New Study Crushes IPCC Alarm…Hails A 22% Global Decline In Natural Disaster Death Risk Since 1990s

Share this...

With data showing individual death risk from natural disasters (floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes…) declined from 7.2 per million population in the 1990s to 5.6 in the 2010s, a new study takes aim at the IPCC’s “subjective opinion” labeling method in the manufacture of climate alarm.

Per an exhaustive data analysis (Broccard, 2021), both the global-scale risk of death and property loss risk from exposure to natural disasters have been declining in recent decades. (Financial losses are said to be on the rise, but this statistic is considered too relative and therefore “misleading” because “poor countries suffer about thrice more destruction for a similar natural hazard” than non-poor countries, and thus property loss rather than financial loss is the better indicator of natural disaster risk and impacts.)
Image Source: Broccard, 2021

Data that show a global decrease in the natural disaster threat from climate change may not support the alarming anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative conjured up by policy makers and activists. Perhaps for this very reason the IPCC has been using a language-based (i.e., non-scientific) method to classify alarming natural disaster risk from AGW when actual data do not support the cause.

The IPCC method utilizes (a) a team of selected “experts” who by design are incentivized to agree with each other, (b) “team subjective opinion” with regard to evidence quality, (c) “mere assumption” instead of actual natural disaster data, and, as mentioned, (d) a made-up how-confident-we-are calibrated language scale (i.e., “low confidence” vs. “likely”) that is necessarily so lacking in evidence quality it cannot meet hard-science’s statistical probability/mathematical standards. Effectively, the IPCC method is not much different than asking the selected players if they’re kind of sure, pretty sure, sure, or really, really sure that global warming is having an impact on trends and risks from natural disasters.

Even with their tendentious attempts to accentuate natural disaster risk from climate change, the latest IPCC report actually acknowledges there is “low confidence” that cyclone activity, tornadoes and hail storms, flood magnitudes…have been increasing on a global scale. Further, there is an acknowledgement that “rising population and increased capital at risk are the key drivers behind the observed increase in (natural) disaster losses.”

Finally, it should be noted that the trends in fewer deaths from extreme weather events has been trending down for longer than just the last 3 or 4 decades. Goklany (2009) determined there has been a global “93-98%” decline in mortality attributed to extreme weather  events (droughts, floods, storms, extreme temperatures, wildfires…) since the 1920s.

Image Source: Goklany, 2009



Share this...

March Sea Ice: Arctic Stable 16 Years, Gains 504,000 Sq Km Since 2017! Antarctic Above Mean!

Share this...

Though it has dropped since its peak in 1979, Arctic sea ice extent in March has remained stable since 2005.

There are two months that are of particular interest in the Arctic: September, when sea ice reaches its minimum, and March, when it reaches its maximum.

Gains 504,000 sq km.

Today we look at Arctic sea ice extent data for March ,2021, from the Alfred Wegener Institute, University of Bremen.

The mean sea-ice extent for March, 2021, in the Arctic was 14.72 million square kilometer, placing it at about 504,000 square kilometers above the low from 2017.

That’s an added area equivalent to the entire country of Spain.

Little trend change in 16 years

As the above chart shows, March Arctic sea ice extent has been quite stable since 2005. A number of scientists have predicted years ago that Arctic sea ice would in fact be stabilizing, before rebounding in sync with natural solar cycles. Global warming scientists dispute the claim.

Antarctica March sea ice above mean

Now looking at Antarctica, it was claimed earlier that “more than 1/3 of Antarctica’s ice shelf could collapse due to global warming.” That’s what NASA said, referring to a study by the University of Reading. The study assumes a warming of 4 degrees Celsius.

However, most coastal stations don’t show any warming. And according to Alfred Wegener Institute, sea ice extent is  above the 1981-2010 mean:

Antarctic sea ice extent, over 15% concentration, as of April 11, 2021. 6.73 million square kilometers. Image: AWI, University of Bremen. Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne




Share this...

2021 German Coal Plant “Phaseout” Lasted Only 8 Days…Put Back Online To Stabilize Shaky Grid

Share this...

German coal phaseout – lasted only 8 days

By Blackout News
(Translated, edited by P. Gosselin)

Due to the government mandated coal phase-out, 11 coal-fired power plants with a total capacity of 4.7 GW were shut down on January 1, 2021. But the coal phase-out ended up lasting only 8 days, after which several power plants had to be reconnected to the grid due to a prolonged low-wind period.

Share this...

New Study Suggests Southwest Greenland Was 6-7°C Warmer Than Today 9,000-5,500 Years Ago

Share this...

Scientists have determined the “optimal thermal conditions” for southwestern Greenland were when summer sea surface temperatures averaged about 12°C from 9,000 to 5,500 years ago, which is substantially warmer than modern summer temperatures (4.0-5.2°C) for this region.

A few years ago McFarlin et al. (2018) determined northwestern Greenland was 4-7°C warmer than 1952-2014 during the Early Holocene, and 5.5 to 8.5°C warmer than modern during the last interglacial (~130,000 years ago). This warmth was achieved when CO2 only ranged from 255 to 275 ppm.

Image Source: McFarlin et al., 2018

It was likely during the interglacial ~400,000 years ago that northwestern Greenland was so warm the ice piled 1.4 kilometers high today melted to the ground, allowing vegetation to grow in Greenland’s Arctic soil (Christ et al., 2021). At that time, CO2 was also said to be in the “safe” ~275 ppm range.

Image Source: Christ et al., 2021 and press release

Now a new study (Allen et al., 2021) characterizes “~5°C” as “cold conditions” for summer sea surface temperatures near southwestern Greenland. And at present, with the “summer SST ranging from 4.0-5.2°C,” we are likely experiencing some of the coldest temperatures of the last 10,000 years.

The authors’ reconstruction has “optimal thermal conditions” in surface water temperatures varying around 12°C from about 9,000 to 5,500 years ago. This would indicate summer temperatures were at least 6-7°C warmer than today during these millennia.

Once again, these temperature and ice sheet reconstructions do not support the contention that CO2 concentrations are a driver of Greenland’s climate.

Image Source: Allen et al., 2021



Share this...

German Ministry Of Health Spokesman Can’t Cite One Single Scientific Study Showing Lockdowns Are Effective

Share this...

German Health Ministry spokesman gets agitated, testy, in response to a journalist’s inconvenient question

Agitated German Ministry of Health spokesman Oliver Ewald trapped by journalist, with no way out, on question of the science behind lockdowns. Image cropped from Phoenix.

It’s nice to see a journalist doing his job. Independent journalist Boris Reitschuster is doing his quite well. Currently, the German government is looking to impose even stricter lockdown measures. Liberty has been suspended indefinitely in Europe.

Not a single study

At an April 9th press conference, Reitschuster asked German Federal Ministry of Health spokesman, Oliver Ewald, if he could cite a single study indicating that lockdowns work in slowing down the pandemic, see video at Twitter link (in German), exchange translated below:

Reitschuster:

A question to Herr Ewald: Herr Ewald, [a journalist] at the WZ wrote in a report that the German government has no proof of the effectiveness of lockdowns. So my question is: what scientific studies do you have? Thank you.”

Spokesman Ewald, tries to duck the explosive question:

Herr Reitschuster, you know that as a fundamental rule, we do not assess comments from journalists, and so here I will stick to that.”

Reitschuster refuses to accept his non-answer:

There’s a misunderstanding, Herr Ewald, I only brought up a quote and then followed it up with a stand-alone question, and this question has nothing to do with the quote. I’ll gladly repeat the question once again; what scientific study…”

Before Reitschuster can finish, Ewald, clearly irritated,  cuts him off:

When you read one sentence from this comment here and request an assessment without, so to speak, providing further context or basis, I can’t say anything on that.”

Reitschuster refuses to let it go and presses for an answer to the simple question:

Completely without the sentence, for the third time, what scientific study does the German government have? Thank you.”

We all know there is no study that supports lockdowns, and so spokesman Ewald is clearly trapped, and goes coldly silent for a couple of seconds – you can hear a pin drop. Ewald, who now looks as if he’s about to explode in anger, responds:

I’ve said what I have to say say on that!”

Reitschuster:

Absolutely nothing.”

This is what the German government, and many countries around the world, have based their lockdowns on. Nada.

“Follow the science,” they tell us. Unfortunately when it comes to COVID-19 lockdowns, there isn’t any.

German TV propaganda

On a separate note, the massive German ARD public broadcasting network is in cahoots with the government, and both seem to have a vested interest in spreading fear among the population. To help do that, ARD recently revised its color scheme for the 7-day incidence level chart. Here it is:

ARD German television 7-day color-coded Corona incidence chart. March 17 on the left and the new one of April 9 on the right. 

Now a 7-day incidence level of 50 is bloody red. Hey, why by coy when it comes to scaring the bejesus out of the citizenry? Let’s just get right down to full-blown alarmism!

Just like climate alarmism: where 0.5°C of warming is now red-hot.




Share this...

Climate Insanity: German Greens, Conservatives Push For 100s Of Wind Turbines In Black Forest!

Share this...

From the Black Forest to the Blighted Forest…a turbine every 1400 meters…

The German state of Baden-Württemberg plans to build 1000 wind turbines – many of which would end up blighting the once idyllic Black Forest.

Climate insanity: Bleak future for Baden-Württemberg’s forests as plans are made to chop through them to make way for 1000 wind turbines. Photo: P. Gosselin

The German state of Baden-Württemberg recently held state elections and the winners, again The Greens, are in coalition talks with the conservatives (CDU).

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt here reports how The Greens and CDU have since firmly agreed on the first big loser – the forests of Baden-Württemberg – as they agree to build 1000 new wind turbines in the state. Many of them will end up in the Black Forest.

Relaxing nature protection laws to clear the way

In November 2020, AGORA Energiewende, the think tank that advises the German government, called for the ban on killing protected species to be relaxed in the nature conservation law so that the spread of wind turbines in nature-sensitive areas can make better progress.

Imported electricity will be needed

But even 1000 wind turbines would not provide a secure power supply and the forthcoming elimination of nuclear power plants such as Philippsburg 2 (which accounts for 13% of the electricity supply) can only be compensated for by importing more electricity from abroad, including the world’s oldest nuclear power plant, the Beznau nuclear power plant, located in neighboring Switzerland. Strange how Baden-Württemberg demonizes nuclear power, but is happy to take electricity from old foreign nuclear power plants.

The dark green areas of the chart below designate where the 1000 turbines will be allowed. The Black Forest, lower left, offers the greatest potential area.

 

Chart source : ForstBW

According to Vahrenholt, 1000 turbines would mean having to space them “at a distance of 1.4 km from each other, with the corresponding access roads cutting through the forest.”

What communism failed to destroy in the 20th century, will be finished off by The Greens in the first half of this century.




Share this...

Nasty Discourse: German Virologist Slanders Renowned Harvard, Oxford, Stanford Scientists: “Pseudo-Experts”

Share this...

When the political stakes are high and science is relied on to form policy, then insults are the order of the day. It’s not exclusive to climate science. Now we are seeing it in the fields of immunology and virology.

The Michael Mann of virology: Dr. med. Carsten Drosten. Photo: Charite Hospital 

Last October, a group of leading experts authored “The Great Barrington Declaration“, where they expressed their “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies” and advocated more “focused protection” and “herd immunity” instead of lockdowns.

Insecurities and over-sensitivities exposed

But for the virology scientists behind the draconian measures of lockdowns, curfews, cancellations, distancing, school closings, mask-wearing, etc., this was viewed as a direct attack. And, like in climate science, what got revealed were their inner insecurities and over-sensitivities.

The latest is Germany’s leading virologist and COVID-alarmist Dr. Carsten Drosten. The German-edition of RT reports:  “Pseudo-experts”: Drosten defames renowned colleagues from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford.” Drosten is a stringent proponent of strict lockdowns to combat the illness in Germany.

Mannian-Rahmstorfian type over-sensitivities come to a head

In a recent podcast on NDR German public radio, Drosten lashed out at critics and addressed the issue of what he called “science denial”, citing “climate research deniers” as an example. Drosten clarified: ‘This is this FLICC [Fake Experts, Logical Fallacies, Impossible Expectations, Cherry Picking and Conspiracy Myth] principle that we should perhaps discuss here on the basis of public arguments.'”

Drosten calls Harvard, Stanford and Oxford “pseudo-experts”

In the podcast, Drosten warned that the public (in his view) was being misled by pseudo-experts and that the government was dithering. Drosten then warned against relaxing the restrictions. In the podcast, Drosten singled out the “pseudo-experts”:

  • Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg
  • The Great Barrington Declaration authors

Towering arrogance

Drosten, who in the podcast overflowed with condescension and haughtiness, said the “pseudo-experts” like to “bask in the light of the TV spotlight”…”may have professorships or doctorates, but in a different subject” and that they are often “people who have been retired for a long time”.

Drosten then admonished the media not to give these people attention because they cannot be trusted.

Who are these “pseudo-experts” that the media and policymakers in no case should heed, according to Drosten? RT writes:

The scientists dubbed ‘pseudo-experts’ by Drosten are Dr Martin Kulldorff, Dr Sunetra Gupta and Dr Jay Bhattacharya.

Kulldorff, a Swedish ‘pseudo-expert’, is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and both a biostatistician and epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. His expertise includes the detection and surveillance of infectious diseases and the evaluation of vaccine safety. 159 scientific papers have been (co-)authored by the supposed FLICC expert.”

The reaction to Drosten’s haughtiness came swiftly and harshly at Twitter, some characterized his comments as unhinged.

For example, Kuldroff reacted at Twitter:

As an infectious disease epidemiologist, I would welcome a public scientific discourse with
@c_drosten. Debate is better than slander.”

Marcus Franz tweeted:

Is Professor #Drosten man enough to apologize to the Oxford, Harvard and Stanford colleagues, whom he defamed as “pseudo-experts”, or will he continue his self-destruction?”




Share this...

48 Of 79 ‘Catastrophic Climate Change’ Predictions Have Failed…The Other 31 Just Haven’t Expired Yet

Share this...

A new peer-reviewed paper published in the International Journal of Global Warming identifies 79 “apocalyptic” predictions formulated since 1970 by “researchers and activists” who “predict cataclysmic events” resulting from “catastrophic climate change.” Already 48 of these “truly apocalyptic forecasts” have failed. The other 31 are likely just as wrong, but the prediction end dates haven’t expired yet, as “the apocalypse is always about 20 years out.”

Rode and Fischbeck are “professors of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy” at Carnegie Mellon University.

In a new paper and press release (surprisingly published in AAAS) they have effectively exposed a “string of repeated apocalyptic forecast failures” over the last 50 years made by such activists/scientists as Al Gore, Paul Ehrlich, and Tim Flannery. Activists/scientists James Hansen and Michael Mann have catastrophic predictions set to expire in the 2030s, and the IPCC had a cataclysmic forecast already fail and 3 others that will expire in 2029 and 2050 (2).

The authors’ intention was to warn the climate science community about the cry-wolf dangers of repeatedly making “extreme climate forecasts” that, when they inevitably fail, “undermine the trust in the underlying science.”

It is highly likely that these warnings will be ignored, however, as “making sensational predictions of the doom of humanity, while scientifically dubious, has still proven tempting for those wishing to grab headlines.”

Image Source: Rode and Fischbeck, 2021 and (AAAS press release)

The list of 79 predictions and their end (failure) dates can be found here:

Image Source: Rode and Fischbeck, 2019

================================
We hope readers will find these findings of importance, and donate to further support our efforts.




Share this...

Germany’s Windexit…Old Wind Turbines Dismantled Without Replacement…Looming “Massive Power Outage”?

Share this...

Looming “massive power outage”?

Another signal that the German Energiewende (transition to green energies) is not working out are actions and comments recently coming from the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture, as reported 2 days ago in a newspaper: (Hat-tip: Misaki – im Widerstand)

“Emergency plan for the food supply. Berlin. The Federal Government and the states have agreed on an emergency plan for securing the food supply, according to information from Federal agriculture Minister Julai Klöckner (CDU). as an example for a supply crisis she named a ‘massive power outage”, she told in an interview with this newspaper.”

Germans scale back on wind energy

The German government loves to talk about the importance of green energies, but when it comes to their expansion, it is in fact doing the opposite: Old wind turbines are being removed without being replaced by new generation turbines.

Perhaps it’s beginning dawn on the German government that especially wind and solar energy just aren’t working out, and so they have massively scaled back subsidies with the aim of scaling them back.

More and more old wind turbines coming off the grid

At the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) Andreas Demmig writes about a recent report on wind energy appearing on NDR German public television: “New energy act: More and more wind turbines going off the grid”.

NDR featured the dismantling of three wind turbines in Altenstedt (Lower Saxony) after having been in operation for 20 years. “They are no longer profitable to operate” after the expiry of the 2o years of guaranteed feed-in tariffs to their operators.

No longer economical without the subsidy

The three wind turbines together generated 2 million kWh of electricity annually, meaning 666,666 kWh/ turbine per year. But now that the subsidies have ended, owner Horst Mengels explains he can no longer operate the turbines economically at electricity market prices of less than three, sometimes even one cent. Menawhile private consumers of electricity now have to pay 30 cents and more for a kWh. Repair and maintenance of the turbines are no longer possible at the low market prices.

“Gravedigger of the Energiewende”

Mr Mengels has built 99 wind turbines, the last one in 2020. Last year he hoped for a satisfactory decision from politicians on how to proceed with the old turbines, but in disappointment: “Politics is completely despondent, hesitant and dithering. Economics Minister Altmeier is the gravedigger of the energy transition.”

Scalebacks as electricity demand rises

For the proponents of green energies, Germany’s retreat is baffling in the least. Veronika Grimm, Energy Transition Commission of the Federal Government is convinced that, contrary to the opinion of the Federal Government, electricity consumption is not declining. It estimates that in this decade electricity demand will increase by up to 30% – through electromobility, heating with electricity and heat pumps, the hydrogen strategy.

More coming offline than what is being added

Last year, only 200 new wind turbines were built. At the current rate, more turbine capacity will be coming offline than what is being added.

Prof. Volker Quaschning, expert on green energies, says that the dismantling of wind (and PV) plants, spurred on by the expiry of subsidies, sets back the energy turnaround by years. “If you look back, 20 years ago more was built than what we see today. There is a danger that at some point we will end up with zero new construction, or even a net reduction. – Then we won’t need to talk about climate protection in Germany any more.”

16 GW coming offline

The NDR reports that in the coming years, 16 GW of wind power will be removed from the subsidy system. Almost two-thirds of this may not be replaced by new, more powerful ones.

As far as Altenstedt goes, where the three featured turbines are being dismantled, the NDR reports: “No more wind turbines may be built in Altenstedt, there are no more planning permits. The energy transition is now history here.

The remaining infrastructure: transmission lines, access roads, transformers etc. are available and are now no longer being used. In Altenstedt they will probably become the first relics of a past idea that went sour.

NDR summarizes: “The consumer has paid around 30 billion euros a year in feed-in tariffs. […] a lot of money for an instrument that fails to deliver”.




Share this...

NASA GISS Keeps Warming The Data, And Mysteriously Comes Out With 104 New Stations Going Back To 1882

Share this...

By Kirye
and P Gosselin

It’s well known that scientists at NASA GISS have been rewriting the global temperature record, adjusting the data. Not surprising to many, it now appears much of the globe has been warming faster. This is quite remarkable.

One example is how cooling was transformed into warming in Australia.

What follows are the plots of six Australian station that go back to the late 19th century. The comparator shows the plots of GISS Version 4 “unadjusted” data compared to the Version 4 “adj homogenized” data:

Data: NASA GISS

Before the homogenization, the unadjusted data from 4 of the 6 stations showed cooling. But after NASA GISS “adjusted” the data, the cooling disappeared and all 6 stations showed warming. This seems Orwellian, to say the least.

Now: a mysterious growth in number of stations going back to 1882

Strangely last year when we looked at the NASA site, they showed only 6 stations having V4 unadj data from January 1882 to November 2019 for Australia and only 325 stations globally, see the following screenshot from last year:

But when we look at the NASA GISS site TODAY, we suddenly find they have 17 stations showing V4 unadj data from January 1882 to November 2019 for Australia.

Where did the 11 new stations which such a long dataset suddenly come from?

Extra 104 stations going back to 1882

And globally, as readers may have already noticed above, NASA GISS seems to have found 104 new stations that go all the way back to 1882, now showing a total of 429! Why weren’t these visible last year?

Version 3 only 144 stations going back to 1882

Things get even stranger at NASA GISS. You’d think that Version 4 unadj data are derived from a Version 3 dataset, meaning there would have to be as many stations with Version 3 data as with Version 4. But surprise!

So what are we missing here? Maybe someone knows more about these mysterious new stations and can tell us what’s going on.



Share this...

New Study: 100-Year Flood Events Are Globally Decreasing In Frequency And Probability Since 1970

Share this...

In contrast to alarming claims about rare, 100-year flood events now occurring every few years due to global warming, scientists have determined the exact opposite is more likely true. Not only have flood frequencies declined globally in the last 50 years, but the probability of a 100-year flood event is now so rare it has only been occurring once every 358 years on average since 1970.

According to the IPCC, there has been no clear evidence of a global-scale increase in flood magnitude or frequency in the last century (Hodgkins et al., 2017).

Image Source: Hodgkins et al., 2017

A new study (Slater et al., 2021) suggests claims that flood magnitude, frequency, and probability have been dramatically increasing with global warming can be “misleading” if they use a stationary calculation approach instead of continually updating significant changes over time. These scientists, using “observed annual maximum daily streamflow” records and a “nonstationary approach,” conclude there has been no obvious global-scale trend in 20-, 50-, and 100-year flood magnitude since 1970, with __-year flood events defined as “flows of a given exceedance probability in each year.

“Empirically, we find the 20‐/50‐year floods have mostly increased in temperate climate zones, but decreased in arid, tropical, polar, and cold zones. In contrast, 100‐year floods have mostly decreased in arid/temperate zones and exhibit mixed trends in cold zones…”

In contrast to the apparent non-significant trends in flood magnitude, the authors find there has been a clear global-scale decrease in both the frequency of flood events and the probability that 20-, 50-, and 100-year flooding will occur in a given year and location.

In present-day conditions, 100-year flood events have globally become so rare that they now (since 1970) only occur once every 358 years on average. And 50-year floods only occur once every 152 years on average.

With the cooler climate conditions of the 1970s, there was a 45% probability that a 50-year flood would occur. In today’s conditions, however, there is only an 18% chance that a 50-year flood will occur.

Considering the tremendous damage associated with flood events, it would appear today’s climate conditions – and the associated reduction in flood frequency and probability – are much more favorable to humans than they were in the 1970s.

Image Source: Slater et al., 2021
Share this...

Hamburg Germany Seeing MORE EASTER SNOW Than In 1960s (When CO2 Was Much Lower)

Share this...

Today we see SNOW in the forecast for Easter Monday across most of Germany

A few years ago, renowned warmist climate science professor Mojib Latif also chimed in, just after David Viner, in declaring snow and ice also would be a thing of the past in Germany.

The distinguished professor recalled growing up in Hamburg, and claimed “sometimes” seeing snow on Easter.

When I was a kid in the 1960s, we sometimes still had snow at Easter. In the meantime we have really forgotten how a winter really appears – and there can be winters also in times of global warming.”

In case Latif really has forgotten what winter looks like, he’s about to get a reminder  – tomorrow. In his comment above, Latif also used the word “sometimes” to describe the frequency of “having snow at Easter” in the 1960s, implying it occurred more than once.

Only one single Easter day in the 1960s

What follows are the Easter snow ON THE GROUND statistics in cm for Hamburg of the 1960s. To see if Latif was accurate, we look at the period from Holy Thursday through Easter Monday and the respective snowfall for each day. For example on March 30th, 1964 there was 3 cm of snow cover on the ground in Hamburg.

1960: 14-18 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
1961: 30 March – 3 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
1962: 19-23 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
1963: 11-15 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
1964: 26-30 March; 0, 0, 0, 0, 3
1965: 15-19 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
1966: 7-11 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
1967: 23-27 March; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
1968: 11-15 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
1969: 3-7 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

Of the 50 days of Easter-time occurring in the 1960s, only one single day saw snow in Hamburg – a whole 3 cm on Easter Monday, March 30, 1964! Obviously personal memories are not reliable sources of data, especially in Prof. Latif’s case.

More snowy Easter days in the 2010s

How does this compare to our last decade, 2010-2019?

2010:  1-5 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
2011 21-25 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
2012: 5-9 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
2013: 28 Mar – 1 Apr; 5, 6, 4, 2, 0
2014: 17-21 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
2015: 2-6 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
2016: 27-31 March; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
2017: 13-17 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
2018: 29 Mar – 2 Apr; 6, 0, 0, 0, 0
2019: 18-22 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

From 2010 to 2019, Hamburg saw snow on the ground on 5 days, i.e. more often than in the 1960s.

Another Easter snow day forecast for Hamburg

The current decade looks as follows:

2020: 9-13 April; 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
2021: 0, 0, 0, 0, but with snow forecast tomorrow in Hamburg.

Snow forecast to sweep across Hamburg and much of Germany on Easter Monday. Image: wetteronline.de

That would make Easter in Hamburg seeing snow on the ground on 6 days over the past 10 years, compared to just once in the 1960s. Snow has become more frequent over the past decades, and not less frequent.

But then again it should not be a surprise snow is appearing a bit more frequently in Hamburg at Easter. Just a few days ago we wrote how spring was tending to arrive later in Hamburg, and not sooner like global warming alarmists like to have everyone think it is.




Share this...

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

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

Close