‘Stalinist Conformity': Swiss Professor Says ‘Young Researchers Forced To Submit To Mainstream Theories’

What the older science generation lacks in science competence, they more than make up for it in arrogance.

US Attorneys General take aim at climate science dissidents

So vulnerable, flawed, and under fire has climate science and other fields become that the only tactic left to defend the disintegrating positions is to use Stalinist measures to suppress dissident views, and even sicking state attorneys general on anyone expressing legitimate doubt – science truth by state legal decree. Also read here.

Kent State massacre John Filo

Horrible memories awakened. Dissidents under fire at Kent State University, Ohio, May 4, 1970. U.S. National Guard killed four students. Photo: John Filo.

Meanwhile in Europe dissident views in a variety of fields, especially climate science, are being suppressed by a power-abusive establishment. Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt report:


Criticizing the mainstream is highly risky: Young scientists forced to conform to established models to avoid putting careers at risk

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

In Weltwoche of 6 April 2016 Prof. Mathias Binswanger was very clear on why young university researchers are quasi forced to submit themselves to the trends of the day, i.e. the overriding mainstream in any particular scientific field:

Mathias Binswanger: ‘The principle is ultimately always the same: Foremost one has to be an often published and often cited figure in his/her scientific field in order to be able to contribute to the ranking of a university. But how does one often publish or become often cited in respected journals of his own field? The most important principles are: Adaptation to the mainstream and do not question any established theories or models. All submitted articles first must go through a peer-review process where champions of the scientific discipline evaluate it. Under these circumstances a young researcher has no option but to go along with the mainstream theories represented in the top journals and to use the empirical processes that are currently in trend. Only in this way does he/she have any chance of having enough publications to make him/herself eligible to be a professor. Through this very kind of pressure to conform applied by top journals is science obstructed rather than promoted.'”

It is hardly necessary to mention that this principle promotes a “Stalinist conformity” with the highly politicized climate sciences for young researchers. typically today mostly only retired professors dare to speak up when it comes to doubt over the supposed imminent climate catastrophe. These professors finally beco0me free to openly express themselves without threats to their careers threatened.


Despite Massive El Nino, Current Decade Still Cooler Than 2001 – 2010 Decade!

Fellow climate blogger Robin Pittwood at the New Zealand-based Kiwi Thinker here brings us up-to-date on how the current 2011 – 2020 decade is doing temperature-wise.

Many readers are aware of a climate bet made with alarmists Rob Honeycutt and Mr. Know-it-all, Dana Nuccitelli. The skeptics bet the current decade would be cooler or the same as last decade – using the RSS and UAH satellite data, and not the made up surface stuff from NASA.

Robin’s latest calculations show that the current decade is (still) slightly cooler than the last one comprising 2001 – 2010.

Of course, as expected, the recent El Nino event closed the gap and will probably even push the current decade to be a bit warmer in the months ahead. The question that remains now is just how strong will the upcoming La Nina be? Will it be strong enough to send the global temperature downward over the next couple of years 2017 – 2019, similar to what we saw back in 2008?

Right now there are a number of indications that this is precisely what is going to happen.

Climate Bet, Mar 2016

Chart: Robin Pittwood, KiwiThinker. Spreadsheet is available here, UAH v6 Beta 5 data is available here, RSS v3.3 data is available here.

Robin writes:

We’re still seeing the effect of the El Nino nudging the green line closer.  Whether the lines cross over, and for how long, is still uncertain.  The El Nino indicators seem to have peaked and are beginning to decline, but as Bob Tisdale described at his blog, ‘Every El Nino is different’.”

So it looks like we are in a very close race, something that according to the alarmists was not supposed to happen. By now this decade was supposed to be a lot warmer. By the end of the decade it’s supposed to be some 0.2°C or 0.3°C warmer.

So even if the warmists did manage to eke out a victory by a few hundredths of a degree, it would be a very hollow one indeed.


Why Climate Science’s Condition Is Terminal …”Science” Has Suffered The Very Same Fatal Disease Before

If you’re looking for an outstanding, powerful analogue that shows the likely future fate of climate science, Ian Leslie (of the Guardian, no less!) has it here. Hat-tip: Mikky

credit union hot sites

The high carb, low-fat science is crumbling with ever accelerating speed and in spectacular fashion. And because climate science was established in the very same way, it too will crumble just as spectacularly.

Ancel Keys = Michael Mann
7-Country Chart = Hockey Stick Chart
Fat = CO2
John Yudkin = Richard Lindzen
US Dietary Guidelines = IPCC
Nina Teicholz = Vincent Gray

Also high carb science is chock full with smears, appeals to consensus, arrogance, vicious attacks, data cherry-picking, politicization, peer-review corruption, fraud, obstinance, naïve simplicity, one-sided funding etc. which we’ve all have come to know so well in climate science.

Outstanding essay on how junk science survived 50 years

Just substitute the above in Ian Leslie’s outstanding “The Sugar Conspiracy” and you will see exactly what will happen to CO2 climate science. It’s going to take another one, maybe two decades. It’s a long read, but worth every word and minute.

And as you will see CO2 climate science is an exact carbon copy of the dietary fat scandal and will certainly suffer the same fate.

Some excerpts:

Leslie on The latest US Dietary Guidelines:

The 2015 edition of the US Dietary Guidelines (they are revised every five years) makes no reference to any of this new research, because the scientists who advised the committee – the most eminent and well-connected nutritionists in the country – neglected to include a discussion of it in their report. It is a gaping omission, inexplicable in scientific terms, but entirely explicable in terms of the politics of nutrition science. If you are seeking to protect your authority, why draw attention to evidence that seems to contradict the assertions on which that authority is founded? Allow a thread like that to be pulled, and a great unravelling might begin.”

On how science progresses:

In a 2015 paper titled Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?, a team of scholars at the National Bureau of Economic Research sought an empirical basis for a remark made by the physicist Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

The researchers identified more than 12,000 “elite” scientists from different fields. […] Searching obituaries, the team found 452 who had died before retirement. They then looked to see what happened to the fields from which these celebrated scientists had unexpectedly departed, by analysing publishing patterns.

What they found confirmed the truth of Planck’s maxim. Junior researchers who had worked closely with the elite scientists, authoring papers with them, published less. At the same time, there was a marked increase in papers by newcomers to the field, who were less likely to cite the work of the deceased eminence. The articles by these newcomers were substantive and influential, attracting a high number of citations. They moved the whole field along.”

On the Internet as an information source:

One of the scientists who called for the retraction of Nina Teicholz’s BMJ article, who requested that our conversation be off the record, complained that the rise of social media has created a “problem of authority” for nutrition science. “Any voice, however mad, can gain ground,” he told me. […]

But in areas where experts have a track record of getting it wrong, it is hard to see how it could be worse. If ever there was a case that an information democracy, even a very messy one, is preferable to an information oligarchy, then the history of nutrition advice is it.”

And rest assured, climate science will show the same.


Spiegel Puts Spotlight On Germany’s “Green Sleaze” … Wind Industry’s “Corruption Of Greens, Environmental Groups, Local Pols…”

The latest hardcopy issue of flagship news magazine Der Spiegel reports how Germany’s green energy revolution has bitterly divided the country’s environmental movement.

Enoch zu Guttenberg, one of Germany’s most prolific environmentalists has become an outspoken critic of wind energy in Germany, and believes children in the future will be able to see Germany’s idyllic landscape only in paintings as developers clear hill-top forests to make way for skyscraper-size industrial wind turbines.

Guttenberg, a symphony conductor, told Spiegel the movement against wind turbines has exploded over the past months and years and that his speeches against wind turbines are attracting ever larger crowds: “When I started 60 or 70 would come, now there are more than 1000.”

Moreover Guttenberg talks of “hundreds of local citizens’ initiatives” that are now mobilizing against wind projects. Spiegel writes of a whole “new quality” of resistance that governments now need to confront as many traditional environmentalists now rail against what they view as a “corruption of green party members, environmental groups, local politicians and city councils“.

So divided the environmentalists have become that Germany’s powerful BUND (Friends of the Erath Germany) launched a slander lawsuit against Guttenberg after he accused the organization of having “merged” with the Wind Lobby. BUND later dropped the suit. Since then Guttenberg has compared the BUND directors to Judas and accused them of having sold out the environmental philosophy for a “dish of lentil”. Leading environmental activists today are now saying: “The color of sleaze is no longer black, rather it is green.”

The environmental movement has become so disunified, Spiegel writes, that once diehard nuclear energy opponents have now switched to protesting wind turbines, as many planning boards ignore concerns of the citizens and attempt to steamroll projects through against the public will.

Often the projects are politically explosive, involving a good old boys network. A typical pattern, Spiegel writes:

Town mayor, local pols, city directors, who at the same time happen to be the managing directors of wind parks and who profit from them. A dubious mesh of community and electricity interests.”

This is how it works at many communities, Spiegel describes. Often the nearby residents and citizens pay heftily through lost property values, health issues from infrasound, and high electricity prices. Invariably only very few benefit at all.

Planners often shoot back and claim nothing is illegal about the business deals. But the public is not having it. Spiegel adds:

Indeed in the meantime resistance is growing. ‘The mood has flipped because people are noticing that it is all about business,’ says anti-wind activist [Manfred] Knake”

At the end of the article Guttenberg, Spiegel writes, calls it the “capitialistic injustice of the Energiewende“.

The money of the little guy, who has to pay billions for renewables,  is diverted into the pockets of some large property owners.”


Global Sea Surface Temperatures Have Fallen Sharply …”Cooled Surprisingly” …Negative Global Temperature Anomaly By End Of 2016?

Snowfan at wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de here recently reported on solar activity and ocean cycles. Today we will focus on the ocean cycle part of his post.


The oceans (SST) have cooled surprisingly over January to February 2016.

While during other El Niño events like in 2015/16 led to a time-delayed warming of the Earth’s atmosphere – as was the case this year, the global oceans have decoupled themselves from this time-delayed warming and are showing a surprising significant cooling from January to February 2016 when compared to the powerful 1997/98 El Nino event:

Der Plot von BOB TiSDALE zeigt den Verlauf der globalen SSTA bei den kräftigen El Niño-Ereignissen 1997/98 und 2105/16. Die monatlichen durchschnittlichen SSTA mehrer Datenanbieter lassen den überraschenden Absturz der globalen SST im Februar 2016 erkennen.

The plot from BOB TISDALE shows the course of the SSTA during the powerful 1997/98 El Niño and from 2015/16. The monthly mean SSTA from multiple data suppliers show a surprising drop in global SST in February 2016. Source: Global Sea Surface Temperature Responses to the 1997/98 and 2015/16 El Niño Events.

The North Pacific, which since 2014 had been parked off the west coast and known as the warm BLOB, saw the greatest share of the global sea surface cooling. By December 2015 it practically disappeared:

Der Plot von BOB TiSDALE zeigt den Verlauf der SSTA im Nordpazifik bei den kräftigen El Niño-Ereignissen 1997/98 und 2105/16. Die monatlichen durchschnittlichen SSTA mehrerer Datenanbieter lassen den überraschenden Absturz der SSTA seit Dezember 2015 erkennen, der mit dem Verschwinden des warmen "BLOB" zudammenhängen dürfte. Quelle:

The plot from BOB TISDALE shows the course of the SSTA during the powerful 1997/98 El Niño and 2105/16. The monthly mean SSTA of multiple data suppliers show a surprising drop in global SST in February 2016. Source: Global Sea Surface Temperature Responses to the 1997/98 and 2015/16 El Niño Events.

Global temperatures fell in March 2016

In March 2016 the global temperatures have shown a clear retreat after their three to four-month highpoint February 2016 – time delayed after the El Niño peak at the end of October/start of November 2015. This has also been the case in the tropics as well:

Der Plot zeigt die gemessenen/berechneten 2m-Temperaturabweichungen global (schwarze Linie) und in den Tropen (rote Linie). Nach einem Höhepunkt Ende Februar 2016 sind die Temperaturen bis zum 28.3.2016 kräftig gefallen. Quelle:

The plot shows the measured/calculated temperature deviation global (black curve) and in the tropics (red curve). After a peak in February 2016, global temperatures have fallen sharply as of 28 March 2016. Source: weatherbell.com/temperature.php.

Therefore it is fully possible that the global temperatures have already begun to gradually ease back from the previous month’s record high in February 2016, although this was not expected to happen until April: Record warmth in the troposphere in February 2016 – Tropical sea surface starts to cool off.

“…With increasing cooling of the tropical sea surface, this means also a gradual cooling of global temperatures will set in by April 2016, which I described here:  ENSO update February 2016: El Niño leaving– La Niña arriving…”

Also see the unfalsified facts n: Global Warming” Reality Check February 2016: The global warming ”pause” since 1997 continues– RSS 0.94.”

The water masses of the equatorial Pacific over the past months have released a considerable amount of energy into the atmosphere. From the end of October 2015 until the end of March 2016, the upper 300 meters have cooled strongly: by 2.6°K.

Der Plot stellt den Verlauf der Temperaturanomalien bis zu 300 Meter unter Wasser im äquatorialen Pazifik dar. Die kräftigen positiven Abweichungen der warmen Downwelling-Phase einer äquatorialen Kelvinwelle haben Ende Oktober/Anfang November 2015 ihren Höhepunkt erreicht und gehen bis Ende März 2016 um 3,0 K deutlich bis rund -0,5 K zurück: El Niño geht – La Niña kommt! Quelle: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml

The plot above shows the course of the temperature anomalies down to 300 meters at the equatorial Pacific. The powerful positive deviations (orange) of the Downwelling-Phase reached their peak at 2.1°K deviation at the end of October/early November 2015 and have fallen 2.6°K to -0.5° K (blue): El Niño leaves– La Niña arrives! Source: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/enso.shtml

We will have to wait and see to find out whether the global temperature anomalies will go negative already by the end of 2016, similar to what happened with the El Niño event 1997/98 – though the negative global temperature anomaly did not arrive until March 1999 – which we saw in the UAH satellite data: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data.txt.



New Findings Show Greenland Ice Changes, Melt Water Production Due To Natural Geothermal Factors!

Greenland Ice Changes Due To Natural Factors, Studies Show

By Kenneth Richard

According to a just-published (2016)  Nature scientific paper, large portions of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) are significantly melting from below due to massive geothermal heat flux forcing. A natural explanation for ice sheet loss is not consistent with the paradigm that says the melting of the GIS is largely due to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Greenland_eastcoast_Ringomassa CC3.0

 View of Greenland: Source Ringomassa, CC BY-SA 3.0

Brand new paper at Nature:

Melting at the base of the Greenland ice sheet explained by Iceland hotspot history

Ice-penetrating radar and ice core drilling have shown that large parts of the north-central Greenland ice sheet are melting from below. It has been argued that basal ice melt is due to the anomalously high geothermal flux that has also influenced the development of the longest ice stream in Greenland. Here we estimate the geothermal flux beneath the Greenland ice sheet and identify a 1,200-km-long and 400-km-wide geothermal anomaly beneath the thick ice cover. We suggest that this anomaly explains the observed melting of the ice sheet’s base, which drives the vigorous subglacial hydrology and controls the position of the head of the enigmatic 750-km-long northeastern Greenland ice stream. Our combined analysis of independent seismic, gravity and tectonic data, implies that the geothermal anomaly, which crosses Greenland from west to east, was formed by Greenland’s passage over the Iceland mantle plume between roughly 80 and 35 million years ago. We conclude that the complexity of the present-day subglacial hydrology and dynamic features of the north-central Greenland ice sheet originated in tectonic events that pre-date the onset of glaciation in Greenland by many tens of millions of years.”

Below are four older scientific papers also indicating that the source of the rapid melt water production in northern and central Greenland is significantly related to high geothermal heat origins:

1. High Geothermal Heat Flow, Basal Melt, and the Origin of Rapid Ice Flow in Central Greenland

Age-depth relations from internal layering reveal a large region of rapid basal melting in Greenland. Melt is localized at the onset of rapid ice flow in the large ice stream that drains north off the summit dome and other areas in the northeast quadrant of the ice sheet. Locally, high melt rates indicate geothermal fluxes 15 to 30 times continental background. The southern limit of melt coincides with magnetic anomalies and topography that suggest a volcanic origin.”

2. Subglacial topography and geothermal heat flux: Potential interactions with drainage of the Greenland ice sheet

Introduction: [T]here is a growing body of evidence suggesting more extensive basal melting in the central region of northern Greenland.  Fahnestock et al. [2001a] determined age-depth relationships and basal melt rate from ice-penetrating radar in northern Greenland and detected high basal melt, in places up to 0.2 m/yr, under the onset region of the Northeast Ice Stream and its southern tributaries. This basal melt requires a geothermal heat flux much greater than the estimated continental background of 57 mW/m2  [Sclater et al., 1980],and Fahnestock et al., [2001a]  speculate that the inferred large heat flow may be of volcanic origin. Similarly, at the base of the NGRIP deep ice core, drilled on the ice divide 170 km northwest of the onset region of the Northeast Ice Stream, the observed basal temperature is at the pressure-melting point [Anderson et al., 2004; Dahl-Jensen et al., 2003]. The basal melt rate at NGRIP reaches 7.5 mm ice per year, and the modeled geothermal heat flux is between 90 and 160 mW/m2 along the flow line originating 50 km upstream of the drill site [Dahl-Jensen et al., 2003].  Again, the origin of the large geothermal heat flux remains unidentified. Ice-penetrating radar profiles show bright bed reflections in many locations in northern Greenland, indicating the presence of lubricating meltwater at the glacier base.”

3. Estimating the basal melt rate at NorthGRIP using a Monte Carlo technique

From radio-echo sounding (RES) surveys and ice core data it can be seen that the ice sheet is melting at the base in a large area in Northern Greenland. The RES images reveal internal layers in the ice. The layers are former deposition surfaces and are thus isochrones. Undulations of the isochrones in regions where the base is smooth suggest that the basal melt rate changes over short distances. This indicates that the geothermal heat flux is very high and has large spatial variability in Northern Greenland.… Combining the estimated basal melt rates with the observed borehole temperatures allows us to convert the basal melt rates to geothermal heat flow values. From the two-dimensional model we find the basal melt rate and geothermal heat flux at NorthGRIP to be 6.1 mm a−1 and 129 mW m−2, respectively.”

4. Basal melt at NorthGRIP modeled from borehole, ice-core and radio-echo sounder observations

From temperature measurements down through the 3001 m deep borehole at the North Greenland Icecore Project (NorthGRIP) drill site, it is now clear that the ice at the base, 3080 m below the surface, is at the pressure-melting point. This is supported by the measurements on the ice core where the annual-layer thicknesses show there is bottom melting at the site and upstream from the borehole. … The results show the geothermal heat flow varies from 50 to 200 mW m-2 along the 100 km section of the modeled flowline. The melt rate at the NorthGRIP site is 0.75 cm a-1, but the deep ice in the NorthGRIP core originated 50 km upstream and has experienced melt rates as high as 1.1 cm a-1.”


Video Drives Home How Germany’s Green Energy Transformed It’s Idyllic Landscape – Into An Industrial Eyesore!

Awhile back I posted before-and-after photos of how wind parks are destroying Germany’s natural landscape.

Those photos have now been put into a video. Send the link to political leaders or communities who may be contemplating wind parks in their areas.

Is this really what you want to see every time you look out the window? How does destroying nature save it?
Meanwhile in Germany the “nature-saving” wind parks have done nothing to curb CO2. Last year Germany’s CO2 emissions rose.

FYI: “EEG Todeszone” means Energy Feed-In Act Death Zone


Germany March 2016 Comes In 0.3°C Below Mean …Yet DWD Calls It A Mild Month

Germany’s DWD national weather service here has published the result of March 2016 weather in Germany – having crunched the data from some 2000 stations scattered across the country.

Although DWD insists March was “mild”, a closer look at the data reveals that it was in fact 0.3°C cooler than the 1981-2010 mean.

How did the DWD conclude that the month was warm? It used the mean of the obsolete 1961 – 1990 period, a time when the globe was gripped in a cool spell and the media was warning of “global cooling”. Compared to that period, March 2016 in Germany was 0.5°C warmer. Why the DWD still uses the 1961 – 1990 reference period while the rest of the world (e.g. NOAA, WMO, etc.) uses the 1981 – 2010 period remains a mystery.

Perhaps it has a little to do with activist science. Schneefan at wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de called the DWD press release an April Fool’s trick, writing:

By using the old climate mean, a warming gets faked – as we see once again in March 2016 in Germany – a realistic look compared to the mean of the last three decades […]  shows that the trend has even switched to some cooling, …”

Indeed on April 1st Central Germany even woke up to a real weather April Fools trick – a blanket of snow on the ground: “Central Germany gets April Fooled with heavy snowfall“.

A plot of March temperatures over the past 30 years shows that 2016 was in fact among the colder ones and that the country has not seen any March warming over the past 30 years.

Quelle: wie vor

Source: DWD

Interestingly, the chart above shows that 8 years saw March outside of the shaded normal range: 4 were too warm and 4 were too cold. Clearly the cold ones were more extreme than the warm ones. Where’s the warming?

Finally, don’t be surprised if the March 2016 figure gets revised downward in a few weeks time. Over the past months the DWD has developed a habit of putting out “warmed” press releases on preliminary monthly results, only to quietly revise them downwards later on.

Huge NOAA Correction! 2016 Likely Will Not Even Be Close To Setting New Temperature Record As La Niña Kicks In

NOAA/CFSv2 strongly corrects ENSO forecast

Schneefan at German climate science site wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de writes here that the NOAA’s ENSO model CFSv2 saw considerable deficiency with its recent forecasting, which not long ago foresaw ongoing global warming El Niño conditions for 2016.

What follows is the BOM Climate Model Summary from 16 March 2016 with the NOAA/CFSv2 prognosis:

Der Durchschnitt der ENSO-Modelle sieht Mitte März 2016 das Eintreffen von La Niña-Bedingungen (ab - 0,5 K und kälter) im August 2016. Quelle:

The mean is depicted by the lowest bar. In mid March many ENSO models were already predicting La Niña conditions by August 2016. The NOAA/CFSv2 is a clear outlier. Source: www.bom.gov.au/climatePacific-Ocean

The NOAA/CFSv2 modelers have in the meantime admitted to a cold bias in their programming, foremost at the equatorial in the Atlantic, which led to a false computation of the equatorial Pacific (ENSO) computation, as Dr. Roy Spencer of the UAH reported: Impact of CFSv2 Model Fix on 2016 La Nina Forecast.

The false, overly warm NOAA result is shown in the “Before fix” image below (left). The corrected version is depicted by the “After fix” image (right). Note the huge difference we see in the equatorial Pacific region. The chart below shows the anomaly from the mean:

Die Grafiken stellen die von NOAA/CFSv2 berechneten SSTA vor (links) und nach (rechts) der Behebung des Programmierfehlers dar. Quelle:

Screenshot: The charts by Dr. Ryan Maue show the projected SSTA by the NOAA/CFSv2 for September 2016 generated on 29 March 2016 before the error was corrected (left) and after the correction (right). Suddenly a La Niña appears in the forecast. Source: Impact of CFSv2 Model Fix on 2016 La Nina Forecast.

The Australian BOM Weather Services consequently removed the “warm” NOAA/CFSv2-ENSO forecast from its “ClimateModelSummary” (see chart above) and thus the mean forecast of the remaining ENSO models for August 2016 stands at -0.7°K, thus putting it clearly in La Niña territory:

BOM Climate Model Summary 29 March 2016 – without NOAA/CFSv2 forecast:

Der Durchschnitt der ENSO-Modelle - ohne NOAA/CFSv2 - sieht Ende März 2016 das Eintreffen von La Niña-Bedingungen (ab - 0,5 K und kälter) im August 2016. Quelle:

The mean of all models (bottom bar) – without the NOAA/CFSv2. The forecast is  -0.7 °K deviation in August 2016.  Source: www.bom.gov.au/climate/Pacific-Ocean.

The current CFSv2-ENSO prognosis is now approaching the mean of the other ENSO model forecasts (blue lines). Some models are showing very powerful La Niña conditions close to -3° K hitting later this year. Only the old, too-warm calculations (shown by the bold black dashed line) is falsely in the positive range:

Der Plot stellt die seit 29.3.2016 korrigierte ENSO-Pognose vom 1.4.2016 für die Abweichung der Meeresoberflächentemperaturen (SSTA) im maßgeblichen ENSO-Gebiet 3.4 für die kommenden Monate vor. Die aktuellen (korrigierten) Prognosen (blaue Linien) erreichen teils bereits im Juni 2016 La Niña-Werte von -0,5 K und kälter, im Herbst 2016 werden in mehreren Rechnungen berewits -2,0 K unterschritten: Eine kräfte kalte La Niña ist im Anmarsch. Die älteren (unkorrigierten) zu warmen Modelläufe halten den Durchschnitt derzeit noch (fälschlich) im positiven Bereich, dies sollte sich in den kommenden Tagen zunehmend ändern. Quelle:

The plot above shows the partially corrected ENSO forecast of 1 April 2016 for the SSTA in the ENSO 3.4 area for the coming months. The current (corrected cold) forecasts (blue lines) are, for some, showing La Niña values of -0.5°K and colder already arriving in June. In autumn 2016 many models are forecasting -2.0°K and colder! Preliminary indications are showing a powerfully cold La Niña is in the pipeline. Every new ENSO forecast is becoming suspenseful. Source: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov.html.

Schneefan writes that the global satellite data for the lower troposphere (TLT) from UAH are as expected headed down wards after having reached its peak of 0.83°K in February (March: 0.73°K), see: UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for March, 2016: +0.73 deg. C.

The GFS forecast for April 2016 also sees a considerable drop with the global 2m temperatures:

Der Plot stellt die gemessenenen und berechneten Abweichungen der globalen 2m-Durchschnittstemperaturen zum international üblichen modernen WMO-Klimamittel 1981-2010 dar. Nach einem von El Niño zeitversetzt verursachten Höhepunkt Ende Februar 2016 zeigen die globalen Temperaturabweichungen im März 2016 sowohl bei den bis 31.3. gemessenen als auch bei den bis 8.4.2016 berechneten Werten (schwarze Linie) deutlich nach unten, obwohl sie mit dem wärmenden NASA/GISS-Faktor “adjusted” (verfälscht) wurden… Quelle: http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php

The above plot shows the measured and calculated anomalies from the global mean temperature using the usual modern WMO 1981-2010 climate mean. The computed trend for early April (black line) is steeply downward, even though it is computed using the NASA/GISS “adjusted” (falsified) factor. Source: www.karstenhaustein.com.php.

Schneefan comments that the current unusual weak solar activity and the currently oncoming cold ENSO development will make it clear that the recent claims of a warming planet were more hype than anything else, and that the real trend is cooling over the coming years.

It’s still early to be predicting a La Niña of -3.0°K. Expect that figure to be corrected upwards. One thing is clear: La Niña arriving this fall is becoming an almost sure bet.


Green Wind Energy Giant Vestas Under Investigation For Tax Evasion …Sun Edison Under SEC Probe As Shares Collapse 96%!

What’s going with the leading renewable energy companies, which were supposed to be leading the way to a new, brighter and greener future?


Tax evasion investigation clouds Vestas’s horizon. Image: Vestas

German online SHZ daily here reports that Danish wind energy giant Vestas saw its Hamburg and Husum, Germany, offices raided by German tax authorities earlier this year amid suspicions of tax evasion. Vestas executives deny any wrongdoing and said in a statement that they are cooperating with German authorities.

According to the SHZ, the raids of the German head offices took place on February 9th and involved cases over the time period of 2006 to 2011. Vestas German headquarters in Husum employ 2000 employees. The SHZ writes:

The case is connected to an earlier one involving former Vestas former directors who were accused of bribery in Germany. Over the past years Vestas has replaced almost the entire company management, and for this reason Sydbank analyst Jacob Pedersen sees little danger for the company’s image.”

Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal here reports that the SEC is investigating solar energy giant SunEdison’s “financial disclosures to investors about how much cash the solar-power company had on hand as its stock price collapsed last year.” The Journal writes:

Officials in the SEC’s enforcement unit are looking into whether SunEdison overstated its liquidity last fall when it told investors it had more than $1 billion in cash, the people said.”

SunEdison shares have collapsed since last summer, with shares down 96% from a July high. “The company’s market value has fallen to around $400 million from nearly $10 billion in July.”

These are just the latest examples of the woes dogging the world’s renewable energy companies. With so many in trouble, it’s hard to see any future for the branch.

Analysis Of Literature Shows Hansen’s Recently Published Sea Level Paper Is A Scientific Outlier

Guest author and analyzer of climate science literature Kenneth Richard presents an essay on sea level rise and James Hansen’s latest alarmist paper.

Antarctica_Mt Herschel Andrew Mandemaker
Mt. Herschel Antarctica. Photo by Andrew Mandemaker, CC BY-SA 2.5

Only science deniers don’t believe in catastrophe

By Kenneth Richard

Now that the latest James Hansen catastrophic sea level rise paper (Hansen et al., 2016) has been affirmed by peer review, it has, according to Slate‘s meteorologist Eric Holthaus, been effectively “canonized.”   In other words, it has become scientifically authoritative.

James Hansen’s Bombshell Warning Is Now Part of the Scientific Canon”

The paper, which has undergone some wording revisions since the original version appeared last July (so that it could be accepted for publication), apparently “concludes” that the polar ice sheets will soon melt catastrophically; this ice sheet melt contribution will in turn result in sea level rise of “at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years” according to a summation from the same Eric Holthaus:

The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.

Putting aside for the moment that (a) Greenland’s vast interior ice sheet has been melting more slowly in recent decades than it has for 95% of the last 9,000 years (MacGregor et al., 2016), or that (b) the West Antarctic Peninsula melted faster during the Medieval Warm Period than it has in recent decades (Guglielmin et al., 2016), or that (c) the northern Antarcitc Peninsula melted 10 times more slowly between 2003-2014 than it did between 1995 and 2003 (Seehaus et al., 2015)…

Or, putting aside that (d) the rate of sea level rise contribution from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets combined was just 2.3 inches per century (0.59 mm/year) between 1992 and 2011 (Shepherd et al., 2012).

Alas, with inconveniences put aside, Hansen’s claim of 10 feet of sea level rise in 50 years has nonetheless been officially anointed as scientifically authoritative anyway.  Therefore, to deny the conclusions of Hansen’s paper is tantamount to denying climate science. After all, that’s what science deniers do.  They deny canonized climate science like Hansen’s sea level rise forecasts.

To avoid being characterized as a science denier, one effectively must believe that the sea level rise contribution from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets combined will catapult from the current rate of 0.23 of an inch per decade (Shepherd et al., 2012) to 10, 50, or perhaps 100 times that rate so as to reach 24 inches per decade total sea level rise through the mid-2060s (so that Hansen’s sea level rise estimate of “at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years” can be realized).

Don’t agree that one should be categorized as a science denier if she or he doesn’t agree with Hansen’s catastrophic melt and sea level rise forecasts?  Well, that immediately begs the question: How many meters (or feet) of sea level rise must one believe in to avoid being labeled a science denier?  If one believes in only 2 meters (~7 feet) of sea level rise by 2100, for example, is that denying canonized climate science?

The IPCC’s last two reports (2007, 2013) confer sea level rise forecasts ranging from a low threshold of 18 cm to a high threshold of 98 cm (between 7 and 39 inches) by 2100.  One would assume, then, that with the scientific canonization of Hansen’s latest paper, the low range IPCC estimates are now effectively in the science denier camp.  If not science denier, how else does one categorize a forecast of just 7 or 10 or 12 inches of sea level rise by 2100?

Specifics are needed here.  After all, no one wants to be called a science denier due to non-belief in authoritative climate science.  So again, how much sea level rise by 2100 must one minimally believe in to avoid being called a science denier now that Hansen’s sea level rise catastrophe paper has been canonized?


Hansen et al., 2016

MacGregor et al., 2016

Recent peripheral thinning of the Greenland Ice Sheet is partly offset by interior thickening and is overprinted on its poorly constrained Holocene evolution. On the basis of the ice sheet’s radiostratigraphy, ice flow in its interior is slower now than the average speed over the past nine millennia.”

– Press release

[T]he interior of the GrIS is flowing 95% slower now than it was on average during the Holocene.”

Guglielmin et al., 2016

Based on new radiocarbon dates, during the MWP [Medieval Warm Period], the rate of glacier retreat [West Antarctic Peninsula] was 1.6 m yr−1, which is comparable with recently observed rates (~0.6 m yr−1 between 1993 and 2011 and 1.4 m yr−1 between 2005 and 2011).”                                                                                                                  

Seehaus et al., 2015

Highlights: Ice mass loss (2003–2014) was approximately one order of magnitude smaller than between 1995–2003.

“The northern Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest changing regions on Earth. The disintegration of the Larsen-A Ice Shelf in 1995 caused tributary glaciers to adjust by speeding up, surface lowering, and overall increased ice-mass discharge. … The contribution to sea level rise was estimated to be 18.8±1.8 Gt, corresponding to a 0.052 ± 0.005 mm sea level equivalent for the period 1995–2014.”

Shepherd et al., 2012:

Since 1992, the polar ice sheets [Antarctica and Greenland] have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”


Europe Lets Its Citizens Freeze To Death …40,000 Dead In Winter 2014 As “Energy Poverty” Explodes!



The latest story on “green energy” here at the German online FOCUS weekly news magazine actually shocked me.

Europe’s energy policy is, under the bottom line, costing the lives of tens of thousands of citizens – all at the holy altar of “climate protection”. The title of the FOCUS article:

“The grand electricity lie”: Why electricity is becoming a luxury

One of the sickest things about Europe and its disconnected leaders is that often it takes a full-scale disaster to happen before policy gets corrected. Often the scale of the death and devastation becomes known only after the clean-up crews have come in and sifted through the rubble. Think, for example, of Nazism, the Holocaust – or Soviet communism.

In the above named examples the true scale of devastation left behind became clear only after the drunk-on-ideology tyrants were defeated and their legacy finally put in the spotlight.

FOCUS now cites a documentary film which is set to be broadcast this evening on European television station ARTE. The documentary presents how Europe’s electricity prices are spiraling out of control, and the horrible consequences this is having on the continent’s citizens.

40,000 dead from power being shut off

The situation, we are discovering, is far more disturbing than even the earlier worst case scenarios every imagined. FOCUS reports (emphasis added):

In 2014 in Europe there were about 40,000 winter deaths because millions of people were unable to pay for their electric bills – the so-called energy poverty currently impacts about ten percent of all Europeans. In the past 8 years the price of electricity in Europe has climbed by an average of 42 percent.”

7 million German households in energy poverty

FOCUS writes that the poor are the real victims of “socialist” Europe’s clean energy drive. In Bulgaria people see half of their income gobbled up by energy costs alone. In Spain 28 percent of the citizens live in “energy poverty”. In Germany, FOCUS writes, 7 million households are considered to be living in “energy poverty”.

The consequences of energy poverty are profound: tens of thousands of deaths every year, as millions lose their power.

Coming energy-caused mass die-off

Of course one needs to be very careful when describing disasters involving mass-death and bad science. History has seen so many over the 20th century alone. In the current century we have seen already tens of thousands die because they have been denied affordable energy, a product which in any advanced society is (or used to be) considered a fundamental human right, just as is clean water.

How much more unaffordable must energy become, and many more tens of thousands of wintertime deaths does Europe have to witness before the continent’s leaders wake up to the “green energy” folly? There are no longer any excuses. The facts and data are out there, and leaders need to take life-saving action. Refusing to do so at this point borders on gross negligence.

Rising tide of anger

The ARTE documentary reportedly shows how Europe’s citizens, including environmental activists, are becoming more worried and that electricity is now increasingly being called a “luxury product”. FOCUS adds:

Their anger is clearly palpable as indeed governments have deceived and disappointed many citizens, and they cannot cope with the protests.”

As electricity prices spiral out of control and mass, uncontrolled immigration of Arabians continues, Europe is keeping its social power kegs especially dry.

UPDATE: Price development of Germany power prices:


After the German market liberalization of the 1990s, electricity prices for consumers fell and became affordable. But after the enactment of the feed-in act prices rose strongly and now 7 million households are in “energy poverty”. Source: BDEW.

Three Brand New Peer-Reviewed Papers Refute IPCC Global Warming Science, Climate Models!

What follows are the 3 newly published papers and their abstracts which flat out conclude IPCC alarmist science may be fatally flawed. Hat-tip Kenneth Richard.

The main points are emphasized in bold print.

1. Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 – An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice

It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change. What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?

The compilation of temperature records are a source of problematic methodology of a kind not seen elsewhere in science. Under the umbrella term of “homogenisation”, there now seem to be a growing myriad of post-hoc adjustments to the original raw data that all seem to go in one direction, namely to increase the overall rate of global warming. This happens even on official websites. The total change is often somewhat greater than the 0.8-1ºC rise over the 20th century that is agreed by most people, critics or not. This is exemplified by data in Figure 4. This makes the problem of dispassionate engineering assessment almost impossible to achieve. Hansen (1981) wrote : “A remarkable conclusion from Figure 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940.” It is not clear now why this should be remarkable, although at the time, the rise in temperature from about 1975 had cancelled out some of the cooling since 1940 in the then available data. At the time, he [Hansen] showed 1980 temperatures were about 0.15ºC cooler than 1940. Now, NASA shows 1980 temperatures about 0.2ºC warmer than 1940. They have made a relative shift of +0.35ºC, and the adjustment represents ~40% of the century variation. The lesson from this is that the data integrity for claiming extreme events needs to shown to be of the highest order, and that the results claimed do not depend on the data manipulation itself.”


2. Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere

Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere

Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of COincrease. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = -0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geomagnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.


3. Reassessing the Climate Role of Carbon Dioxide

The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “consensus” that the increase of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. They conclude that the data do not support that supposition. Most of the currently accepted scientific interpretations are examined and the given impression that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase the earth’s surface and/or air temperature is questioned. New insight is offered drawing a conclusion that no additional warming is possible due to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Acceptance of that IPCC paradigm is incurring costly and draconian efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, tax such emissions and replace fossil fuel combustion by alternative energy systems whether such alternatives will achieve the desired results or not. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated here, from Vostok ice core measurements, to residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, to more recent studies of temperature changes that inevitably precede CO2 changes, to global temperature trends, to the current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, to satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2, to the effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential ingredient of the Earth’s ecosystem on which almost all life depends via photosynthesis. This paper rejects the new paradigm of “climate science” and asserts that the traditional, century old meteorological concepts for the factors that control weather and climate remain sound but need to be reassessed.

IPCC Needs To Start Over… Already 133 “Consensus-Skeptical” Papers In 2016 …Over 660 Past Two Years!

Guest author Kenneth Richard has updated the lists of papers that do not support the claimed “climate science consensus” for 2014, 2015 and 2016 (just added). The updated list for 2015 has been posted (see right side bar under “Pages”) and now includes 282 papers.


 IPCC climate reports are emerging as only half reports. Image: IPCC

2014 will be updated soon.

2016 has just been added to the “Pages” side bar.

As the body of evidence refuting climate alarmism continues to balloon, the question of how the IPCC can continue ignoring it becomes ever more glaring. Clearly the IPCC has weighted alarmist papers over those that are not.

660 papers in just over 2 years

Over the last 27 months over 660 scientific peer-reviewed papers have ben published refuting alarmist claims on everything from temperature rise, climate model integrity, droughts, extreme weather events, floods to hurricanes, sea level rise, etc.

Overhauled IPCC is needed

Now is not the time to disband the IPCC, but rather it is time to completely overhaul it and assure it does its task objectively and without an agenda.

Though most of the papers the Kenneth Richard lists support that climate change is happening (it always has) and that human activity appears to be one factor, the alarmist scenarios often trumpeted by the media and IPCC scientists are in fact turning out to be more hype and less reality.

According to Kenneth Richard, who has spent hundreds of hours meticulously analyzing the body of climate science literature, already this year alone (2016) some 133 consensus-skeptical papers have been published.


German Wind Turbines “In Conflict With Health”…Physicians Recommend 3-Kilometer Minimum Distance!

NDR German public television recently broadcast a critical report on the health effects of wind turbines.

According to state physician Thomas Carl Stiller, infrasound from wind turbines causes an array of ailments among a segment of the population, such as dizziness, tinnitus, headaches, fatigue, sleeplessness and difficulty concentrating.

Nationally, protest groups are banding together in numbers never seen before to fight off wind projects, demanding that issues surrounding infrasound and environmental impact be addressed and clarified more thoroughly before wind parks are permitted.

According to the video report, German Constitutional lawyer Rudolf Wendt says the norms for permitting wind parks need to be updated as “they originate from the 1990s, the last century!

As wind turbines have grown to huge dimensions, wind park protest group spokeswoman Jutta Reinhardt says that human health “is now in conflict with Germany’s Energiewende” and so there should be nothing to negotiate.

German doctors like Stiller say turbines less than 3 kilometers away from occupied buildings should be turned off.

Wind parks destroying biodiversity

Meanwhile the German Wildlife Foundation issued a press release earlier this month warning that wind turbines have killed and currently endanger cranes in the German state of Mecklenburg Western Pomerania. According to Foundation sole chairman Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt:

The rapid species die-off and disappearance of biodiversity is being played down, ignored due to a questionable climate policy, and against the will of the citizens.”

Vahrenholt also blasts the plans for further wind parks in the region, claiming that the power grid infrastructure to transport the power to markets on windy days does not even exist, and so the parks are routinely idled. Yet, the wind park operators are still paid (by the power consumer) for the power that would have otherwise been produced.

Vahrenholt adds that it’s only the wind park project developers and the wind park operators who benefit. “The bill gets picked up by the private household consumers while nature gets thrown overboard.


Belgian Scientist / Organic Chemistry Professor Calls IPCC Theories “Sordid” …”Failed Again”

At Facebook here Belgian organic chemistry professor Istvan Marko responded to Kenneth Richard’s post from yesterday citing very recent literature showing that glacier melting today is actually happening much more slowly than over much of the past 10,000 years.

MarkoProf. Istvan Marko, photo source: Facebook

The literature thus refute the often heard media claims that glaciers and ice caps are “melting faster than ever“.

In his comment Prof. Marko, a native of Hungary, wondered that the studies cited by Richard were even able “to pass through the meshwork of pro-anthropogenic warming peer reviewers“.

Summarizing the results of the papers, Marko writes that the observations once again “contradict the sordid theories of the IPCC” and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations “absolutely do not correlate with the fluctuations of the levels of the oceans and the movements of advances and withdrawals of glaciers“. He writes that the IPCC science “failed again”.

Marko has been a harsh critic of the man-made climate change theory, appearing in a number of interviews.

In a recent English-language interview he blasted COP 21, claiming that it essentially resulted in nothing … “The result of COP 21 is no result” … “because there is nothing binding in this particular treaty“.  He adds the only thing to motivate CO2 reductions is “shame”, adding: “To my knowledge no politician knows what shame is at all. They are totally not subject to shame.”

In the interview he reminds listeners that the long-term temperature trend over the Holocene has been downward, and that today’s temperatures were exceeded by a number of other periods over the past 10,000 years. He dismisses the claim that CO2 plays a major role and believes that other far more powerful natural factors and cycles are at work.

Clearly the papers presented by Richard are just the latest evidence on a mountain of literature, which sadly the government-funded IPCC refuses to acknowledge.


New, Vast Body Of Literature Shows Rates Of Glacier Retreat, Sea Level Change, Now Significantly LOWER!

By guest author Kenneth Richard

According to recently published scientific papers, the current sea level highstand, as well as the rate of glacier retreat and sea level change, are now significantly lower than they have been for much of the last 10,000 years — back when CO2 concentrations were stable and considerably lower (at about 265 ppm).

Ocean Atlantic Tiago Floreze

A flurry of new papers show today’s sea level rise is slower than in the Holocene past. Photo Tiago Floreze, CC BY-SA 3.0.

The most recent IPCC report (2013) indicates that sea levels have been rising at a rate of 1.7 mm/year, or 6.7 inches per century, since 1901 (through 2010).  This rate occurred synchronously with an approx. 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

In contrast, scientists Hodgson et al., 2016 have determined that sea levels rose at rates of 1.2 to 4.8 meters per century (47 to 188 inches, or about 4 to 16 feet per century) between about 10,500 and 9,500 years ago near East Antarctica.  This sea level rate change occurred while CO2 levels were stable to modestly declining *.

In the paper: Rapid early Holocene sea-level rise in Prydz Bay, East Antarctica, the authors write:

Prydz Bay is one of the largest embayments on the East Antarctic coast and it is the discharge point for approximately 16% of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. […] The field data show rapid increases in rates of relative sea level rise of 12–48 mm/yr between 10,473 (or 9678) and 9411 cal yr BP [calendar years before present].”

The recently published scientific literature also indicates that not only was the historical rate of sea level rise significantly higher than it has been since the 20th century began, glaciers and ice sheets continued to rapidly retreat during the late Holocene, or within the last few thousand years.  During the Medieval Warm Period, for example, scientists Guglielmin et al., 2016 determined that glacier retreat rates in the Western Antarctic Peninsula were as high or higher than they have been in recent decades.

In the publication here, the authors write:

Here, we present evidence for glacial retreat corresponding to the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] and a subsequent LIA [Little Ice Age] advance at Rothera Point (67°34′S; 68°07′W) in Marguerite Bay, western Antarctic Peninsula. … Based on new radiocarbon dates, during the MWP, the rate of glacier retreat was 1.6 m yr−1, which is comparable with recently observed rates (~0.6 m per year between 1993 and 2011 and 1.4 m per year between 2005 and 2011).”

Prior to the Medieval Warm Period, scientists Yokoyama et al., 2016 indicate that “the world’s largest ice shelf” collapsed due to a warming ocean and atmosphere, with ice shelf retreat rates of 100 km within a thousand years.

In the publication Widespread collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf during the late Holocene, the authors write:

The Ross Sea is a major drainage basin for the Antarctic Ice Sheet and contains the world’s largest ice shelf. … Breakup initiated around 5 ka [5,000 years ago], with the ice shelf reaching its current configuration ∼1.5 ka [1,500 years ago]. In the eastern Ross Sea, the ice shelf retreated up to 100 km in about a thousand years. … [I]ce-shelf breakup resulted from combined atmospheric warming and warm ocean currents impinging onto the continental shelf.”

According to other scientists Bradley et al., 2016, the melt water from the Antarctic ice sheet continued to contribute up to 5.8 meters of sea level rise equivalent until about 1,000 years ago.

In another recent paper here the authors found:

…a slowdown in melting at ∼7 kyr BP associated with the final deglaciation of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, followed by a continued rise in ESL [Holocene ice volume equivalent sea level] until ∼1 kyr BP of 5.8 m associated with melting from the Antarctic Ice Sheet.”

Due apparently to the high glacier-melt rates and warmer ocean temperatures (Rosenthal et al. [2013]** indicate that 0-700 m Pacific Ocean temperatures were still ~0.65° C warmer than present ~1,000 years ago), recently published scientific papers document that sea levels stood from 1 to 4 meters higher than now as recently as a few thousand years ago (see citations below).

The big mystery

These scientific conclusions beg the question: If CO2 is a primary determinant of changes in sea level, why is it that sea level highstands (and sea level rise and glacier melt rates) were significantly greater when CO2 concentrations were stable and low than they have been in recent decades?

Publications to read:


The configuration suggests surface inundation of the upper sediments by marine water during the mid-Holocene (c. 2–8 kyr BP) [2,000-8,000 years before present], when sea level was 1–2 m above today’s level.



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




  • We present a sea level change curve for mid Holocene in Uruguay.
  • Sea level reached 4 m amsl[above mean sea level today]between 6000 and 5500 yr BP [years before present].
  • A rapid sea level fall to about 1 m amsl was inferred for 4700-4300 yr BP.
  • A further sea level increase to about 3 m amsl [above mean sea level today]was inferred after 4300 yr BP


* Epica Dome C ice core data [Antarctica] indicate that CO2 levels declined slightly from 268 ppm 10,458 years ago to 264 ppm 9,399 years ago.

** Rosenthal et al., 2013


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

German Geology Expert: Glaciers Are Not Melting “Faster Than Ever” …Requests Statement From Deutsche Welle

Geologist and climate science site “Die kalte Sonne” operator Dr. Sebastian Lüning has written an e-mail to Deutsche Welle (DW) German public radio in response to their claims of “glaciers melting faster than ever before” made in a recent broadcast.

Mont Blanc_Gnomefilliere

Mont Blanc Massif, Photo by GnomefililiereCC BY-SA 3.0

Just days ago Kenneth Richard posted on the subject here and showed using published scientific literature that this is likely far from being true.

In recent years, the documented rise in sea levels contributed from glacier and ice sheet melt has not come close to reaching the high levels attained during the 1920s and 1930s period as documented by Gregory et al., 2013.”

Unfortunately Deutsche Welle was sloppy in that they didn’t bother to fact-check, and so as a result they put out overly alarmist information to the public.

I translated Dr. Lünning’s e-mail message in English:


To: Deutsche Welle [German Public Television]
From: Dr. Sebastian Lüning

Sent: 22 March 2016

Topic: Film “Das große Gletscher-Schmelzen” [The great glacier melt] from 27 February 2016

Dear editorial board,

Concerning the above mentioned broadcast, the film commentary claims beginning at the 1:55 mark: ‘Globally glaciers are losing ice faster than ever before’. That is not correct, as in the past in the Alps there have always been characteristic ice melt phases – the last 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period. 5000 years ago (during the mid-Holocene climate optimum) Glaciers in the Alps were in fact almost completely melted away. The claim made in the film does not meet the latest level scientific knowledge. I also very much wondered as to why you completely left out the crucial paleo-climatological context in the report, thus as a result making the current ice melt appear more threatening than it really is.

I would like to receive your comment on this, which I would like to publish at www.kaltesonne.de.

Yours sincerely

Dr. habil. Sebastian Lüning


Readers can also (politely) send the same or similar message to DW, should they wish. NoTricksZone is also very interested in DW’s comment and would be happy to publish it for international readers as well.


Veteran German Meteorologist: 2015 El Niño “Weather Event” Does Not End IPCC-Confirmed Pause!

In the today’s hard copy edition of the Nordesee Zeitung, a north German daily, in a letter to the editor vPuls_20_03_2016eteran and retired German meteorologist Klaus-Eckard Puls writes a 3-point response to recent alarmist claims made by IPCC climate scientist Prof. Mojib Latif.

Image: partial shot of letter appearing in the 22 March 2016 edition of the Nordsee Zeitung.

Prof. Latif recently claimed in Bremerhaven that the future of the planet was at stake, and unless drastic action is taken quickly, “the basis for existence for many people will be destroyed by climate change

Pause has not ended

In his letter to the daily Nordsee Zeitung, Puls reminds readers that the IPCC confirms the 15-year pause in global temperature in its most recent report and that “the warm 2015 El Nino year changes nothing“. Puls notes that even IPCC climate scientist Latif was correct in characterizing the El Niño phenomenon as a “weather event” and that “it has nothing to do with climate“.

Climate refugees claims false

In the second point, concerning climate refugees, Puls reminds: “Previous UN prognoses of 50 million environmental refugees by 2010 proved to be false. In countries that are in the so-called danger zone the number of inhabitants is actually growing.”

No detectable anthropogenic sea level rise signal

In his third point of rebuttal, Puls tells readers that sea level rise has steadily slowed down since the end of the last ice age, and that there has been “no detectable anthropogenic rise signal“.

Interestingly the newspaper left out Puls’s title as a degreed meteorologist. Titles are rarely left out in such situations in Germany.

Klaus-Eckard Puls is also the staff of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).


Paris Fallout: “Radical” Climate Bill Stuns German Industry …Warn Of “Catastrophic Consequences” And “Climate Dictatorship” …”A Poison List Of Draconian Measures”!

Here’s the latest on plans by some overly overzealous German government leaders to get the country to commit economic suicide through de-carbonization, at least that’s what German industry believes.

Online German national daily Die Welt has a piece by Daniel Wetzel titled: German Economy Fears Eco-Dictatorship.


Screen shot of Die Welt report

In the wake of the lofty declarations made at the Paris Conference to roll back global CO2 emissions, a number of high level Environment Ministry bureaucrats in Germany’s government have been eagerly concocting a “radical bill” dubbed “Climate Protection 2050″ – designed to make Germany almost carbon-free by 2050.  Already the bill’s extremism and disconnect from reality are coming under heavy fire.

High costs would devastate the poor

In the wake of Paris, Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks has put together a “catalogue of measures” which she and her Ministry hope will be passed into law by early summer.

Should the proposals be enacted, Wetzel writes that it would mean “higher rental prices for apartments, higher taxes, mandatory renovations by building owners, speed limits and massive cost hikes for industrial enterprises“.

The proposals call for the mandatory, comprehensive renovation of buildings that owners would be forced by law to carry out. Such huge costs of course would have to be passed on to the occupants who rent or lease the buildings.

Wetzel writes that Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks is moving rapidly to get the bill enacted before summertime. Industry warns of “catastrophic consequences” should the CO2 restricting proposals be adopted. The catalogue of measures designed to lead Germany to a near zero-carbon society by 2050 has the industry spooked. Wetzel writes of an “urgent letter” by leading industry trade groups addressed to the Environment Ministry – one that uses uncharacteristically harsh terms such as “threatening ecology or climate dictatorship“. Copies of the letter were also sent to the heads of other German federal ministries, such as the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry Of Commerce.

“Poison list of draconian measures”

According to Wetzel some of the proposals include severe tax penalties for owners of “energy inefficient” buildings should they refuse to implement costly renovation works. The catalogue also calls for excruciatingly high taxes on heating oil and natural gas. Wetzel quotes Andreas Lücke of the German Heating Industry Association (BDH) who calls the “Climate Protection Plan 2050″ a “poison list of draconian measures.”

The catalogue of climate measures also calls for the heavy taxation of coal power plants, which thus would put tens of thousands of coal mining and power sector jobs in jeopardy. Also the catalogue calls for a speed limit of 120 km/hr on the country’s famed autobahns and a snail-like speed of 30 km/hr. within all city limits.

The proposed climate protection bill also calls for eliminating fossil fuel combustion engines in motor vehicles by 2050, which means no internal combustion engine cars will be sold after 2030. Already today Germany’s plan to get one million cars onto the streets by 2020 is only some 2% fulfilled, as no one is interested in electric cars. Wetzel writes:

When the German government foresees the death of the combustion engine within the next 14 years, even though electric cars have failed to sell so far, it shows us the newly acquired level of radicalism that their climate-political demands and expectations have taken on”.

When examining the catalogue of measures proposed in the Environment Ministry’s bill, one has to wonder if the German government has any remaining connection left to reality. If this bill does not get watered down severely – very severely, then Germany may find itself needing a wall to keep the citizens and companies in – and not refugees out. It’s mind-boggingly radical and extreme. Germany’s Ministry Of Environment obviously does not have a balanced panel of advisors, but rather one likely made up of only extreme environmental activists.

Wetzel writes of requests being made by the WWF, which is calling for a transition over to the full electrification of the entire transport sectors, industrial processes and heating, and away from fossil fuels altogether. This, the WWF feels, can be accomplished with sun and wind. They also call for the end of coal power by 2035. However, the WWF gave no specifics how this should be accomplished.

From an energy engineering standpoint, little of what is proposed by the catalogue can be done without major sacrifice. So, it’s little wonder the government has already realized this and rightly scaled back on renewable energies over the past couple of years. But when the bill reaches Parliament in early summer, nothing can be excluded. Yet, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Expect the highly corrosive measures to be severely watered down.