latitude eruptions. Here, we use a climate model to show that large summer high-latitude eruptions in the Northern Hemisphere cause strong hemispheric cooling, which could induce an El Niño-like anomaly, in the equatorial Pacific during the first 8–9 mo after the start of the eruption. The hemispherically asymmetric cooling shifts the Intertropical Convergence Zone southward, triggering a weakening of the trade winds over the western and central equatorial Pacific that favors the development of an El Niño-like anomaly. In the model used here, the specified high-latitude eruption also leads to a strengthening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in the first 25 y after the eruption, followed by a weakening lasting at least 35 y. The long-lived changes in the AMOC strength also alter the variability of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO).”

The conclusion that explosive volcanic eruptions – or clusters of smaller eruptions spaced closely together – could have a significant long-term effect on climate is not a new one. Back during the 1960s and 1970s, when scientists were searching for an explanation for the decades-long -0.3°C global cooling trend and its possible connection to droughts and severe weather events, volcanic climate forcing was often recognized as significantly responsible (Benton, 19701; Mitchell, 19702; Budyko, 19693). It was also usually acknowledged that the proportion of human contribution to atmospheric aerosol loading was small (~10%) relative to the predominance of volcanic aerosols (Mitchell, 1970; Cobb, 19734).  More recently, scientists have also confirmed that volcanic eruptions are the  primary source of increases in stratospheric aerosol, and that “no hint for a strong anthropogenic influence has been found” (Neely et al., 20135; Höpfner et al., 20136 ).

Further strengthening this correlation between the presence or absence of volcanic aerosols and long-term cooling or warming trends, consider this key graph taken from Oliver (1976) below (Fig. 1, page 2).


They write:

A period of several decades existed (~1915-1945) in which volcanic activity was unusually light and, as mentioned earlier, the temperatures were higher than the preceding [1880s to 1910s] or, in fact, the subsequent (current) [1950s-1970s] period. … Numerous possible causes of climate change have been discussed in the literature, including both anthropogenic and natural factors. Two principal anthropogenic sources are often considered: changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and changes in tropospheric dust. … Mitchell (1975) concluded that neither tropospheric particulates [anthropogenic pollution] nor atmospheric CO2, in concert or separately, could have accounted for the major part of the observed temperature changes of the past century.”

Notice the remarkable correlation between the warming decades (1915-1945) and the lack of volcanic eruptions during that same period, and then notice the years and decades with several large volcanic eruptions and how these periods correspond with cooling. This appears to suggest that the absence of a physical cooling mechanism – namely, clusters of volcanic eruptions – may effectively be interpreted as a warming mechanism.

This explanation could account for the ocean temperature changes since the 1880s far better than anthropogenic CO2 emissions can. After all, anthropogenic CO2 emissions were flat and low (~1 GtC [gigatons carbon] per year) during the 1915 to 1945 warming period, and they rose dramatically (up to ~5 GtC per year) between the 1940s and 1970s.  This means that as CO2 emissions increased significantly, surface temperatures cooled significantly (1940s to 1970s) – the opposite of what should have been occurring if rising CO2 emissions are largely responsible for global warming.

A more recent depiction of large-scale volcanic eruptions for the last 1,500 years comes from a new paper (Liu et al., 2016) linking global-scale precipitation patterns (monsoons) to large volcanic eruptions. Notice that the dramatic post-Medieval Warm Period centennial-scale ocean cooling described above (Rosenthal et al., 2013, Ocean2k) corresponds closely with frequent clusters of volcanic eruptions. Also, notice how volcanically quiescent the last 80 years of the 20th century have been, which has, on net, allowed more solar radiation to heat the oceans and contribute to global warming.

Liu et al., 2016 finds:

There are 54 large explosive volcanoes during 501–2000 AD in total, and the strongest one is the Samalas volcano in 1257–1258, which is followed by three smaller eruptions in 1268, 1275 and 1284. These strong volcanoes do not allow the climate to recover, and might have triggered the Little Ice Age.”


Chart source:

Other recently-published papers also document a strong correlation between volcanic eruptions and climate changes. Otterå et al. (2010)7 conclude that volcanoes have played a “particularly important part” in directly influencing sea surface temperatures and  in phasing multi-decadal variability for the last 600 years.  Ludlow et al. (2013)8 find 1,200 years of statistically significant (99.7%) associations between cooling events and explosive volcanism for the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Instead of asking what factors are contributing to ocean warming on decadal and centennial time-scales, perhaps there needs to be more of a focus on answering the question of what factors have contributed to the periods of ocean cooling during the last millennium.

Variations in CO2 concentrations or anthropogenic CO2 emissions cannot effectively explain the long-term cooling of the oceans (about -0.35 C per 1,000 years for the last 2,000 years per Ocean2k ). On the other hand, explosive volcanism and its dimming effect on surface solar radiation can much more readily explain decadal- and centennial-scale cooling and warming phases with both its presence (cooling) and absence (warming).


1. Benton, 1970

Climate is variable. In historical times, many significant fluctuations in temperature and precipitation have been identified. In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.6°C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C. Locally, temperature changes as large as 3-4°C per decade have been recorded, especially in sub-polar regions.  … The drop in the earth’s temperature since 1940 has been paralleled by a substantial increase in natural volcanism. The effect of such volcanic activity is probably greater than the effect of manmade pollutants.”

2. Mitchell, 1970

[V]ariations of human-derived loading are an order of magnitude less than those of volcanic dust loading. For reasonable estimates of the thermal cooling effect of dust load increases, it is inferred that secular cooling due to human-derived particulate loading is currently of the order of 0.05°C per decade. Although changes of total atmospheric dust loading may possibly be sufficient to account for the observed 0.3°C-cooling of the earth since 1940, the human-derived contribution to these loading changes is inferred to have played a very minor role in the temperature decline.”

3. Budyko, 1969

 [A] rise in temperature that began at the end of the last century stopped in about 1940, and a fall in temperature started. The temperature in the northern hemisphere that increased in the warming period by about 0.6oC then decreased by the middle of the fifties by 0.2oC.  A comparatively short-period rise in temperature with smaller amplitude was also observed in the last years of the [19th] century. … Thus, it seems probable that the present changes in the Earth’s temperature are determined mainly by the atmospheric transparency variations that depend on the level of volcanic activity.”

4. Cobb, 1973

It has been estimated (Squires, 1966; Selezneva, 1966; Hidy and Brock, 1970; Robinson and Robbins, 1970) that the anthropogenic component of the global particulate burden of the atmosphere amounts to 5-12%; not, it would seem a very alarming figure.”

5. Neely et al., 2013

We employ model runs that include the increases in anthropogenic sulfur dioxide (SO2) over Asia and the moderate volcanic explosive injections of SO2 observed from 2000 to 2010. Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.”

6. Höpfner et al., 2013

The increase in the stratospheric aerosol concentration observed in the past years is caused mainly by sulfur dioxide from a number of volcano eruptions. Variation of the concentration is mainly due to volcanoes.  Lower stratospheric variability of SO2 could mainly be explained by volcanic activity and no hint for a strong anthropogenic influence has been found.”

7. Otterå et al., 2010

8. Ludlow et al., 2013

Explosive volcanism resulting in stratospheric injection of sulfate aerosol is a major driver of regional to global climatic variability on interannual and longer timescales. Thirty eight (79%) of 48 volcanic events identified in the sulfate deposition record of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 ice-core correspond to 37 (54%) of 69 cold events in this 1219 year period. We show this association to be statistically significant at the 99.7% confidence level.”


Little Evidence Showing Climate “Tipping Points” Are Tipping At All! …Artefacts Of Simplistic Models

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Luning and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenohlt have recently looked at the so-called climate “Tipping Points” hypothesis, one that is heavily promoted by the alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

The idea of the climate irreversibly tipping into something completely different and potentially hostile once certain thresholds are reached is one often put forth by PIK head Prof. Hans-Joschim Schellnhuber, architect of the proposed “Great Transformation of Society“.

Good bye “Tipping Points”?
By Sebastian Luning and Fritz vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Do you recall the horror reports of imminent climate tipping points?  They are often used to paint doomsday scenarios:


Figure: The tipping elements of the world’s climate, Source: PIK

A requirement is that critical thresholds be surpassed, due to the warming of the planet, and thus lead to a tipping of the climate system. This would be similar to the transition over to a new quality from the piling up of smaller quantities, as postulated by Karl Marx in his 3rd Development Law Of Dialectical Materialism. But there is one problem with this assertion in climatology: even the IPCC models (in the last report the CMIP5 models) aren’t playing along. They are forecasting (at least until 2100) more of a linear, steady development. The proponents of the catastrophe theories in fact use simpler modeling constructs for underpinning their Cassandra proclamations: most of them have been energy balance models showing a “catastrophic” shifting over. However, recent scientific studies have been published and they clearly refute the “tipping” claims. In the case of India’s summer monsoons it is written in the conclusion of a paper by Wiliam R. Boos of Yale University, PNAS:

Thus, outside of a theory that omitted a dominant term in the equations of motion, we know of no evidence supporting the idea that monsoons will shut down in response to anthropogenic forcings. Monsoons may have a strong response to anthropogenic forcings, but current theory and numerical models indicate that this response will be nearly linear.”

In another case concerning the “death spiral of Arctic sea ice” another published paper reached a similar conclusion: simple models exaggerated the possibility of a non-linear tipping point:

This result may help to reconcile the discrepancy between low-order models and comprehensive GCMs in previous studies. Specifically, it suggests that the low-order models overestimate the likelihood of a sea ice “tipping point.”

Authors Till J. Wagner and Ian Eisenman of the University of California also concluded that the non-linearity (collapse) of the AMOC (see our post here) was a mere artifact of an overly simplified model.

In another case depicted in the figure above we can also see that one tipping point theory predicts that from one year to the next only El Nino conditions will prevail in the Eastern Pacific. Look at the following figure: Nino 3.4  shows a trend of zero and the observation of sea surface temperatures has not diverted from the trend.

Figure: Monthly Nino 3.4 index

There’s no need to expect a shift over to some new quality, and thus follow in the footsteps of Karl Marx, who was accurate like no other in his analysis of society. His predictions failed spectacularly!


Winter Buries Germany’s Spring Under Snow, Ice And Cold …”Spring Nowhere In Sight” (In Late April)!

This morning, even here in the North German lowlands, close to sea level, snow fell as temperatures hovered near the freezing point.

Currently many Germans are struggling under snow, ice and cold as winter terminates spring for the time being. The cause: a low pressure centered over the Baltic Sea pumping in cold polar air through Europe.

Winter massberg April 26, 2016

Winter transforms Germany’s Thuringia Forest into a winter wonderland today. Massberg webcam photo 11.07 a.m.

Newsite Thuringia Antenne here writes that winter has returned and will stick around for awhile, reporting of icy roads, accidents and cold. Meteorologist Dominik Jung of forecasts 5 to 10 cm of snow across wide regions of Germany, especially Bavaria and Thuringia.

The Rheinbrücke at Rees had to be closed for over an hour and a half early this morning due to accidents from icy conditions, the RP Online reports here.

Sub-zero temperatures were recorded at a number of weather stations throughout Germany this morning.

In the northeastern state of Saxony Bild national daily reports by video of a snow chaos as travelers struggle with an “enormous snow mass” as roads become impassable from the snow and snow plows are unable to keep up. The snow is expected to stay at elevations over 400 – 600 meters, reports.

Much of Europe is forecast to remain cold at least for the next 7 days, as the following chart shows negative temperature anomalies:

Winter_April 26 2016 7 day forecast

 In his viedo forecast from this morning, meteorologist Jung says for now, “Spring is nowhere in sight.”

Current Solar Cycle Continues To Be The Weakest In Almost 200 Years …Planet At The Mercy Of The Sun

The following is the solar part of the latest post at Die kalte Sonne.

The Sun in March 2016

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

Our mother star was once again less active than normal in March. The observed solar sunspot number (SSN) was 54.9, which was about 2/3 of the mean value (82.5) for this month into the cycle. Here’s what the current solar cycle (SC) looks like so far:

Figure 1: The course of the current SC 24 since it began in December 2008, up to March 2016 (month 88) in red, the mean of the previous 23 cycles is shown in blue, and the similarLY (since month 73) behaving solar cycle number 5, which occurred from May 1789 to December 1810, shown in black.

 The accumulated sunspot numbers this far into the cycle are plotted as the anomaly from the mean for each cycle. It shows that the current cycle is one of the weakest on record:

Figure 2: The accumulated sunspot numbers for each cycle, shown as the anomaly from the mean, 88 months into the respective cycle, going back to 1755.

 SC 24 is the weakest since SCs 5, 6 and 7, a time known as the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830). It appears that the current cycle may very well wind up being weaker than SC 7 when it ends. Our sun is a very mediocre star of the spectral classification G2, similar to our neighbor star Alpha Centauri A. That is one of the reasons evolution had enough time to spawn intelligent life. A more active star most likely would not have allowed it due to the powerful solar winds that would “blow away” a planet’s atmosphere.

What follows is a beautiful picture from the Hubble space telescope:

Figure 3: The light blue star inside the “bubble” of dust and gases is very active. Through pressure it generates its stellar winds that shape a sphere that measures 10 light years in size. Near the surroundings of the star a planet with an atmosphere would be inconceivable. Photo source: NASA

So can single super flares (extremely powerful eruptions of a star’s surface) from the sun be excluded? A new study by a team of scientists led by Christoffer Karoff of the University of Aarhus in Denmark concludes: No – something of the sort could in fact happen! There are indications that in the year 775 a flare occurred, one that was much more powerful than anything we could expect in modern times, e.g. Carrington- Event 1859.

A massive explosion on the sun that could be 100 times more powerful is improbable, yet cannot be excluded. If such a flare hit the Earth, things indeed would get very uncomfortable because all power transmission lines would be impacted. Our modern energy and communication networks would be interrupted globally, and for a long time.

The requirement for this? A huge sunspot.

If one did occur, there first would be a warning period. But what precautionary measures could be implemented? Up to now we can only hope to be spared of such a massive solar flare of energy. In a sense the Danish study tells us just how dependent the Earth is on the sun’s power, its electromagnetic radiation, and its magnetic field.

Note: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt is co-author of the book: “The Neglected Sun”.

Late April “Snow Shock” Surprises Germany, President Obama. Experts Advise Putting Winter Tires Back On!

You gotta wonder what President Obama will be thinking when he visits the northern city of Hanover later today. Ironically the US global warming president may be confronted with snow tomorrow morning as he gets set to pitch further steps with regards to TTIP and global warming to Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Europe Late April 2016

Temperature anomalies of more than -10°C are forecast to hit many areas of Europe in the days ahead.

A blast of polar air is now super-cooling the European continent and delivering unusual late April snows and frosty conditions even down in the lowlands, where the German city of Hanover is located.


The online SVZ daily here warns “Winterschock: In Germany the snow is back. Ice cold polar air delivers snowfall and storms.

German weekly, Stern, writes at its online newsite: “Experts even advise putting the winter tires back on” and warns of icy streets in the lowlands by Monday morning! The Stern clip calls the snow for this time of year “unusual”.

High profile meteorologist Joe Bastardi tweeted: “rest of April in Europe.. about as cold as it can get this late.”

Online Bild here bears the headline: ” Polar air frosts the spring away– and will stay!”

The DWD German national weather service reported that the temperature at the Lower Saxony Brocken summit (1140m) was -5°C just some 100 or so kilometers away from Hanover, where President Barack Obama is scheduled to arrive to open up the Hanover industrial trade show.

Al weather forecasts agree that the bitter cold will persist through much of the week. Experts warn of frost damage to blossoming plants.

To be fair, much of far eastern Europe and Russia are enjoying warmer than normal spring weather, and so we do not want to give readers the impression that the Europe cold means the globe is cooling. Such a trick, after all, is the kind of stuff the global warming alarmists routinely resort to. Remember how back around New Year’s the media and alarmists were jumping up and down, hollering that the North Pole was melting – trying to make us think it was all because of global warming? In fact that was just the reverse of what is happening in Europe right now. And never mind that snow was supposed to become “a thing of the past” even in the dead of winter.

Moreover the euro-warmunistas are now claiming that snow and cold we are seeing today has happened before at this time of year and thus is normal and we should not be surprised if it happens from time to time. But that’s just the point: our weather is no longer supposed to be “normal”. Climate change supposedly has changed all that. Yet there we have it: snow in late April, just like 100 years ago, back when that sort of thing used to happen once in a blue moon as well. Nothing (except the media reporting) has really changed that much.


NASA “Homogenization” Infusing MORE Error? Adelaide Airport: Cooling Turns Into Warming

By Ed Caryl

There have been several reports of temperature data fudging by the authorities, the most recent by Paul Homewood on several stations in Paraguay.

While exploring long temperature records in Australia, I discovered a particularly egregious example of temperature changing at Adelaide Airport. GISS now offers easy access to their several sets of data for each station: unadjusted (I assume this is the raw data.), adjusted (I assume this is after TOBs, time of observation, and moving adjustments), adjusted after cleaning (whatever that is), and the final step, after adjustments, cleaning, and homogenization.

Infusion of more error?

Homogenization is supposed to correct for urban heat island problems, but it is nearly always used to cool the past, rather than cooling the present or heating the past, the opposite of what an urban heat island correction should be. But I digress.

Here is the Adelaide Airport record before any adjustments:

Adelaide Airport Unadjusted

Figure 1: Adelaide Airport unadjusted temperature record. The top trace is the annual average summer (December, January, and February) temperatures, the middle is the annual average meteorological year, and the bottom is the average winter (June, July, and August) temperatures, all with trend lines. On all these images, click on the image for a high resolution version.

Note in Figure 1 that all the trends are negative, that is, it has been cooling since the turn of the twentieth century, for over the last 100 years, particularly in the summer months. The warmest year was 1914. The warmest summer was in 1880!

Now let us look at the “adjusted” data:

Adelaide Airport After Adjustments

Figure 2: Adelaide Airport after “adjustment”, also with trend lines.

Note that in Figure 2 we see warming, annually, and in all seasons. The warmest year is now 2007, though the warmest summer is still 1880 by a small fraction of degree. But the strange thing about this adjustment is this:

Adelaide Airport Adjustments

Figure 3: Adjustment applied to Figure 1 to produce Figure 2.

Note that from 1880 to 1947, the adjustment is exactly minus one degree, in all months, all seasons, and all years. It is a blanket, obvious, fudge! Someone got lazy. Instead of attempting to figure out an actual time of observation or move adjustment, they simply slapped on a minus one degree change, and magically, the cooling trend went away. But they were not finished! There is still homogenization to be performed, the finishing touch!

Adelaide After Adjust and Homo

Figure 4: Adelaide Airport after all adjustments and homogenization.

Homogenization now adds another tenth of a degree to the warming temperature trends. How much was the change?

Adelaide Homogenization Adjust

Figure 5: Homogenization adjustment applied to Figure 2 to result in Figure 4.

These changes further cool the past and mostly leave the present unchanged. The changes are the same for all months, season, and years for twenty or more year stretches.

I found the Australian BOM description for their adjustments for Adelaide. They do not resemble the adjustments seen above. They are changes to Tmax and Tmin, are in both positive and negative directions. Changes to Tmax + Tmin sometimes nearly cancel out. (If Tmax is adjusted up and Tmin is adjusted down by the same amount, Tmean will not change.) And the steps are in different years from that above.

Aust BOM Adelaide

Figure 6: Screen grab from an Australian BOM pdf document found here. Click on the image for a clearer version.

Hiding the cooling

It should be obvious to all that these adjustments to the raw temperature data are an attempt to hide the long-term cooling temperature trend at Adelaide. These changes to the temperature data begs us to examine all station data for similar changes. Is global warming real or just a  product of pencil, pen, and computer?


Climate Alarmists Alarmed Public No Longer Panicked About The Climate, Demand More Doomsday Headlines!

Climate science critics Dr. Sebastian Lüning and professor Fritz Vahrenholt here present today some findings that climate alarmists are not very amused over: Climate alarmism has waned and is no longer making any headlines.

The two co-authors of “The Neglected Sun” write at their site:


“People aren’t dumb. Climate alarmism just isn’t working. The public is fed up with the constant unending apocalypse, for which there are still no reliable indications. Gradually the alarm has been disappearing from the headlines.

Here the UN is getting very worried because with the help of climate panic they wish to justify huge finance transfers from the rich to the poor. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has expressed these concerns in a press release. It is indeed absurd that the climate change is being hyped as the ‘greatest problem for humanity’ at a time when the world is currently suffering from rampant terrorism and migration crises. What on earth is going through the heads of the climate romanticists? Do they not want to or are they just unable to see the reality? Is it all about money? Or power? Read the following from the IFAD press release April 6, 2016, which will leave you amazed:

‘Despite being “the biggest threat facing humanity” climate change and its impacts fail to make headlines, says IFAD study

Even as 60 million people around the world face severe hunger because of El Niño and millions more because of climate change, top European and American media outlets are neglecting to cover the issues as a top news item, says a new research report funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) today.

“It’s incredible that in a year when we have had record temperatures, 32 major droughts, and historic crop losses that media are not positioning climate change on their front pages,” said IFAD President, Kanayo F. Nwanze. “Climate change is the biggest threat facing our world today and how the media shape the narrative remains vitally important in pre-empting future crises.”

The report, “The Untold Story: Climate change sinks below the headlines” provides an analysis of the depth of media reporting around climate change in two distinct periods: two months before the 21st session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris, and two months after. Specifically, it explores whether issues connecting climate change, food security, agriculture and migration made headlines, and if so, how much prominence these stories were given.

Among some of its key findings:

Climate change stories were either completely absent or their numbers decreased in major media outlets in Europe and the United States before and after COP21.

• Coverage on the consequences of climate change, such as migration, fell by half in the months after COP21 and people directly impacted by climate change rarely had a voice in stories or were not mentioned at all.

• News consumers want climate change issues and solutions to be given more prominence in media outlets and, in particular, want more information on the connections between climate change, food insecurity, conflict and migration.

The release of the report comes just days before world leaders gather at the United Nations in New York to sign off on the Paris Agreement coming out of COP21. In December, the agreement made headlines and led news bulletins across the globe. But leading up to COP21 and in the months following it, coverage on climate change significantly fell off the radar of major media outlets across Europe and the United States. […]

Download the report:'”

Central Europe’s Spring To Crash Back Into Winter …Snow Expected At Elevations Down To 200 Meters!

So far this week where I live here in the North German flatlands people have woken up to surface frost three times already. And although temperatures are forecast to be pleasant today under sunny conditions, the temperature will drop rapidly come weekend.

April 25 2016


Joe Bastardi at his Daily Update here says it’s going to get “as cold as you’ll ever see it at this time of year”.

It’s going to get uncharacteristingly cold – not something we ought to expect after one hundred years of alleged accelerating global warming. In fact the 25-year trend in Germany shows spring arriving later and later – something the media will never tell us.

How icy is it supposed to get? German CHIP magazine here writes: “It sounds like a bad joke: This weekend it’s going to snow in many areas in Germany. Are we about to get hit by snow chaos in April?

The chart above shows frosty conditions across much of Great Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Scandinavia by Monday morning.

Coldest late April week in decades

A low pressure system will be bringing cold Arctic air down across Euroipe as daytime temperatures plunge below 10°C this weekend. At night temperatures will drop to around freezing and precipitation is expected to fall to elevations as low as 200 meters.

CHIP reports: “On Monday it could get even colder”.

Weather records show that the cold blast will make this year’s late April  one of the coldest in decades.


Profound Admission: New Nature Study Shows Models Still Very Embryonic, “Hardly Trustworthy” Says Top Climate Modeler

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski held an interview with climate modeling scientist Edouard Zorita of the GKSS Research Center in Geestacht near Hamburg, Germany.


Eduardo Zorita, paleoclimatologist, GKSS Research Centre Germany tells Spiegel climate models have a long way to go, much remains poorly understood and that they are hardly trustworthy. Photo:; CC BY-SA 3.0.

The interview focused on the reliability of climate models, particularly their ability to forecast precipitation trends in response to warming. Earlier models have suggested that arid regions would simply become drier, while wet regions would get wetter. Other models suggested some regions would see more of both. The result: lots of confusion and uncertainty.

“Hardly trustworthy”

The interview focusses on a new study authored by Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist of Stockholm University, which was recently published in Nature. The paper’s result now casts lots of doubt over the models and their ability to project the future. In the study the scientists examined the past 1200 years of precipitation across the northern hemisphere and they found that the models do very poorly, and that they are still at a very embryonic stage in their development – far from being mature enough to be of much use for future prognoses. Hence the title and photo caption of the Spiegel article:

Faults in the climate models: “Drought prognoses are hardly trustworthy”

A consequence of global warming is supposed to be drought. However an analysis shows: climate models can barely calculate precipitation.”

Obviously the climate system is far more complex than what some scientists, policymakers and media would like to have us to believe. The models are in fact more uncertain than ever.

Bojanowski writes:

In the case of precipitation the data contradict the model results, the scientists report.”

Mismatch between models and observations

When asked about the reliability of projections for more drought, Zorita, a scientist who has co-authored numerous publications, tells the German Spiegel news weekly that the prognoses are “hardly trustworthy” and that their new study shows that “the climate model results clearly deviated from the climate data on precipitation“.

The scientists based their findings on 1200 years of climate data from the northern hemisphere, much of it from proxy records. The mismatch between the models and observations are in fact profound, it turns out.

No 20th century precipitation signal

When asked if a man-made signal could be found in the precipitation over the 20th century, Zorita replied:

In our data we do not see anything unusual. There was nothing special concerning precipitation. It was similarly arid from the 9th to the 11th century, and back then there was no man-made climate change. Also harsh droughts such as the recent ones in Western USA were put into real perspective. Precipitation amounts actually fluctuate more greatly than previously assumed – that’s what the data show for the past 1200 years.”

When you boil it down: droughts are no worse today than they have ever been in the past 1200 years back when CO2 was some 30% less. Zorita adds:

But for the past 1200 years we were not able to find a relationship between global warming and changes in precipitation. That’s something that raises concern.”

“Hardly able to model the water cycle”

Zorita then tells Spiegel that the results of the study should be seen as a “warning signal“, elaborating:

It shows that we need to do a better job testing the climate models. They have been hardly able to model the water cycle, the crux of the climate phenomenon.”

That’s black on white. The models thus cannot be relied on to come anywhere close to forecasting the future as they cannot even properly simulate crucial precipitation cycles. The modelers of course cannot be blamed here as the system is indeed enormously complex. They are doing a good job getting the task started, but it has to be acknowledged that it is only a start and that there is in fact a very very long way to go before they produce useful long-term forecasts.

Large knowledge gaps in other areas

In the interview Zorita also brings up the knowledge gaps in other crucial areas. He tells Spiegel there’s still much to learn about clouds and aerosols, and that much more research is required here. Moreover much remains poorly understood in yet more areas:

Also our understanbding of how moisture between the ground and air is exchanged is insufficient. That is really something to think about because these factors determine the climate of the future.”

The results of this paper really ought to be embarrassing for policymakers who insist the science is settled and that we need to heed what the current (embryonic) models are telling us.