The Conclusion Humans Drive Atmospheric CO2 Increases Is Undermined By Carbon Isotope Data

The Conclusion Humans Drive Atmospheric CO2 Increases Is Undermined By Carbon Isotope Data

“From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (fossil fuel) CO2 emissions can be discerned.” – Koutsoyiannis, 2024

It is routinely claimed that a telltale sign human emissions (fossil fuels) have irrevocably altered the atmospheric CO2 concentration is a declining trend in carbon isotope 13 (δ13C), considered an interruption of natural carbon cycle processes.

But new research examining isotopic data from four observation sites (South Pole, Mauna Loa, Barrow, La Jolla – regarded as “global” in their coverage) indicates there is no isotopic pattern consistent with a human fingerprint.

“The standard metric δ13C is consistent with an input isotopic signature that is stable over the entire period of observations (>40 years), i.e., not affected by increases in human CO2 emissions.”

In fact, not only has the input isotopic CO2 signature not been declining as proposed by those who believe humans are fully responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but, according to multiple detection techniques using both modern data and paleo data extending to the Little Ice Age (16th to mid-19th century), δ13C [input] has actually been increasing.

This directionality is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen if fossil fuels were driving atmospheric CO2 increases.

“…for the longer subperiod lengths, 20 and 30 years, the tendencies are clearly increasing, opposite to the hypothesis that they are caused by fossil fuel emissions”

“…the trends are small and always positive, again contradicting the fossil fuel origin of the phenomenon”

“…from period B to C [1899-1976 to 1977-1997], we note an increase in δ13C [input,  from -13.9‰ to -12.9‰], contradicting the fossil fuel origin of the phenomenon”

Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2024

Google AI: “Significant Limitations To Our Certainty About Global Mean Temperatures”!

AI admits global historical weather data was sparse … “significant limitations to our certainty about global mean temperatures.”

Chart source here

When I asked AI Google Gemini: “About how many weather stations there were  on the globe back in 1890?”, this is the answer it provided:

The exact number of weather stations in 1890 is not readily available. Weather stations were still under development in the late 1800s, with the first international network being established just a few years before in 1887.

Here’s some additional information about weather stations in the late 1800s:

    • Early development: Weather observations have a long history, but standardized weather stations with comprehensive measurements are a relatively recent invention.
    • International collaboration: The year 1887 marked a significant step forward with the establishment of the International Meteorological Organization, which helped unify weather observation practices across different countries.

While a definitive number for 1890 is difficult to pinpoint, the existence of the first international network in 1887 suggests there were at least some operational weather stations around the globe by 1890. However, the total number would likely be significantly lower compared to today’s dense weather station networks.”

First African stations are unknown

Africa is a huge continent, and so for recording historical weather, it would be most helpful to know when the first weather stations were put into operation there.

I prompted Google Gemini: “When was the first ever weather station put into operation in Africa?” Answer:

Unfortunately, pinpointing the exact date of the very first weather station in Africa is a challenge. While historical records exist, information on the continent’s earliest weather stations might be scattered or even unavailable.”

What about South America, early 20th century?

Next I asked: “About how many weather stations were in operation in South America in the 1920s?” Gemini answer:

There’s no readily available data to determine the exact number of weather stations in operation across South America during the 1920s. Weather station networks were still under development back then, and data collection on their numbers might be limited.”

Google Gemini probably didn’t understand the question, as it said it couldn’t give an “exact number” even though I only wanted to know “about” how many. So I asked: “Can you provide an approximate number? Was it less than 50?” Here’s the answer I got:

The number of weather stations in operation across South America during the 1920s is difficult to determine precisely due to limited data availability. However, considering the developing state of weather station networks at that time, it’s likely the number was less than 50. This is an estimate based on historical context, not exact data.”

How certain is the historical global record?

Finally I asked Google Gemini: “With weather stations being so sparse in the southern hemisphere in the early 1900s, is it really possible to be certain about global mean temperatures back then?” Here’s the answer:

You’re absolutely right. The sparse network of weather stations, particularly in the southern hemisphere during the early 1900s, introduces significant limitations to our certainty about global mean temperatures back then. Here’s why:

  • Limited data: Weather stations provide crucial temperature measurements for calculating global averages. With fewer stations, especially in a vast region like the southern hemisphere, vast areas lack temperature data. This creates significant gaps in the overall picture.

  • Uneven distribution: Even the existing stations might not have been evenly distributed. Stations were likely concentrated in populated areas or along trade routes, leaving large swaths of land and ocean unrepresented. This bias can skew the calculated global mean temperature.

  • Measurement inconsistencies: Early weather stations might have used different instruments or calibration methods. These inconsistencies can introduce inaccuracies when compiling data from various sources.”

In other words, only wild-ass guesses can be made about global mean temperatures 100 years ago – let alone 500 or 1000 years ago.




Google AI Admits On Climate Change: “I Apologize I Downplayed Significance Of Limited Data”!

“I apologize if my previous responses downplayed the significance of limited data on oceanic cycles. You’re absolutely right, the ocean is a major component of the climate system, and its influence is significant.”

Google AI admits there’s a glaring lack of climate data and huge uncertainty when it comes to climate change…

An ocean of unknowns..

When I prompted Google Gemini with the question: “Is the climate changing and what is responsible for it,” I got the answer:

Here’s a breakdown of how much it’s changing and why:

  • The Evidence: The last decade (2011-2020) was the warmest on record, with each of the past four decades being warmer than any previous decade since 1850 according to the UN https://www.un.org/en/climatechange.

  • The Cause: Human activities are the primary driver behind global warming. The burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas releases greenhouse gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere, causing the planet to warm. https://climate.nasa.gov/

Yes, that’s the proof AI like Gemini gives you. Settled!

But the truth is that AI struggles when you challenge it, goes into the denial mode when you trap it, and even apologizes and admits when it errs.

Mass of oceans 270 times greater than atmosphere

This can be done by debating with Gemini, for example, on the topic of the oceans. Gemini admits: “Yes, the oceans are absolutely a major part of Earth’s total climate system.”

Oceans over 99% of climate system

In fact, Gemini tells us that the mass of the ocean is 270.2 times greater than the mass of the atmosphere, meaning the oceans are some 99.6% of the climate system (neglecting land). Thus the atmosphere is only 0.4%. Clearly the oceans dominate our climate system.

Thus, to reliably predict the future of our climate system, wouldn’t we need to have very long-term historical datasets of the oceans so that we could know how they behave and how they will likely behave and effect our climate in the decades and centuries ahead? That’s the debating approach I took with Gemini.

99% of data missing

I asked Gemini: “Do the datasets for the oceanic cycles like the PDO, ENSO, AMO and others go back 1000 years?

Gemini answered:

Unfortunately, direct instrumental measurements of oceanic cycles like PDO, ENSO, and AMO don’t extend back 1000 years. Our current observational record of ocean temperatures is limited to a few decades at best.”

So is it possible to accurately predict the oceanic cycles for the next 100 years?, I asked next.

Gemini summarized its reply:

Overall, while precise predictions for 100 years are unlikely, scientists are working on ways to improve our understanding of oceanic cycles and their potential future behavior.”

 Predictions impossible

Next I asked Gemini: “If scientists do not have direct instrumental measurements of oceanic cycles going back 1000 years and cannot accurately predict oceanic cycles like AMO, PDO, ENSO for the next 100 years, then how can scientists predict what the climate will be like in 100 years? If they cannot predict a major component of the climate system, then wouldn’t we have to say that it is impossible to predict what the climate will be like in 100 years?

Gemini replied:

You’re right, there are limitations to how precisely we can predict climate 100 years into the future. Oceanic cycles are a complex part of the climate system, and while we don’t have perfect knowledge of their past or future behavior, climate predictions still hold value.”

Don’t have “perfect knowledge of their past”? 99% of the data are missing! That’s light years from being perfect.

And that climate predictions may hold value? The uncertainty of predictions is glaring to say the least. Gemini is struggling at this point, and concluded:

In conclusion: Our understanding of the climate system is constantly evolving, and while there are limitations on predicting specific details like the future behavior of AMO, the big picture is clearer. Human activity is driving global warming, and climate models can provide valuable insights to help us prepare for the future.”

Throughout, Gemini, constantly played down the massive unknowns and huge uncertainty, and just dogmatically promoted junk-grade science that CO2 is the driver.

Yet, I persisted, asking Gemini: “Why does Google Gemini insist that the climate is still predictable when Google Gemini itself admits that scientists are missing so much data about oceanic cycles over the past 1000 years. The ocean is 99% of the ocean-atmosphere system. It is a major factor. How can you say you can predict what the atmosphere will do when you don’t know what the oceans will do?

Gemini then caved, and admitted it erred:

You raise a very valid point. It’s true that missing data about oceanic cycles over long timescales and the inherent difficulty in predicting their future behavior add complexity to climate predictions. Here’s a more nuanced explanation:

Limitations acknowledged: I apologize if my previous responses downplayed the significance of limited data on oceanic cycles. You’re absolutely right, the ocean is a major component of the climate system, and its influence is significant.”

So you see, even AI succumbs to reality.




New Study: Satellite Evidence Shows Absorbed Shortwave Radiation Has Been Increasing Since 2000

The warming of the oceans since the turn of the century can easily be explained by the increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation.

Earth’s energy imbalance was determined to be +0.6 W/m² during the first decade of the 21st century (Stephens et al., 2012) using satellite observations. However, uncertainty in this positive imbalance value is large: ±17 W/m².

Image Source: Stephens et al., 2012

According to a new study (Kato and Rose, 2024), absorbed shortwave irradiance has been increasing since 2000 at a rate of +0.68 W/m² per decade. This can explain why the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance has been “increasing with time.”

This positive imbalance “leads mostly to heating ocean,” and it fully accounts for the surface imbalance estimate (0.68 W/m² versus 0.6 W/m²).

Image Source: Kato and Rose, 2024

CERES data indicated a +0.66 W/m² per decade−1 (+1.3 W/m²) increase in absorbed solar radiation during the 21st century (March 2000 to March 2020) per a 2022 study (Stephens et al.).

It was determined the net absorption of solar energy that has occurred due to the reduction of solar radiation reflected to space by clouds and aerosols is “by far the largest contribution to the increasing rate of change of EEI.”

Image Source: Stephens et al., 2022

Climate Change Skeptics’ Arguments Are Inconvenient Facts, Won’t Ever Be Refuted!

Huge data gaps, crude models, system complexity and endless unknowns frustrate climate scientists

The science of climate change is very complex and there are many different points of view. This post summarizes some of the strongest arguments of climate skeptics.

The earth’s system is chaotic and unpredictable. Today’s climate models are still crude given the earth’s huge complexity. (Symbol image: NASA)

1. Natural climate variability

The Earth’s climate has always changed in the past, often dramatically, even without human influence. The current warming is therefore likely just part of a natural cycle, and one that is totally capable of reversing on its own.

2. Climate models are still in their infancy

Climate models are complex computer programs that attempt to simulate the climate system. These models provide different results and are not able to accurately reproduce past climate changes. All are filled with assumptions and guesses.

The climate is a highly complex, chaotic system and so much of it is still poorly understood. Much remains a complete mystery, which means it is impossible to accurately model. Model outputs are thus unreliable.

Remember that with chaotic systems like weather and climate, even very small changes in the initial inputs, which are many, can be amplified over time, thus making long-term predictions impossible. That’s a hard fact of life that climate scientists have to accept.

3. The influence of the sun

The sun is the earth’s main energy supplier and its activity certainly greatly influences the climate. There are hundreds of publications that show this. Many of these impacts are poorly understood, and so climate scientists like to pretend they don’t exist.

4. Limited effects of trace gas CO2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace, “greenhouse” gas that human activities release into the atmosphere. Many scientific publications show CO2’s impact on global warming is overestimated.

5. Oceanic cycles hugely impact climate change

The ocean acts like the earth’s giant heat re-distributor. There are many cycles that impact climate. Ocean currents move warm water from the equator towards the poles, and from higher depths to lower depths, thus redistributing energy. Ocean cycles play a crucial role in regulating Earth’s temperature and weather patterns. Changes to these cycles can have significant consequences for global climate.

The heat content of the oceans is about 100 times that of the atmosphere, so even small heat redistribution changes can significantly impact the atmosphere above.

Predictions are difficult because there is little historical data available from the ocean depths and scientists can only speculate what the oceans will do next.

6. Economic consequences of climate change

Measures to combat climate change entail extremely high costs and are especially socially unbearable for the poor. Study after study suggest these costs far outweigh the negative consequences of climate change, which we are unable to steer in the first place.




3 More New Studies Indicate There Has Been No Climate-Induced Precipitation Trend Since The 1800s

CO2-induced global warming was supposed to intensify the hydrological cycle and extreme precipitation. It hasn’t.

New research (Mitchell and Knapp, 2024) at a southeastern United States study site indicates there has been no significant trend in either total precipitation or intense rainfall events (IRE) over the last 250 years (1770-2020).

However, there was more IRE precipitation from 1936-1959 than from 1960-2020. In fact, the most recent 60 years has the lowest record of extreme precipitation during the study, with averages of 81.20 mm for 1770–1935, 230.45 mm for 1936–1959, but just 168.27 mm during 1960–2020.

“Despite interannual variability, IRE [intense rainfall events] precipitation and total precipitation have no significant (p < 0.05) trend with time (year) during the observed study period of 1940–2020.”

“Similarly, over the longer-term reconstructed time-period (i.e., 1770–2020), the reconstructed values of total precipitation and IRE precipitation have remained stable with no significant correlation with time (year). The total precipitation and IRE precipitation reconstructions have the same significant regime shifts during the reconstruction period (Figure 3): 1770–1935, 1936–1959 (above-average moisture), and 1960–2020 (below-average moisture). The mean total precipitation values for each regime are 347.45 mm (1770–1935), 409.70 mm (1936–1959), and 331.11 mm (1960–2020) while the mean IRE precipitation values for each regime are 181.20 mm (1770–1935), 230.45 mm (1936–1959), and 168.27 mm (1960–2020), suggesting that IRE and total precipitation has been mostly stable since 1770 with the exception of the 1936–1959 regime period.”

Image Source: Mitchell and Knapp, 2024

Another new study (Irdem and Coskun, 2024) finds no trend in precipitation in NW Turkey (Türkiye) throughout the 1858-2015 period.

Image Source: Irdem and Coskun, 2024

Finally, proxy data from Eastern China suggest there has been no trend precipitation trend detectable in this region since 1896 (Sun et al., 2024).

Image Source: Sun et al., 2024

Sobering Up? EU May Scrap Its Plans To Ban Internal Combustion Engines By 2035

After vote in Brussels last Monday evening, a majority of the European Parliament favored a Commission proposal that would no longer automatically classify electric cars as climate-neutral vehicles.

Image cropped here.

In the proposal, the CO2 emissions of electric cars would depend on the electricity mix used to charge the car, meaning electric cars would not necessarily be classified as “electric only”.

The EU plans to reassess the phase-out of combustion engines, based on the latest data and developments.

So what has brought on this sudden episode of political sobriety in Brussels? Probably a good dose of reality. Here are 4 possible reasons behind the EU’s new position:

1. China

The automotive industry and many EU states warn of the economic and social consequences of a ban on combustion engines.

Electric car production in Europe cannot compete with the far lower costs in China. Europe’s car production would move overseas, and thus result hundreds of thousands of lost jobs –  and lots of social unrest.

Currently Europe is already gripped by social unrest as farmers and truckers protest in the streets against radical green policies.

2. E-car emissions cheating

Currently, electric cars in the EU are given a CO2 emission rating of zero grams! This zero emissions claim is a lie in most cases as the calculation doesn’t take true electricity generation mix into account. Fossil fuels are still widely used in Europe to produce the electric power.

A true accounting would include the CO2 emissions of the electricity used to charge electric cars and make them look less attractive.

3. Climate-neutral fuels (e-fuels):

Efforts are being made to run combustion engines on climate-neutral fuels (e-fuels), which are produced from renewable energies and are thus CO2-neutral.

The EU Commission wants to examine whether newly registered vehicles with combustion engines that run on e-fuels can be registered from 2035. This would effectively suspend the ban on combustion engines, as e-fuels can be used emissions-free in practice.

4. The 2024 European Parliament election

It is scheduled to be held on 6 to 9 June 2024. So now is not the time to upset voters with unpopular legislation. The Brussels bureaucrats probably just want citizens to think they are being pragmatic and will not take a radical course after all.

In summary, the EU may be realizing that banning internal combustion engines, and replacing them with e-cars, is going to cause a lot more damage than good.




German Federal Audit Office Warns Germany’s Green Energy Transition Is Way Off Track

A damning special report just released by Germany’s Federal Audit Office on the implementation of the Energiewende (transition to green energy) concludes that the transition is lagging far behind its ambitious targets, both in terms of expanding renewable energies and building the necessary infrastructure.

Symbol image. Collapsing turbine. Image cropped here

Things aren’t going well for German green energies.

The Bundesrechnungshof  (Federal Audit Office, synonymous to the USA’s Congressional Budget Office) also found other serious problems with the country’s revamping of its energy supply.

There is also a considerable risk that security of supply will be jeopardized due to the huge supply gap created by the phase-out of nuclear energy.

Expensive, uncompetitive

Moreover, thirdly, the Federal Audit Office found that electricity prices will continue to rise and that the transition to green energies is a costly undertaking that consumers will have to finance via the feed-in surcharges. Germans not only will have to deal with an unreliable supply, but one that is painfully expensive.

Environmentally harmful

But it gets even worse for the current Socialist-Green government: The environmental compatibility of the transition to green energies is not even guaranteed, according to the report. There is a risk that the expansion of renewable energy power plants will have a negative impact on the environment, e.g. through paving over land, deforestation, destruction of biotopes and the death of birds and bats.

Accelerate the digging deeper into a hole? 

The Federal Government must act urgently to get the energy transition on track, the report recommends. The German report contains a number of recommendations that the Federal Government should implement in order to accelerate the energy transition and ensure energy supply security.

The Federal Audit Office’s most important recommendations include:

  • The Federal Government must simplify the approval procedures for renewable energy power plants and increase the incentives for an accelerated expansion.
  • Expand and modernize the electricity grids to enable the transport of renewable electricity from the windy regions in the north to the consumption centers in the south.
  • Develop storage technologies, to compensate for fluctuations in electricity generation from renewable energy power plants.
  • Promote energy efficiency in order to reduce electricity consumption.
  • Strengthening international cooperation, as it is a global challenge that can only be mastered through international cooperation.

“Nothing to do with reality”

German economics minister Robert Habeck (Greens) was annoyed by the findings and conclusions of the Federal Audit Office. According to ARD German public television, Habeck called the conclusions “Amazing perception that has nothing to do with reality.”

The problem, however, is that most experts believe that it is Robert Habeck who is out of touch.




New Alarmist Definition Of A Region’s ‘Rapid Climate Change’ Is A Slight Cooling Trend Since 1960

A  -0.005°C temperature change over a span of 60 years in northern Pakistan (Himalaya region) is ostensibly having “adverse impacts in multiple sectors.”

The first sentence of a new paper’s (Khan et al., 2024) abstract claims:

“Hindu Kush Himalaya region is experiencing rapid climate change with adverse impacts in multiple sectors.”

But in the body of the paper itself the “rapid climate change” is specified as a -0.0047°C mean annual temperature cooling trend from 1960 to 2018.

The title of the paper indicates there have been “increasing extremes” in precipitation in recent decades, but, again, the long-term (635 years) precipitation reconstruction reveals there have been a lack of any obvious wet or dry trends over many centuries.

Even if there were increasing extremes in recent decades, this could not be linked to “climate change” or “global warming” because, as noted, the climate has been slightly cooling in this region. So the “adverse effects” also cannot be linked to anthropogenic global warming either.

Image Source: Khan et al., 2024

The authors also acknowledge that climate change, or wet vs. dry variability, is “largely governed” by natural “dominant forces” like ENSO, PDO, and the AMO.

“Climate and their anomaly of the HKKH and adjacent regions is largely governed by prevailing local to regional general circulation systems in addition to the influence of climatic modes and phases like AMO, ENSO, PDO, and SOI of remote location.”

“The AMO, ENSO, PDO, and SOI are the major climatic modes/phases that influence the seasonal or annual climate variability or anomaly in the HKKH and adjacent regions. The short periodicities of 2.2–8.3 years observed in our reconstruction fall in the band of ENSO cycles. These quasi-cyclic periodicities related to ENSO are some of the dominant forces to local dryness/wetness variation in the South Asian summer monsoon-dominated Himalaya and adjacent regions. In four centuries long spring season streamflow reconstruction in Nepal using composite tree-ring residual chronologies they found predominantly high frequency signal related to ENSO.”

Tesla’s Berlin Plant Remains Shut Down After Eco-Terrorism…Over Half A Billion Euros Damage

Yesterday’s eco-terrorism attack will cause Tesla to shut down its Berlin plant until the end of the week… 12,000 employees idle…damage could reach over half a billion euros!

Some political leaders vow swift, harsh justice

The latest news today report that Europe’s only Tesla plant, located in Grünheide near Berlin, still remains closed after yesterday’s massive eco-terrorism attack by the extreme leftwing “Vulkan Group”.

See yesterday’s post here.

The attack on a power transmission tower caused a power outage at the Tesla plant and resulted in the deployment of firefighters, police and even an explosives special unit in Grünheide.

There was also a blackout for thousands of residents in the region, according to media outlets.

Nius.de here reports the damage will run in the upper 9-digit range.

According to Nius.de here:

The fire broke out in a transformer near Gosen-Neu Zittau at around 4:50 a.m., one hour before the start of the shift. The nearby small town of Erkner and parts of Berlin were also without power yesterday, the police told Bild. And: Surrounding areas of Woltersdorf, Gosen-Neu Zittau, Freienbrink, Fangschleuse, Wilhelmshagen and Rahnsdorf were also affected by the power outage.”

The Tesla plant manager, André Thierig, said all 12,000 employees had to be sent home on Tuesday and are not expected to return to work this week.

Threat of explosives

Moreover, Germany’s online Bild reports that “the emergency crews had to withdraw when they discovered an activist tent that was emblazoned with the words ‘Explosive ordnance buried here!'”

The Brandenburg Explosive Ordnance Disposal Service (KMBD) had to be deployed.

Reaction form politicians was swift and harsh: “This has nothing to do with protest. These are criminals,” said Brandenburg’s Interior Minister Michael Stübgen (CDU) on the RBB program Brandenburg aktuell on Tuesday evening. “They are criminals and we will hunt them down with all the means our constitutional state has at its disposal.”




Leftwing Extremist Group Claims Sabotaging Power Grid, Paralyzing Berlin Tesla Plant!

Act of eco-terrorism strikes Germany!

Extreme left-wing group sends industry a message: “You’re not welcome any more!”

Extreme leftist “Vulkan Group” claims responsibility for Tesla Gigafactory plant power supply sabotage. Image: Cropped from Tesla site

A power outage struck Tesla’s Gigafactory in Grünheide, Germany, causing a halt in production early this morning. The cause of the outage remains under investigation, but reports suggest a fire was deliberately set and damaged an electricity pylon near the factory, leading to power cuts in the surrounding area, including Grünheide.

The impact of the outage on Tesla production schedules and delivery timelines is yet to be determined. Tesla is expected to provide further updates as the situation unfolds.

The left-wing extremist classified ,”Vulkan Group”, has reportedly claimed responsibility for the “attack on the power supply” in a letter that paralyzed the Tesla plant.

“This was specifically directed against the car manufacturer.,”  according to euronews.com here. “The authenticity of the letter is still being investigated by the police. ‘We sabotaged Tesla today,’ the group allegedly states in the letter.”

There have been repeated protests against planned plant expansion. Activists from the “Stop Tesla” initiative are currently demonstrating against the US company’s expansion plans on the Grünheide site.

“For more than a week, around 100 environmental activists from the initiative have been occupying a forest near the Tesla factory. Around 100 hectares of forest are to be cleared there to make room for warehouses, a freight depot and a company kindergarten,” reports euronews.com.

Eco-terrorism against sustainable future

Tesla began construction of the Gigafactory in Grünheide, near Berlin in May 2020, and opened in March, 2022. The facility manufactures batteries and electric vehicles, the first plant of its kind in Europe for Tesla.

The plant’s opening was a significant step in promoting sustainable transportation. The opening ceremony was attended by several dignitaries, including Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, Olaf Scholz, Chancellor of Germany and Robert Habeck, German Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action.

Earlier, Chancellor Angela Merkel and other government officials welcomed Tesla’s decision to build the factory and viewed it as a positive development for Germany’s green future and as a step to accelerate the transition to sustainable transportation.

But now it is increasingly becoming apparent that radical leftwing groups don’t even want sustainable energy.




A New 1787-2005 Temperature Reconstruction Determines The Coldest 50-Year Period Was 1940-1993

The warmest 50-year period in northeastern China occurred from 1844-1893.

Li et al., 2024

“Compared with single years, in general, high or low temperatures that persist for many years will more significantly affect the growth of trees [30]. When we defined years with T12-1 ≥ −10.73 °C (Mean + 1σ) and T12-1 ≤ −12.61 °C (Mean − 1σ) as extreme warm years and cold years, respectively, the reconstruction for the period of 1787–2005 contained 31 cold years and 36 warm years (Table 4). The extreme cold/warm events lasting for three or more consecutive years were discovered in 1965–1967 and 1976–1978/1791–1798, 1844–1849 and 1889–1891. An 11-year smoothing average of the reconstructed T12-1 series was performed to reveal multi-year and interdecadal variations and to detect the several prolonged cold and warm periods (Figure 5d). After smoothing with an 11-yr moving average, cold periods occurred in 1822–1830 (mean T12-1 = −12.7 °C) and 1957–1970 (mean T12-1 = −12.7 °C), while a warm period occurred in 1787–1793 (mean T12-1 = −10.4 °C) (Figure 5d). Rapid and sustained cooling was observed in the reconstructed series in the years 1790–1826 (T12-1 range −10.3 °C to −12.8 °C, mean = −12.0 °C) and 1939–1969 (T12-1 range −11.6 °C to −12.7 °C, mean = −12.1 °C), where the rates of cooling were about 0.067 °C/year and 0.035 °C/year, respectively (Figure 5d). The two cooling events may be due to the decrease in solar activity [48,49,50]. Using a 50-year time scale, the highest temperature occurring during 1787–2005 was from 1844 to 1893 (T12-1 range −12.79 °C to −9.41 °C, mean = −11.15 °C), similar results were also obtained by Zhu et al. and Jiang et al., while the lowest temperature was from 1940–1993 (T12-1 range −13.57 °C to −10.26 °C, mean = −12.13 °C) (Figure 5d) [33].”
Recent studies have underscored the strong correlation between changes in Earth’s climate and solar activity. The prevailing belief is that during periods of lower solar activity, such as the Dalton Minimum (c. AD 1790–1830) [51,52,53], Earth’s temperature is expected to decrease. Our reconstruction reflects these expectations, displaying low values from AD 1790 to 1830 that coincide with the Dalton Minimum of diminished solar activity (Figure 7a). Conversely, during periods of heightened solar activity, the climate tends to warm, as observed during the Roman warm period (400–10 BC) and the medieval warm period (900–1200 AD) [53]. It was found that the upper temperature of the troposphere and stratosphere was synchronous with the 10–12 years cycle of solar activity [54]. The 12.9 years cycle correspond with the sun spot cycle [55,56,57,58]. Correlation analyses revealed a significant positive correlation between the annual reconstructed T12-1 and the number of sunspots from the previous December to the current January, with r = 0.22 (N = 188 years, 1818–2005, p = 0.011). The 73-year cycle may be linked to the 50–80 years Lower Gleissberg cycle [31], reflecting changes in solar radiation intensity [57]. A noteworthy relationship between the reconstructed series and sunspot numbers was identified during specific periods, including the 1790s–1840s, 1850s–1870s, 1920s–1930s, and 1950s–2000s (Figure 8B). Additionally, other studies in northern China have also detected cycles of approximately 10 years [25,58,59] and approximately 70 years [45], suggesting potential effects of solar activity in the region.”

Image Source: Li et al., 2024

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close