A Hell Week For Global Warming Alarmists: Crumbling Consensus, Inconvenient Data And Policy Rejection

It hasn’t been a good week for the global warming alarmists. Three events have rocked the movement and caused alarmists to go into a state of alarm.

Putin calls global warming “a fraud”

The first event Russian President Vladimir Putin, who used to play along with the issue, has come out and called global warming science “a fraud“, one that is “designed to restrain industrial development“. According to the New York Times, Putin’s skepticism is based on Russian scientists having done “very, very extensive work trying to understand all sides of the climate debate” and that it is “clear that the climate is a complicated system” and that “the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded.”

NASA satellite measurements refute preposterous PIK models

The second event is described at the Swiss online daily Tagesanzeiger which presents a vivid example as to why people like Putin don’t believe the wild climate alarmism: There’s a huge chasm between the scary model projections coming from “leading” climate institutes and the real observations themselves.

The Swiss daily begins by writing that the Germany-based Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) projects that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could “rapidly disintegrate” and cause sea levels to rise 3 meters, all based on “their own model simulations“, which incorporate “feedback effects“. The Tagesanzeiger writes, however, that the PIK was unable to provide “a reason for the loss of stability in West Antarctica“. The Swiss online daily in effect presents a PIK theory that is fraught with assumptions, and is ultra-lean on recorded data.

To illustrate that there is a total lack of consensus with respect to Antarctica, the Tagesanzeiger brings up the latest NASA study by Zwally et al, citing Breitbart: “Antarctica is not shrinking – it is growing”, and writes that the NASA study “completely contradicts” the PIK model projections. The Tagesanzeiger continues:

A satellite survey by NASA tells a different story. It contradicts a number of other studies, which are mostly based on rough estimations and assumptions.”

Poland refuses to ratify Kyoto treaty in Paris

The third set of bad news to come out over the past week is that Poland’s new president, Andrzej Duda, refuses to extend the UN Kyoto Treaty until 2020 and that this “blocks the ratification process” just a month before the UN climate summit in Paris (COP21). Duda is requesting “a more detailed analysis of the climate matter“, writing in a statement:

Binding Poland to an international agreement that will affect Poland’s economy and the therein connected social costs should require a detailed analysis of the legal and economic impacts. These impacts have not been sufficiently explained.”

Greenpeace Poland called Duda’s announcement a “bad sign” threatens to stall Europe’s movement on emissions limitation. Let’s hope!

Asia moves ahead with coal power plant expansion

Also the news tell us that many, especially poorer, developing countries aren’t taking PIK climate science seriously at all. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation here writes that “in Asia alone this year power companies are building more than 500 coal-fired plants, with at least a thousand more on planning boards.”


Siesta Energy…Germany’s 40 Gigawatts Of Installed Wind Capacity Habitually Fails To Report To Work!

We already know that solar energy refuses to show up for work at night and also for the most part when it’s cloudy or wintertime. Green energy proponents like to tell us that when the sun is AWOL, we can always switch to wind. The wind, after all, is always blowing somewhere, they like to tell us. Unfortunately that is so far from the truth.

The following chart shows Germany’s wind energy output (shaded blue) over the past 7 days compared to the power consumed (curve). As one can see, the country’s 40 GW of installed capacity has gone into the habit of taking afternoon siestas, right when power demand is at a high, delivering a sorrowful a pittance.

Wind_Siesta_Nov 2015

Germany’s 40 GW of installed wind power capacity took afternoon siestas 4 times over the past 7 days (marked yellow). So far this month German wind power has failed to deliver even 10% of its rated capacity. Chart source: Agora.

Yesterday early afternoon the 40 GW of installed capacity managed to deliver a puny 0.168 GW, or only 0.4% of its installed rated capacity. That’s like 4 people showing up for work in a company of 1000 employees.

According to Wikipedia here, Germany’s wind turbines have barely put out over just 17% of their installed rated capacity over the period of 2001 – 2013. But that’s the least of wind’s problem. The big headache is the energy’s unpredictability and its wildly fluctuating supply. Often the wind blows when you don’t need the power, or it just doesn’t show up when you could really use it, like midday. Good thing that there are still the reliable coal, nuclear and fossil plants on line.

But the energy can be stored! Wrong. The technology for the scale of storage that is needed to keep a grid running smoothly does not exist. and there are no signs that it will anytime soon. Yet the mad rush to install the siesta-prone energy continues unabated.


Renewables Flop: Former Harvard Professor Gives Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ A Grade Of “D” …In A “Deadend”!

Risky Energiewende

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning und Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Konrad Kleinknecht is a professor of experimental physics and researched at the universities of Heidelberg, Dortmund, Harvard, Mainz and Munich. His publications in the fields of high-energy physics have been awarded top prizes, among them the Leibniz-Prize of the DFS, the Energy Prize of the European Physical Society and the Stern Gerlach Medal of the Germany Physical Society (DPG).

Kleinknecht has thoroughly examined the German Energiewende (transition from fossil fuels and nuclear energy over to renewables) and given the project an overall grade of “poor”.

In his book Risky Energiewende: The way out of the deadend he presents his analysis to the public. In the book’s description we find:

The exit from the use of nuclear power in Germany was decided at a frantic speed in the summer of 2011. Now we are realizing that there is no realistic plan for revamping the energy supply within the set timeframe of ten years. For revamping the entire electricity supply, and with it the economy, the time period is too short. Missing are the solid empirical grounds on which the questions of energy supply reliability, financial feasibility, the impacts on the economic development and social justice are examined. Thus the Energiewende risks failing due to its contradictions. Even the responsible federal minister for economics and energy, Sigmar Gabriel, said in April 2014: ‘The truth is that the Energiewende is on the verge of failure.’

In his book Konrad Kleinknecht attempts to name the problems and to provide the answers. For him the following questions remain: What possibilities do we have to replace a part of the energy supply with wind power and solar energy? Which sources of electricity offer a reliable supply? Can we do without coal power? Do we need new national power transmission lines? How can we store electric energy? How high is the risk of a blackout during nights when the wind is still? Will electricity prices keep rising? With a fundamental reform of the EEG renewable energy feed-in act, is it still possible to avert the huge risks of the Energiewende?

The energy supply must serve the common good and be beneficial for Germany as an industrial nation. A blackout would be a catastrophe for the entire country, and it must be avoided under all circumstances. The author tells us how this can be achieved in his book.”

The German language book Risiko Energiewende: Wege aus der Sackgasse is available at Amazon for €19,99.

Greens In Denial: Health Impacts From Wind Turbines Are Real – And Not “In People’s Heads”

The following video is really worth taking the time to watch.

It explains clearly how very low frequency sound waves (infrasound) from wind turbines have an adverse effect on some people, making them feel ill.

Like the motion sickness that people experience in a car, plane or boat, infrasound sickness results from “sensory conflict” in the central nervous system (CNS).

Hat-tip: Wolfgang Neumann at FB.

Sensory conflict is when two or more of your senses disagree with each other with respect to your own personal motion. For example when on a boat the inner ear and the sense of touch perceive motion, but your visual system does not. This “sensory conflict” can make some people get ill.

The middle ear and touch of course sense motion by detecting changes in pressure. When you walk, for example, your head bobs up and down, and moves back and forth in rhythm, and the inner ear registers the pressure changes of -0.12 Pa to +0.12 Pa as the head accelerates and decelerates. Your feet (touch) sense the pressure changes, and your eyes perceive the motion as well – so everything agrees and so you do not get sick.

The problem with wind turbines is that they create low frequency infrasound with a frequency of under 20 Hz, which is a cyclic barometric pressure change in the air that gets sub-consciously registered by the inner ear. As a result the brain is fooled into thinking that the body is in motion, when in fact it is not. Sensory conflict is the result and it leads some people to feel ill.

Known back in 1985

Scientific tests confirm the phenomenon: some people are sensitive to infrasound and the sickness linked to wind turbines is real. In 1985 psychology professor David Nussbaum at NASA exposed people to infrasound in an enclosed cabin for 30 minutes as part of an experiment. The result: 15% of the people felt the onset of motion sickness. Now imagine being subjected to the low frequency non-stop for days, which can be the case for wind turbines. Little wonder that some people get extremely sick.

It turns out that the tested subjects responded to the steady, symmetrical waves, and not the random-type asymmetrical waves (see 8-minute mark). Wind generators produce constant symmetrical waves. And the bigger the turbine, the more powerful the infrasound wave. Yet today a number of government officials and green activists refuse to acknowledge these well-known findings and ignore the impacts wind parks are having on the health of people living near them. They continue permitting their installation.

And let’s also not forget the blighted landscape they create.


German Nutritionist Exposes UN Junk-Science-Based Meat/Cancer Link …”Intimidation Of The Public”

Udo Pollmer neuProminent German nutritionist Udo Pollmer (photo right), a frequent guest of the media on issues concerning food, recently commented on and dismissed here the UN’s latest claim that especially processed meats cause colon cancer and red meats show a strong link.

Background here.

In the deutschlandradiokultur.de segment Pollmer first says that the science in the report is difficult to judge because the study has not been yet made open to the public. He adds, however, that the old playbook seems to be at work: create a lot of publicity and later should it turned out to be wrong, all will be forgotten. “This alone shows that it has little to do with scientific truth.”

Based on a mere 27 studies, not 800!

First the meta-analysis did not involve 800 studies, as the media all trumpeted. Pollmer says:

As by coincidence along with the WHO, also US epidemiologists assessed the global database: and they found only 38 studies that fulfilled the minimum criteria. From that after excluding parallel publications only 27 remained.”

As a result Pollmer writes that the UN meta-analysis is fundamentally inconclusive. Pollmer adds that the collection of the data based on questionnaires from many different countries is unreliable because the subjects themselves did not even know what was in the meat products.

Another problem Pollmer sees with the WHO study is that the study focused only on colon cancer rates, and not the overall rate of all cancers.

How can we know if sausage is cancer-causing, or perhaps even reduces the overall cancer rate?”

Pollmer says the correct way to conduct the study would be to put a group on a high meat diet and another on a very low meat diet. Such a study does not exist for meat, but does so with plant fiber. He writes:

By the administration of wheat bran, the number of adenomas (non-cancerous tumors] (the precursors for cancer) in the colon increased.”

Pollmer feels that the WHO is singling out processed meats in an attempt to label them the villain and that the organization is using the word “cancer” to “intimidate the public”.

At the end Pollmer asks: if meat were bad for humans, over the past 4 million years of evolution would it not have long since removed those who had eaten it?

Of course the meat eaters are here today, and instead it appears that the vegans were the ones who were naturally selected. Today they are making a comeback, but only thanks to modern food production technology and mass availability.

As for the rest of us who are concerned about remaining healthy, eat fatty meat, and especially food products made from the organs!

Photo credit: EULE.


Prophet Of Climate Doom Schellnhuber Warns Planet Is “In The Race Of Its Life” …”Moon Stations On Earth”!

Spiegel 31 Oct 2015This week’s print edition of Der Spiegel features an interview with Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, the Director of the climate doomsday Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), and advisor to Pope Francis.

Hat-tip: Reader Stefan B.

8°C of warming

When asked if society is headed for trouble, Schellnhuber warns that if we continue burning fossil fuels as before, then “we will end up with 4 or even 8°C of warming” and that “we will find ourselves in an extremely dangerous world“.

Only 20% chance humanity will save itself

In the interview he says that “on bad days I get really depressed” and that humanity finds itself in the “race of its life“. He tells Spiegel that the planet is going to take some hard hits, but that it still isn’t too late to avert total damage. Throughout the interview Schellnhuber’s pessimism at time takes on weird, surrealistic dimensions. In his book, Spiegel writes, Schellnhuber sees only a 20% chance the world will succeed in putting the brakes on climate change.

State must intervene

In the interview Schellnhuber harshly criticizes the UN climate process, describing the conferneces as Kafkaesque events that keep postponing the rescue of the world. He says we have to wonder “if there is any intelligent life on the planet“.

He sees little chance of curbing the fossil fuel industry quickly enough, yet holds out hope that divesting from fossil fuel companies might do the trick:

If for example some influential investors pulled their money out of the coal, oil and gas industry because they felt it no longer had a future, then we would get an avalanche dynamic that could cause the old system to quickly implode on itself.”

Wow! And all the human casualties resulting from that scenario be damned, Schellnhuber seems to be saying.

Throughout the interview Schellnhuber calls on the state to use its might to massively intervene in the free market and industry, e.g. especially the automotive industry. He hopes that governments will soon require carmakers to meet punishingly high emission standards and in this way force them to produce electric cars instead.

In the interview Schellnhuber tells Spiegel that (when he isn’t flying all over the world to places like Australia in a jet) he gets around in an i3 by BMW. Sounds pricey. He tells Spiegel he wonders why people still drive the dirty cars powered by combustion engines.

Worse than thought 5 or 10 years ago

When asked if scientists have been too shrill with their warnings and if he is perhaps being too alarmist, Schellnhuber responds:

Precisely because I, as an expert, know that we have very little time to stop a global tragedy, I have to raise my voice. […] Unfortunately the situation looks more dramatic than what we perceived it to be five or ten years ago.”

Here Schellnhuber claims already the West Antarctic Peninsula has already begun to collapse.

When asked if he tends to jump on the alarmist prognoses that suit his concept regarding storm frequency, Schellnhuber denies that he does, but adds, “but my physical intuition tells me that storms, especially in connection with thunderstorms, will be more severe all over the world if more energy gets pumped into the atmosphere. Nature will decide who is right.”

Schellnhuber also tells Spiegel he does not see any global temperature pause whatsoever in the temperature datasets. But he does admit the globe cooled for awhile after 1945 and that no one knows why.

Moon stations on earth

At the end of the interview Schellnhuber piles on the global warming doom hyperbole, warning that a world that is 7 or 8 degrees warmer will be almost uninhabitable and that “we will be building moon stations on earth“, citing today’s Persian Gulf and its completely artificially climatized urbanization – and with “bizarre medical consequences“. He adds:

Even though in Abu Dhabi where the sun shines the whole year, the residents there suffer from a massive lack of exposure to light. Nowhere else on earth are there so many people with vitamin D deficiency, which leads to rickets and other things.”

At 65, it’s time for Schellnhuber to also have himself checked for possible Vitamin deficiencies, and to go into retirement. He’d do science a big favor.

Image: Cropped from Spiegel October 31, 2015 print edition.


Germany October 2015 Almost 2°C Below Climate Model Projections! …0.8°C Colder Than 1981 – 2010 Mean

Germany’s DWD national weather service now presents the preliminary weather results for October 2015 in Germany, a region that finds itself in the middle of Europe.

Like September, also October is coming in cooler than normal, i.e. no sign of climate change. The real fact of the matter is that if it weren’t for all the multibillion-dollar funded hype in the media, nobody would even know that there is any climate change going on. The DWD writes that October was “a bit too cool; a really typical October“.

Typical? Not really. We need to recall that “typical” is hardly what the models say we should be having now. According to the data recorded by Germany’s almost 2000 weather stations, the country’s mean temperature for October 2015 was only 8.4 °C, which is 0.6°C below than the 1961-1990 mean and 0.8°C below the 1981-2010 mean. Climate models on the other hand projected that today’s October mean temperature by now should be some 1.2°C warmer than the mean, i.e. near 10.2°C. That means that October 2015 was in fact close to 2°C below what was expected by models.

It really is now time to start comparing measured observed temperatures to the modeled projections, and not to the mean of some arbitrarily chosen reference period. Obviously October’s observed difference is gaping and the failure of the models is becoming ever more glaring with each passing year.

Along with the cold temperatures, October 2015 in the Vaterland also brought with it snow – down to the flatlands. Moreover the town of Treuen, northeast of Plauen, saw 12 cm of the white stuff. The coldest temperature recorded was -7.5°C at Deutschneudorf-Brüderwiese.

On the 14th of October in the city of Gera the temperature did not even climb above +1°C. The DWD writes that “on this day almost all of the state of Thuringia disappeared under a blanket of snow, where at Weimar-Schöndorf the greatest snow depth of 8 cm was reached”.

Overall in Germany October was the 9th driest on record, and it was 11 percent less sunny than normal. How does this compare to the models? They projected wet and mild falls and winters, and so from a precipitation point of view here too the models are totally off. Well, at least they got the sunshine a little bit right.

Austria more than 1°C colder than model projections

Germany’s southeastern neighbor Austria also came in cooler …0.1°C below the “long-term average”, so reports the Austrian ZAMG national weather service. That means Austria was more than 1°C colder than what the models projected we should have for this time. Strangely the ZAMG writes that since 2000, 124 months were warmer than normal and 66 were too cool. How these months are distributed over the period and what the trend has been since 2000 gets no mention at all. Hmmm. Are they hiding something? Well, at least the DWD’s new website no longer carries the graphic of rising temperatures.

Unlike Germany, Austria saw a very wet and gray month. The ZAMG writes that “it was wetter than average (40 percent more precipitation) and gray (15 precent less sunshine hours)“.

Poland’s President Andrzej Duda Throws Wrench Into Kyoto Treaty Ratification Process, Puts Paris Treaty At Risk!

German site EurActiv.de here reports that Poland’s new president Andrzej Duda refuses to extend the UN Kyoto Treaty until 2020. EurActiv writes this “blocks the ratification process” just a month before the historic UN climate summit in Paris (COP21)”. Duda’s move comes just two days after the victory of his conservative Law and Justice Party in Poland’s parliamentary election.


“Andrzej Duda portret” by Michał Józefaciuk. This file has been extracted from another file: Anna Komorowska Bronisław Komorowski Andrzej Duda Agata Kornhauser-Duda Sejm 2015.JPG.. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 pl via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrzej_Duda_portret.JPG#/media/File:Andrzej_Duda_portret.JPG

According to the EurActiv report, Duda is requesting a more detailed analysis of the matter on climate, writing in a statement:

Binding Poland to an international agreement that will affect Poland’s economy and the therein connected social costs should require a detailed analysis of the legal and economic impacts. These impacts have not been sufficiently explained.”

EurActiv.de explains that the 1992 Kyoto Treaty expired back in 2012 and that a number of countries have yet to ratify an extension. Duda’s party won Poland’s national parliamentary elections just two days earlier in a landmark victory, promising voters that the country’s coal industry would be protected. 90% of Poland’s electrical power is generated by coal. Analysts expect a bumpy ride ahead regarding relations with the EU. The European Union agreed last year to cut greenhouse gases by 40 percent by 2030.

Experts see little chance of preventing Duda’s move. Kamila Pacquel of the Brussels-based Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) AFP wrote the AFP that the new signals coming from Poland “does not help things”.

Greenpeace Poland called Duda’s announcemtn a “bad sign” the could stall Europe’s movement on emissions limitation by the 28 member states.

Also read more at Reuters.


UN Sham Science Reaches New Dimension of Absurdity: Bug Guts/Meat Are Good For Us, But Livestock Meat Is Toxic!

The UN World Health Organization has begun paving the way for steering the global population away from one of nature’s most nutritious foods for the human species: meat from livestock.

Guido Romeo's photo.

Those of us who follow climate science know exactly how the sham works: Select only the studies that support the theory, dismiss all others, and claim the evidence is overwhelming. The latest in the UN sights is meat, a vital human food staple over the last 4 million years.

Photo Matthias Heitmann

The importance of meat in the roughly 4-million year history of the human diet can neither be overstated nor denied. Human brain development is directly traced back to its consumption. Yet global bureaucrats at UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) want to have us believe otherwise and have rolled out their latest sham science. Their latest claims:

1) Processed meat such as bacon and sausages are shown to directly cause cancer.
2) Unprocessed fresh meat is also likely linked to higher rates of cancer.

We’ve seen it all before in climate science: Activist bureaucrats single out something they don’t like (CO2), funnel billions of dollars to whores in white lab coats who in turn produce phony scientific studies to scare the public. This is also how they did it with saturated fats in the 2oth century, and carbon dioxide since the 1980s.

CNN here writes of a reaction to the latest UN findings:

‘They tortured the data to ensure a specific outcome,’ said Betsy Booren, vice president of scientific affairs at the North American Meat Institute.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said the scientists who issued the report were split on their decision to make an explicit link between red meat with cancer.”

The problem with the UN’s findings is that it blames the wrong things for disease. Why does the UN ignore the obvious culprits in our food supply: i.e. plant-based cooking oils and sugar. Recall how in the 20th century animal-based saturated fats used to be used for cooking, but the edible oils industry corrupted both the science and the FDA. Soon followed a tsunami of fraudulent science papers, all blaming saturated fats for heart disease, cancer and metabolic syndrome, and more. Consumers were tricked into switching to a diet rich in carbohydrates and plant based oils. Instead of butter, eggs, cheese and lard, people were told to consume vegetable oils made of rapeseed, cottonseed, sunflower seeds etc. – the very oils that many of us call biodiesel and burn in our cars. Today we have an unprecedented global epidemic of diabetes, cancer and heart disease as a result of the fraud-based nutritional guidelines.

World’s oldest person, 116, has been eating bacon over 100 years

Ironically the world’s oldest person, Susannah Mushatt Jones, 116 years old, swears by bacon owing her longevity to the fatty meat which the UN now labels as a carcinogen. It just cannot get more absurd. Yet it does. There are other studies showing that it is vegetarian diets are in fact more dangerous than meat-eating diets. For example read here and here.

UN bureaucrats lying through their vegan teeth

It’s no secret that the vegetarian and vegan movements are not driven by nutritional science, rather they are in large part driven by environmental and animal rights moralists. It has little to do with what is the most nutritional for us. As was the case with carbohydrates and plant-based oils, global bureaucrats are now laying the foundation for the next future mega health crisis, which will be inevitably brought on by the severe nutritional deficiencies of a meatless diet.

The very bureaucrats who for decades falsely told us to stay away from saturated fats, such as whole butter and cheese, are now telling us to stay away from one of the most fundamental food staples of humans: meat. The bureaucrats are lying through their teeth again.

But bug guts and bug meat are healthy!

So according to the UN what should us humans be eating? The answer: bugs! That’s right, bug guts and bug meat are healthy; but animal meat is carcinogenic.


UN says meat on the left is safe to eat, but bacon on the right causes cancer! Photo left: Toby Hudson, CC BY-SA 3.0

 This is the new dimension of absurdity we are seeing from today’s pathological global bureaucrats.


Geophysical Research Letters Shock Finding: In 2014 More Multiyear Ice Than Previous Nine Years…Arctic Winter 0.5 – 1.5°C Colder!

Has anyone been wondering why we’ve been hearing so little about the Arctic lately?

New study says Arctic to remain frozen for many more years. MODIS image of the Arctic, Jeff SchmaltzNASA Earth Observatory

Reader Dennis A. sent me the following abstract of a new paper by Haas et al: Ice thickness in the Northwest Passage – Haas – 2015 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library. It turns out that the Arctic is far less ice free than many thought or expected just some years ago. So wrong can the models be!

More Arctic ice and up to 1.5°C colder!
Navigable NWP postponed 40 years!

The study finds that in 2014 “more ice survived the summer as MYI than in the nine most recent years” and it was only “slightly less than during 1968–2015 on average (Figure S5)“.

Also “between November 2014 and April 2015, winter air temperatures were between −0.5°C and −1.5°C colder than during 1980–2010.”

Moreover the study also has climate experts profoundly postponing yet another prediction: The Northwest passage will not be navigable for another 40 years…let alone the Arctic becoming ice free!

The entire GRL abstract (emphasis added):

We present results of the first ever airborne electromagnetic ice thickness surveys over the NWP carried out in April and May 2011 and 2015 over first-year and multiyear ice. These show modal thicknesses between 1.8 and 2.0 m in all regions. Mean thicknesses over 3 m and thick, deformed ice were observed over some multiyear ice regimes shown to originate from the Arctic Ocean. Thick ice features more than 100 m wide and thicker than 4 m occurred frequently.

Results indicate that even in today’s climate, ice conditions must still be considered severe. These results have important implications for the prediction of ice breakup and summer ice conditions, and the assessment of sea ice hazards during the summer shipping season.

For further evaluation, it is also important to consider that in Parry Channel, including VMS, i.e., in the waters of the northern NWP, in 2014 more ice survived the summer as MYI than in the nine most recent years but slightly less than during 1968–2015 on average (Figure S5).

Between November 2014 and April 2015, winter air temperatures were between −0.5°C and −1.5°C colder than during 1980–2010 which could have led to slightly thicker level ice than average, notwithstanding snow effects

However, by all means the observed thicknesses and amount of deformed ice still indicate serious ice conditions which can persist throughout the summers and provide ample potential for encounters with hazardous ice. Even in recent years, the CAA remains a source for locally grown MYI and a sink for Arctic Ocean MYI [Howell et al., 2015]; and therefore, shipping through the NWP should not be taken lightly.

These conclusions also support results of Smith and Stephenson [2013] who suggested that the NWP will not become easily navigable for another 40years or so.

In addition, we have observed two ice islands in and south of Byam-Martin Channel in 2011 which were not included in the present analysis. These ice islands originated from the ice shelves along the Arctic Ocean coast of Ellesmere Island, and were between 30 and 40m thick, adding to the variability of hazardous ice features in the NWP.”

German Town Of Gescher Installs 5 Solar Street Lamps That Don’t Work At Night – For 28,000 Euros!

Update: Bernd Felsche points out that it’s only 5 street lamps (and not 9)!

Last time I spoke to common sense, I was told that lights are devices used to shed light – when it’s dark outside. But apparently not any more – at least in one German town. It seems that street lamps there have become devices that are powered by sunlight in the daytime, but don’t work at night (when most people have difficulties seeing). Hat-tip: Wolfgang Neumann at FaceBook.


Solar powered street lamp (example only – not the ones in Gescher). Public domain photo.

German ZDF public television recently had story about how this summer the town of Gescher in the Muensterland region of North Rhine Westphalia installed new solar powered street lamps for the handsome sum of 28,000 euros (roughly $32,000). The 5 lamps are supposed to illuminate a 1500-meter stretch of a bicycle/pedestrian path to make it safe for children on the way to a sports facility.

The don’t work at night when they’re supposed to!

But the ZDF reporter tells us there’s just one small problem with the solar powered streetlamps:

…the new designer lamps have one very decisive disadvantage: When it’s nighttime in Muensterland, the expensive lamps unfortunately remain dark.”

Residents are shaking their heads at the botched investment, calling the project “senseless”, “a waste” and “absurd”.

ZDF tells viewers that during the day the sun was supposed to charge up the street-lamps batteries which in turn would power the lamps at night. But that just doesn’t seem to function. The lamps remain mostly dark at night. One resident comments: “They should just install a sensible line with sensible lamps. But the city just doesn’t listen“.

Gescher burgermeister Thomas Kerkhoff doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about. He defends the installation of the lamps, telling ZDF television:

For the exterior area of our sports facility we wanted to offer our bicycle riders, citizens and children a safe path, and thus five lamps are better than no lamps.”

Better (even if they don’t function).

This is just one example of many of the absurdity that can occur when green madness sweeps over the collective intelligence.


Top Danish Economist Bjoern Lomborg Declares Wind And Solar Energies A “Fata Morgana” …”Powerless And Expensive”!

LomborgThe German online Die Welt here has a commentary on wind energy by Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg. The title of his guest commentary: “Wind energy, powerless and expensive“.

Hat-tip Peter H at Facebook.

Wind and sun energy are often viewed by fossil fuel critics as the go-to green energies. But careful analyses show that these energies are in reality impractical due to their haphazard supply and very poor efficiency. Most wind installations fail to reach 20% of their rated capacities; sun only provides power when it’s daytime and not cloudy. The figures that Lomborg presents are sobering, inconvenient and totally discouraging for wind and sun power proponents.

Citing the International Energy Agency, Lomborg writes so far today only 0.4% of global energy comes from wind and sun, despite the tens of billions of dollars invested in the energy sources. He adds:

Even in 2040, if all governments stick to their promises, sun and wind will cover only 2.2 percent of the world’s energy by 2040.”

Lomborg says that the reason why sun and wind will be “no decisive solution against climate change” is the energies’ inability to be effectively stored. He calls the belief that the energies are cheaper than fossil fuels a “Fata Morgana”.

The problem remains that storage technologies today are cumbersome, horrendously expensive and thus unfeasible. Wind and sun remain a luxury for the rich. Lomborg explains to readers how wind energy are dependent on subsidies, and that without them they make no sense. The Danish star economist points out that not only do wind and sun need subsidies, but now also so do fossil fuel plants so that they can remain on standby when the wind and sun go AWOL. He also says that wind and sun only save about half of the claimed CO2 emissions, and that under some circumstances they actually cause greater emissions.

$131 trillion for 1°C less warming

He writes the planned expansion of green energies by the year 2040 will cost 2.3 trillion dollars and result in only in a mere 0.o175 °C less temperature rise by the end of the century (using the climate forcing figures provided by the climate models).

That means 1°C of theoretical less warming would cost 131 trillion dollars! If there ever was a new definition for insanity, that’s it.

Photo credit: Twitter

Satellite Datasets Show 2015 Not At All Record Year. Are El Nino Years Getting Cooler?

Nonsense…With Gravy On Top!

By wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de
[translated, edited by P. Gosselin]

Only the repeatedly and retroactively falsified datasets of the NOAA/NCDC, NASA/GISS and MetOffice/Hadley/CRU tell us that the global warming continues on. The global warming “pause”has been simply calculated away….

The unaltered (unfalsified) satellite measurements of the lower global troposphere (LT) by RSS and UAH through September 2015 on the other hand show no signs of a new record year since the record year of 1998 and the El Niño year of 2010.

RSS (click to enlarge):

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.” Source: There’s life in the old Pause yet.



UAH-Grafik der monatlichen Temperaturabweichungen der unteren Atmosphäre (LT) zum international üblichen modwernen WMO-Klimamittel 1981-2010 von Dezember 1978 bis September 2015. Quelle:

UAH chart showing lower troposphere (LT 82,5N – 82,5S) temperature deviations compared to the internationally used WMO climate mean for the period 1981-2010; from December 1978 – the start of the satellite era – to September 2015. Source: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

There is nothing concerning either a new record since 1998, nor 2010 nor 2014. This is obvious for anyone who has a healthy meteorological understanding, or…? Also see DMG: the warming trend is uninterrupted! Does nonsense have a new name…?

Even the warming number crunchers at the US NOAA show this at their monthly website, though somewhat hidden away, at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201509 with a conversion calculation of the UAH und RSS datasets to the international usual 1981-2010 WMO climate mean: Here the NOAA still continues to use the warmer values of the older UAH data version www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt, even though in April 2015 a new cooler version vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta3 has been made public…

NOAA-Tabelle der Satellitentemperaturabweichungen von UAH und RSS zum international üblichen modernen WM-Klimamittel 1981-2010 von Januar bis September 2015. Mit Rang 3 und Rang 5 gibt es keinen neuen globalen Wärmerekord in der unteren Erdatmosphäre (LT) im Jahr 2015 mehr. Quelle: wie vor

NOAA table of satellite temperature deviations by UAH und RSS compared to the international usual WMO 1981-2010 climate mean for January to September 2015. At no. 3 and no. 5 there is no global warm record in the lower troposphere (LT) in 2015. Source: here.

Compared to the 1998 record year, 2015, so far through September, the deviation is -0.2°K. and -0.3°K at RSS, i.e. colder. The record 1998 year finished at UAH with a deviation of +0.42°K and at RSS +0.45 K. Compared to the current level of +0,30°K at UAH and +0.22°K at RSS, the last three months of this year would have to be higher every month to offset the -0.12°K at UAH and -0.23°K at RSS in order to break the record 1998 year.

Could it be that the “IPCC” does not stand for “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” but rather stands for “International Political Climate Clowns”?

It’s only a question concerning the climate circus, whose show travels the globe every year in a climate friendly and low cost manner.


ENSO Analysis: 2015/16 Europe Winter Has 78% Chance Of Being Normal Or Colder Than Normal!

There’s been a lot of talk in the Internet about this year’s coming winter with some sites warning it could be the coldest in 50 years, or extremely too warm. Predictions, predictably, have been all across the board.

Last week German weather site donnerwetter.de here jumped into the fray and presented its 2015/16 winter outlook for Germany: likely colder than normal. The site writes.

At first glance the El Niño weather phenomenon has no influence on winter weather in Germany. The weather data on this are just too ambiguous.

With one up-close study of the various climate conditions during an El Niño, two patterns appear, which however are indeed connected to the conditions in Europe.

According to Professor Jin-Yi Yu of the Department of Earth System Science of the University of California at Irvine, under a central El Niño we have to expect colder weather conditions due to blocking highs in Europe during the winter. The probability of westerly-wind-dominated winters tends to be minimal. There is a 78% probability of a normal or colder than normal winter. This was the case in the years 1995/1996 and 2009/2010.”

Here Professor Jin-Yi Yu is referring to one of two types of El Ninos, which he describes here.

It has to be pointed out that conditions this year are different than during past El Niños. Foremost the Northeast Pacific now has uncharacteristically high sea surface temperatures and no one here is sure what impact this will have. Joe Bastardi often points out that such warm regions of water lead to the formation of troughs and ridges in other areas which play a powerful role in setting up seasonal weather patterns. Also ther North Atlantic is very cold.

Donnerwetter also presents its forecast for the winter for each 10-day period in the form of a chart. Here I have very serious doubts that temperature and precipitation can be predicted down to such an accuracy. For example in the middle third of February, Donnerwetter forecasts temperatures to be 2°C colder than normal. Though the site provides good 7-day forecasts, I certainly wouldn’t use their winter forecast chart as any guidance for anything.


German Climate Experts Conference: Antarctica Temperatures Show No Warming Trend In 20th Century!

Helmholtz Center in Germany: Antarctic temperatures show no warming trend in 20th century. Climate models unable to reproduce real temperature development

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated/edited by P Gosselin]

From September 21 – 24, 2015, the 10th Deutsche Klimatagung (German Climate Conference) took place in Hamburg. Along with a number of topics Jochem Marotzke explained to his colleagues that it did not matter how far reality diverged from the modeled temperature curves. This would say nothing about the existing or missing quality of the models. The man is just ingenious.

Another presentation was made by Sebastian Wagner and Eduardo Zorita of the Helmholtz Center in Geestacht, Germany. In it they claimed that the cold phases of the last 2000 years were simply caused by volcanic aerosols, even though weak solar activity would be a far better explanation for these cool periods. Unfortunately the models that are used are unable to show the sun as a driver because the assigned irradiative forcing or the climate forcing of solar activity fluctuations have been intentionally pegged too low.

No warming trend in Antarctica

Problems also in Antarctica: Using temperature reconstructions from climate proxies, there was no warming in the 20th century, according to Wagner and Zorita. To the contrary the models showed a virtual warming, which in reality never existed. The presentation’s abstract states:

Over the southern hemisphere the situation is however more heterogeneous and the model simulation shows no such clear cut changes compared to the northern hemispheric continents. For instance, the change in the GHG concentrations does not lead to a pronounced increase in the temperatures over Antarctica. Here the reconstruction shows quite stable levels also in the 20th century, whereas the simulation shows a similar increase as for the northern hemisphere.”

In other words: The models fail to get a grip on reality.

German View On “Shukla’s Gold”…It Shows There’s “Lots Of Money To Be Made With Climate Alarmism”

A summary of the Shukla affair – The German view.

Generous climate alarmism: Former IPCC lead author took in $750,000 a year promoting climate catastrophe

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated/edited by P Gosselin]

Recently at our site here we reported on some IPCC-friendly scientists who attempted – by using the US Department of Justice – to silence other climate scientists because they merely held different opinions. 20 scientists requested President Barack Obama in a letter to go after climate skeptics for misleading the American people and profiting from it.

At the very top of the list of the signatories was Prof. Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, a former IPCC lead author. Research revealed, however, that over the past years Shukla himself was involved in lucrative business with his climate alarmism. Roger Pielke Jr. found Shukla and his wife had received a half a million US dollars per year from a supposed non-profit organization for a part-time job. Together with his regular annual salary of 250,000 US dollars from the university, climate alarm for the Shukla family was indeed paying off handsonely, details at Climate Depot.

Steve McIntyre looked into the matter as well and found that Shukla’s annual income was in fact even higher – close to a million dollars. Read his article “Shukla’s Gold” at Climate Audit:

Shukla’s Gold
Roger Pielke Jr. recently made the remarkable discovery that, in addition to his university salary from George Mason University (reported by Pielke as $250,000), Jagadish Shukla, the leader of the RICO20, together with his wife, had received a further $500,000 more in 2014 alone from federal climate grants funnelled through a Shukla-controlled ‘non-profit'(Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc.), yielding total income in 2014 of approximately $750,000.

Actually, the numbers are even worse than Pielke thought.

Pielke had quoted Shukla’s 2013 university salary, but his university salary had increased more than 25% between 2013 and 2014: from $250,816 in 2013 to $314,000 in 2014. In addition, the “non-profit” organization had also employed one of Shukla’s children (not reported, but say $90,000); and,

IGES transferred $100,000 from its climate grants to a second corporation controlled by the Shukla family (the Institute for Global Education Equality of Opportunity and Prosperity, Inc.), which in turn transferred $100,000 to an educational charity in Shukla’s home town in India, doubtless a worthy charity, but one that Shukla could have supported from his own already generous stipend.
Over a million dollars in total in 2014 alone.”

Continue reading at Climate Audit.

In the meantime the letter to Barack Obama posted at the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) website – the institution from which Shukla received his extravagant allowance: gone. Did someone suddenly get scared because of the payments and brash activism? Today at the IGES website one only finds an advisory stating that the institute had just been disbanded and that the letter (which had been inadvertently put up) is also gone:

The  letter  that  was  inadvertently  posted  on  this  web  site  has  been  removed. It  was  decided more  than  two  years  ago that the  Institute  of  Global  Environment  and  Society  (IGES) would be  dissolved  when  the  projects  then  undertaken  by  IGES  would  be  completed. All  research projects  by  IGES  were  completed  in  July  2015,  and the IGES  web  site  is  in  the  process  of being  decommissioned.”

More research into the matter then showed, however, that the institute cannot be dissolved at all because recently it received another 4 million US dollars for a new research project from the National Science Foundation. The project is supposed to run until 2017. In the meantime the US Congress has taken an interest in the matter to see just how the 63 million dollars in government grant money, which IGES has received since 2001, is compatible with extreme political activism. Moreover the university must check whether the princely paid part-time job complies to the university regulations.

The attempt to muzzle climate scientists who hold other opinions using the Department of Justice has backfired. If anything is learned from all this, it is that it has become obvious that there’s a lot of money to be made with climate alarmism – which was something that previously had always been kept away from the public.

German Power Grid Network Prices To Jump 4% In Early 2016, Further Straining Poor Households

German climate alarmism and activism website Klimaretter here reports that beginning in January 2016 German power grid prices will go up 4%. The increase was calculated by taking the average of 29 large regional grid operators, the site writes.

In some German regions these costs will rise well into the double-digit range.

For a family of four with a modest annual consumption of 4000 kw-hr, that will mean extra costs of over 13 euros each year. Though that may not sound like much, these costs only represent the grid operating portion of the electricity costs and does not include the other costs such the increasing costs from renewable energy feed-in, conventional power production costs and so on, which are slated to jump once again – in large part due to the inefficient and volatile production of wind and solar power.

Green energy proponents often like to tell the public to stop complaining and to just accept the modest prices increases, mentioning that the costs of power have barely kept up with inflation over the past 20 years, and that power from the 1970s was just as expensive in real terms. But what the greens fail to mention is that the huge costs savings stemming from the massive gains in efficiencies from improved generation technology have not been allowed to be passed on to the consumers.

Many modern products have prices that do not follow inflation at all. One example is computing power. The costs of computing large quantities of data today are a tiny fraction of what they used to cost – thanks to technology leaps. Data crunching that once required room-sized supercomputers 30 years ago costing millions today can be done with a handheld device costing only a few hundred dollars. See the following chart:

"The progress of computing measured in cost per million standardized operations per second (MSOPS) deflated by the consumer price index." (From Figure 1, Nordhaus, 2001)

The progress of computing measured in cost per million standardized operations per second (MSOPS) deflated by the consumer price index.” (From  Nordhaus, 2001, p. 38). From: http://aiimpacts.org/trends-in-the-cost-of-computing/  

Though by no means that extreme, the cost of electricity generation also could have had a similar price development, thanks to technology, had it been allowed. Without all the taxes, surcharges and feed-in act tariffs, electric power today should in fact be only a fraction of the cost that it was 30 years ago, and poor families today would be much better off, and would not see their power being switched off because for them it has become an unaffordable luxury. Read here and here.

The reality today is that poor households are being massively and needlessly burdened.


Autumn Halftime: Central Europe “Record Cold” Shatters DWD Prediction Of “Warm Fall” …Cologne Breaks Cold Record!

German website wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung (WBDGE) here reports some autumn halftime statistics for Central Europe. It turns out that earlier predictions by Germany’s Deutsche Wetterdienst DWD for a warm fall have been shattered so far, just the latest in a string of blunders we’ve been witnessing from the DWD.

The WBDGE site tells us:

After an already cool September, an historic cold wave with snow reaching into the flatland during the first half of October saw mean temperatures in parts of Germany clearly well below the 30-year mean as the following chart shows:”

NOAA-Renalyse der 2m-Temperaturabweichungen zum internationalüblichen modernen WMO-Klimamittel 1981-2010 für Westeuropa und Deutschland. Die verbreiteten blau/lila gefärbten Flächen zeigen die unterkühlten Bereiche für die Zeit vom 1.9. bis 16.10.2015 - also die erste Herbsthälfte - an. Quelle:

NOAA reanalysis of the 2m temperature deviation from the internationally commonly used WMO climate mean of 1981-2010 for western Europe and Germany. The widespread blue and lilac colored surfaces show a cold Western Europe for the September 1 – October 16 period. Source: www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/composites/day/. Hat-tip: WBDGE.

Back in September Germany’s DWD Weather Service had forecast October in Germany to be “warm”. However so far the exact opposite has been the case. This is in part the result of the deeper than expected cold spell that just occurred.

How cold was it? Wetteronline.de here reports that some places saw all-time record lows for the date. The site writes:

On Wednesday winter started at what may be a record early date. At times a blanket of snow formed in the lowlands. At some locations it was colder than ever recorded since temperature records began.

On Wednesday new record low temperatures were set across a large region. In the west the thermometer showed high temperatures of only 5°C. At some locations, such as Cologne and Essen, it was the coldest since records began back in 1881. From Thuringia, across western Saxony, and down into northern Bavaria high temperatures reached only 1 – 3°C.

Björn Alexander blames 2015 cold on 2012 Arctic ice extent!

Comically the unexpected extreme cold had parts of the German media scrambling to explain it, blaming it all global warming. For example meteorologist Bjorn Alexander of German NTV public television site here said the cold was due to the widespread Arctic ice cap melt – of 2012! NTV tells its readers:

Why such cold days in times of climate change? As absurd as it may sound: Especially because of global warming Europe will see record breaking cold more often. That is increasingly so because of greater ice melt in the Arctic. Models show: The less sea ice there is in the Arctic, the more probable it is that a high forms up there and brings cold to Europe.”

The link he provides, however, takes the reader to the 2012 record low sea ice extent, and not this year’s sea ice extent – which is now close to a 10-year high for this time of the year. Alexander also seems to be unaware that the models he refers to were slapped together by red-faced PIK scientists after the cold winters began hitting Europe back in 2009. These models have since been dismissed by a number of scientists and meteorologists

Temperatures in Central Europe are expected to moderate in the days ahead. However, recent GFS models show that winter maybe returning by the end of the month. See here.

Now Dawning On The Washington Post: Scientific Consensus Not Worth The Paper It’s Printed On

A few days ago the online Washington Post here had an excellent feature story by Peter Whorisky on the long-held belief that food products rich in saturated fats, like whole milk, were a risk to human health. It turns out that this decades-long belief, once backed by a “overwhelming consensus” among scientists, is now appearing to have been mortally wrong.

Science lied, people died

Unfortunately it took the science decades to realize it and government agencies responsible for issuing dietary guidelines still aren’t yet prepared to move to revamp the dietary guidelines as necessary. Meanwhile tens of millions worldwide have died prematurely of protracted, horrible deaths stemming from them following the faulty nutritional guidelines.

Five decades long nutritional scientists, every medical institution, among them the American Heart Association and the Academy of Sciences, all touted the high carb, low-fat diet. And five decades long they were wrong. It took a global epidemic of diabetes and heart disease to get the message across. And finally the media are catching up – though grudgingly: Whorisky pretty much keeps the focus on whole milk only, and away from meat, eggs and other healthy foods we have been told not to eat.

The WaPo writes:

Scientists who tallied diet and health records for several thousand patients over ten years found, for example, that contrary to the government advice, people who consumed more milk fat had lower incidence of heart disease.”

Why the focus only on milk? Why not on meat, eggs, bacon and other sources rich in animal fat? If your are going to admit you were wrong, then do it slowly and hope it doesn’t blow up.

The new medical and nutritional findings are not only a huge embarrassment for the government and medical institutions, but may also be a huge dilemma for the media’s much beloved environmental movement, which long has been touting granola-munching diets as a sustainable way to nourish humans. A renewed shift to animal products is not exactly the direction the planet-saving vegans and environmentalists want us to be on.

According to Marcia Otto, assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Texas:

 What we have learned over the last decade is that certain foods that are high in fat seem to be beneficial.”

Whorisky writes that government bureaucrats are now unsure about how to proceed with revising its dietary recommendations. Suddenly and profoundly changing the long-held guidelines likely is not going to go over well with a public that already distrusts government and could even possibly open the government to lawsuits. At any rate it would be a major blow to credibility.

An interesting aspect of Whorisky’s piece is that the media and governments make it sound like all of this is new stuff. It is not. Decades-long a poorly funded minority of experts insisted that the nutritional science behind the lipid hypothesis had been weak and even faulty, and should never be made into dietary guidelines. But these skeptics were defunded, ridiculed and silenced; their science never saw the light of day. It turns out these skeptics had been right all along.

“Fragile hypothesis” becomes “treatment dogma”

Whorisky brings up the 7-country chart by Ancel Keys, regarded as the scientific foundation of the high-carb/low-fat theory, and makes it sound as if the chart originally was valid and that data from other countries came later on. That was not the case. The truth is that Keys had all the data from the other countries from the get-go but chose not to plot them because doing so would have shown that his beloved fat-theory was rubbish – there was in fact no trend showing that heart disease was related to fat intake. Keyes intentionally cherry-picked, cheated and deceived the public by using only the data points that produced a hockey stick.

From then on his theory morphed into a dogma that would go on to survive almost 6 decades. Unfortunately millions of people would die prematurely because of the guidelines later adopted as a result.

Whorisky writes:

‘The vibrant certainty of scientists claiming to be authorities on these matters is disturbing,’ George V. Mann, a biochemist at Vanderbilt’s medical school wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine. Ambitious scientists and food companies, he said, had “transformed [a] fragile hypothesis into treatment dogma.”

Indeed, the subsequent 40 years of science have proven that, if nothing else, the warning against saturated fats was simplistic.

Although Whorisky tunneled his focus on milk and did not accurately present the work of Ancel Keys and the dissidents who opposed him, his piece is one that was overdue and it represents a major step in getting the government and medical associations to admit that they screwed up massively. In hindsight the affair is turning out to be nutritional malpractice of the most egregious sort.

Incredibly, perhaps with the aim of protecting the interests of its many member cardiologists and other physicians, the American Heart Association still stands behind the junk-science based lipid hypothesis and continues to deny the fact that fat is vital for human health and that refined carbohydrates have been the true American dietary disaster.

Climate science is even worse than “fat” science

The same type of junk science is now occurring with a carbon of another form: atmospheric CO2. Here a new breed of junk scientists are hysterically maintaining that CO2 will cause the earth’s climate system to have a heart attack. Here the science backing up that theory is even worse than that of Ancel Keys.


Evidence Of Water On Mars Supports Svensmark’s Theory Of Cosmic Radiation As A Major Climate Factor

Climate change on Mars – is it analogous to that on Earth?

By Dr. Dietrich E. Koelle
[Translated/edited by P Gosselin]

Fig. 1: Structure of the Milky Way (Wikipedia, NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt)

Drawing conclusions on the development of the Earth’s climate from climate change on Mars would be quite difficult because there is no concrete data from Mars. But it is considerably easier to do this in the opposite direction: The large climate changes on Earth that occurred  cyclically about every 150 million years are traced back to a long-term fluctuation in cosmic ray intensity, or simply the radiation variation as to the various cosmic dust density conditions as the solar system traveled through the spiral arms of our Milky Way galaxy.

It is known that the solar system orbits about the center of the Milky Way every 220 million to 240 million years at a distance of 25,000 to 28,000 light years from the center. The Milky Way’s diameter is roughly 100,000 light years.

These radiation intensity fluctuations repeatedly led to global mean temperature extremes here on Earth that ranged from 0°C (Snowball Earth) to 28°C, which saw palm trees in Antarctica (see Fig. 2).

Earth is currently in the middle of an ice age

Approximately 2.5 million years ago a new large ice age began. It is one that we are not really aware of because we happen to find ourselves in one of the 10,000-year relatively warm but brief interglacial periods, which we call the Holocene.

These roughly 10,000-year interglacials have been occurring about every 100,000 years over the past million years.If these extreme temperature fluctuations occurred due to changes in radiation intensity, then they also had to occur on the other planets of our solar system, for example on Mars.As was the case on Earth, this means that considerably higher temperatures would necessarily been the case there 100 million years ago (also 270 million years ago). These warm conditions would have permitted liquid water to exist on the planet’s surface.

Recently traces of such water have been detected on multiple occasions by NASA.

Fig. 2:  The temperature history of the Earth saw extreme fluctuations between the hot-house and ice age periods. The horizontal axis has a scale of hundreds of millions of years before present.