(Dumb) German Politicians Deem Defending Climate More Vital Than Defending Our Freedom/Values!

Now climate politics are becoming a real threat to the very defense of our freedom, democracy and western civilization.


The real enemy, according to some German politicians, activists. Copyright: Eurofighter, Geoffrey Lee, Planefocus Limited.

Germany’s socialists, pacifist greens and anti NATO activists (who are well represented in German government) have found a new excuse for shirking their NATO defense responsibilities and reason for shutting down important military operations thus unwittingly playing into the hands of our enemies – many of whom are at Europe’s very own doorstep!

“Eurofighter Typhoon is a climate-killer”

Their latest claim: “the Eurofighter Typhoon is a climate killer” and so it needs to be grounded. Protecting the climate is much more important than defending the freedom and democracy of the very citizens they were elected to represent.

According to the doomsday-obsessed, leftist Klimaretter here: the Eurofighter’s CO2 footprint is intolerable and represents a real reason to stop its use. It writes: “For the climate the Eurofighters are real poison.”

Klimaretter explains how leftist Parliamentarian Eva Bulling-Schröter sent a query to the German government concerning the Eurofighter Typhoon of the 74th Neuburg Fighter Wing in Bavaria on July 16, 2014. The German government in turn sent its reply on July 31.

Of fourteen questions three are of particular interest: Nos. 3, 4, and 7.

3. How high was the fuel consumption (kerosene) of the Neuburg Fighter Wing in 2013?

In 2013 at the tactical 74th Neuburg a.d. Donau Fighter Wing, 12,751,000 liters of jet fuel were given out to the EUROFIGHTER. That is an equivalent of approximately 10,200 tonnes of jet fuel.

4. How high was the CO2 emission of the Neuburg Fighter Wing in 2013?

Based on the fuel consumption of then tactical 74th Neuburg a.d. Donau Fighter Wing in connection with the average conversion factor for kg jet fuel to emitted kg CO2 of 3.15, in the year 2013 approximately 32,130 tonnes of CO2 were emitted.

7. How high was the CO2 emission of the “Eurofighter” weapon system per flight hour?

One EUROFIGHTER per flight hour needs average 3.5 tonnes of fuel. Using the conversion factor of 3.15 for kg jet fuel to emitted kg CO2 yields an average CO2 emission per EUOFIGHTER flight hour of approx. 11 tonnes.”

Klimaretter promptly points out that flying a Eurofighter for a single hour produced as much Co2 as one citizen does in an entire year. It adds:

‘The Eurofighter weapons system is also a climate killer as the fighter jet emits as much carbon dioxide as a German citizen does in one year,’ assesses Eva Bulling-Schröter the results of her query. ‘Weapons only bring death and suffering; they also damage our environment and climate.’”

When compared to global natural and man-made total emissions, the 10,000 tonnes emitted by the Eurofighter is a mere drop in the ocean, and theoretically has an impact on the climate than can be measured only in pico-degrees.

Klimaretter does not stop at pushing for a grounding of the Eurofighter at the Neuburg base, but even implies that the military all over the world contributes substantially to climate damage, posing the question under the photo it posted:

US American soldier in the Iraq War: Just how much the military contributes to climate change worldwide has been hardly studied so far.”

Yes, this needs to be studied, the leftists are demanding. And should the military emit too much CO2, then it too will have to be grounded all over the world.

Oblivious to gathering threat from extremists worldwide

Indeed Islamic fanatics, the ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Russian rebels and a host of other menacing threats to our western civilization and freedom probably could not find better, unwitting allies in Germany than the leftwing socialist/green parties – and kooky climate-doomsday websites like Klimaretter.


Leading European Financial Institutes Close Their “Climate Change” Offices…”Want To Be Less Visible”

A few years ago it seemed as if there were lots of opportunities everywhere to make money with climate change. But as time goes on, it is increasingly becoming apparent that the heydays for many in Europe are just about over.

Zurich Insurance Group shuts down climate office that was opened in 2008

By Sebastian Lüning, Fritz Vahrenholt

The Zurich Insurance Group is closing the climate office it had opened in 2008, a Zurich spokeswoman confirmed to E&E Publishing. Over the past several weeks and months Zurich Office Director Lindene Patton had been actively promoting the idea of the climate catastrophe to the US Senate. Patton had also co-wrote the US National Climate Assessment, which flopped completely thanks to the alarmist tendencies of her colleagues.

Apparently the Zurich has slammed on the brakes because the lobbying efforts closely tied to the IPCC are no longer getting acceptance from the public and parts of US politics. In general the insurance business is suspected of using extreme weather warnings to peddle their products to customers and to justify high premiums.

The following is an excerpt of an article by Evan Lehmann of the E&E News Platform dated 27 June 2014 on the closure of the Zurich climate change office:

Leading insurer to close its climate change office, leaving the industry ‘mute’
Zurich Insurance Group is closing its U.S. climate change office six years after opening it to help persuade companies to press public officials for solutions to climbing disaster losses, according to several sources. The move seems likely to end a high-profile advocacy effort that exposed federal lawmakers to the financial concerns of a major insurer regarding rising temperatures. Some observers also say the closure stands to lessen an industry voice that might resonate with Republicans in a debate that’s often characterized as driven by Democratic ideology. Zurich’s decision comes amid a flush of visibility for the office and its director, Lindene Patton, who in recent months helped write the National Climate Assessment, testified before a Senate panel and spoke at the White House. In some circles, that has distinguished Patton as an unusually credible advocate for climate action who speaks from the suit-and-trouser world of the financial sector, where crunching numbers outpaces environmental ideology. One observer described her as a “dynamo.” [...]

When Zurich announced its ‘climate initiative’ six years ago, it was an effort, in part, to rally other members of the massive industry to get involved in shaping public policy. It warned of worsening climate risks that foretold of more than just sharpening damage from floods and storms: The industry also faces increased pressure from regulators and, in the eyes of customers, reputational risk if it doesn’t act, the company said. [...] ‘The internal meaning could be that they don’t want to stick their neck out, that they want to be less visible with regard to climate change in general,’ said Walter Stahel, director of risk management research at the Geneva Association, a Swiss think tank funded by the insurance industry. ‘And they want to break it down into much more concrete [efforts] to impose adaptation measures.’ [...] A Zurich spokeswoman confirmed yesterday that the climate office is being closed.”

Continue reading at E&E News.

Already in autumn 2012 the Deutsche Bank closed its analysis department for the impacts of global warming.


“Endowed Professor” Larry Bell “Borrows” NoTricksZone Story, Forgets To Cite Sources

Anthony Watts has posted a story “written by” Larry Bell, who according to NewsMax is “a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston, where he directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and heads the graduate program in space architecture.”

Honestly speaking I don’t care how distinguished Prof. Larry Bell may be, or how distinguished others might think he is. In my book, I don’t think much of the character at all. In my view his piece automatically gets an “F” as a grade.

The reason is that he evidently thinks it is not necessary to cite sources and to give credit where credit is due. He appears to think it’s perfectly okay to copy and paste other people’s work and give readers the impression it’s all his very own.

On June 9th I posted a piece titled: Giant Of Geology/Glaciology Christian Schlüchter Refutes CO2…Feature Interview Throws Climate Science Into Disarray, which got a fair amount of attention, including Larry’s.

Eight days later, on June 17, he posted his “own” version at NewsMax. At the end of the story NewsMax even had the temerity to write: “© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.”

Of course much of the story is Larry’s own. But the quotes of Prof. Schlüchter were translated from the original German to English by myself. Unlike Larry, I cited at least a half dozen times the German source. Larry on the other hand simply helped himself to my hard translation work, without citing it.

Maybe steps can be taken to change his thinking, and that of NewsMax’s.

In the future I’d appreciate if the good professor practiced proper academic behavior and cited his sources.

All he had to do was cite and add a link or two.


Meteorologists Sharply Criticize DWD German Weather Service… “The Science Is Groping In The Dark”

Independent German meteorologists have been increasingly criticizing the Deutsche Wetterdienst (DWD) - German Weather Service - for its climate activism and alarmism. The once staid yet highly professional and competent organization used to be among the most respected in the world.

But that appears to be no longer the case today as meteorologists ramp up their harsh criticism of the DWD’s forays into climate alarmism. They are clearly losing respect for and confidence in the organization.

Brandishing the “climate change bludgeon”

The latest wave of criticism was unleashed by statements made by the DWD spokesman Gerhard Lux in response to a spate of thunderstorms and deluges that have hit Central Europe in recent weeks. Lux claims that it is “another indication of climate change“. Moreover, one leading German meteorologist claims that the DWD has been overdoing it in issuing weather warnings for every perceived anomaly. According to Dominik Jung at Yahoo News:

Since the beginning of June the DWD has issued storm warnings on 36 of 66 calendar days.”

Although high profile meteorologist Jung says a number of these were of course legitimate, he feels overall the DWD has been overdoing it with the warnings:

Just how many of these storm warnings were actually justified, however, is not listed. I could list some examples of false storm warnings. It is as if nothing else could be expected that after the severe thunderstorms of the last weeks, immediately again the ‘climate change bludgeon’ is being brandished.”

Jung doesn’t understand what all the fuss over the recent “unusually rainy” weather is all about, noting that 6 of the last 8 months were drier than normal, and that overall “it all evens out”.

The opposite of what models predicted!

The UK’s Met Office was not the one proclaiming visions of barbeque summers. Leading experts in Germany in the early and mid 2000s warned of a future of “Sahara-summers” for Central Europe, claiming that we had to prepare for “hotter and drier” summers. Here Jung quotes an article by German Bild daily that featured IPCC climate scientist Professor Mojib Latif. Bild wrote:

‘The probability of an extremely hot summer is increasing.’ The heat and missing rain for Professor Latif are ‘indices that global warming in Germany has arrived’.“

But Jung reminds us that precisely the opposite has actually happened since: “11 summers later, we have yet to see one that has been drier than normal.” Jung adds that “Germany is still miles away from Sahara summers” and summarizes:

In 2003 the heat and drought were signs of climate change, 2014 is now a month of July that is too wet? Who is supposed to understand that?”

The term climate change “overstretched”

Jung also uses Latif’s prediction of warm winters with little snow and frost ahead for Germany as another example of a bad forecast (a prediction he made on April 1, just after David Viner’s made his now much ridiculed prediction). Today we see that here too the exact opposite took place. What followed was a series of brutal winters, to which Latif responded by claiming a cold winter does not refute a warming climate. But this is a reaction that baffles meteorologist Jung, who in turn points out:

Now we are being told that ONE overly wet month of July supports the climate change? The term climate change is being stretched.”

Science groping in the dark

Jung criticizes the constant flip-flopping that regularly goes on in climate science and asks: “Who takes this back and forth seriously?“…”The thought that the science is groping in the dark is becoming more pronounced than ever.”

Jung even goes so far as to question their competence and notes that “many people are no longer really taking it all seriously.” Jung speculates that the alarmism, no matter what the weather does, is in part motivated by the desire for more funding.

Retired meteorologist on DWD: “Makes me sad”

Retired meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls is even harsher with his criticism of the DWD and their recent climate alarmism shenanigans. Puls himself worked 30 years for the DWD. In an e-mail he communicated his reaction:

The DWD is developing more and more into a ‘political climate-alarmist’ institution – that makes me sad because I was actively in service 30 years.”


German Scientists Aghast At BBC Censorship: “Fear Of A Serious Factual Discussion”…”An Egregious Step”

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Professor of Chemistry Fritz Vahrenholt also posted today on the BBC’s lapse away from democratic principles: the right to free and open debate on important issues.

Fear of a serious factual discussion: Climate alarmists pressure BBC to censorship of the public climate debate

By Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning
(German passages translated by P Gosselin)

In February 2014 Lord Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher, took part in a climate debate on BBC Radio. In it he represented climate-realistic positions while his discussion partner Sir Brian Hoskins defended the climate alarmist direction. The debate was moderated by Justin Webb of the BBC. What follows is an excerpt (via GWPF):

Lord Lawson: No measured warming, exactly. Well that measurement is not unimportant. But even if there is some problem, it is not going to affect any of the dangers except marginally. What we want to do is focus with the problems there are with climate – drought, floods and so on. These have happened in the past – they’re not new. As for emissions, this country is responsible for less than 2% of global emissions. Even if we cut our emissions to 0 – which would put us back to the pre-industrial revolution and the poverty that that gave – even if we did that, it would be outweighed by China’s increase in emissions in a single year. So it is absolutely crazy this policy. It cannot make sense at all.

Sir Brian Hoskins: I think we have to learn two lessons from this. The first one is that by increasing the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide, to levels not seen for millions of years on this planet, we are performing a very risky experiment. We’re pretty confident that that means if we go on like we are the temperatures are going to rise somewhere between 3-5 degrees by the end of this Century, sea levels up to half to 1 metre rise.

Justin Webb: Lord Lawson was saying there that there had been a pause – which you hear a lot about – a pause of 10 / 15 years in measured rising of temperature. That is the case isn’t it?

Sir Brian Hoskins: It hasn’t risen very much over the last 10-15 years. If you measure the climate from the globally averaged surface temperature, during that time the excess energy has still been absorbed by the climate system and is being absorbed by the oceans.

Justin Webb: So it’s there somewhere?

Sir Brian Hoskins: Oh yes, it’s there in the oceans.

Lord Lawson: That is pure speculation.

Sir Brian Hoskins: No, it’s a measurement.

Lord Lawson: No, it’s not. It’s speculation.”

As a consequence, some BBC listeners complained that a climate realist should have never been invited on the show. Supposedly people became afraid when they noticed Lawson’s arguments came across as far more convincing than those from Hoskins. In a look back at the event in the Daily Mail, Lawson commented on am 9 July 2014:

The BBC was overwhelmed by a well-organised deluge of complaints — many of them, inevitably, from those with a commercial interest in renewable energy, as well as from the Green Party — arguing that, since I was not myself a scientist, I should never have been allowed to appear.”

Over the following months the complaints were reviewed by the BBC Complaints Office. In June 2014 an egregious step was taken: The complaints were upheld by the BBC. They claimed in short that Lawson had made false arguments. In reality a faulty accusation, as Lawson explains in his Daily Mail piece:

In fact, there was nothing I said in the entire Today programme discussion that was incorrect, nor, indeed, did Sir Brian Hoskins suggest otherwise. This can be confirmed by reading the full transcript, still available on my foundation’s website at thegwpf.org/Hoskins-vs-lawson-the-climate-debate-the-bbc-wants-to-censor, and possibly also on the BBC’s website, if they have not removed it out of embarrassment. The only untruth came from the unreliable Mr Chong of the Green Party who accused me of claiming on the programme that climate change ‘was all a conspiracy’. Needless to say, I said nothing of the sort, as the transcript makes clear.”

It appears the BBC will no longer be providing the climate realistic side any broadcast time. Already one can hear cheers from the climate-alarmists: Finally no more annoying discussions! Enough with democratic wastes of time, long live the IPCC dictatorship! Lawson explained in a piece in the Daily Mail:

The head of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, a Mr Fraser Steel, whose qualifications for the job are unclear and whose knowledge of the complex climate change issue is virtually non-existent, has written to a little-known but active Green Party politician called Chit Chong to apologise for the fact I was allowed to appear on the programme and to make clear this will not happen again. Among the reasons given in Mr Steel’s letter for upholding Mr Chong’s complaint and over-ruling the BBC’s head of news programmes is the mind-boggling statement that: ‘As you have pointed out, Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling.’ Evidence? However useful computer models may be, the one thing they cannot be is evidence. Computer climate models are simply conjectures, expressed in the form of mathematical equations (the language of computers), which lead to forecasts of future global temperatures, which can then be compared with the evidence on the ground.”

The director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Benny Peiser, criticized the decision by the BBC in an interview in the iai news (excerpt):

IAI: So do you think that, when it comes to the media, it is a one-sided kind of alarmist perception of risk that comes into question?

PEISER: Of course, because they are well-known for pointing out everything that is alarming and being silent on reports that show it is not as alarming. So you have a bias in favour of alarm, and a kind of ignoring any evidence that suggests that it might not be that alarming.

It’s about people who think we are facing doomsday, and people who are thinking that the issue of climate change is exaggerated. And if you deny anyone sceptical of the apocalyptic doomsday prophecies, then you get in a position where the BBC is so biased that MPs are beginning to consider cutting the license fee, or abolishing the license fee altogether, because people are beginning to be upset by the BBC’s bias.

This is a self-defeating policy; the BBC is digging its own grave by annoying half of the population who are known to be sceptical about the alarmist claims which are not substantiated, which are not founded on any evidence. They are only based on on some kinds of computer modelling, which is not scientific evidence.

IAI: So scientific evidence, such as computer modelling and research, is being used as an instrument in the rhetoric?

PEISER: Well there is a big difference between observation, what you actually observe in reality – that’s what I would call evidence – and computer models that try to model the climate in 50 or 100 years time. I wouldn’t call that evidence. There is a difference between evidence and people saying, “if we don’t act now then in 50 or a 100 years time we will face mega catastrophe”. That’s not evidence, it is speculation.”

Read the complete interview at the iai news.


International Team Of Scientists Refute Alarmist Desertification Projections…Sahel Precipitation Rising, Vegetation Spreading!

Bayreuth_1New paper by Brandt et al on increased precipitation has been greening the Sahara since 1980. Yet another IPCC model projection that is headed off in the wrong direction. Hat-tip DkS.
Press Release No. 121/2014 of the University of Bayreuth, Germany  dated 30 June 2014. My emphasis:

New research works show: Not global climate change alone, but rather foremost the local actions of people impact the face of the environment

Are the earth’s deserts continuously expanding? Or is green vegetation now spreading into regions that were once barren deserts? The West African section of the Sahel zone located at the southernmost edge of the Sahara, which extends from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, has been the source of reason for a wide variety of prognoses over the recent years. Extreme periods of drought during the 1970s and 1980s were considered as indices of growing desert regions across the globe. “Desertification” was the buzzword. However, over the last two decades a rise in precipitation has been observed across the West African Sahel. As a result there has been talk about the blanket perception that “the desert is greening”.

With this controversy as the backdrop, an international research team led by geographer Martin Brandt of the University of Bayreuth examined the vegetation development in the West African Sahel more closely. High and coarse resolution satellite data as well as wide range of measurement results from the last decades enabled conclusions to be drawn on climate and vegetation trends and field research brought regional and local particularities to light. Here some determinations were made: There is no uniform development in the West African Sahel. Not only the climate but also especially various forms of land-use – farming, forestry management or village development – are mostly responsible for the way the landscape there appears, and which resources it offers the people.

In the journal “remote sensing”researchers from Bayreuth (Germany), France, Spain and the Senegal report on their results. “The activity of man on location, for example the sustainable cultivation of selected green plants or the reforestation of forests, can impact the face of the landscape considerably,” says Martin Brandt. “Such initiatives and measures by the local population are far less dependent on large-scale climatic trends than what was earlier assumed. For this reason environmental and climate research should not be one-sidedly guided by blanket buzzwords such as ‘desertification’ or ‘greening Sahel’.”

Regional differences due to land and forest management – case studies in Mali and in the Senegal

Thanks to  satellite time series analyses , the scientists were able to determine that the vegetation density in the West African Sahel increased from 1982 to 2010. This development is especially pronounced in the Senegal and in western Mali. Here there are clear regional differences with respect to plants that have multiplied over time: Not only does one observe the wild growth of trees, bushes and grass, but also foremost the expansion of crops and plants due to farm and forest management measures. In total one notices that in the West African countries, with the exception of Gambia and the Ivory Coast, the forest levels have decreased markedly even though the vegetation density has increased as a whole.

Bayreuth_2The field research work by Martin Brandt (left) concentrated on two regions: the Senegal and Mali: The region surrounding the city of Bandiagara in southern Mali has seen a complete transformation of its vegetation over the last 50 years: Many tree and bush types that were still common in the 1960s have disappeared. Periods of drought did not alone damage the plants through a lack of water, but also it was because income from agriculture fell due to poor harvests, and so the people tried to compensate by felling trees and selling lumber. However in the meantime, a vegetation-rich landscape has since appeared – and not only because the precipitation amounts have been increasing for two decades and extended periods of droughts have failed to occur. “A targeted reforestation and planting of trees on agricultural land have changed the landscape considerably,” reports Brandt, and adds: “Without a sound botanical and ecological knowledge by the local population, this development would not have been possible.”

The transformation to an agricultural landscape  was also found by the scientists from Bayreuth at another region – one located in the Senegal, north of the city of Linguère. This region is mainly settled by nomads belonging to the Fulbe ethnic group who practice intensive pasture farming. In order to feed their livestock with leaves during dry periods, they cut or fell trees and bushes during dry periods. Nevertheless, state-sponsored reforestation and protective measures have led to a considerable increase in vegetation over the last two decades and it has become more adaptable to climate fluctuations. Today three especially robust tree types make up more than 90% of the vegetation found in the region surrounding Linguère. “Alone in the immediate proximity of the city there is a fenced-in area of at least 5000 hectares on which a special species of acacia has been placed,” says Martin Brandt. However he also points to the unmistakable damage in some places arising from the overuse of the tree stock. This completely bare ground is very difficult to regenerate – an example of how intervention into the vegetation by man can be destructive when it is not approached with ecological farsightedness.

Intervention by man stimulates a differentiated agricultural landscape – Plea for research without blanket buzzwords

The newly published scientific results refute the claims that the West Sahel is being hit by a growing desert that is a consequence of a global climate change. However they also refute the suggestion that the “greening of the desert” will take off by itself due to the increasing annual precipitation. The moderate trend reversal after a severe period of drought indeed does entail an increase in vegetation density. But it neither means a return to the conditions that existed before these extreme climatic events, nor does it automatically mean a widespread growth of green vegetation. Moreover, anthropogenic factors – and conversely their absence – have had a decisive impact on landscape and vegetation. Targeted farm and forest management measures that are oriented on scientific knowledge can significantly foster a differentiated man-made landscape.

Martin Brandt, who will soon receive his doctorate at the University of Bayreuth, also here sees reason for hope: “Should the climate prognoses of the UN IPCC do come true, the living conditions in some arid and semi-arid regions of West Africa – foremost in the region of the Sahel zone – will worsen. Appropriate concepts for land and forest management and for environmental protection however do offer the opportunity to adapt quickly enough to such climate developments in order to soften the impacts on poeple..”

International support project

The research works in Mali and in the Senegal were part of an international project: “Climate Change, Environmental Changes and Migration: Social-Ecological Conditions of Population Movements with the Example of the Sahel Countries Mali and Senegal (micle)”. The “micle” research project was funded from 2010 to April 2014 by the German Ministry for Education and Science (BMBF) and coordinated by the Institute for Social Ecological Research (ISOE) in Frankfurt. The Geographical Institute of the University of Bayreuth – together with the Institute for Geography and Regional Research of the University of Vienna – was involved as an associated partner. The leadership of the sub-project “Physical Geographical Perspectives ” was done by Prof. Dr. Cyrus Samimi, who today leads the research group for climatology at the University of Bayreuth. Prof. Dr. Martin Doevenspeck , Professor Regional-Related Conflict Research at the University of Bayreuth, was responsible for the sub-project “Social-Geographic Perspectives”.


Martin Brandt, Aleixandre Verger, Abdoul Aziz Diouf, Frederic Baret and Cyrus Samimi, Local Vegetation Trends in the Sahel of Mali and Senegal Using Long Time Series FAPAR Satellite Products and Field Measurement (1982–2010), in: Remote Sensing 2014, 6, pp. 2408-2434 DOI:10.3390/rs6032408.

Photos: U of Bayreuth


IPCC’s Latest Super-Flop: Scientists Say Aerosol Impact On Clouds “Almost Double That Estimated in Latest IPCC Report”


According to Science Daily, NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory has rediscovered the aerosol factor in climate (yet again). Those familiar with climate science know that aerosols are the preferred wild card used by embarrassed climate scientists whenever their models fail to properly account for unexpected cooling periods…which incidentally is more than 97% of the time.

The cooling clouds

Today Science Daily here reports that NASA’s jet Propulsion Laboratory in California has a paper out that examines the major role aerosols play on climate, especially cooling-effect cloud formation: Well, maybe we got it all wrong after all…and forget what the IPCC has said up to now.

The not-so-surprising statement:

they found that the total impact from the influence of aerosols on this type of cloud is almost double that estimated in the latest report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Doubling! I thought this was all settled. How could they have been off by 100%?

What other factors were they 99% sure about, but now will soon revise 100% in one direction or the other? I think it’s safe to say that as observations continue diverging glaringly from the models, many climate factors will have to undergo similar profound adjustments, and some even introduced for the first time.

Rather than narrowing it down in the models, scientists clearly appear to really have meandered way off into the woods and swamps with their models. The big repair work still lies ahead.

Clouds have the biggest impact on the albedo, cool our planet

According to Science Daily, a “new, comprehensive global analysis of satellite data” led by Yi-Chun Chen of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a joint team of researchers from JPL and the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena “have quantified how changes in aerosol levels affect low-level clouds over the ocean, ‘which cover about one-third of the ocean’s surface, have the biggest impact on the albedo, or reflectivity, of Earth’s surface, reflecting solar energy back to space and cooling our planet’.”

To me this is a back door that opens the way to admitting that water vapor has a negative feedback after all. Never mind the aerosols, which are always in ample supply. More water vapor from higher global temps means more cloud formation, which cool the earth. Now if they’ve underestimated this so much that they now have to double it, then the models can be scrapped – and policymakers should be fuming. Taxpayers too!

According to John Seinfeld, professor of chemical engineering at Caltech:

These results offer unique guidance on how warm cloud processes should be incorporated in climate models with changing aerosol levels.”

That would be just a start. How about incorporating other major well-known factors into the models: like cosmic radiation regulated by the sun’s magnetic field, ocean cycles, and expanding global sea ice?


1980s Dire Warnings Of Acid Rain / Forest Die-Off Prove To Be Pure Fallacy From Hysterical Scientists a

I spent a few days with my wife in Amsterdam, and so blogging was a bit on the light side. Today’s story is a short one about acid rain and forest die-off. Most people over 40 will certainly recall that one.

Whenever scientists are completely wrong, they hope no one will notice years later and that all will be forgotten.

Such is the case of the 1970s forest die-off scare (acid rain). Back then a “consensus” of scientists warned that the Earth’s forests were being wasted away because of acidic rain produced by man’s emissions from the burning fossil fuels. Lots of background info on this here,

The first warnings of an acid rain induced forest die-off in Germany were sounded by scientist Bernhard Ulrich, who warned that polluted rain was causing the soil to become too acidic for trees, which in turn would soon get very ill and die. Moreover by 1983 there was a claimed consensus. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) recently wrote on the forest die-off scare:

In the year 1983, an extremely informative study that recently appeared and maintained that during the course of this alarm debate, that there was not a single forest scientist in Germany who did not agree with this diagnosis.”

The leading German daily then summarizes that the acid rain, forest die scare turned up in the end being just a wave of hysteria that had gripped the scientific community. Today nobody hears about the acid rain; the problem has literally just vanished from existence. FAZ writer Jürgen Kaube even asks in his piece: “What ever happened to forest die-off?”

We suspect the same will be true of global warming in about 20 years time. Maybe sooner – especially when we look at the recent record high sea ice levels, recent cooling weather sweeping across the USA and the dozens of predictions of a coming climate cool-down coming from experts.


Renewable Energy Expert Fritz Vahrenholt Calls Germany’s Feed-In Act Obsolete…”On The Brink Of Failure”

Before he retired, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt was the CEO of RWE Innogy, the biggest investor of renewable energy. However during his time as CEO, he realized that the renewable energy systems did not live up the promises made by their manufacturers and promoters.

In the July 2014 edition of top agrar, a commentary by Fritz Vahrenholt on Germany’s renewable energy feed-in act (EEG) appeared:

From Die kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Prof. Vahrenholt: The EEG feed-in subsidy is an obsolete model!

By Fritz Vahrenholt

Berlin has slammed the brakes on biogas. That is overdue. Biogas has distorted the farmland leasing prices, led to ecological damage and put a burden on private households and companies through high electricity prices. The EEG surcharge is at 24 billion euros. That’s 250 euros for every household. That’s why citizens are now looking at green energies far more critically.

And support will decrease when the costs rise further, when industry moves to regions where energy prices are more affordable, and when grid stability is no longer controllable due to the unstable supply from wind and sun.

No wonder economics minister Sigmar Gabriel sees the transition to renewable energy as on being on the brink of failure. Why are we installing in a country that gets as much sunshine as Alaska a photovoltaic capacity of 52,000 MW? Many systems are working only 800 full hours per year. But one year has 8760 hours! In the meantime we are producing at times so much green power that we have to pay money Austria, Netherlands, Poland and the Czech Republic to get rid of it for us. Our neighbors aren’t even happy about it because the surplus unwanted German green energy is making their own power production unprofitable.”

Continue reading [in German] at topagrar.com


Alexander Zaitchik Of Media Matters Completely Botches Story, Gets Every Fact Wrong

By Die kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

On July 7, 2014, at the blog ‘Media Matters for America‘ appeared an article by Alexander Zaitchik on the 9th International Climate Conference in Las Vegas titled: Climate Denial Goes Vegas.

Among other things, the focus was to shine a bad light on the speakers and to portray them as paid hacks of the coal industry. But this flopped. Just take a look at Zaitchik’s part on Sebastian Lüning:

Sebastian Luning

Day Job: Senior geologist with the oil and gas company RWE Dea in Hamburg; Co-author of Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun), which argued climate change is the result of solar flares and cycles.

Industry Ties: Heartland Institute. His co-author on The Cold Sun was Fritz Vahrenholt, CEO of his energy firm.

Climate Expertise: None

(1) Lüning has been not been working for RWE Dea since 2012.

(2) In our book Die kalte Sonne / The Neglected Sun, we argue that also CO2 plays a role, but has a significantly lower climate sensitivity than what is claimed by the IPCC. This “complexity” likely was too much for Alexander Zaitchik to grasp.

(3) Lüning did not receive any speaking fee from the Heartland Institute for his presentation in Las Vegas. Moreover the speakers who came to Vegas did so because they saw deficits in the public climate discussions and wished to bring the debate back onto a scientifically sound basis. Lüning also does not receive any financial compensation for his time-consuming daily blog work. Here asserting the “paid hack” theory is absurd.

(4) Zaitchik completely left out the fact that Vahrenholt was the CEO for a RENEWABLE energy company.

(5) Lüning has no climate expertise? Dr. Lüning is a geologist, a field that is an integral component of the climate science and that unifies a number of natural sciences. Moreover, Lüning has published a number of papers that examined sea level rise, the oxygen content of the oceans, and biological productivity, among other topics.

With such a sloppily researched essay, Alexander Zaitchik would not have received a grade at a University. The personal veil hiding that he is an IPCC spear carrier is so thin that obviously untalented activists from the very back rows are leading the cause.


Remember The “Very Early Warning Of Next El Niño” Paper By Ludescher? “False-Alarm Rates Below 0.1″!

Very recently the Australian Meteorological Institute issued a bulletin advising that the chance of an El Niño in 2014 had “clearly eased“. And if one were to occur, it was “increasingly unlikely to be a strong event“.

El Nino NOAA

Like this year’s El Niño itself, reliable prediction method remains elusive as ever. Graphic: NOAA.

This of course all flies in the face of multiple recent warnings of a “super El Niño ” being in the works and set to push global temperatures to a new all-time record highs – all coming from leading institutes and experts. Once again these forecasts are turning out to be completely wrong.

Efficient 12 month forecasting scheme”

That the experts are all wrong should be quite surprising because not long ago a team of scientists led by Josef Ludescher, which included climate pope Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber of the renowned Potsdam Institute, published a paper titled: Improved El Niño forecasting by cooperativity detection“, which purported the ability of predicting El Niño events up to one year in advance with high certainty.

The authors announced that they had “developed an approach based on network analysis, which allows projection of an El Niño event about 1 y ahead“, and claiming they can “develop an efficient 12-mo forecasting scheme” and “achieve some doubling of the early-warning period”.  Moreover they added:

Our method is based on high-quality observational data available since 1950 and yields hit rates above 0.5, whereas false-alarm rates are below 0.1.”

Today we know that the probability of the heavily ballyhooed super El Niño occurring this fall has been evaporating rapidly. What happened? In climate science it often seems that the “0.1 chance” of something not happening in reality occurs 90 percent of the time.

The very same authors followed with another paper earlier this year appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences titled: “Very early warning of next El Niño“. The abstract this time stated that already in September 2013 they had been forecasting “the return of El Niño in late 2014 with a 3-in-4 likelihood”.

At the online Austrian news agency pressetext.at here, lead author Ludescher is even quoted saying:

Compared to the previous approaches, our methods offer very clear advantages: Firstly we reach a very high rate of accuracy and secondly prognoses can be made for a time period of up to one complete year.”

Note how the author had been quite convinced by the new “unique avenue” for predicting El Niño events well in advance.

But now that this year’s projected El Nino is failing to show up, maybe the scientists had indeed been a little too optimistic with their one-year forecast.

Even the 2-month forecasts are failing!

Maybe a forecast a whole year in advance is asking for too much. But surely the new Ludescher method at least should yield much better results for the much shorter 2-month forecast. After all, if it’s 76% accurate one year in advance, it really ought to be 90% or better for a measly 2 months ahead. Here as well it’s turning out that climate scientists are unable to get the El Niño forecast correct for just 2 months in advance, never mind an entire year! At his KlimaLounge blog, for example, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote here in May warning that a powerful El Niño was on the march, and used a graphical animation to “impressively show” the development. Today that “powerful El Niño” also is no longer in any discussion.

So even the 2-month forecasts are unreliable. Scientists are baffled once again.

Also a look back at Real Climate here is worth a read: They wrote that this year’s El Niño had only a “2 in 10 chance” of fizzling.

El Niño to send “world climate off the rails”

Back in May, citing experts at NOAA, the Climate Prediction Center (CDC) and the International Research Institute (IRI) for Climate and Society, German online Die Welt here wrote: “The world climate could go off the rails over the coming months” and that the probability of an El Niño occurring in fall and winter were 80%.

To his credit, Die Welt journalist Joachim Müller-Jung added that we’ve heard such predictions before:

Also in 2012 they calculated that there was a more than 70 percent chance an El Niño would occur. The anomaly fizzled with hardly a murmur or fanfare.”

Again, in climate science the improbable has a way of occurring far more more often than not. Many scientists are merely shooting in the dark. Clearly there is still a lot they still do not understand at all about the climate.


Divergence Between Model Temperature And Reality Reaches Record High…And Is Now Accelerating!

When it comes to the climate debate, everyone knows that it really all boils down to how much is man’s impact. It has nothing to do with whether climate is changing or not. It always has.

The core question is how accurate are the climate models and are they really accurate enough to use for policymaking?

Skeptics have long argued that the models use a climate sensitivity for a doubling of Co2 that is much too high…even preposterously high. The alarmists, on the other hand, insist that it isn’t, and that the models are pretty much on target. Now that climate models have been making predictions for well over 15 years, we now have enough data to make a preliminary call.

If the models are right, then the observed temperature should be following the trend predicted of the ensemble of models. But if the two trends are diverging, then the models are inaccurate and should be revamped. C3 Headlines here has posted a chart comparing observed (blue) to model trend (red):

 Chart comparing model projections to observed temperature. The last few months have shown a record divergence. Chart: C3 Headlines.

As the above chart shows, the divergence between modeled temperature and observed is setting new records with every passing month. The divergence for the 36-month moving average is now at about 0.35°C, already an embarrassment for the climate modellers.

Even more stunning, the rate of divergence using the second order fitted trends shows that the models are performing even far worse than we thought. Rather than depicting a steady divergence, the curves show that the divergence is actually accelerating!

The following shows what the divergence will look like in about 10 years time should the current observed trend continue, i.e. a slight warming:

Divergence 10 years out_2

Extrapolating about 10 years out. By 2025, the divergence will be 0.6°C (and even more if the earth cools, which many scientists are projecting).

What does this all mean? Should the trend continue over the next decade or so, the error will be greater with each passing year, and it won’t be long before it’s glaring. Even the trickiest graphic layouts and chart manipulations soon will not be able to hide the gaping difference.

So even if the current decade manages to be a little warmer than the last, the model error will still be sticking out more than ever.

Time is truly on the side of the skeptics. For the alarmists, it is running out – fast!


Climate False-Alarmism Reaches New High…Australian Met Institute Confirms “Chance Of El Niño In 2014 Has Clearly Eased”!

Earlier this year the media were overflowing with reports about how a “super El Niño” was shaping up and that it could be a powerful one, so powerful in fact that it would make 2015 “very likely to become the hottest year on record by far.” Read for example posts by noted climate end-of-world theorists/cheerleaders Joe Romm, Andrew Freedman, Stefan Rahmstorf, Live Science

Today German blog site Die kalte Sonn here brings us up to speed on the “super El Niño” topic. To sum it up, once again predictions by leading “experts” have turned out to be completely wrong. Call it climate false-alarmism.

Australian Meteorological Institute sees little chance of an El Nino in 2014
By Frank Bosse
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

In mid May we reported here on developments in the tropical Pacific and directed attention to a possible El Niño, but left out the use of vocabulary such as “wreak”, “catastrophe” and “chaos”. But other German media outlets didn’t hold back:

Focus 24 February 2014: Global climate problem: Floods, hurricanes, droughts– this is what El Niño has done
FAZ am 12 May 2014: Warming and weather chaos: “El Niño” is taking off
Neue Zürcher Zeitung: «El Niño» could lead to chaos

And also one or the other followers of alarmism were hoping the heat from the ocean would finally end the observed global temperature stagnation.

Already in early June 2014 we warned here at our blog that the probability of an El Niño was less than what the models had been projecting. On 29 July 2014 the Australian Meteorological Institute announced at their website that the probability of an El Nino developing in the near future was greatly reduced:

Despite the tropical Pacific Ocean being primed for an El Niño during much of the first half of 2014, the atmosphere above has largely failed to respond, and hence the ocean and atmosphere have not reinforced each other. As a result, some cooling has now taken place in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, with most of the key NINO regions returning to neutral values. While the chance of an El Niño in 2014 has clearly eased, warmer-than-average waters persist in parts of the tropical Pacific, and the (slight) majority of climate models suggest El Niño remains likely for spring. Hence the establishment of El Niño before year’s end cannot be ruled out. If an El Niño were to occur, it is increasingly unlikely to be a strong event. Given the current observations and the climate model outlooks, the Bureau’s ENSO Tracker has shifted to El Niño WATCH status. This means the chance of El Niño developing in 2014 is approximately 50%, which remains significant at double the normal likelihood of an event. El Niño is often associated with wide scale below-average rainfall over southern and eastern inland areas of Australia and above-average daytime temperatures over southern Australia. Similar impacts prior to the event becoming fully established regularly occur. The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) index has been below −0.4 °C (the negative IOD threshold) since mid-June, but needs to remain negative into August to be considered an event. Model outlooks suggest this negative IOD is likely to be short lived, and return to neutral by spring. A negative IOD pattern typically brings wetter winter and spring conditions to inland and southern Australia.

The “missing heat” (as the temperatures have stood still since the start of our new millennium and thus are no longer in harmony with the pretty models…) now also appears nowhere to be found in the water. Keep searching!

Figure: The eastern Pacific has cooled over the last month. Bad news for the El Nino. Source: bom.gov.au

Renewable Energy Mega-Flop! Germany’s Largest Offshore Wind Park Hasn’t Delivered Any Power Since March!

Online engineering news magazine Ingenieur.de here writes how Germany’s largest offshore wind park, Bard 1, hasn’t delivered any power since March due to “baffling faults” in the power transmission system.

Bard 1_Foto_Bard

Germany’s largest offshore wind park hasn’t delivered any power since March…due to baffling technical problems. Photo: Bard

The sub-heading states:

Baffling faults in the transmission systems have shut down Germany’s largest wind park in the North Sea. Since March experts have been searching for the bugs in the unreliable electrical technology, with no success up to now.”

Eighty 5 MW turbines sitting idle

Experts believe the problem could be in the HVDC transmission, which could be fault-prone. Ingenieur.de writes that the mega-sized wind park Bard 1 consists of 80 units 5-MW turbines. The immense losses incurred due to the shutdown with each passing aren’t difficult to fathom.

Ingenieur.de adds that the engineers don’t appear to be anywhere close to a long-term solution:

Up to now no one knows the cause of the transmission problems. The windpark hasn’t been delivering any power since March.”

The engineering magazine writes that the power generated offshore by the 80 turbines first flows to a collector station, where it is transformed to 380,000 volt AC power and sent to the BorWin 1 Platform before being sent onshore as 150,000 volts HVDC. Ingenieur.de writes: “However, this is not functioning.”

If the problem is indeed rooted in the HVDC technology, then Germany’s dream of supplying its demand with wind power will be in serious jeopardy. Ingenieur.de writes that should this be the case, “then the complete concept of the power providers, producers, grid operators and the German government is in danger.

Poorly engineered

Ingenieur.de writes, however, that it is unlikely that the problem has to do with the HVDC technology, as it is successfully being used all over the world. The engineering magazine believes the problems likely stem from the technology that is placed just before the HVDC platform, which “was designed by Bard itself, and not by an experienced company like ABB, Siemens or General Electric.” (One can almost sense the schadenfreude).

Ingenieur.de notes that Bard is now financially insolvent, and that in the meantime grid operator TenneT is scrambling to find a solution, hoping the faults will be rectified in August.

Anyone following Germany’s man-on-the-moon-scale offshore windpark project will tell you that it is currently quite a huge mess. So much so that things can only get better.

German Meteorologist Dominik Jung: Climate Experts’ Forecasts Changing As Fast As The Weather!

Jung_TwitterMeteorologist Dominik Jung is sort of Germany’s (younger) version of America’s Joe Bastardi. Like Joe, he also runs his own private weather forecasting company and site, wetter.net, which serve agriculture, industry and the public.

Photo: Twitter

And as any serious meteorologist knows, success depends almost entirely on product quality, i.e. forecast accuracy. There’s absolutely no room for politicized science here.

Jung is quoted and featured regularly by Germany’s mainstream media.

This summer Germany and much of Central Europe have seen a spate of severe thunderstorm activity, and as a result many are asking if this might not be an ominous sign of global climate change.

Again Dominik Jung reminds us that the recent weather is nothing new, and even implies that the prognoses made by “climate experts” seem to change as quickly as the weather itself (translated with permission):

Weather: Storms in Germany: Is that the climate change?

Wiesbaden (wetter.net), 30 July 2014 – Storms in the summer are nothing unusual. The same is so with variable weather during Central European summers. This is entirely typical.

In 2003 scientists announced droughts for summers

There is also no data confirming that the number of storms has increased over the past years. However we have been able to determine that the single storms have become a little more severe with regards to their strength.

That there have been storms so often this July is pure coincidence. July 2013 was the exact opposite; it was too dry and rarely were there thunderstorms. Now after having seen the thunderstorms of the past few days, we are already once again hearing the first climate prognoses announcing that extreme downpours will continue to rise over the next years.

That’s weird: After the driest and hottest summer of all time in 2003, the climate experts all assumed summers would become drier and drier – the talk was even about drought.

Slowly we have to start asking ourselves what follows what: The climate follows the prognoses, or the prognoses the climate? The current stormy weather appears to be a welcome opportunity for some climate experts to shift the focus back to climate change - with the aim of acquiring more research money.

Dominik Jung
Meteorologist and chief editor at wetter.net”