Adjusted “Unadjusted” Data: NASA Uses The “Magic Wand Of Fudging”, Produces Warming Where There Never Was

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

By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin

It’s been long known that NASA GISS has been going through its historical temperature data archives and erasing old temperature measurements and replacing them with new, made up figures without any real legitimate reason.

This practice has led to the formation of new datasets called “adjusted” data, with the old datasets being called “V3 unadjusted”. The problem for global warming activists, however, was that when anyone looks at the old “V3 unadjusted” – i.e. untampered data – they often found a downward linear temperature trend. Such negative trends of course are an embarrassment for global warming alarmists, who have been claiming the planet is warming up rapidly.

The adjusted “unadjusted” data

So what to do? Well, it seems that NASA has decided to adjust its “V3 unadjusted datasets” and rename them as “V4 unadjusted”. That’s right, the adjusted data has become the new V4 “unadjusted” data.

And what kind of trend does the new “V4 unadjusted” data show?

You guessed it. The new V4 unadjusted data are now yielding warmed up trends, even at places where a cooling trend once existed.

This is how NASA uses its magic wand of fudging to turn past cooling into (fake) warming.

6 examples of scandalous mischief by NASA

What follows are 6 examples, scattered across the globe and going back decades, which demonstrate this scandalous mischief taking place at NASA.

No. 1

Punta Arenas, Chile. Here we see how a clear cooling trend has been warmed up by NASA to produce a slight cooling trend:

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4

No. 2

Marquette, Michigan: Here NASA have turned a slightly cooling trend into a robust warming trend, Little wonder Japanese climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura recently characterized expert’s global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4

No. 3

Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Here this 1o9 year old dataset has been altered to transform a no warming trend into a warming trend:

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4

No. 4

Davis Antarctic. Data from the Japan Meteorological Agency, for example, show how this station has no trend, as do NASA’s V3 unadjusted data. But now NASA’s new V4 “unadjusted” data show that warming has arrived in Antarctica after all:

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4

No. 5

Hachijojima, Japan. The unadjusted V3 data from this remote island station used to show no trend – before NASA decided to create a new “unadjusted” dataset. And presto! We now have warming where none previously existed:

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4

No. 6

Valentia Observatory, Ireland. Here we see how parts of the past were cooled, while more recent mean temperatures were warmed up. Not to our surprise, what results is more warming.

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4

At NASA the sun, oceans, water vapor, etc. don’t seem to matter when it comes to global temperature trends. The number one factor behind the “warming” at NASA appears not even to be CO2 but rather their Orwellian data fudging. At NASA, if the data do not agree with the (bogus) models, then just got back and change them!

Drain the NASA swamp.

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

Coral Mortality Rates Higher During Cold Periods – And There’s Been Recent Cooling In Coral Environments

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

In the coral habitats of the Western Indian Ocean, SSTs have cooled by -0.8°C since the 1980s (Watanabe et al., 2019). It has long been established that exposure to extremely low temperatures induce coral bleaching and high mortality rates just as much as warm SSTs do. Further, colder periods – which are associated with falling sea level, habitat diminution, and increased exposure to UV radiation – have been documented to coincide with dramatic reef “switch-off” phases (Yan et al., 2019, Humblet et al., 2019).

I. Non-warming SSTs in coral environments during recent decades

In many of the regions where reef-building corals are abundant, there has been no significant increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) since the 1980s. In fact, large sections of the Indo-Pacific have been cooling.

Watanabe et al. (2019) have found corals have been exposed to a cooling trend of -0.03°C per year for the past 26 years (-0.78°C) in the Western Indian Ocean.

Great Barrier Reef corals have also not experienced any detectable SST warming since 1990 (Brenner et al., 2017).

The Western Pacific Ocean has been cooling in recent decades (Deng et al., 2013 as shown in Wei et al., 2015).

II. Coral bleaching occurs during anomalously cold temperature conditions

It is commonly thought that coral bleaching events are directly tied to anomalously high SSTs during the warming phase of El Niño events.

However, recent research indicates that bleaching events were more common during the 1750s and 1890s than in recent decades (Kamenose and Hennige, 2018).

The cooler Little Ice Age SSTs may have been concomitant with decades of mass coral bleaching because bleaching can occur in anomalously cold water conditions too (Saxby et al., 2003, Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2005).

Corals experience bleaching and extremely high death rates from exposure to SSTs that dip below 14°C. For example, a 2003 (August) cold-water event (13.3°C, 9°C wet bulb) wiped out all but 12% of corals living near Heron Island (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2005).


III. Corals harmed by falling sea levels, exposing shallow-dwellers to UV radiation

During El Niño events, the slowing of tropical Pacific trade winds elicits SST warming and enhances the clarity of surface waters. The latter develoment, in turn, allows more harmful solar UV radiation to penetrate into the ocean, bleaching corals (Gleason and Wellington, 1993).

Shallow-dwelling corals are also exposed to harmful UV radiation (and limited ranges) when sea levels fall.

During the latest (2015-’16) El Niño, for example, corals in Indonesia were already bleached due to a locally rapid sea level fall before the higher El Niño-induced SSTs could have an impact (Ampou et al., 2017).

Dechnik et al. (2017) determined that neither high sea surface temperatures, cyclone activity, or El Niño variability could be responsible for centennial-scale coral “turn-offs” (cessations in growth) during the Holocene. Instead they attribute Great Barrier Reef growth hiatuses to falling sea levels and “relatively cold” SSTs.

IV. Corals thrive and expand their range during warm periods

During the last glacial maximum (about 20,000 years ago), when sea levels were 120 meters lower than they are now and ice sheets covered much of the Northern Hemisphere, corals were very limited in their ecosystem ranges.

After deglacial warming commenced and sea levels rose at rates of up to 6 meters per century (60 mm/yr), reef growth and recolonization was “vigorous” (Humblet et al., 2019).

The reef growth trends continued precipitously throughout the Early Holocene as the Earth warmed and sea levels rose.

Yan et al. (2019) has also determined that reef “switch-on” (growth) phases occurred during warm periods such as the Holocene Thermal Maximum (2.0°C warmer than today), the Medieval Warm Period,  and even the Current Warm Period.

Reef “switch-off” (hiatuses and declines) phases occurred during the Dark Age Cold Period and the Little Ice Age, and were associated with falling sea levels.

None of these scientific determinations would appear to support the popularized contention that coral reefs are currently in grave danger due to human activity.


 

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

New Study Shows Medieval Climate Period Was Global, Driven By Natural “Atmospheric-Ocean Cycles”, Not CO2

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

The Medieval Warm Period in Oceania

By Die kalte Sonne

For a long time it was said that the Medieval Warm Period was a North Atlantic phenomenon. This proved to be wrong. On June 15, 2019, a paper by Lüning et al. 2019 on the Medieval Warm Period in Oceania appeared in the journal Environmental Reviews. Here is the short version:

The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Oceania
Temperatures in Oceania have risen by 0.5-1°C over the past 100 years, resulting e.g. in significant retreat of New Zealand’s glaciers. In order to better understand natural and anthropogenic contributions to this warming process, the observed climatic change has to be placed in a longer-term palaeotemperature context. Of particular interest is the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA, 1000-1200 AD), a recognized period of natural pre-industrial climate change, associated with marked temperature and hydroclimatic variability that is best known from the Northern Hemisphere.”

Temperature reconstructions for Oceania were traditionally based on two classical tree ring series. Here, we are enlarging the Oceania reference dataset with another 13 published temperature reconstructions from SE Australia, New Zealand and West Papua. These are based on a variety of proxy types, and help to geographically and methodologically augment the regional palaeoclimate database. The proxy series have been thoroughly compared and the MCA trends palaeoclimatologically mapped. Ten out of the 15 sites show a relatively warm MCA, compared to the last 1500 years, with warming generally occurring in the envelope period 900-1500 AD.”

In some sites of SE Australia and at the west coast of New Zealand’s South Island, warming appears to be delayed by 200-300 years. The end of the medieval warming at around 1500 AD occurred about two centuries later than on most other continents, suggesting a possible interhemispheric climate lag mechanism possibly involving deepwater circulation. Likely drivers for the medieval warming in Oceania are atmospheric-ocean cycles such as the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), in combination with solar activity changes. MCA palaeotemperature data are still lacking for large parts of Oceania, namely the arid and tropical parts of Australia, Micronesia, central and northern Polynesia, as well as central and eastern Melanesia, highlighting the need for future research.”

========================================


Map plotting numerous studies showing that the Medieval Climate Period was global and caused by natural factors. Click here.

Hundreds of scientific papers confirm the Medieval Climate Period was global, and driven by natural factors, which of course are still at play today and have not retired like CO2-obsessed scientists like to suggest.

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

Current Solar Cycle Will Be First To Finish Below Normal In 80 Years, Weakest In Close To 200 Years

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

Solar Activity in May 2019

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

In May 2019 our sun was below-normal active again. The solar sunspot number (SSN) was 10.1, which is only 52% of the mean value in the evaluated cycle month no. 126 since the start of Cycle No. 24 began in December 2008.

It should be noted that the number of cycles that lasted this long is decreasing. In the previous month we reported on cycles 21, 18, 16, 15, 8 dropping out because they were shorter in total, and now SC 17 is getting added. Next month month SC 7 is will fall as well. The mean value thus becomes less meaningful as the end of the cycle approaches. But out of habit, we want to keep it nevertheless as comparison.

The activity in the past month was shifted very asymmetrically to the solar northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere was spotless throughout the whole month. The solar north saw spots only on 15 days. The total activity graphically

Fig. 1: SC24 is depicted in red and compared to the mean of the previous 23 cycles (blue curve) and the very similar ähnliche SC5 (in black).

So we have been bobbing along with very little activity in the solar minimum for 20 months, and this will probably continue for about 1 year as we already explained 2 months ago.

Weakest in close to 200 years

The sunspots of the new cycle no. 25 (recognizable through the reversed polarity of their magnetic fields and which always occur in the minimum together with those of the old cycle) are still rare. A total of 4 were observed in the previous month. The new cycle physically arrives when the new sunspots make up the majority of the observed spots.

Now the comparison of the recorded cycles among each other:

Fig. 2: Sunspot activity of the individual cycles since the beginning of cycle 1 in the year 1755. The numbers are computed by adding up the monthly differences of the observed cycles to the mean value, up to the current cycle month no. 126.

First below normal cycle in over 80 years

The sudden drop since the end of SC23 (2008) is very clearly visible. Before that we had seen 7 cycles of above average activity, from 1933 (start SC17) to 2008 (end SC23). There is also little doubt among the solar scientists that also SC25 will finish below the zero line.

What about the duration of low-activity SC24? It would be the first low-activity cycle with an above normal lifespan since SC15, the beginning of which was in 1915. What impact could this have on the Earth’s inhabitants? In the past, there were a number of parallels between the decline in solar activity and global temperature. Just how it will develop this time, we do not know exactly.

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

MIT Doctorate Climate Scientist Slams GW Claims: Based On “Untrustworthy, Falsified Data”…”No Scientific Value”!

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

In a newly released Kindle book that is set to peeve established climate science, an MIT doctorate climate researcher blasts alarmist claims of a warming planet and illustrates how temperature data are untrustworthy and far too scant to draw sound conclusions.

By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin

Dr. Kiminori Itoh just brought to our attention a recently released Kindle version Japanese climate skeptical book with the title: kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu, authored by Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. an scientist who received doctorate from MIT.

The book’s title translated in English: “A climate scientist’s profession – Global warming theory is unproven, only a hypothesis“.

Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy”, “falsified”.  Image: http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/people/nakamura.php

In his book, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on.

“Not backed by demonstrable data”

He writes that although many people, including a lot of climate researchers, believe it is a confirmed fact that global surface mean temperatures have been rising since Industrial Revolution, it is however “not backed by demonstrable data”. He points out:

Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data. Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

Prestigious career

Dr. Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.

Failed climate models

Nakamura’s book demolishes “the lie of critical global warming due to increasing carbon dioxide”, exposes the great uncertainty of “global warming in the past 100 years” and points out the glaring failure of climate models.

Only 5% of Earth’s surface adequately measured over past 100 yrs

According to Dr. Nakamura, the temperature data are woefully lacking and do
not allow in any way the drawing of any useful conclusions.

Presently the book is available in Japanese only. What follows are translated/paraphrased excerpts.

For example, Dr. Nakamura illustrates how scant the global temperature data really are, and writes that over the last 100 years “only 5 percent of the Earth’s area is able show the mean surface temperature with any certain degree of confidence.”

Ocean data extremely scant…

Then there’s the desolate amount of data from the massive oceans. Later Dr. Nakamura describes how the precision of the observed mean temperature from the ocean surface, which accounts for roughly 75% of the Earth’s surface, are questionable to an extreme.

He writes, “The pre-1980 temperature data from the sea and water are very scant” and that the methodology used for recording them totally lacks adequacy.

To top it off: “The climate datasets used for the sea surface water temperature data have added various adjustments to the raw data.”

1 station per 10,000 sq km almost meaningless

Dr. Nakamura also describes how the number of surface stations used globally cannot provide any real accurate temperature picture. He writes: “Experts cannot just decide that 10,000 sq km per station is representative of temperature.”

Later he explains: “If you accept the Earth surface mean temperature’s warming since the Industrial Revolution as the truth, it means you agree with the idea that the Earth surface mean temperature rise can be determined by a biased tiny region on the globe. It is nonsense. Looking at the regions with long term temperature data, you can see that some regions warmed, and some other regions cooled.

Nakamura’s harsh judgement: “No scientific value”

Finally, Nakamura blasts the ongoing data adjustments: “Furthermore, more recently, experts have added new adjustments which have the helpful effect of making the Earth seem to continue warming”. The talented Japanese scientist deems this “data falsification”.

He concludes:

Therefore, the global surface mean temperature change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

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

World’s 76 Best Tide Gauges (100+ Years Of Data) Show A Mean 0.34 mm/yr Rise, ‘Negligible’ Acceleration

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

A new scientific paper affirms “all the long-term-trend (LTT) tide gauges of the world consistently show a negligible acceleration since the time they started recording in the late 1800s/early 1900s” and there is “no sign of climate models predicted sharply warming and accelerating sea level rise.”

Image Source: Boretti, 2019

An accurate determination of sea level rise acceleration trends requires at least 100 years of data due to the natural (60- to 80-year) oscillations that could bias the results depending on the start and end dates.

There are 88 world tide gauges with a record length of at least 100 years in the psmsl.org data base. Of those, 76 have no data quality issues.

The average rate of rise for these 76 global-scale tide gauges is just 0.337 millimeters per year (mm/yr), and the acceleration is a “negligible” 0.007 mm/yr².

Thus, the average rate of sea level rise for the world’s best long-term-trend (LTT) tide guages amounts to about 3½ centimeters per century.

Further, the relatively high (2 to 3 mm/yr) local rates of sea level rise in the studied region (the Mexican Caribbean) were determined to be primarily associated with land subsidence.  This affirms the conclusion (Piecuch et al., 2018) that geological processes, or vertical land motions, are more influential than climate-related processes in establishing local relative sea level trends.

These results once again serve to undermine the model-based claims that the world’s seas are sharply rising and accelerating due to CO2-induced global warming.

Boretti, 2019

A realistic expectation of sea level
rise in the Mexican Caribbean

“Because of the well-known multi-decadal natural oscillations of periodicity up to quasi-60 years (Chambers, Merrifield & Nerem, 2012; Schlesinger & Ramankutty, 1994), not less than 100 years of continuous recording in the same location and without quality issues are needed to compute rates and accelerations by linear and parabolic fittings. However, not a single tide gauge has been operational since 1870 in the southern hemisphere, and very few tide gauges have been operational since 1870 in the northern hemisphere.”
“If we now take a subset of the 1269 tide gauge records of www.psmsl.org, requesting a range of not less than 100 years, there are 88 tide gauges total around the world satisfying this criterion. If we neglect the tide gauges having quality issues, such as data originating from multiple tide gauges, misaligned data, significant gaps, there are then 76 tide gauges left. These tide gauges have an average rate of rise 0.337, max. 6.660, min. -7.903 mm/yr., and an average acceleration 0.00700, max. 0.06090, min. -0.05560 mm/yr².”
All the long-term-trend (LTT) tide gauges of the world consistently show a negligible acceleration since the time they started recording in the late 1800s/early 1900s, much less than the +0.022 mm/yr2.”
Hence, the state of the oceans cannot be described as sharply warming and accelerating since 1870, as there is yet no sign of the climate models predicted sharply warming and accelerating sea level rise.”

Image Source: Boretti, 2019
“Apart from land motions of longer and wider scales, it is however important to measure the local vertical motion of the land in an absolute reference frame. From GPS monitoring of fixed domes nearby the tide gauge, the subsidence in Key West is comparable to the relative sea level rise. In the nearby global positioning system (GPS) dome of CHIN, distance to tide gauge 400 m, with data 2008.91 to 2018.99, the subsidence is -3.017±2.256 mm/yr. (Blewitt, Hammond, & Kreemer, 2018). The relative sea level, rises here, mostly because of the land sinks. On a shorter, but still long, time-frame, Peltier (1986) calculated the GIA subsidence of the Atlantic margin for the entire east coast of the United States, with specific for Florida a subsidence rate of about 1 mm/yr.”

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

Dry Hot North German Summers Were More Common 1000 Years Ago, Scientists Report

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

Dry Summers Like 2018 Were Common in the Middle Ages

As part of the current collaborative research project BaltRap (The Baltic Sea and its Southern Lowlands: Proxy-Environment interactions in times of rapid changes), the researchers investigated growth rings in nearly 2000 living beech trees – including some from the university’s own Elisenhain forest – and archaeological wood used for construction from around 1000 A.D. The growth rings found in this wood are a unique archive of previous environmental conditions. If the climatic conditions are good, growth rings are wide; in unfavourable years, like in dry 2018, there is little growth. Dendroclimatology uses this correlation to reconstruct past environmental conditions.

Industry fertilizing trees

Trees now grow much faster than in the past. One reason for this is the increased use of nitrogen in agriculture, the industrial sector and various means of transport. This then infiltrates the forests through the air and rain. This nitrogen fertilisation, also known as eutrophication, leads to much higher rates of growth in our forests, which traditionally have limited amounts of nitrogen.

CO2 fertilizing trees

Higher levels of CO2 in the air also encourage growth. Nowadays, trees can absorb the same amount of carbon whilst opening their stomata for much shorter periods, thus losing less water due to evaporation. Both of these factors lead – as long as there is enough water – to more forest growth.

“We aren’t the first scientists to confirm this trend,” says Dr. Tobias Scharnweber, one of the authors of the article. “However, what is new in our reconstruction is that we were able to calculate these growth rates using our own data method that we had developed especially for this project. This enabled us to show that average summer rainfall amounts were much lower at the time of the Mediaeval Climate Optimum, i.e. approximately 1000 years ago, than previously presumed. Maybe ‘one-in-a-century’ summers, like the one we had in 2018, were not that rare back then.”

Results like these help to make the fluctuations in today’s climate change that is caused by human activity seem more natural from a long-term perspective. By using their new methods, the scientists from Greifswald have shown how important it is to statistically consider the growth conditions of today, which are considerably different to those of the pre-industrial period, when producing climate reconstructions based on growth rings. Further

Information
Research Group Landscape Ecology and Ecosystem Dynamics
www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39040-5
Media Photos

Contact at the University of Greifswald

Prof. Dr. Martin Wilmking
Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology
Research Group Landscape Ecology and Ecosystem Dynamics
Soldmannstraße 15, 17489 Greifswald
Tel.: +49 3834 420 4095
wilmking@uni-greifswald .de

Dr. Tobias Scharnweber
Tel.: +49 3834 420 4188
tobias.scharnweber@uni-greifswald .de 

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

Consensus? 200+ New 2019 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism

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

In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and ²²²²mainstream media sources.

These 200+ new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:

A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.

RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”

A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.

A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.

A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.

To reiterate, these 200+ papers compiled in 2019 thus far support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions.  The papers do not do more than that. In other words, it is not accurate to claim these papers prove that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) positions are invalid, or that AGW claims have now been debunked”.

Below are the three links to the list of  2019 papers amassed as of the 17th of June, 2019, as well as the guideline for the list categorization.

Skeptic Papers 2019 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2019 (2)

Skeptic Papers 2019 (3)


Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions 
Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century?
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise 
Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice

Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change  

Solar Influence On Climate
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence
Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas
Mass Extinction Events Caused By Glaciation, Sea Level Fall 
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver?

Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause 
Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere
Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields
Fire Frequency Declining Since 20th Century Began
Global Warming Reduces Mortality. Cold Kills.
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes
No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity
Natural CO2 Emissions A Net Source, Not A Net Sink
CO2 Change Lags Temperature Change
Miscellaneous

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

Antarctic Dome A Station Sets New Record Low: -82.7°C … And Arctic Ice Hasn’t Melted This Decade

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

By Kirye

and P. Gosselin

Once predicted to be ice-free by climate “experts”, the Arctic ice has not lost any volume over the current decade.

Using the modelled ice volume data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), we see June 15 volume trend has been flat since 2010:

Data source: DMI

Next we examine the fluctuating ice volume, going back to March 2006:

Data source: DMI

The above plot shows how Arctic ice volume has not gone down in 13 years, i.e. since climate experts began warning in earnest that the Arctic had entered a “death spiral”.

Strongly correlated with natural Atlantic ocean cycles

That the Arctic has plateaued at a low level does not surprise a number of climate and weather experts, who say it is natural and in large part connected to the North Atlantic sea surface temperature oscillations:

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index according to the methodology proposed by van Oldenborgh et al. 1880-2018.

Arctic ice strongly connected to natural ocean cycles

Note how September minimum ice shown below corresponds to the AMO index, which indicates changes in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures.

Little wonder alarmists always like starting their charts in the late 1970s.

Antarctic Dome A Sets New Record Low!

Ending on an anecdote, Swiss veteran meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann tweeted Antarctic Dome A station set a new record low at -82.7°C for this station yesterday.

 

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

German Prof. Writes Activists Have Warped Climate Perception, Why Does Climate Agenda “Lie So Much”?

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

The weather sensitivity of activists

By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

Have you noticed it too?

Over the last years it’s been climate change that is to blame for everything. Whether it’s storming outside or snowing, whether it’s not storming or not snowing, whether it’s thunderstorming with a lot of rain, or if it’s dry: everything is said to be climate change. What kind of weather would not show climate change? Any deviation from the mean is now a sign of climate change?

There are some who oppose this logic.

Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann is a shining example. On Twitter, he recently got peppered with accusations that he’s supplying the “climate deniers” with ammunition.

Carbon has made an immense contribution

This article could show the opposite because we too are convinced that mankind is changing the climate, and the use of coal, gas and oil in the entire value chain of industrial society has brought it about. On the other hand, mankind would not be where it is today without the positive effects of carbon in human nutrition, energy supply, mobility, poverty alleviation, the fight against disease with medicines and many other achievements that we owe to the combined efforts of generations before us.

And it will take some effort to get the effects of our actions under control by about 2100. Any earlier date for an Armageddon is fiction, serious science agrees.

Task for a century, not a legislative period

We would like to refer once again to what we derived in July 2017: How high can the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increase in order not to surpass the 2°C target: around 600 ppm? Assuming current (2017) 407 ppm CO2 and a current average growth of 2.11 ppm per year, the 600 ppm would be reached in 2108. Of course it would be necessary to reduce global CO2 emissions to near zero by the end of this century – a task for three global generations and not for three German legislative periods.

Desperate activists seizing upon every anomaly

Activists don’t see it that way. They announce the checkered flag will be waving for mankind in just 12 years.

But it’s difficult to justify this, so they try to take advantage of any weather. For example, it can get warm in Finland when the wind blows from the south in summer. This shouldn’t be surprising given the high solar radiation, but the activists now hype it up to turn the weather into climate.  It is quite easy to calculate how many days the daily maximum temperature there exceeded 26°C.

The number of days over all of Finland with a maximum temperature of over 26°C. Data source: E-OBS (KNMI)

It’s easy to see that warmth over Finland happens every now and then and that real conclusions cannot be drawn. There is no reason to panic about hot Finnish days.

No evidence of anthropogenic influence on cyclones

Another dubious claim that is often made is that climate change is causing more / stronger tropical storms such as hurricanes (in the Atlantic) and typhoons (in the Pacific). In recent years, we’ve seen a number of articles of this type whenever there’s been a tropical storm. A simple thermodynamic conclusion gets drawn: Warmer water contains more energy and makes storms worse.

Yet, a recent study by world-leading researchers on this topic makes it clear that it is not so easy. They find many uncertainties, and in particular that Atlantic hurricanes are not attributable to climate change, not even the associated extreme precipitation:

To date, there is no convincing evidence of a detectable anthropogenic influence on hurricane precipitation rates,…”

No trend in German precipitation

Since 2019 could be a rather active hurricane season, we have tobe prepared that climate change will be blamed by activists. But this conclusion, according to science, is not justified. It’s simple scaremongering! But we all know Greta Thunberg’s call: We want panic!

Also often reported: Forest fires in this country [Germany] are largely due to the “climate crisis”. Forest fires are the result of drought. Yet, it is not the heat that is to blame, but rather the lack of precipitation. And what about summer in Germany?

 

Summer precipitation in Germany since 1880. Source.

The DWD German Weather service notes: no trend has been found.

Why are they lying?

It was unusually dry last year, so yes there were more forest fires. All those who exploit a weather event for their agenda have to ask themselves: What kind of agenda is this for which you have to lie so much?

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

Arctic Sea Ice 8000 Years Ago less Than Half Of Today’s, Yet Polar Bears Thrived!

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

At Twitter NoTricksZone’s contributor Kenneth Richard posted this paper appearing in the Journal Science in 2011.

The papers find that “summer temperatures during the HTM in North Greenland were 2° to 4°C warmer in this part of the Arctic.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations back then of course were much lower than the historically very modest 410 ppm we have today.

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

New Study: U.S. East Coast Has GROWN +5 cm/year Since 1960 After Eroding -55 cm/year During 1830-1956

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

Despite reports of relatively high regional rates of sea level rise, the Atlantic Coast of the United States has actually been expanding in recent decades after rapidly shrinking prior to the 1960s.

A 2001 Salon magazine “terror in the skies” alarmism article featured a Dr. James Hansen late-1980s prediction that New York City’s West Side Highway would be underwater within 20 years.

Image Source: Salon.com

Of course the West Side Highway is not underwater today.

Nor does it appear that there have been any detectable changes to its shoreline position since 1936.

In fact, outside the realm of popularized alarmism, it is well known that geological processes are more determinative of relative sea level changes than climate factors contributing to sea level rise or fall (i.e., glacier melt or advance).

Piecuch et al. (2018) concluded “the majority of large-scale spatial variation in long-term rates of relative sea-level rise on the US East Coast is due to geological processes that will persist at similar rates for centuries.”

Image Source: Piecuch et al., 2018

Pfeffer and colleagues (2017) assessed 849 coastal sites and determined that geophysical processes, or vertical land motion (VLM) trends (ranging from −13 to +16 mm yr−1 ), “have been recognized as a dominant component of the total relative sea-level variations observed at coasts” at locations throughout the globe.

Image Source: Pfeffer et al., 2017

In a new paper, Armstrong and Lazarus (2019) indicate “trends in recent rates of shoreline change along the U.S. Atlantic Coast reflect an especially puzzling increase in accretion, not erosion.”

The numbers are indeed “especially puzzling” for those immersed in sea-level-rise alarmism.

From 1830 to 1956, shorelines eroded at the rapid rate of -55 cm per year on average. Since 1960, the U.S. Atlantic coast has been expanding (accretion) at a rate of +5 cm per year.

The authors seek to provide a “plausible” explanation for this “enigmatic pattern” by suggesting “beach nourishment” (infrastructure development) may explain the tendencies for shorelines to grow as sea levels rise.

For those who do not ascribe to sea-level-rise alarmism, the recent reversal to shoreline accretion is not puzzling and needs no such “plausible” explanation.

Instead, these trends are consistent with a pattern of shoreline growth “all over the world” for the most recent decades.

Image Source: Armstrong and Lazarus, 2019
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Merkel Expert Requests 10H Turbine Setback Rule, Would Seriously Obstruct Wind Energy Expansion

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

Online German business daily Handelsblatt here reported last month that leading German energy expert Jens Koeppen of Angela Merkel’s CDU party is calling for “drastic” permitting rules when it comes to installing wind turbines.

Wind turbine towers over German landscape. Photo: P Gosselin

The proposed rules would make a number of proposed wind projects impossible.

Currently a work group that is focused on acceptance and made up of members from the coalition parties is trying to figure out a way to get around the rapidly growing protests against more wind turbines, whose erection are deforesting and industrializing large swaths of Germany’s idyllic landscape.

Traditional environmentalists and conservationists are livid over the environmental destruction and health risks posed by wind parks.

Protests have become formidable, and as reported yesterday here, Germany’s expansion of wind energy has literally ground to a halt as a result and has thus angered climate protection alarmists and Big Wind lobbyists.

The Handelsblatt writes citizens are tenaciously fighting the installation of 200-meter tall turbines, even doing so in court, and explains how one CDU-politician is calling for a nationwide wind turbine setback rule based on the one used in the southern state of Bavaria.

Bavarian 10H rule has effectively stopped new wind projects

The Bavarian 10H rule forbids the installation of any wind turbine within a distance equaling 10 times the height of the turbine from any residential area. That means no 200-meter tall turbine can be built within 2 kilometers from a residential area. In Bavaria that rule has literally ended the installation of new wind turbines.

Koeppen told the Handelsblatt that “the citizens must be taken seriously” or else “no progress will be made”.

Currently there’s a wave of lawsuits challenging wind park proposals across the country.

Communities risk being surrounded and plagued

The German UBA Office of Environment, however, warns that even a distance of 1000 meters would reduce the area wind turbines by up to 50% in some places.

Citizens are also very concerned about the health impacts from infrasound generated by wind turbines, which experts claimed can have an impact 10 kilometers away.

Once peaceful communities now find themselves divided

Wind energy has not only divided the environmentalists, but also disturbed the tranquility and harmony once found in many idyllic communities across the country.

Politicians as well are divided. The conservatives in the CDU aim to assure adequate setbacks for wind parks near communities. The socialists in the SPD, on the other hand, wish to relax the rules and thus clear the way for more wind park installation near communities.

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

Wind Energy Woes: German Expansion “Collapses To Near Zero” …”2019 Threatens To Be A Disaster”

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

Despite all the talk about the need to transition over to green energies, Germany’s progress — in especially wind energy — has ground to a complete halt.

German news site iwr.de here reports that the expansion of wind energy in Germany has “come the a stop” as the government has scaled back subsidies and enacted stricter permitting laws.

“As in April 2019, only nine new wind turbines went into operation nationwide in May,” IWR reported. “The year 2019 threatens to be a disaster for the wind industry in Germany.”

The IWR reported further: “In the first five months of 2019, only around 60 new onshore wind turbines went into operation nationwide. This is the result of an IWR evaluation of data from the market master data register of the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA).”

“A catastrophe” for wind power

At Twitter green energy activist Prof. Volker Quaschning called the collapse a “catastrophe”, tweeting that the expansion of wind power “collapsed completely”. He added that “it will be impossible to meet the CO2 reduction targets” and that 40,000 jobs in the wind industry are “on the brink”.

Wind power in Germany has been met with increasingly fierce protest from citizens, especially from traditional environmentalists, who reject the industrialization of the landscape. Others point to wind energy’s volatile power supply, cost, noise pollution, general ineffciency and danger to birds and ecosystems.

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

Multiple Recent Papers Dispel Gulf Stream Collapse, Alarming The Climate Alarmism Industry

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

No Reason For Panic: The Oscillating Gulf Stream

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

Image: NASA JPL (public domain)

The Gulf Stream provides heating for Western Europe. Some climate activists paint horror scenarios on the wall that the Gulf Stream is slowing down or even stopping due to climate change – with fatal consequences for Europe. However, other scientists see no evidence of this in the hard data. You can find more on this discussion at our DkS archive.

Today’s blog post: What’s new on the Gulf Stream?

In February 2019, Lozier et al. reported in Science that the models did not even correctly quantify the most important drives of the Gulf Stream. The dominant factor is not the Labrador Sea east of Canada, but the Arctic Ocean east of Greenland. See also report in The Daily Caller.

The Gulf Stream is apparently not as vulnerable to climate change as we thought. ScienceNews on 31 January 2019:

Climate change might not slow ocean circulation as much as thought

New findings from an international ocean observing network are calling into question the long-standing idea that global warming might slow down a big chunk of the ocean’s “conveyor belt.” The first 21 months of data from sensors moored across much of the North Atlantic are giving new insight into what controls the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, a system of currents that redistributes heat around much of the Western Hemisphere.

Researchers had thought the strength of that circulation, known by the acronym AMOC, was largely influenced by the sinking of cold freshwater in the Labrador Sea, between Greenland and Canada. And climate simulations suggest that the sea’s deepwater formation might slow as the world continues to warm — which also could slow down the entire Atlantic current system and possibly make temperatures on land in the northeastern United States and the United Kingdom plunge. That concept inspired the (otherwise unrealistic) 2004 climate apocalypse film The Day After Tomorrow.

Read more at ScienceNews

This MDR report from July 2018 also deals with fundamental problems of understanding:

Does a weak Gulf Stream deliver heat to us?
A new study is causing uproar and a lot of criticism. It deals with the Gulf Stream. So far it has been said: If it becomes weaker and possibly fails to appear at all, then it gets cold. A research team from China and the USA now claims the opposite. They say that a weakening Gulf Stream is heating up the global temperature once again.”.

Rad more at MDR.

Also see the articles on the study in Die Welt. Backers of the tough IPCC line were horrified. Alarmist site Klimareporter does not like the study at all and calls it “provocative“. Also the climate alarmist SZ daily was also dissatisfied. It is best to have the results explained directly by the authors without filtering. What follows is the accompanying press release from the University of Washington dated 18 July 2018:

Atlantic Ocean circulation is not collapsing – but as it shifts gears, global warming will reaccelerate

A huge circulation pattern in the Atlantic Ocean took a starring role in the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” In that fictional tale the global oceanic current suddenly stops and New York City freezes over. While many aspects of the movie are unrealistic, oceanographers are concerned about the long-term stability of the Atlantic Ocean circulation, and previous studies show that it has slowed dramatically in the past decade. New research from the University of Washington and the Ocean University of China finds the slowdown is not caused by global warming but is part of regular, decades-long cycle that will affect temperatures in coming decades. The paper [Chen & Tung 2018] was published July 18 [2018] in Nature.

“Climate scientists have expected the Atlantic overturning circulation to decline long-term under global warming, but we only have direct measurements of its strength since April 2004. And the decline measured since then is 10 times larger than expected,” said corresponding author Ka-Kit Tung, a UW professor of applied mathematics with an adjunct appointment in atmospheric sciences.

“Many have focused on the fact that it’s declining very rapidly, and that if the trend continues it will go past a tipping point, bringing a catastrophe such as an ice age. It turns out that none of that is going to happen in the near future. The fast response may instead be part of a natural cycle and there are signs that the decline is already ending.”

The results have implications for surface warming. The current’s speed determines how much surface heat gets transferred to the deeper ocean, and a quicker circulation would send more heat to the deep Atlantic. If the current slows down, then it will store less heat, and Earth will be likely to see air temperatures rise more quickly than the rate since 2000.

“The global climate models can project what’s going to happen long-term if carbon dioxide increases by a certain amount, but they currently lack the capability to predict surface warming in the next few decades, which requires a knowledge of how much the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases is being absorbed by the oceans,” Tung said.

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, is a conveyor belt that brings surface water northward in the Atlantic; from there, the heavier salty water sinks and returns at depth from the Labrador and Nordic seas, near the North Pole, all the way south to the Southern Ocean. Most people are interested in what happens at the surface — the Gulf Stream and associated Atlantic currents carry warmer water north, bringing mild temperatures to Western Europe.

But the new paper argues that the most important step, from a climate perspective, is what happens next. In the North Atlantic, the saltier water from the tropics sinks almost a mile (1,500 meters). As it does, it carries heat down with it away from the surface.

Changes in the strength of the AMOC affect how much heat leaves our atmosphere. The new study uses a combination of data from Argo floats, ship-based temperature measurements, tidal records, satellite images of sea-surface height that can show bulges of warm water, and recent high-tech tracking of the AMOC itself to suggest that its strength fluctuates as part of a roughly 60- to 70-year, self-reinforcing cycle.

When the current is faster, more of the warm, salty tropical water travels to the North Atlantic. Over years this causes more glaciers to melt, and eventually the freshwater makes the surface water lighter and less likely to sink, slowing the current.

When the AMOC is in a slow phase, the North Atlantic becomes cooler, ice melt slows, and eventually the freshwater melt source dries up and the heavier saltier water can plunge down again, which speeds up the whole circulation.

The new study argues that this current is not collapsing, but is just transitioning from its fast phase to its slower phase – and that this has implications for heating at the surface.

From 1975 to 1998, the AMOC was in a slow phase. As greenhouse gases were accumulating in the atmosphere, Earth experienced distinct warming at the surface. From about 2000 until now, the AMOC has been in its faster phase, and the increased heat plunging in the North Atlantic has been removing excess heat from the Earth’s surface and storing it deep in the ocean. “We have about one cycle of observations at depth, so we do not know if it’s periodic, but based on the surface phenomena we think it’s very likely that it’s periodic,” Tung said.

The new paper supports the authors’ previous research showing that since 2000, during which observations show a slowdown in surface warming, heat has accumulated deep in the Atlantic Ocean. The new study shows this is the same period when Atlantic overturning circulation was in its fast phase.

Recent measurements of density in the Labrador Sea suggest the cycle is beginning to shift, Tung said. That means that in coming years the AMOC will no longer be sending more of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases deep into the North Atlantic. “The good news is the indicators show that this slowdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation is ending, and so we shouldn’t be alarmed that this current will collapse any time soon,” Tung said. “The bad news is that surface temperatures are likely to start rising more quickly in the coming decades.”

The first author is Xianyao Chen at the Ocean University of China and Qingdao National Laboratory of Marine Science and Technology. The study was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Basic Research Program of China and a Frederic and Julia Wan Endowed Professorship.

 

Figure: The top panel shows global average surface temperature changes since 1950, with two periods of slower change and a period of rapid warming from 1975 to 2000. The lower panels show the strength of the Atlantic overturning circulation. The blue (and, on the right, purple) curve is the salinity north of 45N, an indirect measure, or proxy, for the AMOC strength. The green curve is an established proxy of AMOC.Ka-Kit Tung/University of Washington.”

Die Welt reported on July 21, 2019:

Deep temperatures have been measured in the North Atlantic since the 1940s,” reports Professor Monika Rhein of the University of Bremen. These temperatures are an indirect indication of the strength of the Gulf Stream. “These measured data show strong fluctuations, but no trend in any direction,” says the oceanographer, summing up the long series of measurements. A decrease in the Gulf Stream has therefore not yet been observed.”

The German Climate Consortium published a Brochure on the Gulf Stream in July 2018.

Thibodeau et al. 2018 2018 analyzed oxygen isotopes of foraminifera of a Northwest Atlantic sediment core and found that the attenuation of the Gulf Stream (AMOC) in the 20th century led to a Gulf Stream minimum in the 1970s. The Gulf Stream was also particularly weak during the Little Ice Age, a natural cold phase. See also report in the Daily Mail.

McCarthy et al. 2018 found that a part of the Gulf Stream variability was related to the NAO ocean cycle.

Yan et al. 2018 complained that climate models represented the strong Gulf Stream variability only in a diminished form, an important inadequacy of model simulations.

Todd et al. 2018 short-term changes of the Gulf Stream after powerful hurricanes.

Good et al. 2018:

The observed AMOC overturning has decreased from 2004–2014, but it is unclear at this stage whether this is forced or is internal variability.

Lique & Thomas 2018 warned that the Gulf Stream could change over time. Report on this at Scinexx:

North Atlantic: climate change shifts the circulation

Sinking zones of the Atlantic circulation could shift considerably

Shifted engine of circulation: Climate change could not only weaken the Atlantic circulation flow, but could also shift it, as a simulation now suggests. The large sink zones of warm water would no longer lie off Greenland, as they do today, but in the Arctic Ocean and the subtropical Atlantic. This, however, could have a strong influence on the current – and also alter the heat exchange and the buffer effect of the ocean, as the researchers report in the journal “Nature Climate Change”.

Read more at Scinexx.

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

Swiss Meteorologist Exposes Shocking Lack Of Fundamental Science Knowledge By Climate Scientists

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

Before people jump into a debate about weather with veteran Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann, they’d first better make sure that they really paid close attention at school and did their science homework.

In an debate at Twitter, the high-profile, seasoned meteorologist inadvertently exposed a shocking lack of comprehension of fundamental physics by some of Germany’s top climate officials, among them renewable energy expert Prof Volker Quaschning.

Hat-tip: Axel Bojanowski

High temperatures do not cause droughts

The Twitter exchange was unleashed by Kachelmann blasting the recent junk-science-driven media hype over another year of potential drought over Central Europe, and especially the false claim made by Prof. Quaschning that higher temperatures lead to more drought and forest fires. Kachelmann called this claim: false and “complete nonsense.” Kachelmann recently explained in a t-online article he penned:

Heat does not cause forest fires and is completely irrelevant. Forest fires are caused by the fact that it is dry longer, and then some fools – intentionally or not – throw something burning into the area, or park a very hot car over dry high grass and then drive away. The temperature on the day of the outbreak of forest fires does not matter.”

It’s the moisture, stupid

In other words, Kachelmann, dumps cold water on Quaschning’s claim that higher temperature is the factor behind drought and thus forest fires and Biblical-scale misery of the sort prophesized by Green fanatics. Kachelmann explains that temperature has nothing to do with the risk level of fire, and that the factor behind it is air moisture.

Shockingly, this fundamental physics law seemed to be unknown to “top scientists” such as Quaschning and others.

The FridaysFor Future activist and “renewable energy expert” Prof. Volker Quaschning kept insisting that temperature determined how dry soil would become, tweeting to Kachelmann: “Physics: More heat = more evaporation = drier ground = high forest fire risk = more forest fires. To shore this up he dragged Stefan Rahmstorf in to his side.

Confused about water vapor

Next, scientist Stefanie here tweeted a chart showing how much water a kg of air could hold versus temperature with the aim of showing Kachelmann he was wrong and that it was all about temperature:

Water vapor in grams per kilogram of air versus air temperature. Source here.

But this backfired on Stefanie when Kachelmann correctly demonstrated she did not understand the chart at all and that she had no idea what she was talking about.

That these climate experts would not know that water vapor in the air is the driving factor behind drought makes one wonder what faulty physics may have gotten applied to the climate models.

Throughout the entire thread there are attempts by the climate “experts” to assert their “academic authority”.

Other readers noted, for example, that despite extremely high temperatures in jungles, raging forest fires don’t break out in them. It’s not because of the temperature, but because of the moisture.

Climate alarmism becoming a sect

If any trend is emerging, it is that Kachelmann, a believer in man-made warming, is tiring of the fanaticism on both sides. He recently tweeted:

But unfortunately you can only stay in the sect if you join in the chattering of all the nonsense and depart from the grounds of science because of the purpose of saving the world allows all nonsense. Green and browns are outbidding each other in terms of lack of seriousness. It is getting very wretched.”

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

New Study Shows Climate Models Not Even Close To Be Useful For Policymaking. “Precipitation Remains The Achilles’ Heel “

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

A new paper just appeared in the journal of Atmospheric Research titled: “Climate classifications from regional and global climate models: Performances for present climate estimates and expected changes in the future at high spatial resolution“.

Hat tip: Reader Mary Brown

Though the title itself reveals little about the quality of the performance of models, the study suggests that models still have a long way to go before really being useful for policymakers to go by.

The study concludes, “The modeling of precipitation remains the Achilles’ heel of models and thus of multidimensional indices, which are very sensitive to this variable.”

Well, just about every major climate index is directly related to precipitation. Thus if the models cannot get precipitation right, then everything else will also be wrong – or at least so far off the mark as to be useless.

The plea for us to worship crude models

“Nonetheless”, the authors write, “the role of models as privileged tools to advance our scientific knowledge of the Earth’s system remains undisputed.”

In other words, even though the models don’t work, and thus cannot be relied on at all by policymakers, we should still worship them!

Models as snake oil

Climate scientists have a long history of making the public think their models are pretty darn good, and that only a teeny weeny bit more tweaking is all that is needed. In reality, however, climate models are still only at the very embryonic stages of development and nowhere near suitable for performing the tasks that would make them of any use for the long term.

The climate system, which includes the atmosphere, extraterrestrial systems, tectonic activity and our great oceans, is just too poorly understood and so absolutely impossible to accurately model with any degree of certainty. There are still so many huge data holes that need to be filled.

Any scientist who claims otherwise should be put away for fraud, or in the least dismissed as an outright quack.

New data get ignored

What’s especially sad is that many of these gaping holes are gradually being filled, but unfortunately these data contradict the CO2 hypothesis of the alarmist scientists – and so they just ignore them.

The result: their models will remain a sham.

What follows is the paper’s abstract:

Climate classifications based on temperature and precipitation measurements are increasingly being used for environmental and climate change studies. Using three classification methods (Köppen, Extended Köppen, and Holdridge) and one observational dataset for present climate (CRU, Climate Research Unit), we show that GCMs have bridged the gap that led to the emergence of RCMs thirty years ago, as GCMs can now provide global climate classifications whose accuracy and precision are comparable to those of regional outputs of the RCMs. Projections of high-resolution GCMs for future climates under the assumptions of three Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP26, RCP45 and RCP85) can therefore be used as a primary source for climate change and global warming studies at high resolution. This paper provides comprehensive, model-derived climate classifications for the entire planet, using RCMs and two GCMs for present and future climate-change scenarios, and discusses how well the models actually represent the climates of the world when compared with reference, ground validation data. It turns out that both GCMs and RCMs appear still limited to provide practical estimates of the world climates even for present climate conditions. The modeling of precipitation remains the Achilles’ heel of models and thus of multidimensional indices, which are very sensitive to this variable. The conclusion is that model outputs at regional scale need to be taken with extreme caution without venturing into informing policies presenting potentially large societal impacts. Nonetheless, the role of models as privileged tools to advance our scientific knowledge of the Earth’s system remains undisputed.”

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

Thunbergs’ Climate Alarmism Deemed Fanaticism — “Strangely Courted by Western Elites” — German Psychiatrist Writes

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

A German psychiatrist has read the Thunbergs’ book, observed climate movement and finds it’s all about fanaticism: “utopian character of demands”…”inability to engage in dialogue and compromise”.

Image: S. Fischer Verlag

Prof. Dr. med. Dipl.-Psych. Wolfgang Meins, neuropsychologist and professor of psychiatry, penned an article recently published at German libertarian site Achgut.com which looks at Greta Thunberg, her parents and the Green movement she has helped to propel. The title of the article: Greta and her parents – not hysterical, but fanatic.

Prof. Meins read Thunberg’s German language book: Szenen aus dem Herzen and believes Thunberg and her movement are all about climate fanaticism and not climate hysteria. He also warns that politicians need to sober up and face the fanaticism for what it is.

Rooted in obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism

Meins writes that one special characteristic of fanatics is their “inability to engage in dialogue and compromise,” which leads to the fact that people are declared “external enemies” who are “potentially also fought with aggressive and destructive means.”

Meins attributes Greta Thunberg’s climate fanaticism to an obsessive-compulsive disorder and her autism.

Her disability, Meins writes, is rooted in the fact “that as an Asperger autistic, she tends to focus very strongly on a special field of interest. People with Asperger syndrome show little compassion and interest in other people,” he writes.

This means “you are as good as immune to the suffering of your fellow human beings”. For example, “people who would become unemployed as a result of banning all flights”.

Strongly emotional convictions dominate, permanently determine thinking

Meins writes: “The climate fanatics are united by a superior idea, i.e. strongly emotional convictions that absolutely dominate and permanently determine their thinking, for example: The CO2-induced apocalypse is irrevocably imminent unless we take immediate, radical countermeasures at any cost. In Greta’s case, superior ideas of this kind developed through a small distraction, based on a related theme: During a school lesson in autumn 2014, she sees a film about the pollution of the oceans. She bursts into tears during the film. At noon she sits in the cafeteria in front of her burger, which she does not touch. From then on, if I correctly interpret the mother’s vague statements, she only eats vegan, if anything at all.”

“Elites almost unanimously paying homage to a fanatic”

“The very special thing about Greta and her fans is that they are courted by large parts of the Western elites, and above all German elites. One hardly hears anything critical from these circles at all,” says Meins. “It is probably the first time since the end of the Second World War that these elites almost unanimously pay homage to a fanatic, and often even encourage Greta and her followers.

With regard to the SPD and especially the CDU-related “elite actors”, Meins assumes that “the completely utopian character of demands for a radical change in climate policy, now and immediately, is clear to them. He accuses them of cowardly refusing to “open the door to the fabulous realm of the climate apocalypse”. Their fear of being driven into political suicide due to “argumentative awkwardness, overlooked pitfalls and media that act on this issue” is overwhelming.

“No need to worry about ecodictatory regulations and prohibitions”

Meins writes in his article that “you get to know quite exactly how climate fanatics tick.” He adds: “For example, that one does not have to worry about the political, economic and social consequences of certain drastic or perhaps better: ecodictatory regulations and prohibitions. Why should they? There is no alternative to such measures, because otherwise we will “burn” or otherwise perish.”

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

New Studies: Northeastern China Was 7-10°C Warmer 9000 Years Ago – And 1.7°C Warmer In The 1800s!

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

Two more new papers add to the voluminous paleoclimate evidence that most of the last 10,000 years were much warmer than modern. 

The globe was about 4 to 6°C warmer than it is today between 9000 and 6000 years ago, when CO2 concentrations centered around 265 ppm.

Image Source: ScienceDaily.com

Some regions exceeded the 4 to 6°C global average.

Northeastern China, for example, has been determined to have been between 7-10°C warmer than today during the Early Holocene (Liu et al., 2019, Zheng et al., 2018, Peterse et al., 2014, Jia et al., 2013, Gao et al., 2012).

New paleoclimate evidence even suggests  the 19th century may even have been ~1.7°C warmer on average than the 20th century in this region (Jiang et al., 2019).

Of course, none of these temperature values are consistent with the claim that the Earth’s surface temperatures are significantly determined by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


Image Source: Liu et al., 2019

Image Source: Zheng et al., 2018

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

What Drives The Solar Cycles? German Scientists Believe They’ve Found The Answers

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

Scientists think they found what drives the solar cycles, which a huge body of scientific literature suggests greatly impacts the climate on earth.

Sun follows planets’ rhythm

New study corroborates the influence of planetary tidal forces on solar activity

Images: NASA (public domain)

One of the big questions in solar physics is why the Sun’s activity follows a regular cycle of 11 years. Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), an independent German research institute, now present new findings, indicating that the tidal forces of Venus, Earth and Jupiter influence the solar magnetic field, thus governing the solar cycle. The team of researchers present their findings in the journal Solar Physics (doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1447-1).

In principle, it is not unusual for the magnetic activity of a star like the Sun to undergo cyclic oscillation. And yet past models have been unable to adequately explain the very regular cycle of the sun. The HZDR research team has now succeeded in demonstrating that the planetary tidal forces on the Sun act like an outer clock, and are the decisive factor behind its steady rhythm. To accomplish this result, the scientists systematically compared historical observations of solar activity from the last thousand years with planetary constellations, statistically proving that the two phenomena are linked. “There is an astonishingly high level of concordance: what we see is complete parallelism with the planets over the course of 90 cycles,” enthused Frank Stefani, lead author of the study. “Everything points to a clocked process.”

As with the gravitational pull of the Moon causing tides on Earth, planets are able to displace the hot plasma on the Sun’s surface. Tidal forces are strongest when there is maximum Venus-Earth-Jupiter alignment; a constellation that occurs every 11.07 years. But the effect is too weak to significantly perturb the flow in the solar interior, which is why the temporal coincidence was long neglected. However, the HZDR researchers then found evidence of a potential indirect mechanism that may be able to influence the solar magnetic field via tidal forces: oscillations in the Tayler instability, a physical effect that, from a certain current, can change the behavior of a conductive liquid or of a plasma. Building on this concept, the scientists developed their first model in 2016; they have since advanced this model in their new study to present a more realistic scenario.

Small trigger with a major impact: tides utilize instability

In the hot plasma of the Sun, the Tayler instability perturbs the flux and the magnetic field, itself reacting very sensitively to tiny forces. A small thrust of energy is enough for the perturbations to oscillate between right-handed and left-handed helicity (the projection of the spin onto the direction of momentum). The momentum required for this may be induced by planetary tidal forces every eleven years – ultimately also setting the rhythm at which the magnetic field reverses the polarity of the Sun.

“When I first read about ideas linking the solar dynamo to planets, I was very skeptical,” Stefani recalled. “But when we discovered the current-driven Tayler instability undergoing helicity oscillations in our computer simulations, I asked myself: What would happen if the plasma was impacted on by a small, tidal-like perturbation? The result was phenomenal. The oscillation was really excited and became synchronized with the timing of the external perturbation.”

Solar dynamo with an added touch

In the standard scenario of a dynamo, the rotation of the Sun and the complex motion of the solar plasma create a cyclically changing magnetic field. Two effects interact here: the plasma rotates more quickly at the Sun’s equator than at the poles. This leads to the omega effect: the magnetic field lines frozen in the plasma stretch around the Sun and convert the magnetic field into a field aligned almost parallel to the Sun’s equator. The alpha effect describes a mechanism that twists magnetic field lines, forcing the magnetic field back into a north-south direction.

What exactly causes the alpha effect, however, is a subject of dispute. Stefani’s model indicates that the Tayler instability is partly responsible for this. The researchers consider the most plausible scenario to be one in which a classic solar dynamo is combined with the modulations excited by the planets. “Then the Sun would be a completely ordinary, older star whose dynamo cycle, however, is synchronized by the tides,” summarized Stefani. “The great thing about our new model is that we are now easily able to explain effects that were previously difficult to model, such as ‘false’ helicities, as observed with sunspots, or the well-known double peak in the Sun’s activity curve.”

Besides influencing the 11-year cycle, planetary tidal forces may also have other effects on the Sun. For example, it is also conceivable that they change the stratification of the plasma in the transition region between the interior radiative zone and the outer convection zone of the Sun (the tachocline) in such a way that the magnetic flux can be conducted more easily. Under those conditions, the magnitude of activity cycles could also be changed, as was once the case with the Maunder Minimum, when there was a strong decline in solar activity for a longer phase.

In the long term, a more precise model of the solar dynamo would help scientists to quantify climate-relevant processes such as space weather more effectively, and perhaps even to improve climate predictions one day. The new model calculations also mean that, besides tidal forces, potentially other, hitherto neglected mechanisms would have to be integrated into the solar dynamo theory, mechanisms with weak forces that can nevertheless – as researchers now know – have a major impact. To be able to investigate this fundamental question in the laboratory, too, the researchers are currently setting up a new liquid metal experiment at HZDR.

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

Close