More Data Shenanigans At NASA. “Unadjusted” Data Get Whole New Definition: No Longer “Raw”, But Now “Quality Controlled”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

By Kirye
and P. Gosselin

What’s with NASA GISS? The data shenanigans there seem to have no end.

Most of us have noticed that with every new version of temperature data that gets generated by NASA GISS, the more warming that comes with it. The first half of the 20th century often gets cooled while the present gets warmed. This has been shown repeatedly.

One example is Cuiaba, Brazil. Though in this example the past appears not to have been cooled, the more recent v4 “unadjusted” data have been warmed by some 1.0°C throughout since 1960.

Now the early 20th century in Cuiaba, Brazil is not warmer than the early 21st century. Presto, warming! Data: NASA GISS.

Now “unadjusted” data get a new definition

But another peculiar thing has been found. It seems NASA GISS cannot make up its mind on whether the “unadjusted” data are “raw” or if they are “quality controlled”.

When we look at the Key beneath the Cuiaba temperature chart posted by NASA GISS here, we see that “unadjusted” gets called “quality controlled” (marked yellow):

Yet, when we go back to the archives and look at the data plot for Cuiaba, the Key beneath the chart has a different definition for “unadjusted data”. Here they were defined as “raw data as reported by the weather station”!

Well, which is it? Is this another adjustment phase they snuck in?

It’s bad enough that NASA GISS is taking it’s Version 3 “unadjusted” data and adjusting them to Version 4 “unadjusted” (warming them up), but now NASA GISS number crunchers seem unable to make up their minds whether the unadjusted data are “raw” or if they are “quality controlled”.

With all the confusion surrounding all the different versions and changing definitions, we have to wonder what on earth is going on at NASA GISS.

Data used to be raw, but now “quality controlled”

NASA used to claim that GHCN unadjusted are the raw data as reported by the weather station. But now they say that GHCN unadjusted are “quality controlled monthly means constructed by NCEI and other groups from raw data”.

A lot of fishy data business going on at NASA GISS.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

1980s Science: Ice Cores Show CO2 Naturally Rose 200 ppm (65 ppm/100 Years) During The Early Holocene

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

A few decades ago it was “consensus” science that CO2 levels had reached 400 ppm (and even up to 500 ppm) during the Early Holocene, with rising amplitudes of greater than 200 ppm and rates of 65 ppm in less than a century. Then the “consensus” opinion changed.

In 1982 it was still quite acceptable for Dr. Flohn, a climate scientist, to acknowledge that changes in CO2 concentration changes are significantly determined by temperature “rather independent of” fossil fuel emissions, but also that Holocene CO2 concentrations reached 350 to 400 ppm between 8,000 to 6,000 years ago (Flohn, 1982).

That same year, Neftel et al. (1982) had published a paper in the journal Nature documenting a CO2 rise of about 230 ppm (~190 ppm to 420 ppm) from roughly 12,000 to 10,000 years ago for a Greenland ice core. The CO2 record showed fluctuations of >100 ppm throughout the Holocene.

A few years earlier, Berner et al. (1980) found CO2 rose to amplitudes exceeding 500 ppm in Greenland during the Early Holocene, whereas Antarctica’s CO2 concentration rose to about 400 ppm during the same time period.

As late as 1993 scientists were still publishing papers on CO2 readings from ice cores that ranged between 243.3, 435.7 ppm, and 641.4 ppm for recent centuries (Schwander et al., 1993).

Wagner et al. (1999) published a paper in Science denouncing the “consensus” claim that CO2 gently and steadily rose for millennia, varying only beteen 270 to 280 ppm. They too determined CO2 rose and fell quite rapidly during the Holocene, reaching amplitudes of 65 ppm in less than a century.

More recent papers also indicate there were quite substantial ±100 ppm-per-century CO2 fluctuations in stomata reconstructions. Steinthorsdottir et al., 2013 record a rise of about 190 ppm (from ~230 ppm to ~420 ppm) within less than 50 years.

Stomatal reconstructions of 800-2000 A.D. CO2 variability (Kouwenberg et al., 2005) determined there was a ~125 ppm CO2 rise from 1850 (250 ppm) to 1940 (375 ppm).

Why the discrepancy between “consensus” CO2 and historically recorded CO2?

Polish physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski (1997) was a fierce critic of the means by which ice core data have been collected to assign CO2 concentration values to past epochs.

His criticisms center around the post-1985 tendencies for fellow scientists to openly employ selection bias in making pre-determined decisions about what measurements are “right” and which ones are “wrong” – effectively rendering their results meaningless.

He cites Pearlman et al. (1986), for example. These authors collected 74 Antarctic ice core CO2 samples. Of those, 32 (43%) were rejected because they had values that were too high or too low to match with the agreed-upon pre-determination.

In what other branch of science is it acceptable to discard measured data we don’t agree with?

Jaworowski provides an illustrative example of how the rejecting-data-we-don’t-agree-with practice has been ongoing since the 1950s.

G.S. Callendar’s CO2 measurements reached 375 to 550 ppm throughout the 1800s. These measurements were believed to be too high. So Callendar chose the measurements that he agreed with (circled).

Professor Tom Segalstad, a University of Oslo geologist, provides possibly the most thorough explanation of how the current CO2 “dogma” was formulated and maintained so as to advance the CO2 greenhouse warming cause.

Segalstad (1998) concludes:

“It is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear correction ‘buffer’ factors constructed from a pre-conceived hypothesis, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

FridaysForFuture Fizzles With Kids On Summer Break… Greta Sees Only 2000 In Berlin, Mostly Adults/Organizers

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Not 20,000, rather only 2000 people see Greta in Berlin!

(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

Four months ago in March, 20,000-25,000 pupils and demonstrators took part with Greta in the demonstration in Berlin. But last Friday, only about 2,000 people showed up despite the fact that the demonstration with Greta was greatly advertised in the social media by Fridays For Future and the Scientists For Future. It didn’t amount to anything. The hype about Greta and Fridays for Future now seems to be over.

Mostly a hard core over age 30

The students have flown with their parents to their summer holiday destinations, and so only a hard core of professional activists mainly over age 30 gathered. They held up signs with slogans like: “Milk Chocolate Kills”, “Kale Instead of Coal”, “Vegans for Future/ Planet”, “Kerosene Tax Now”, “Parents in Panic” and “Winter Is Not Coming!” Everything with climate experts, who are familiar with climate change, and no kooky people.

“Longhaul Luisa”

Greta was accompanied by Luisa Neubauer, a.k.a Longhaul-Luisa, and the lead staff of Fridays For Future. Most of them are no longer students, rather professional activists from various NGOs. At the podium Greta announced her well-known perseverance slogans and was then shielded off by her companions and the police and led by the demonstrators into a hidden off building.

A swan song from Fridays for Future?

I would see it that way. The hype around Greta died down already in the spring. A rebound was then provided to Greta by the award of the Golden Kamera, a visit to the Pope, her “spontaneous” appearance of Scientists For Future and finally the “spontaneous” appeal by YouTube vlogger and influencer Rezo and his YouTube friends. (Rezo in reality is called Yannick Frickenschmidt and is over age 30).

Thus the last chapter seems to have been opened, and a fresh new face coming on stage is not foreseeable. All trump cards have now been played, even if Greta still plans a sea voyage to America. In September the 16-year-old wants to participate in the United Nations climate summit in New York, in the world climate conference in Santiago de Chile in December, says her leadership staff.

It remains to be seen whether this will trigger new hype around Greta.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

“Join The Skeptical Movement” …Hip German Youths Push Back On Climate Hysteria, Post Skeptic Videos, Go Viral!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

What follows today is really quite cool, and highly encouraging in a country known for lockstep thought.

Over the past months we’ve seen great media hype in Germany surrounding climate alarmist youngsters like Greta, FFF and more recently Rezo, who have played major roles in stirring up a lot of climate hysteria, all aided and abetted by the established media.

But apparently in Germany there are a few young, hip persons pushing back on all the climate hype and hysteria with their own videos that have since gone viral.

“Join the Skeptical Movement”

The latest video comes from young German teen Naomi Seibt, who has decided to think for herself and check what’s really behind the climate “science” and hysteria.

Since she uploaded what she calls her “most elaborate project to date” on July 1st, her video — dubbed “Climate change – All hot air? — has been viewed more than 75,000 times and gotten over 8000 thumbs up.

YouTube takes Naomi down – temporarily

She writes at YouTube: “If you want to join the skeptical movement, please share this video.”

In her video Naomi explains how many large factors are at play in the climate system, how the UN IPCC is playing it loose with the facts and that politicians are attempting to use the issue to gain control over every aspect of our individual lives. The 18-year demonstrates an impressive knowledge on the subject, rarely seen among today’s youth.

Naomi’s success apparently has taken the climate activists by surprise and caused them to panic. Die kalte Sonne here reports how YouTube actually took down her video, before reinstating it.

JasonHD: “Manipulations and untruths”

Another spectacularly successful climate hysteria skeptical video was recently produced by German JasonHD on May 24th. In it he takes down climate alarmist and leftist political agitator Rezo (mentioned above) point by point.

JasonHD dismantles the “manipulations and untruths concerning climate change”.

So far JasonHD’s thoughtful video has racked up 190,000 views.

Rapper: “Climate Change – Climate Lies, Climate Swindle”

One of the earlier pioneers of German youth climate-hysteria pushback is Austrian rapper Kilez More, who already in 2011 uploaded his rap song “Climate Change – Climate Lies, Climate Swindle” song on YouTube.

As of today it’s been viewed some 209,000 times.

We need to get these young leaders at the climate conferences in place of the usual old, crusty figures. They’re well connected and are reaching their generation.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

2019 Climate “Ship Of Fools” Runs Into 3-Meter Thick Ice… Baffin Inlets Mid Summer Ice Extent No Trend in 50 Years

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Our German skeptic friend Snowfan here keeps us up to date on the latest ODEN “Ship of Fools” attempt to travel across an Arctic that is supposed to be ice-free by now.

The incentive to cross the Arctic passages in the summer is huge. Doing so would mean at least a week of fame with the media blaring out your name along with grossly hyped headlines of an Arctic ice meltdown due to global warming. One of these years, a ship might get lucky and manage to get through the Northwest Passages.

Image from: Ship-Tracker ODEN  Snowfan

And the pressure to do so is enormous because over the last ten years Arctic ice volume has even rebounded slightly and if that trend continues, as some expect, the global warming alarmist may never get another chance to get through. Last year failed.

Mid-summer Arctic ice volume has grown modestly over the past 13 years, thus casting doubt Arctic is melting further. Chart: Kirye.

The latest “Ship of Fools” episode this year is an attempt by the above mentioned Swedish ice breaker ODEN, which hopes to get through. Unfortunately conditions so far this summer have not been as favorable as they hoped, Snowfan reports:

Image: here.

This year Arctic sea ice in the area of interest on July 14 is (unexpectedly) thicker than it was last year at the same time, and a heck of a lot more than what some climate models and Al Gore projected a bit more than 10 years ago:

In Lancaster Sound and the Barrow Strait (eastern access point to the NW-Passage) sea ice in mid July 2019 is up to 3 meters thick, i.e. 2 meters thicker than in mid-July 2018! Source: DMI Arctic Sea Ice Thickness. Image: here.

Also defying the models is the extent of ice cover for July 9 at the Baffin inlets Regent – Boothia. Over the last 50 years, there’s been little trend change:


Source: Canadian Ice Service

The latest on ODEN, according to CruiseMapper, is that it is currently well off course. Snowfan writes:

In the night of July 19, 2019, the Ship of Fools has deviated far from its planned route southeast of Coburg Island and is positioned this morning west of this island. We await with suspense to see if the climate fools will overcome the thick ice on July 20, 2019 and arrive on time in Pond Inlet.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Rapidly Fluctuating India Sea Levels Were 4 m Higher Than Today 6000 Years Ago, 1.5 m Higher 500 Years Ago

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Scientists have found sea levels on India’s eastern coast were still 1-1.5 m higher than today as recently as 500 to 300 years ago and 3-4 m higher than today between 6000 to 4000 years ago. Seas rose and fell by multiple meters (-5 m to +3 m) within 1250 years until as recently as 4000 to 2000 years ago.

A new paper (Loveson and Nigam, 2019) reveals sea levels were still rising at a rate of 2.2 meters per century between 8100 and 7200 years ago, reaching a highstand of 4 meters above today’s sea level 6050 years ago.

For the next several millennia sea levels rapidly rose and fell within a range 6 meters – between 4 meters above to -2 meters below present levels.

A drop in sea level at one point reached an amplitude of -5 meters in just 1250 years (4350 to 3100 years ago) followed by 3 meters of sea level rise within 1200 years (3100 to 1900 years ago).

As recently as about 300 years ago mean sea level on India’s eastern shore was still about 1 meter higher than today.

Image Source: Loveson and Nigam, 2019

Evidence there were sea port towns along India’s west coast that are presently located much further inland suggest sea levels were 2-3 m higher prior to 2500 years ago.

At the time of the 43 AD Roman invasion of Britain, the ocean shoreline, or beach, was located 2 miles (3.22 kilometers) from today’s shore.

Image Source: BBC

A new paper (Makwana et al., 2019) indicates there were sea port settlements that are today located “far inland” compared to where they were about 2500 years ago.

The scientists suggest sea levels may have been at least 2 meters higher than today at that time.

A visual example of how 2-meters-higher sea levels could have “submerged” the coast of western India is provided.

Image Source: Makwana et al., 2019
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Another Blow! Two New Studies Show Climate Models Have “Large Deficits” …Running “Too Hot”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Climate sensitivity and the warming pattern

By Die kalte Sonne
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

In March 2018, we reported on a paper that derived the sensitivity of our climate system with the best data available. Lewis/Curry (2018) reached the result: 1.3 °C for doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere with a rise (Transient Climate Response), long-term equilibrium (ECS) of 1.7 °C (see Table 3 of the paper).

The numbers hardly react sensitively to the choice of (larger) time windows, they fluctuate very little, whether one evaluates 1870…2016 or 1930…2016. There has been a whole series of precursor studies also from other authors who also arrived near these quite small values. Also papers examining historical periods (last glacial maximum to pre-industrial) do not contradict these low figures.

So the much more dramatic sensitivity estimates, especially from GCM model considerations (for General Circulation Models), — 1.86 °C for TCR and 3°C for ECS — are not applicable? “It’s not that simple,” some activists insist because then the low sensitivity of the Earth’s climate would not necessitate urgent action to reduce greenhouse gases.

So how can we save the GCMs from empiricism with their worrisome projections? A key argument so far is this: models predict a different spatial distribution of ocean warming than what we observe:


Fig.3: The warming patterns derived by models (top) and the observed patterns. Of particular importance is the fact that the CMIP5 models indicate a rather uniform warming of the tropical Pacific as a result of the (mainly man-made) forcing (hence the model-mean), but the observations show a significantly stronger warming of the western tropical Pacific compared to the eastern one.  The images were generated with the KNMI Climate Explorer.

So it could well be, activists say, that the deviation are just a “whim of nature”, an internal variability, and after the end of this rather random episode, the warming becomes much stronger on a global scale on accordance to the models. There is talk of “trajectories” which were and will be possible, and the observations strongly deviate negatively because they are a random one of the possible warming patterns. In short: “What we have observed so far is not the real reality, but it will certainly get much worse. Believe the climate models!”

2 new papers

Here we present two current papers that provide explanation. To start: The observations of the warming rate are correct, the deviating patterns of the climate models are caused by their inadequacies and these patterns will not change.

In Dong et al (2019), the authors show that if the convective regions with many clouds in the western Pacific warm up more strongly than those with hardly any convection in the eastern Pacific, the overall global warming is much less pronounced.

Let’s take a look at the clouds in the tropical Pacific:

Fig. 4: The convection(CAPE Index) over the tropical Pacific. The west-east gradient can be seen clearly. Source.

Convection in the western tropical Pacific leads to an increased heat radiation into space, which means that the warming there can be reduced much more effectively than would be possible with a stronger warming of the eastern Pacific with less convection, see Fig. 4.

The paper finds:

For the west Pacific patch, warming is communicated to the upper troposphere, which warms the whole troposphere across all latitudes, causing a large increase in outgoing radiation at the TOA. Furthermore, the patch of warming locally decreases tropospheric stability, measured here as estimated inversion strength (EIS), but increases EIS remotely over tropical marine low clouds regions, yielding an increase in global low cloud cover (LCC) which enhances the global SW reflection….The results first highlight the radiative response to surface warming in tropical ascent regions as the dominant control of global TOA radiation change both in the past and in the future. …This surface warming pattern yields a strong global outgoing radiative response at TOA that can efficiently damp the surface heating, therefore producing a very negative global feedback.”

It is therefore a clear physical mechanism that leads to the observed stronger warming of the tropical West Pacific leading to lower global sensitivities (= stronger negative global feedback).

The second paper, Seager et al (2019), deals with the same phenomenon and concludes that the observed pattern is not random, but a direct result of forcing. It states:

The main features of observed tropical Pacific climate change over past decades are consistent with a response to rising CO2, according to fundamental atmosphere and ocean physics….However, the strength of the tropical Pacific influence on global climate implies that past and future trends will diverge from those simulated by coupled climate models that, due to their cold tongue bias (ein Streifen kühleren Wassers in Äquatornähe des Ostpazifiks, d.A.), misrepresent the response of the tropical Pacific to rising CO2.”

Climate models have such large deficits in the depiction of events in the tropical Pacific that they are globally incorrect in determining the response to the forcing (see Fig. 3) and systematically overestimate the sensitivity to the forcing (according to Seager et al, and Dong et al).

So will we read anything about this in the media? A possible headline might be: “Climate models calculate the future too hot! Don’t hold your breath.

PlayStation climatology

We eagerly await to see whether the results of these two important studies will even be included in the IPCC’s forthcoming progress report. Here hundreds of pages dealing with model projections would have to be critically revised. One more reason for us to trust empiricism and “PlayStation climatology”.

But what is to become of the “panic” which Fridays for Future wishes to impose on us? Policymaking is hot because the models are too hot. Which scientists have the courage to be responsible and to enlighten FFF and policymaking?

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

NASA GISS Surface Station Temperature Trends Based On Sheer Guess Work, Made-Up Data, Says Japanese Climate Expert

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin

Whenever NASA GISS announces how recent global temperatures are much hotter than, for example, 100 years ago, just how statistically reliable are such statements?

Most will agree, based mainly on sundry observations, that today is indeed warmer than it was when surface temperatures began to be recorded back in 1880. But we will never really know by how much.

Surface station datasets full of gigantic voids

When we look at NASA GISS’s site here, we can see how many surface stations have data going back to earlier years. Today we see that 2089 stations are at work in Version 3 unadjusted data.

Yet, when we go back 100 years (to 1919), we see only 997 of these surface stations have Version 3 unadjusted data that is complete:


Note how the Version 3 unadjusted datasets going back to 1919 are poorly distributed and sorrowfully lacking over Africa, Canada, the Arctic and all across the Southern Hemisphere. Never mind the oceans.

Only a measly 174 surface stations go back to 1880!

And when we look at the number of stations in Version 3 unadjusted data going back to 1880, ONLY 174 stations actually provide us with a complete thermometer dataset:

As is shown, Version 3 unadjusted data going back to 1880 covers only some parts of the US and Europe. All of Canada and Russia are void of data, and so it is impossible to know what the temperatures there really was.

The same is true for the entire southern hemisphere, let alone the entire globe. The bottom line: There is no way of knowing what the global temperature really was back in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Japanese expert: data of “no scientific value”

This tells us that global temperature trends since the start of the Industrial Revolutions presented by NASA are fraught with huge uncertainty.

“This is nothing new,” says Japanese climate expert Dr. Mototaka Nakamura in an email to NTZ. “We simply did not have many observing stations in the 1800s and early 1900s. They can produce ‘new data sets’ and claim that they have ‘better data sets’ all day long, but they just can’t make any meaningful difference for periods up to 1980.”

“Not real data”

“These datasets are products of simulation models and data assimilation software, not real data,” Dr. Nakamura added. “This problem has been present in data products produced by all institutions from the beginning – NASA, NOAA, NCEP, ECMWF, UMet, etc.”

“Spatial bias before 1980 cannot be dealt with”

But the data shortcomings get even worse. Dr. Nakamura wrote: “A far more serious issue with calculating ‘the global mean surface temperature trend’ is the acute spatial bias in the observation stations. There is nothing they can do about this either.  No matter what they do with the simulation models and data assimilation programs, this spatial bias before 1980 cannot be dealt with in any meaningful way. Just look at the locations of the observation stations used in GISS products for various years on their page.”

Dr. Nakamura commented earlier here at NTZ: “The global surface mean temperature change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

So how can we be sure about the globe’s temperatures, and thus it’s trends before 1980? You can’t. The real data just aren’t there.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Scientists Find Antarctica Is Rapidly Cooling And Any Ice Sheet Melt Is Not Due To CO2, But Natural

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Natural variability rules in Antarctica. Scientists identify clouds, wind, and localized solar heating – not CO2 – as the factors driving ice melt. Rising CO2 leads to Antarctic cooling.

Image Source: Lüning et al. 2019

Antarctica rapidly cooling in recent decades

In a review of the scientific literature, Lüning et al. 2019 report Antarctica as a whole has undergone a cooling trend in recent decades.

The Antarctic Peninsula has cooled at a rate of -0.5°C per decade since the late 1990s.

West Antarctica as a whole has “slightly cooled” (or the warming has “plateaued”) over the past two decades.

East Antarctica “has not experienced any significant temperature change since the 1950s” with  ice sheet mass gains and cooling during the past 15 years.

Rising CO2 leads to Antarctic cooling

Antarctica contains about 90% of the world’s ice.

Because the continent averages -28.2°C in summer and -60°C in winter, inducing even partial retreat for an ice sheet that averages 2.3 kilometers in height would require a substantial amount of heat energy.

This effectively rules out a significant human influence.

According to scientists, raising CO2 concentrations does not even lead to warming in Antarctica. Actually, scientists find Antarctica cools in response to rising CO2 concentrations, which means we humans may be contributing more to ice mass gains than to losses.

Image Source: Schmithüsen et al., 2015

Natural variability – clouds, wind, localized solar heating – drive Antarctic ice melt

The surface melting of portions of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has received quite a bit of attention in media circles, often accompanied by scary warnings of ice sheet collapse and catastrophic sea level rise.

For example, Dr. James Hansen – admitting his doomsday predictions are tendentiously designed to be “persuasive” – has claimed sea levels will rise by 10 feet by 2065 mostly due to Antarctic ice sheet melt.

Image Source: Slate

These harrowing warnings often seem to arise in response to observations of glacier calving events – large glaciers fissuring and breaking off from the ice sheet.

But glaciologists know that calving events are indicative of ice sheet thickening, not thinning. Glaciers calve when the ice accumulation has become so heavy and thick that the base of the ice sheet can no longer bear the load.

Image Source: Christmann et al., 2016

Yes, portions of Antarctica are undergoing ice melt. But ice sheet recession and advancement are both natural. And modern ice melt is well within the range of what occurs naturally for Antarctica.

Indeed, as Jones et al. (2016) conclude, natural variability “overwhelms” any forced response in satellite era trend observations.

Image Source: Jones et al., 2016

In two new papers, scientists identify the natural mechanisms driving the recession of some of West Antarctica’s glaciers in recent decades.

Scott et al. (2019) conclude surface melt is driven by wind currents and downwelling longwave radiation from clouds.

Stewart et al. (2019) find localized solar heating of surface water can explain melting in small portions of the Ross Ice Shelf.

Considering the total Antarctic meltwater contribution to sea level rise may only amount to 0.34 of a centimeter since 1958 (Frederikse et al., 2018), it is quite reasonable to conclude that nothing unusual, unprecedented, or concerning is occurring in Antarctica that could be said to fall outside the range of natural variability.

Image Source: Scott et al. (2019)

Image Source: Stewart et al. (2019)
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Surprise JULY SNOW Falls In Poland… June Temperature Trends See No Rise Across Canada, Iceland

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

“Snow in July – this surprised everyone. We remember times when it fell in April or even in May, but not during summer vacation.”

By Kirye
and Pierre

Ice Age now here reported, “snow and record low temperatures” in Poland — in July — earlier this week.

According to Polish sources, there was fresh snow on the highest peaks of the Tatras and the temperature fell below zero (-0.2 degrees).

June mean temperatures see no rise in Canada, Iceland

While Europe saw some record heat in June, temperatures have since fallen considerably, with many regions reporting well-below normal readings.

Elsewhere over the northern hemisphere June temperature trends show a decline over the past two decades or more.

Taken as a whole, 9 temperature stations scattered across Canada show June mean temperatures have not increased in 25 years. Chart: Kirye. Data:

Two of three stations in Iceland also show no warming. This is hardly what one would expect to find when scrutinizing behind the alarmist headlines and claims coming from global warming media and activists.

2/3 Iceland stations for June show no warming trend since 2000. Chart by Kirye. Data:

When it’s hot, the activists are so loud. But when cold offsets it all, then suddenly you can hear pins dropping.

As the saying goes regarding climate science: When it’s warm and stormy, it’s climate. But when it’s cool and calm, it’s just weather.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Alarmists Red-Faced As Satellite Image Analyses Show Globe Has Greened Markedly Over Past 4 Decades

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

German climate science skeptic Michael Kruger of Science Skeptical here writes that the earth has become GREENER and more fertile due to more CO2 and warming.

Source: Zhu et al

Hard to believe, but the earth is not turning into a desert and more arid due to the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, like alarmist scientists and media like us to believe it is, but rather it is becoming greener and more fertile.

This is what scientists have found through the analysis of satellite data over the last four decades.

A study published in 2016 in Nature Climate Change proves that the earth has become considerably greener over the past decades.

For their study, the researchers led by Zaichun Zhu evaluated vegetation data recorded by three satellites between 1982 and 2009. The evaluation showed that since 1982, the plant world has become more luxuriant and thus greener on a large part of terrestrial land surfaces.

Area “twice the size of the USA”

“The biggest greening trends can be seen in the southeast of North America, in the northern Amazon region, in Europe, Central Africa and Southeast Asia,” said Zhu and his colleagues.  “This greening, which we have observed, is comparable in scale to an additional green continent twice the size of the USA,” says Zhu.

To find out exactly what is responsible for this increase in plant material, the scientists fed ten global ecosystem models with data on greenhouse gas emissions, land use and the development of climate factors such as temperature and precipitation. The result: 70% of the earth’s greening is due to the fertilizing effect of rising CO2 levels and 30% to climatic effects and other effects such as climate change, nitrogen deposition and changes in land cover.

Thus, in the high latitudes and in Tibet and other highlands of the mountains, the rise in temperatures is responsible for the fact that the vegetation there became more luxuriant. “Warming promotes photosynthesis and prolongs the growing season,” the researchers explain.

Increasing precipitation in the Sahel and South Africa

In the Sahel and South Africa, on the other hand, increasing precipitation is becoming noticeable. This makes the region more fertile and greener.

The rise in CO2 emissions and climate change therefore favor the greening of the earth and plant growth. Even Syria has greened.

The earth has become greener over the past 4 decades. This is the main conclusion of an international study published in Nature Climate Change on 25 April 2016. In 40 percent of the world’s regions, a significant increase in leaf biomass was observed between 1982 and 2015, only 4 percent showed significant losses of vegetation. The vegetation corresponds to the size of a continent twice the size of the USA.

The desert regions have also become greener, such as the Sahel on the border with the Sahara, the Fertile Crescent, which stretches across Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and the former region of Carthage in North Africa, which used to be the granary of Ancient Rome.

These areas were already green and fertile in the climate optimum of the Holocene directly after the last ice age. From there, in the course of the Neolithic revolution, agriculture spread to Europe and Northern Europe.


The Sahel region has been greening for four decades:

This has been shown by a variety of studies.

Sahara shrinks by over 700,000 sq. km.

In 2018, Venter et al. recorded an eight percent increase in timber vegetation in sub-Saharan Africa over the last three decades using satellite imagery.

According to Wikipedia, the Sahara covers an area of around 9.2 million square kilometers. Eight percent of this corresponds to more than 700,000 square kilometers. This is an area almost as large as Germany and France together!

Lake Chad is growing

Even Lake Chad at the south edge of the Sahara is growing again and getting greener.

A greener Europe

Also in Germany it has not become more arid over the last four decades, as the media and climate impact researchers have recently informed us. Quite to the contrary:


Above all the north, the east, the low mountain regions and the Alps have become greener, as the satellite data show. The forest area is also growing in Germany, which is over 30% wooded. Between 1992 and 2008, the forest area in Germany “grew by an average of 176 square kilometers per year”.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Prominent Veteran Meteorologist Pleads For Moderation In The Climate Debate, Slams Both Hardcore Alarmists, “Deniers”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Averting a bloody climate science civil war

It’s time to take the debate away from the extreme factions and to move it to cooler heads, says veteran Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann

Former German Public television meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann wrote an essay commentary for the Swiss online Die Weltwoche here titled “Tell me where you stand”, where he compares today’s white-hot intolerance seen in climate science to the political intolerance witnessed in former communist East Germany.

“Religious furor”

In East Germany, either you adhered to the state’s hard communist doctrine, or you were the enemy. Such is the atmosphere we see today in climate science. Kachelmann writes: “Again today it’s either-or, and nothing in between.”

“Debates are important, and we must conduct them with arguments and without the religious furor that is being practiced today by both sides.”

The veteran meteorologist describes how on the climate issue “there are two irreconcilable camps”: the climate deniers and climate hysterics – each arrogantly claiming “infallibility”. It is no longer possible to be in between. Even those in between get insulted and attacked equally by both sides.

Natural science at schools have been “almost completely gutted”

While Kachelmann writes “deniers” are mostly older, right wing persons, the alarmists are made up of mostly “ugly young people” who are the products of school systems that have had their “natural science subjects almost completely gutted out”.

“These people don’t need graphs, but rather the godlike feeling of being on the correct side, which is why you don’t have to be so precise with facts,” Kachelmann comments.

“Today, the divining militancy of both sides is preventing a serious debate on priorities,” He says. “The green and brown nuts try to recruit for their political advantage those who have a big opinion on the subject, but no idea about it.”

Academic (green) supremacists

One example of the militant intolerance Kachelmann describes is illustrated by a recent Twitter comment by Potsdam scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, who reacted to German parliamentarian Philipp Lengsfeld, who earlier had tweeted on a “remarkable” statement recently published by 90 leading Italian scientists who challenged the alarmist climate science and claims of consensus.

Lengsfeld wrote:

Remarkable statement by scientists in Italy. For my taste a bit to hard, but so is the climate debate now: Heated.
From this I discovered a new site, by @NoTricksZone – a list of interesting studies. …”


That comment by Lengsfeld was obviously too much for Rahmstorf, who was obviously unnerved that a parliamentarian would make such an observation. He not only attacks Lengsfeld and this site here, but he also insults and slanders the 70 Italian scientists.

His Twitter comment in English:

It is particularly noteworthy when a member of parliament cannot distinguish a climate denier website from serious science and falls for a list of signatures by predominantly unprofessional and emeritus people – even more untrustworthy than the lung physicians.”

In Rahmstorf’s view, anyone who challenges the Potsdam alarmist climate position is an enemy of the climate state, and any scientist who questions the science is equivalent to a tobacco scientist.

Yes, its’ time to move the debate and science over to moderate voices.

Jörg Kachelmann is an entrepreneur and a 40-year veteran meteorologist operating the site:

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Physicists: Clouds ‘Practically Control’ Climate, Whereas Human Warming Amounts To 0.01°C Per 100 Years

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Two University of Turku (Finland) physicists have determined a) the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 0.24°C, b) the human contribution to the warming of the past century is only about 0.01°C, c) the IPCC and climate modeling dramatically overestimate CO2’s climate impact, and d) variations in low cloud cover control the climate.

Cloud cover changes “explain the linear trend of global temperature” since the 1980s

In a new paper, O.M. Povrovsky of the Russian State Hydrometeorological University analyzes satellite-observed cloud cover changes during 1983-2009 and their relation to global temperature change.

Povrovsky found global and regional cloudiness decreased between 2-6% during these decades, and “the correlation coefficient between the global cloud series on the one hand and the global air and ocean surface temperature series on the other hand reaches values (–0.84) — (–0.86).”

Consequently, Povrovsky (2019) concluded changes in cloud cover explain both the increasing global temperature during 1984-2009, but even the interannual variability.

Anthropogenic climate change isn’t supported by experimental evidence

Dr. Jyrki Kauppinen was an expert reviewer for the IPPC’s last climate report (AR5, 2013).

In a comment to the IPCC overseers, Kauppinen strongly suggested the “experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity [to anthropogenic CO2 forcing] presented in the report” is missing (Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019).

In response, the IPCC overseers claimed experimental evidence could be found in the report’s Technical Summary.

But the Technical Summary merely contained references to computer models and non-validated assumptions. Kauppinen writes:

We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence. Especially the results obtained by climate models are questionable because the results are conflicting with each other.”

Upon examination of satellite data and cloud cover changes, Dr. Kauppinen concluded the IPCC’s claims of high climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing (2 to 5°C) are about ten times too high, and “the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature.”

Evidence for natural climate change supported by satellite observations

When low cloud cover data from satellite observations are considered, a very clear correlation emerges.

As low cloud cover decreases, more solar radiation can be absorbed by the oceans rather than reflected back to space. Thus, decadal-scale decreases in low cloud cover elicit warming.

When cloud cover increases, cooling ensues.

In this manner, Kauppien and Malmi (2019) find “low clouds practically control the global temperature,” which leaves “no room for the contribution of greenhouse gases i.e. anthropogenic forcing.”

In fact, Kauppinen and Malmi boldly conclude that the total warming contribution from anthropogenic CO2 emissions reached only 0.o1°C during the last 100 years, which means “anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.”

Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019

No experimental evidence for the

significant anthropogenic climate change

“The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”
“We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.”

Image Source: Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Energy Ruin? German Expert: Fridays-For-Future Demands Would Cost Households $1150 – A Month!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Fritz Vahrenholt: Merkel’s stricter climate targets to cost Germany another 3 trillion euros.

The stricter climate protection targets recently announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel at a Protestant Church Congress would put a considerable burden on the German economy and every single household.

If the goal formulated by Merkel to increase the CO2 reduction target from 90 to 100 percent by 2050 were really achieved, then it would result in additional costs of around 3000 billion euros, according to a calculation by the former Hamburg Senator for the Environment, Fritz Vahrenholt (SPD).

7.6 trillion euros, twice Germany’s GDP

The cost of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 thus would rise from an estimated 4600 billion to 7600 billion euros. This is about twice as much as Germany’s gross domestic product in 2018, according to the magazine Tichys Einblick in its issue published Monday.

For these figures, Vahrenholt relies on a study commissioned by the Federal Government on the costs of the Energiewende (transition to green energies), which the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, the German Academy of Engineering Sciences (acatech) and the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities presented in November 2017.

Additional 320 euros per month per household

According to the study, the researchers expect costs for reaching the 90 percent target to reach 4600 billion euros by 2050. According to the study, this corresponds to an average additional burden on households in Germany of 320 euros per month.

Reductions getting increasingly difficult, expensive

An increase in climate protection targets beyond the 90 percent aim, as Angela Merkel has now formulated as a target, is particularly expensive because all “favourable” possibilities for CO2 reduction and replacement have already been exhausted.

“The technical expenditure for any further reduction is much higher since all potentials for direct electricity use have been exhausted and low-cost fossil natural gas must be replaced by elaborately produced synthetic energy sources,” the researchers wrote in 2017.

3000 billion euros for last 10% reduction

On the basis of the cost assumptions made by the researchers, Vahrenholt extrapolated the costs for the last ten percent. According to this approach, the costs for the last ten percent are 3000 billion euros. By way of comparison, in their government report the researchers stated that the additional costs of increasing the climate protection target from 85 to 90 percent amounted to 1300 billion euros.

1050 euros per household – per month!

If the demand of the “Fridays for Future” demonstrators were met and climate neutrality were to be achieved by 2035, the costs would be incurred in a shorter time. According to Vahrenholt, the cost burden would rise to 1050 euros per household – per month!

You can read the detailed cost calculations in the last Monday edition of Tichy’s Einblick. You can also find the article on the Internet here.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Ice Box July: Unusual Cold, Surface Frost Sweep Across Central Europe! July Arctic Ice Volume Trend Now Increasing

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Where have all the globe-trotting climate ambulance chasers gone? Well, they’re nowhere to be found in Europe nowadays.

Hat-tip: Snowfan in Germany

The reason is the unusual cold that has swept across a large swath of the continent and which has sent temperatures plummeting to near freezing.

Icebox July: Parts of Central Europe saw ground surface frost yesterday morning. Source:

Yesterday morning ground frost hit parts of Belgium, Holland, Germany and the Czech Republic, as the above chart shows. Unsurprisingly, the media have been curiously silent about it.

Record Dutch July low

It has also been reported that a new all-time July low had been recorded in the Netherlands, according to one source here. The online NL Times here reported, “residents of Eastern Netherlands woke up to a frost covered landscape on Thursday” and that in Twente, “a minimum of -1.6 degrees Celsius was measured – a record low for July, according to Weerplaza.”

The cold has now gripped northern Europe for about a week now, as the mornings of July 3 and 4 saw “at times widespread surface frost in Germany” as well.

Surface frost over northern Germany on July 4th. Source:

Europe cold summer to persist

The cold is not expected to subside anytime soon. A recent GFS forecast shows it will likely persist across Northern Europe and most of northern Russia for another 10 days.

So don’t expect to see any global warming ambulance chasers to be found there. They were last sighted in Alaska, and may soon be headed to Iran or the “stans”.


Early July Arctic ice volume on the rise!

Also early July Arctic sea ice has refused to melt further for 15 years now.

Chart by Kirye. Data source: DMI.

Japanese climate blogger Kirye plotted the data back to 2006, and we see an upward trend for July 8 Arctic sea ice volume:

Chart by Kirye. Data source: DMI.

Growing ice over past 10 years

The rising trend becomes even pronounced when we look at the last 10 years. This ice cold reality flies in the face of all the wild claims of a melting Arctic we often hear in the media.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Scientists: Humans Perform As Well Or Better When Exposed To High (5000-15000 ppm) vs. Low CO2 Concentrations

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

A new paper finds the performance of test-taking (cognitive, decision-making) “astronaut-like” subjects exposed to 5000 ppm CO2 was “similar to or exceeded” the performance of those exposed to baseline (600 ppm). This study follows up on a 2018 paper that determined submariners exposed to 15000 ppm CO2 performed just as well as subjects exposed to 600 ppm.

Those of us who own CO2 monitors know that indoor (bedroom) CO2 concentrations typically vary between about 600 ppm during the day and 1000 ppm overnight – the latter earning a frowny face air quality rating.

CO2 is a cognitively-impairing toxin?

In recent years there has been a push to create the impression carbon dioxide is a pollutant, or toxin. Consequently, there have been a few studies suggesting exposure to higher CO2 concentrations (~1500 to 2500 ppm) severely impair human cognitive and decision-making performance (Satish et al., 2012, Allen et al., 2016).

If true, this would be rather problematic for elementary school children, as they are routinely exposed to CO2 concentrations ranging between about 1500 and 3000 ppm in their classrooms (Corsi et al., 2002).

Driving alone in one’s vehicle could mean exposure to “3700 ppm … above outdoor [CO2] concentrations” (Satish et al, 2012), or about 4100 ppm.

This elevated-CO2-is-toxic-to-brain-functioning paradigm suggests the world’s highways are teeming with cognitively-impaired drivers.

2 new studies show elevated CO2 has no effect on cognitive performance

The results from a 2018 study (Rodeheffer et al., 2018) measuring the cognitive and decision-making performances of submariners exposed to elevated CO2 undermined the attempts to portray CO2 as a brain-function-impairing toxin.

In the study, subjects were exposed to 3 CO2 conditions: 600, 2500, and 15000 ppm.

The results indicated there were “no significant differences” in how the subjects performed for any of the CO2 exposure levels.

Image Source: Rodeheffer et al., 2018

A new study (Scully et al., 2019) assessing the capacity of elevated CO2 exposure to affect cognitive and decision-making performance appends the Rodeheffer et al. (2018) results.

This time, “astronaut-like” subjects were exposed to four CO2 gradients: 600, 1200, 2500, and 5000 ppm.

The results indicated there were “no clear dose-response patterns” evident for any of the exposure conditions.

In fact, the performance of subjects exposed to 5000 ppm slightly exceeded the performance of subjects exposed to 600 ppm CO2.

These results suggest the elevated-CO2-is-toxic-to-brain-functioning paradigm is not supported by real-world experiments.

Image Source: Scully et al., 2019
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Red Sea Temperature Record Shows It Follows The AMO, Not CO2 … “Natural Climate Oscillations”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

AMO cycle on the downward side: Red Sea to cool in the coming decades

By Die kalte Sonne
(German text translated by P Gosselin)

Seven years ago, in our book “The Forgotten Sun”, we proposed using ocean cycles for medium-term forecasts. At the time, the climate establishment was strictly opposed to this. Today fortunately times have changed.

On March 15, 2019, a team led by George Krokos analyzed the temperature development of the Red Sea in Geophysical Research Letters, which has become noticeably warmer in recent decades. The researchers put this into a long-term context and found a strong correlation with the 70-year ocean cycle of the AMO (Atlantic Multidecade Oscillation).

Now that AMO has reached its peak, Krokos and colleagues expect the Red Sea to cool in the next three decades. Abstract:

Natural Climate Oscillations may Counteract Red Sea Warming Over the Coming Decades
Recent reports of warming trends in the Red Sea raise concerns about the response of the basin’s fragile ecosystem under an increasingly warming climate. Using a variety of available Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data sets, we investigate the evolution of Red Sea SST in relation to natural climate variability. Analysis of long‐term SST data sets reveals a sequence of alternating positive and negative trends, with similar amplitudes and a periodicity of nearly 70 years associated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. High warming rates reported recently appear to be a combined effect of global warming and a positive phase of natural SST oscillations. Over the next decades, the SST trend in the Red Sea purely related to global warming is expected to be counteracted by the cooling Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation phase. Regardless of the current positive trends, projections incorporating long‐term natural oscillations suggest a possible decreasing effect on SST in the near future.”

Figure: Temperature of the Red Sea. Data: Hadley Centre. Figure: Krokos et al. 2019

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Medieval Climate Anomaly Now Confirmed In Southern Hemisphere On All Four Continents

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

In Medieval times, the penguins had it nice and warm

By Die kalte Sonne
(German text translated in the English by P Gosselin)

Image Source: Lüning et al. 2019

For a long time it has been said that the Medieval Warm Period was a purely North Atlantic phenomenon. This has proved to be wrong.

On 29 June 2019, a paper by Lüning et al. 2019 on the Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica appeared in the trade journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. Here is the abstract:

The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica
The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a well-recognized climate perturbation in many parts of the world, with a core period of 1000–1200 CE. Here we are mapping the MCA across the Antarctic region based on the analysis of published palaeotemperature proxy data from 60 sites. In addition to the conventionally used ice core data, we are integrating temperature proxy records from marine and terrestrial sediment cores as well as radiocarbon ages of glacier moraines and elephant seal colonies. A generally warm MCA compared to the subsequent Little Ice Age (LIA) was found for the Subantarctic Islands south of the Antarctic Convergence, the Antarctic Peninsula, Victoria Land and central West Antarctica. A somewhat less clear MCA warm signal was detected for the majority of East Antarctica. MCA cooling occurred in the Ross Ice Shelf region, and probably in the Weddell Sea and on Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf. Spatial distribution of MCA cooling and warming follows modern dipole patterns, as reflected by areas of opposing temperature trends. Main drivers of the multi-centennial scale climate variability appear to be the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) which are linked to solar activity changes by nonlinear dynamics.

With the publication of this paper, the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) has now been confirmed on all four continents of the southern hemisphere. While the largest part of the southern hemisphere apparently experienced a warm phase during the MCA, there were also isolated areas that cooled down. To the latter regions belong, for example, coasts, where cold water from the depth rose increasingly. In other areas so-called climate seesaws or dipoles were active, as we know them from today’s climate. One end of the “seesaw” heats up, the other end cools down.

Another result of the studies is that the medieval climate history of huge areas in the southern hemisphere is simply unknown. A task force urgently needs to be set up to fill in this climatic “empty space” with information on pre-industrial temperature development. This information is urgently needed to calibrate the climate models on the basis of which far-reaching socio-political planning is currently taking place.

What follows are publications on the Medieval Period climate of the southern hemisphere as an overview:

Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2019.109251

Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. García-Rodríguez, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Oceania. Environmental Reviews, online Just-IN, doi: 10.1139/er-2019-0012

Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. P. Bamonte, F. García-Rodríguez, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America. Quaternary International, 508: 70-87. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2018.10.041.

Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. Vahrenholt (2017): Warming and cooling: The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia. Paleoceanography 32 (11): 1219-1235, doi: 10.1002/2017PA003237.

All supporters of the studies once again receive our deepest thanks. At the start of the project, a devoted crowdfunding team gave the studies a strong boost.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Scientist Spots High Geothermal Heat Flux In East Greenland – ‘Dramatic Consequences For Ice Basal Melting’

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

Geothermal heat flux can foment upper mantle temperature anomalies of 800–1000 °C, and these extreme heat intensities have been found to stretch across 500 km of central-east Greenland. This could result in “a significant contribution of ice melt to the ice-drainage system of Greenland” (Artemieva et al., 2019).

Evidence of more than 100,000 formerly or currently active volcanic vents permeate the Earth’s sea floor (Kelley, 2017).

Active volcanoes spew 380°C sulfuric acid and “metal-laden acidic fluids” into the bottom waters of the world ocean on a daily basis. In other words, literal ocean acidification is a natural phenomenon.

The carbon dioxide concentrations present in these acidic floods reach “astounding” levels, dwarfing the potential for us to even begin to appreciate the impact this explosive geothermal activity has on the Earth’s carbon cycle (Kelley, 2017).

Image Source: Kelley, 2017

Geothermal heat “explains the observed melting of the ice sheet’s base”

Just as impacts of sea floor volcanism may be largely unheralded, the ice-melt significance of high geothermal heat flux beneath the polar ice caps may still be in the early stages of exploration.

The geothermal heat contribution to the basal melt rates of Antarctic glaciers is substantial.

Image Source: Loose et al., 2018, Shroeder et al., 2014

Significant melting at the base of the north-central and northeastern Greenland ice sheet occurs in close proximity to high geothermal heat flux regions, and “several thousands” of 55-62°C hot springs have been identified “all over Greenland.”

Image Source: Rogozhina et al., 2016, Rysgaard et al., 2018

High geothermal heat flux has “dramatic consequences” for ice basal melting in central-eastern Greenland

In a new paper, Dr. Irina Atemieva employs a new method to assess the accelerated basal melting occurring across wide swaths (extending 500 kilometers inland) of the Greenland ice sheet associated with high geothermal heat flux.

“Huge” near-surface temperature anomalies reaching amplitudes of 800–1000 °C have been spotted.

Geothermal heat flux is suggested to be “an important contributor to the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream in Central Greenland.”

Artemieva, 2019

Lithosphere thermal thickness and geothermal heat

flux in Greenland from a new thermal isostasy method

“East Greenland has anomalous crustal structure, thin (50-100 km) lithosphere, high mantle temperatures and a strong GHF [geothermal heat flux] anomaly of >100 mW/m2 centered in the Fjordland region. … High GHF [geothermal heat flux] promotes basal ice melting. The moderately high GHF anomaly (>70 mW/m2 and possibly >90 mW/m2), where intensive ice melting may occur, extends inland below the ice sheet, and its western and northern boundaries cannot be established with the present data coverage on the Moho depth.”
“In East Greenland this anomalous belt merges with a strong GHF anomaly of >100 mW/m2 in the Fjordland region. The anomaly is associated with a strong lithosphere thinning, possibly to the Moho, that requires advective heat transfer such as above active magma chambers, which would accelerate ice basal melting. The anomaly may extend 500 km inland with possibly a significant contribution of ice melt to the ice-drainage system of Greenland.”
“The present results also show a huge temperature anomaly in the upper mantle of central-east Greenland (Domain 3) with the amplitude of ca. 800–1000 °C with respect to the cratonic stations. Such a temperature anomaly cannot be explained by conductive nor radiogenic mechanisms.”
A high heat flux from the Earth’s interior enhanced by a hot fluid percolation above active magma chambers at the edge of the ice cap may have dramatic consequences for ice basal melting in the central-eastern Greenland, and may be an important contributor to the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream in Central Greenland.”

Image Source: Artemieva, 2019
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

NOTE: The English version of the petition that follows below is an unpolished translation of the original Italian version. The English version still needs to be polished up a bit, but it fully and accurately conveys the overall thrust of the original Italian version.

In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.

90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leaders

To the President of the Republic
To the President of the Senate
To the President of the Chamber of Deputies
To the President of the Council

PETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)

The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.

In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.

But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.

In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.

This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.

In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.

However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .

On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.

This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.

The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.

The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.

Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.

These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.

It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.

Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.

These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.

The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C  [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.

The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.

For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .

The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.

The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.

It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.

This uncertainty is enormous.

In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.

Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.

All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.

Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause
of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.

However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .

In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.

There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.

These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.

In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…


  1. Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.
  2. Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.
  3. Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.
  4. Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.
  5. Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.
  6. Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.
  7. Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
  8. Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II University, Naples.


  1. Antonino Zichichi, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Bologna, Founder and President of the Ettore Center for Scientific Culture Majorana di Erice.
  2. Renato Angelo Ricci, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Padua, former President of the Italian Society of Physics and Society European Physics; Galileo Movement 2001.
  3. Aurelio Misiti, Professor of Health-Environmental Engineering, University of Sapienza, Rome.
  4. Antonio Brambati, Professor of Sedimentology, University of Trieste, Project Manager Paleoclima-mare of PNRA, already President of the National Oceanography Commission.
  5. Cesare Barbieri, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, University of Padua.
    6. Sergio Bartalucci, Physicist, President of the Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research.
    7. Antonio Bianchini, Professor of Astronomy, University of Padua.
    8. Paolo Bonifazi, former Director of the Institute of Interplanetary Space Physics, National Astrophysical Institute.
    9. Francesca Bozzano, Professor of Applied Geology, Sapienza University of Rome, Director of the CERI Research Center.
    10. Marcello Buccolini, Professor of Geomorphology, University University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
    11. Paolo Budetta, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Naples.
    12. Monia Calista, Researcher in Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
    13. Giovanni Carboni, Professor of Physics, Tor Vergata University, Rome; Galileo Movement 2001.
    14. Franco Casali, Professor of Physics, University of Bologna and Bologna Academy of Sciences.
    15. Giuliano Ceradelli, Engineer and climatologist, ALDAI.
    16. Domenico Corradini, Professor of Historical Geology, University of Modena.
    17. Fulvio Crisciani, Professor of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, University of Trieste and Marine Sciences Institute, Cnr, Trieste.
    18. Carlo Esposito, Professor of Remote Sensing, La Sapienza University, Rome.
    19. Mario Floris, Professor of Remote Sensing, University of Padua.
    20. Gianni Fochi, Chemist, Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa; scientific journalist.
    21. Mario Gaeta, Professor of Volcanology, La Sapienza University, Rome.
    22. Giuseppe Gambolati, Fellow of the American Geophysica Union, Professor of Numerical Methods, University of Padua.
    23. Rinaldo Genevois, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Padua.
    24. Carlo Lombardi, Professor of Nuclear Plants, Milan Polytechnic.
    25. Luigi Marino, Geologist, Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome.
    26. Salvatore Martino, Professor of Seismic Microzonation, La Sapienza University, Rome.
    27. Paolo Mazzanti, Professor of Satellite Interferometry, La Sapienza University, Rome.
    28. Adriano Mazzarella, Professor of Meteorology and Climatology, University of Naples.
    29. Carlo Merli, Professor of Environmental Technologies, La Sapienza University, Rome.
    30. Alberto Mirandola, Professor of Applied Energetics and President of the Research Doctorate in Energy, University of Padua.
    31. Renzo Mosetti, Professor of Oceanography, University of Trieste, former Director of the Department of Oceanography, Istituto OGS, Trieste.
  6. 32.Daniela Novembre, Researcher in Mining Geological Resources and Mineralogical Applications, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti Pescara.
    33. Sergio Ortolani, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Padua.
    34. Antonio Pasculli, Researcher of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
    35. Ernesto Pedrocchi, Professor Emeritus of Energetics, Polytechnic of Milan.
    36. Tommaso Piacentini, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
    37. Guido Possa, nuclear engineer, formerly Deputy Minister Miur.
    38. Mario Luigi Rainone, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Chieti-Pescara.
    39. Francesca Quercia, Geologist, Research Director, Ispra.
    40. Giancarlo Ruocco, Professor of Structure of Matter, La Sapienza University, Rome.
    41. Sergio Rusi, Professor of Hydrogeology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
    42. Massimo Salleolini, Professor of Applied Hydrogeology and Environmental Hydrology, University of Siena.
    43. Emanuele Scalcione, Head of Regional Agrometeorological Service Alsia, Basilicata.
    44. Nicola Sciarra, Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
    45. Leonello Serva, Geologist, Director of Geological Services of Italy; Galileo Movement 2001.
    46. Luigi Stedile, Geologist, Geological Risk Review and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome.
    47. Giorgio Trenta, Physicist and Physician, President Emeritus of the Italian Association of Medical Radiation Protection; Galileo Movement 2001.
    48. Gianluca Valenzise, Director of Research, National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Rome.
    49. Corrado Venturini, Professor of Structural Geology, University of Bologna.
    50. Franco Zavatti, Astronomy Researcher, University of Bologna.
    51. Achille Balduzzi, Geologist, Agip-Eni.
    52. Claudio Borri, Professor of Construction Sciences, University of Florence, Coordinator of the International Doctorate in Engineering Civil.
    53. Pino Cippitelli, Agip-Eni Geologist.
    54. Franco Di Cesare, Executive, Agip-Eni.
    55. Serena Doria, Researcher of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
    56. Enzo Siviero, Professor of Ponti, University of Venice, Rector of the e-Campus University.
    57. Pietro Agostini, Engineer, Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research.
    58. Donato Barone, Engineer.
    59. Roberto Bonucchi, Teacher.
    60. Gianfranco Brignoli, Geologist.
    61. Alessandro Chiaudani, Ph.D. agronomist, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
    62. Antonio Clemente, Researcher in Urban Planning, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
    63. Luigi Fressoia, urban architect, Perugia.
    64. Sabino Gallo, nuclear engineer.
    65. Daniela Giannessi, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa.
    66. Roberto Grassi, Engineer, Director of G&G, Rome.
    67. Alberto Lagi, Engineer, President of Restoration of Complex Damaged Plants.
    68. Luciano Lepori, Ipcf-Cnr Researcher, Pisa.
    69. Roberto Madrigali, Metereologo.
    70. Ludovica Manusardi, Nuclear physicist and scientific journalist, Ugis.
    71. Maria Massullo, Technologist, Enea-Casaccia, Rome.
    72. Enrico Matteoli, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa.
    73. Gabriella Mincione, Professor of Sciences and Techniques of Laboratory Medicine, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.
    74. Massimo Pallotta, First Technologist, National Institute for Nuclear Physics.
    75. Enzo Pennetta, Professor of Natural Sciences and scientific divulger.
    76. Nunzia Radatti, Chemist, Sogin.
    77. Vincenzo Romanello, Nuclear Engineer, Research Center, Rez, Czech Republic.
    78. Alberto Rota, Engineer, Researcher at Cise and Enel.
    79. Massimo Sepielli, Director of Research, Enea, Rome.
    80. Ugo Spezia, Engineer, Industrial Safety Manager, Sogin; Galileo Movement 2001.
    81. Emilio Stefani, Professor of Plant Pathology, University of Modena.
    82. Umberto Tirelli, Visiting Senior Scientist, Istituto Tumori d’Aviano; Galileo Movement 2001.
    83. Roberto Vacca, Engineer and scientific writer.
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

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