German Wind Power Consumption Plummets 20% In First Half 2021… Coal Power Consumption Jumps 38%!

Share this...

What would we do without coal?

The first half of 2021 saw a massive 20% drop in wind power consumption in Germany…while “coal power saw a renaissance.”

In the latest climate video, Die kalte Sonne cites a variety of electric utility companies and electric power trade associations concerning electric power consumption in Germany for the first half of 2021.

Here we find a number of surprises.

Image cropped from Die kalte Sonne

Wind power consumption tumbles 20%

The share of renewable energies in gross electric power consumption in the first half of 2021 fell from 50% to 43% compared to a year earlier,” Die kalte Sonne reports. “The production of onshore and offshore wind energy decreased by 20%.”

Unfavorable weather conditions

The reason for the steep drop, according to the findings, was due to unfavorable weather conditions. “This year, especially in the first quarter, the wind was particularly still and the sun output was low.”

Solar energy output on the other hand rose a modest 2%.

Coal picked up the slack

So where did all the missing electric power come from?

According to Die kalte Sonne:

Coal energy saw a renaissance. Brown coal [lignite] power plants produced 45.8 terawatt-hours of the net power – that is the power mix that comes out of the outlet.  That’s a strong increase of 37.6% compared to 2020, when only 33.6 terawatt-hours were produced.

The net production by black coal power plants also increased, by 38.9% to 20.4 terawatt-hours after 14.4 terawatt-hours in 2020.”

In total, that means total coal power rose from 48 terawatt-hours to 66.2 terawatt hours, a whopping 38% increase!

Share this...

New Study Finds East And West Antarctica Have Profoundly Cooled By -2.8°C And -1.68°C Since 1979

Share this...

From 1979-2018 East Antarctica cooled -0.70°C/decade (-2.8°C), West Antarctica cooled -0.42°C/decade (-1.68°C), but the Antarctic Peninsula warmed 0.18°C/decade (0.72°C). Thus, as a whole, the Antarctic continent has cooled by about -1.5°C to -2°C during the same period CO2 rose from 337 to 410 ppm.

Zhu et al., 2021

“The temperature trend from ERA5 is consistent with that from observations, in which a cooling trend dominates East Antarctica and West Antarctica, while a warming trend exists in the Antarctic Peninsula except during austral summer.”
“The trends in ERA reanalyses and observations are all negative in East Antarctica in all annual and seasons, and the fastest cooling trend appears in MAM, and the cooling rate of this season is more than 1 °C per decade. In West Antarctica, the ERA5 trends are similar to observation trends, whereas there is a difference between ERA5 trends and ERA-Interim in SON, as reflected in a warming trend in ERA-Interim while a cooling trend is observed in ERA5. ERA5 exhibits a significant cooling trend in annual data, MAM, and JJA, and the trends from ERA-Interim always fail to pass the significance test.”
“It is also worth mentioning that the ERA5 shows a faster cooling rate than ERA-Interim and observations in West Antarctica. Over the Antarctic Peninsula, trends of annual and seasonal temperature means in ERA reanalyses and observations are not significant. ERA5 presents a warming trend with the exception of DJF, as is the case for ERA-Interim and station records.”
Share this...

New Study On Heavy Rainfall: “General Long-Term Trend For Whole Germany Consistently Not Evident”

Share this...

Leibnitz scientists find no significant trends for the whole of Germany in terms of heavy rainfall

We hear the message all the time from the German mainstream media and climate alarmists: Weather extremes are becoming more and more frequent, as the recent flood shows.

But a recent paper titled “Frequency Trend Analysis of Heavy Rainfall Days for Germany” by Deumer et al (2020) tells a very different story.

Hat-tip: Axel Bojanowski.

The two scientists from the renowned Leibnitz research network analyzed data and found no significant trends for the whole of Germany in terms of heavy rainfall.

The abstract:

Climate change is expected to affect the occurrence of heavy rainfall. We analyzed trends of heavy rainfall days for the last decades in Germany. For all available stations with daily data, days exceeding daily thresholds (10, 20, 30 mm) were counted annually. The Mann–Kendall trend test was applied to overlapping periods of 30 years (1951–2019). This period was extended to 1901 for 111 stations. The stations were aggregated by natural regions to assess regional patterns. Impacts of data inconsistencies on the calculated trends were evaluated with the metadata and recent hourly data. Although the trend variability depended on the chosen exceedance threshold, a general long-term trend for the whole of Germany was consistently not evident. After 1951, stable positive trends occurred in the mountainous south and partly in the northern coastal region, while parts of Central Germany experienced negative trends. The frequent location shifts and the recent change in the time interval for daily rainfall could affect individual trends but were statistically insignificant for regional analyses. A case study supported that heavy rains became more erosive during the last 20 years. The results showed the merit of historical data for a better understanding of recent changes in heavy rainfall.”

Regional differences

The paper’s Figure 6 below shows increasing (red) and decreasing (blue) trends of heavy rainfall days with ≥20 mm at rainfall stations, for years (y), summer (s), and winter (w):

Water 12 01950 g006 550

Germany as a whole, however, is showing no real overall trend.

DWD foresees no significant changes up to 2050

Also Germany’s DWD national weather services reached similar results based on radar data in their national climate report published in May, 2020.

On page 22, the DWD report writes that they foresee “no significant change in mean annual precipitation total” up to the year 2050.

Share this...

Veteran Swiss Meteorologist Calls Germany’s Natural Disaster Protection “A Failed State”

Share this...

A veteran meteorologist calls Germany’s natural catastrophe management a “failed state” after over 200 people were killed despite warnings having been issued days early.

Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann slams Germany’s failure to heed early flood warnings. Image:

In an interview with the online Austrian Der Standard, veteran meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann said it was clear that meteorological warnings of devastating floods in Germany were known to the authorities at an early stage. Yet, over 200 died in the floods in a failure to evacuate on time.

Nothing has changed in years

“When nobody does anything, then there are lots of dead people,” said the Swiss meteorologist. And Kachelmann is not optimistic about Germany’s crusty old emergency management bureaucracy changing any time soon: “I have no doubt that nothing will change in this state of affairs, because nothing has changed for years and decades and many such events in the past.”

“Failed state”

He added: “Germany has long been a failed state when it comes to protecting people from natural catastrophes.” Kachelmann believes that under normal political conditions, the heads of North Rhine Westphalia and Rhineland Palatinate – and that of the regional network of ARD flagship German television – would have to resign.

He told Der Standard that it would be very worthwhile for German natural catastrophe prevention and management authorities to learn from the USA when it come to how to react to natural disasters, e.g. tornadoes and hurricanes.

It’s not the first time the seasoned meteorologist has railed against Germany’s ineptitude when it comes to issuing storm warnings. In 2018, he criticized German public television for what he said was a failure to adequately warn the public before North Sea storm Xavier barreled through northern Germany on October 5, killing 7 people.

Share this...

Alarmists Scaremongering, Ignore Germany’s Long History Of Massive Flooding

Share this...

CO2 scaremongering and the truth about German floods

By Fred F. Mueller

Last week we saw flood disasters in various areas of Germany and other European countries, especially in the area of the Ahr River, which have not only caused billions in damage, but tragically also claimed up to more than 200 lives. Considering that there had been precise warnings days before, it is hard to understand why the warnings issued by scientists at the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) were hardly listened to.

Initially, the German DWD weather services  also the public media warned of “heavy rain” and were late in issuing (if at all) warnings of rapidly rising floods. As a result, people were caught unprepared in many cases and couldn’t save even the most basic necessities. In addition to the numerous fatalities, thousands of residents have seen their livelihoods destroyed.

Flooding in Kordel (Germany), July 15, 2021. The town centre and the railway line are submerged. (Photo: Chz, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International)

Alarmists couldn’t even predict 48 hours in advance, let alone 50 years

It is all the more pathetic that now, in the days following the catastrophe, precisely the same “weather and climate prophets” and their mainstream media affiliates now speak of an “unprecedented” catastrophe and blame it on climate change caused by CO2 emissions. These eternal doomsday warners claim they can see 50 or more years into the future, but did not warn of the floods until they were almost here.

Now they are trying to explain away this glitch. A prime example of this was recently provided by German professor Mojib Latif, the chairman of the German Climate Consortium, who has been a media darling for many years. In an interview with the newspaper FAZ (unfortunately now behind a paywall), he was asked directly whether this event was clearly climate or weather related, and delivered a prime example of doublespeak.

He began his answer with the classic: “No, but”, and then went on to blame more or less everything on climate change in a torrent of words. There was talk of warmer air due to climate change, which could absorb more water vapor, and of the Mediterranean Sea, which is also warmer due to climate change and whose evaporation could provide more rain.

A real work of art was his formulations on the new fashionable topic of the climate alarmists: the allegedly weakening jet stream. He described this point as “controversial, but scientifically quite plausible” and spoke in the subjunctive of “could” and “would”.

Latif goes out on a limb

Mr. Latif then became even bolder when asked what was unusual about last week’s floods. He told the FAZ: “Up to now, there has been material damage. Now many people are dying. That was only the case in developing countries before. If we consider the other extremes, such as the heat waves with record temperatures, we as humanity are leaving the comfort zone. Slowly it’s getting dangerous, and I sometimes have the feeling that politicians still don’t get the message.”

Fact-checking Latif’s dramatism

With that, he went quite far out on a limb. Let’s look at the facts about the flood of the Ahr. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary to his statement in the form of historical high water marks (Fig. 1), administrative reports as well as records of local researchers.

Figure 1. Water level marker for the 1804 flood in the suburb of Walporzheim, Pützgasse 9 (Photo: Reinhardhauke, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license).

The flood disasters of 1804 and 1910

What was probably the most catastrophic flood event in recent history hit the villages along the Ahr already at a “CO2-free” time in 1804. According to the records of the then French administration, 129 residential houses, 162 barns and stables, 18 mills and eight forges were completely destroyed. In addition, hundreds of houses, barns and stables, as well as two mills and a blacksmith’s shop were severely damaged.

Vineyards and fruit trees in the Ahr Valley were largely destroyed and nearly 30 bridges collapsed. Along with numerous horses and cattle that drowned in the floods, 63 people also lost their lives.

Another catastrophic flood later occurred in 1910. Although it was not quite as powerful as the one in 1804, there was again immense damage to houses and state buildings, as well as to the Ahr Valley Railway, which was just being constructed. Interestingly, between these two historic catastrophes and the current one, the time intervals are just over 100 years.

Has flood intensity increased “due to climate change”?

The frontrunners of “climate catastrophism” in Germany – politicians from chancellor Merkel (Christian Democrats), finance minister Scholz and environment minister Schulze (Social Democrats), Baerbock (Greens), Lindner (Liberals) and Wissler (Leftists) to climate alarmist Mojib Latif and his fellow prophets – are currently exploiting the catastrophe with all their might. Elections are just two months away, and everything must be done to divert public attention from their own failures.

Looking at historical peak discharge

If one doesn’t want to fall for this, one should compare the intensity of the current event with historical examples. Here, on the one hand, the records of Thomas Roggenkamp and Jürgen Herget in the “Heimatjahrbuch Kreis Ahrweiler 2015” are helpful, where they reconstructed the so-called peak discharges of some highwater events between 1804 and 1920. For the last decades and also for the beginning of the current catastrophe, detailed records of the flood reporting service of the State Office for the Environment of Rhineland-Palatinate are available. Their homepage lists both the water levels and the so-called peak discharges of the ten worst flood events of the Ahr River in the years from 1984 to 2016. Although these measuring points are located at different places today than during the earlier floods, the spatial distances are small enough to allow comparisons. What is important here are not so much the respective water level gauge values, because these purely depend on the specific location, but the peak discharge in cubic meters/second (m3/s). This is the flow rate at the peak of the flood wave and allows conclusions to be drawn about the force and destructive power of the flow even on different locations.

Overview of the region

First, it is helpful to get an overview of the region affected by the rainfall, Figure 2:

Figure 2. The flooded area stretches along the Ahr River, from Müsch to Oberwinter. (Graphic: flood reporting service)

The Ahr is a river with a total length of just about 85 km. In quiet times, only some 8 m3/sec of water pass through the Altenahr gauge. In the worst flood of the last 40 years in 2016, on the other hand, at a water level of 371 cm, the flow reached 236 m3/sec, some 30 times as much. In the current flood, the maximum water level was initially given as 575 cm, and later was estimated to be well over 700 cm.

On the homepage of the flood reporting service, the following table was found showing the extent of historical flood events at the Altenahr gauge, Figure 3:

Figure 3. Tabular recording of highwater events for Altenahr (Source: flood reporting service)

It is interesting to note first of all that at least ten highwater events have occurred at the Ahr in the last approx. 40 years, i.e. on average one every four years. The table allows us to determine an approximate correlation between water level and peak discharge with the help of Excel, Figure 4:

Figure 4. The approximation of the data of the flood reporting service with the help of a linear equation provides a quite good coefficient of determination R2 (Graphics: Author)

Furthermore, a maximum water level of 575 cm could be extracted from the following graph on the homepage of the flood warning service, Figure 5:

Figure 5. Graphical representation of the water level measurement data for Altenahr, time 20 July 2021, 13:36 h (Graph: Flood Reporting Service)

Using the water level taken from Figure 5 with the equation shown in Figure 4, we find an approximate peak discharge of 341 m3/s. Interestingly, however, Figure 5 was later exchanged for another one that same afternoon at 4:36 p.m., Figure 6:

Figure 6. Modified graphical representation of the water level measurement data for Altenahr (Graphic: Flood Reporting Service)

The reasons for this exchange can only be speculated. If one assumes a speculative level value of 800 cm for the equation, a peak discharge of 470 m3/s would result according to the above equation. This is almost sixty times the normal water flow.

Which flood was the worst?

As already stated, the climate alarmists are constantly telling us we are in for ever stronger and worse weather catastrophes in the coming decades because of man-made CO2.

Mr. Latif, as one of the most prominent among them, stated in the FAZ interview, referring to the disaster in Ahrweiler: “Up to today, there had been material damage. This time, many people have died. Such consequences were restricted rather to developing countries before. If we also take the other extremes into consideration, such as heat waves with record temperatures, we as humanity are now leaving the comfort zone. So slowly it’s getting dangerous, and I sometimes have the feeling that politicians don’t get it.”

Really? Let’s have a closer look at his “comfort zone with less CO2,” by looking at the flood disasters of 1910 and 1804. Thanks to the meticulousness of the local historians Thomas Roggenkamp and Jürgen Herget, we have reconstructed figures of the peak discharges for both events at hand. For the flood of 1910, the crest value is given as 585 m3/s. The 1910 flood was thus worse but nevertheless largely comparable to the one that the inhabitants of the Ahr valley had to go through now.

1200 m3/s in 1804

However, both are far overshadowed by the disaster of 1804, whose water discharge, with a peak discharge of about 1,200 m3/s, was twice as massive as the 1910 event. Compared to the current flood, the factor is almost threefold.

The fact that the damage and loss of life were so great this time is due to the fact that many more people live in the affected region today than 100 or even 200 years ago, and our possessions are worth much more than they were back then. CO2 on the other hand, virtually did not play any role back then.

Facts contradict “follow the science”

In view of these facts, it becomes clear how quickly the “scientists” who constantly want to make us believe in the “climate catastrophe caused by man-made CO2” can be refuted by simple, hard reality. In 1804 mankind had produced almost no CO2 at all and in 1910 only negligible amounts of the gas. These people with their high-sounding academic titles and their fuss with complicated computer programs act as if they could predict the future for decades or even centuries. Yet they have all too obviously failed at the purely practical task of warning the inhabitants of the imminent danger. They, the politicians and the journalists who spread their messages as if they were definitive wisdom, bear responsibility: not for the fact of the flood, but for the lack of preparation and warning of the population. And this is exactly what they want to distract from with the propaganda offensive for “more climate protection” that is currently being launched in pre-election Germany on a really massive scale.


Share this...

1970s-’80s ‘Physics’ Said Doubling CO2 Produced Just 0.2°C – 0.8°C Warming. Then ‘Physics’ Changed.

Share this...

Forty to 50 years ago there was “general agreement” in estimates of the resulting radiative forcing (1 to 2 W/m²) and surface temperature change (0.5°C ±0.3°C) when directly doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 to 560 ppm. By the late 1980s the “consensus” estimates doubled to 3.7 W/m² forcing and 1.2°C warming instead. Apparently “basic physics” changed.

It is today considered IPCC-endorsed “settled science” that doubling CO2 concentrations from their preindustrial value (280 ppm to 560 ppm) directly leads to a temperature change of 1.2°C without the alleged positive feedbacks with water vapor and clouds to amplify this warming further.

Image Source: SkepticalScience and IPCC (2001)

As recently as the early 1980s, however, the “general agreement amongst different modelers” put the global surface temperature change resulting from doubling CO2 “between 0.2 and 0.4K.”

Image Source: Schuurman, 1983

In 1984 Andrew Lacis – the scientist who later claimed CO2 is the Earth’s temperature control knob  – co-authored a paper that put the radiative forcing response to doubling CO2 at “only 1 – 2 W/m²” , which is the temperature equivalent of between about 0.2 and 0.8°C.

Image Source: Fung et al., 1984

Again, 1 to 2 W/m² and 0.2 to 0.8°C were the norm for the no-feedback climate sensitivity estimates throughout the 1970s and first half of the 1980s, or before the “consensus” opinion doubled these values in the late-1980s.

Here are some examples.

Newell and Dopplick, 1979 (2x CO2 = 0.8 to 1.5 W/m² or <0.25°C )

Ramanathan, 1981 (2x CO2 = 1.2 W/m² or 0.4°C)

Idso, 1980 (2x CO2 = 2.28 W/m² or ≤0.26°C )

Zdunkowski et al., 1975  (2x CO2 = 0.3 to 0.4°C, 7x CO2 = ~1°C)

Gates et al., 1981 (2x CO2 = 0.3°C, 4x CO2 = 0.48°C)

In the early 1970s, it was also the “consensus” that the spectral band where CO2 exerts its radiative effect is saturated or nearly so, which means diminished warming the more CO2 rises. Thus, multiplying CO2 by a factor of 6 or 8 will still produce less than 2°C warming.

Weare and Snell, 1974 (2x CO2 = 0.7°C, 6x CO2 = 1.7°C)

Rasool and Schneider, 1971  2XCO2 = 0.8°C, 8xCO2 = <2°C

Low climate sensitivity estimates became a problem for those wishing to portray CO2 as much more influential variable. By the mid-1980s it became more and more acceptable to say doubling CO2 produces a forcing of 3.7 W/m² and a warming of 1.2°C. And to this day these values are assumed to be “basic physics.”

Image Source: Seinfeld, 2008
Share this...

“Horror Trip”: German Retired Couple Need 26 HOURS To Make 765 Km Vacation Trip In E-Car

Share this...

A trip that would normally take 7 hours without refueling in a diesel engine car, ended up lasting 26 hours in an e-car. A German retired couple’s “horror trip” …”creepy parking lot” late at night…

Journalist Jonas Raab at the German Merkur reports on the horror vacation trip a retired German couple had to endure in their new $40,000 electric Golf, a VW ID.3 car.

Like most people buying e-cars, many do so naively convinced of all the wonderful advantages this clean mode of transportation supposedly offers. But often it all ends in huge disappointment.

Two German pensioners wanted to travel 790-kilometers from Freiburg, Germany, to the south of France, a trip that would normally take about 7 hours in a good old fashion regular car.

One problem after another

But with their brand new electric car, the trip ended up taking 26 hours, the Merkur reports. The problems: lousy charging stations, lying apps and “suddenly decreasing range indicators.” So disappointed were the two German pensioners, that they sent their travel report to German Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer and to Focus Online.

First charge after just 178 km

The couple reportedly left their home at 10 a.m. with the hopes of settling into the comfort of their holiday accommodations by evening. But soon they would find out that the 550-km range advertised by VW was a bit too optimistic, and so they found themselves charging up already after 178 km, according to Focus Online. But the charging station there was broken and so the couple ended up seeking out a VW dealer a few kilometers away and charging their car in “rain and storm” for 2 hours just to get up to 40% charge.

Lying app: no charging station! 

Later at 2 p.m., the couple pulled up to the next rest stop. But the app lied: there was no charging station there. The couple luckily found a 22 kW charging station off the highway where needed until 6:30 pm to charge up. By 9 p.m., the couple should have long reached their destination, but they were only half way to their destination. Darkness had fallen.

Last scintilla of electricity

The Merkur next reports that the next two charging stops also failed because the charging card didn’t work.

At midnight the couple was forced to stop “at a creepy parking lot” and then a rest stop that was “closed for renovation”. Merkur reported:  “With the last scintilla of electricity, the two made it to the VW branch off the highway, charged their car once more and arrived at their vacation apartment after exactly 26 hours.”

Haven’t given up hope

Despite their “horror trip”, the two pensioners told Focus Online they still believed in electric mobility. But they say, “Europe’s charging network for electric cars is lagging miles behind”.

Gotta admire their patience.

Share this...

‘Welt’ Commentary: Germany Flood Catastrophe Made Possible By “Inconceivable Ignorance”…”Unbelievable Scandal”

Share this...

Germany under water. Photo by P. Gosselin

Climate alarmist media waking up?

Germany’s climate alarmist media appears to be waking up a little, and thus are not totally buying the claims being made by German leaders that the devastating floods were due to climate change. It’s becoming increasingly clear the human catastrophe was the result of unimaginable government incompetence.

Though NTZ initially received a few complaints for blaming the loss of life on “criminal negligence” earlier, such complaints have stopped coming in as it is becoming clear as to why nearly 200 people lost their lives.

Catastrophe made possible by “inconceivable ignorance”

Today we are seeing unusually harsh criticism coming from a number of media outlets aimed at the German government’s ineptitude. For example, ‘Welt’ science editor Axel Bojanowski wrote a commentary that the flood catastrophe was made possible by “inconceivable ignorance”.

Bojanowski comments further:

Politicians, authorities and the media point to climate change as the cause of the flood disaster. Yet severe weather warnings were not taken seriously. And disaster protection in our country is at the level of a developing country.

The risk was known: Rainfall like this week’s has happened repeatedly in Germany, historical chronicles read like blueprints for the current flood disaster, and hazard maps show the flood risk. Yet politicians, authorities and the media point to climate change as the cause – while disaster protection in Germany is at the level of a developing country. An unbelievable scandal.

At least 156 people have died because of heavy rain in Germany. Rain had fallen in amounts that have always been expected in Germany and have been an occasional occurrence since time immemorial. The same places that have been devastated by floods of rain this week have been hit in a similar way in the past, as chronicles show.”

660-year record of floods

Those claiming that the weather catastrophe came unexpectedly and that there was no way to be ready for it are no longer being taken very seriously, and are only confirming their historical ignorance.

Dr. Karl August Seel provides a comprehensive history of the River Ahr flood events – going back to the year 1348.

The Ahr River, the ground zero of last week’s flood disaster, is the northernmost tributary of the Rhine and has a length of 90 km and a catchment area of 900 square kilometers.

Lethal stupidity

As the chronicles show, flooding events happened dozens of times and the authorities were obviously comatose at the wheel.

For too many years a crusty old bureaucracy focused on climate protection while ignoring protection from the whims of the weather. Their strategy, as unbelievable as it may sound, was to try to produce good weather by cutting CO2 emissions. It’s that stupid.

The people who want us to think they can rescue the world’s climate couldn’t even manage a flood.

Share this...

The HadCRUT4 Global Temperature Dataset Now Unveils A Cooling Trend For The Last 7.5 Years

Share this...

Since the last day of 2001 CO2 has risen from 372 to 419 ppm. However, there have been two cooling periods of 12 years (2002-2014) and 7.5 years (2014-2021), separated by a 1.5-year El Niño-induced warming event (2015-2016). Temperature changes that proceed in step- or event-like fashion do not seem to correlate well with linearly-rising CO2 concentrations.

HadCRUT4 temperature data (made available for public use by now presents a slight cooling trend since the first few months of 2014.

Image Source:

This new cooling trend follows an abrupt El Niño-induced warming event and a 12-year cooling trend that lasted from the first month of 2002 until the last month of 2014.

Image Source:

As mentioned, the abrupt warming event that spanned from 2015 to mid-way through 2016 was generated by an anomalous El Niño. Fossil fuel emissions had “a fairly insignificant role, if any role at all” in this short-term warming.

If we were to compare the linearly-rising CO2 trend to the two warming pauses and naturally-occurring El Niño event, there would not appear to be an especially strong link.

Image Source:

Another warming pause as CO2 sharply rises will not fluently advance the cause for the next IPCC report (AR6).

Just in time, HadCRUT5 will be introduced soon as the full replacement for HadCRUT4. There will likely be significant changes to the data, including the elimination of this most recent temperature pause.

It has happened before. HadCRUT3 identified a cooling trend from 1998-2012. So the HadCRUT4 version changed the data just in time for the 5th IPCC assessment (AR5, 2013). The 1998-2001 temperatures  were allowed to stay the same, but an additional 0.1 to 0.2°C was tacked on to anomalies from 2002 onwards. The effect was to transform the 1998-2012 slight cooling in HadCRUT3 into a 0.05°C warming in HadCRUT4.

Image Source: 

Changing data to advance the anthropogenic global warming cause is no longer even surprising. It’s expected.

Share this...

Germany’s “Katrina”: Officials Left Dams Full For Weeks Even With Heavy Rains In The Forecast

Share this...

Officials left dams full to the brim at least 3 weeks long during a rainy period and then failed to undertake a controlled release even when 150 mm of rain were forecast 4 days before the floods. 

Now they want to hide their gross incompetence and blame climate change.

Yesterday I posted how Germany’s flood disaster could have been prevented in large part, especially in terms of lives lost. The latest death toll has risen to over 150.

Although the heavy rains had been forecast days in advance, nothing was done to avert the inevitable destruction. Instead of taking responsibility, politicians are blaming climate change in a bid to shift attention away from their incompetence and gross negligence.

Negligence worse than we thought

But it turns out the gross negligence may have been even worse than we thought: Dams constructed to regulate the flow of mountain streams and rivers had been left full for weeks before the disaster struck – despite Europe being stuck in a rainy period.

For illustration purpose only. Photo by: Hahnenkleer. Copyright: see here.

No controlled release to add dam volume 

One independent journalist, Henning Rosenbusch, tweeted at Twitter a clip of a German citizen commenting to a “Welt” reporter:

The resident in a flooded region tells  the “Welt” reporter how every week he rides his mountain bike along dams that hold back waters in valleys. “I noticed that for the last 3 weeks all dams were full to the top – up to just 20 – 30 cm from the brim. These dams are there to hold back the water. Why didn’t they release some of the water in a controlled way much earlier? For me it’s unimageable. This whole thing should not have happened if there had been 10 or 20% more available volume in the dams.”

The reporter answered: “That’s criticism I’ve heard again and again today.”

Dereliction of duty?

Three weeks long dams were left full to the top even with long range forecasts (14 days) showing more and more rain on the way. It’s been a rainy summer, and there were no signs things would change soon.

Then 4 days before the catastrophe struck, meteorologists warned that up to 150 mm of rain was on the way. The filled dams were ticking time bombs that needed to be defused – and there was the opportunity to do so. But for whatever reason, nothing was undertaken by the authorities to release water behind the dams in a controlled manner  to create capacity and slow the downstream flow.

Share this...

Criminal Negligence? Authorities Failed To Heed Flood Warnings…”Let People Drown”…”Monumental System Failure”

Share this...

Harsh criticism of German authorities failing to act is mounting in the aftermath of the recent deadly floods.

Germany’s New Orleans

Many of the over one hundred people who died in the recent flood disaster in Central Western Germany could have been prevented – had the responsible institutions heeded the warnings that had been already issued days in advance by the weather services.

Authorities had been warned days early, yet they did nothing to prepare to evacuate and mobilize resources. The media did nothing to warn.

Veteran meteorologist: “much could have been prevented”

Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann told in a PULS 24 interview that “much of it could have been prevented” and that “people could have been warned”.

“The rainfall could not have been prevented” but the authorities and the “media could have warned the population.” The veteran Swiss meteorologist is surprised by the “surprise of the authorities” and says “people could have been evacuated or at least items moved to higher floors”.

“Let people drown” as “they broadcast shit”

Kachelman also commented to Germany’s leading national daily, Bild: “It hurts when the very people who would have the resources to accompany such a weather situation 24/7 do nothing to save lives. But they broadcast shit and let people drown.”

Unpreparedness becoming a German habit

Publicist Roland Tichy at commented on what seems to be a state of permanent paralysis among the authorities: “Those who blame the flood disaster on the climate are arguing cynically: It is a matter of concrete responsibility and concrete measures and solutions. And so every weather hits Germany unprepared.”

Warnings already days in advance

Online FOCUS magazine here reported authorities claimed the flood came suddenly, and so it was impossible to prepare. Bur Jan Schenk from “The Weather Channel” told FOCUS that warnings began to appear already late last week:

Already on Friday, a heavy precipitation event was announced in western Germany. The weather models swung so strongly that one could already speak of severe weather due to heavy rain. By Monday at the latest, it must have been clear to everyone that there would be flooding in western Germany.”

“Monumental system failure”

FOCUS added:

The European EFAS flood warning system had even issued a warning of ‘extreme flooding.’ The fact that so many people still had to die was ‘a monumental system failure,’ British hydrologist Hannah Cloke, an EU Commission adviser on EFAS, told the political magazine Politico.”

Belgium and the Netherlands both evacuated citizens.

Climate change to deflect attention from failure 

Meanwhile science editor Axel Bojanowski at “Welt” commented on claims that the flood was caused by German CO2 emissions: “The climate argument is used by politicians to deflect attention from their own responsibility for a disaster. Records show flash floods are less dangerous than before despite climate change.”

Building in a natural flood zone!

Another suspected problem not getting the needed attention is reckless planning and zoning. At Twitter, Stefan S. astutely noted that the hard hit town of Altenau in Rhineland Palatinate appears to have been built on an area that is a natural flood area of the Ahr River, satellite photos suggest:

Germany becoming increasingly paved over

Another major factor contributing to flash flooding is the amount of Germany’s surface area that is made impervious (paved over). A total of 19,743 km² (5.5%) of the country’s surface area is paved.

The recent German floods turned out to be where Germany is the most paved over, as the following chart shows. The colors shows the degree to which the surface is paved over:

Source: Leibnitz Institute

Deadliest floods occurred before 1980

Finally, climate alarmists like insisting that flooding today is far worse than before CO2 emissions reached higher levels (350+ppm). But of course this is nonsense. The 30 most deadly floods in the last 1000 years all occurred before 1980:

Also read: Hamburg’s disasters early warning debacle.

Share this...

Post COVID Vaccination Deaths Mount…Leading Immunologist Warns Of “Terrifying…Horrifying” Scenario

Share this...

This post will not be mentioned at Twitter of Facebook because highlighting the real dangers from the COVID vaccines there gets your account suspended or restricted.

Yesterday German enfant terrible journalist Boris Reitschuster’s site here reported on the latest “alarming trend” concerning the VAERS  and WHO figures on post COVID vaccination deaths.

“The side effects of the Corona vaccinations are becoming increasingly difficult to hide. The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) recently showed the largest increase in deaths since the vaccine campaign was introduced,” Christian Eurler writes at Reitschuster’s site. “2,083 people died between the last two updates to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.”

9048 dead after vaccine, many injured

This brings the total number of reported deaths following Corona vaccines to 9,048.

There have also been 985 miscarriages, more than 3,300 heart attacks, close to 7,500 disabilities, nearly 20,000 severe allergic reactions and 2,200 cases of heart muscle inflammation.

An analysis by researchers at Queen Mary University in London found that 80 percent of those reported to have died after vaccination are over age 65 – an age group that has been widely vaccinated.

“Nearly one-tenth (9 percent) died within just six hours of vaccination and 18 percent died in less than 12 hours. More than one-third (36 percent) did not survive to the next day,” the Queen Mary University report notes.

VAER’s trend confirmed by VigiAccess

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) VigiAccess database also confirms the VAERS trend. “The latest figure of 97.8 deaths per day in the aftermath of a COVID-19 vaccination was the highest since late March,” reports “By comparison, that number was 71.9 the week before.”

A significant increase in cases of myocarditis and pericarditis. “In just over a month, both case numbers have nearly tripled. There are now 2,213 and 1,695 cases, respectively.”

Risky vaccines?

So what could be behind all the death and injury surrounding the COVID vaccines?

In a recent video, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D. sheds some light on the possible mechanism leading to serious and lethal side effects, (11:39 mark).

The agent that is injected enters the cells that line the blood vessels, causing them to produce spikes that protrude beyond the cell surface. Your body’s lymphocytes then recognize these spikes as invaders and attack them, meaning they end up attacking your own blood vessels, which is the first way to “clot formation”.

Immune system’s full arsenal could attack your blood vessels

After 3 to 4 weeks, your blood becomes active with antibodies. And as more spikes are made to protrude from your blood vessel cells by the booster shot, Prof. Bhakdi says there’s a risk that your body’s full arsenal of antibodies and leukocytes will view these spikes as an invader and mount a full-scale attack “of the sort that has never been seen before”.

Potentially “terrifying” consequences

“So, we have the unique situation that has been created by the vaccination that is in a way extremely interesting because no one knows what the outcome will be,” says Bhakdi. “However the vision is so horrible, and so awful – and terrifying – that I myself don’t really want to know the answer, and I don’t want this answer to become known.”

Bhakdi strongly urges patients who have had there first shot not to opt for the second, or any shot thereafter. Bhakdi is convinced that doing so is tantamount to placing your life in danger.

Unfortunately Twitter and other social media outlets refuse to allow such warnings, deeming the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks. Let’s hope they are right.

Share this...

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