Sea ice has been declining in the Canadian North Atlantic since the 1970s, and yet the harp seal population has been estimated to have risen from a little over 1 million in 1971 to about 7.5 million in 2012 to 2019. But model projections suggest the seal populations will decrease in the future due to…declining sea ice.
The inherent inconsistencies of climate science alarmism appears to have escaped the notice of Canadian researchers (Hammill et al., 2021) reporting on the fate of harp seals in the Canadian North Atlantic.
Despite pointing out that models and aerial surveys have shown seal populations increasing ~seven-fold since the early 1970s in this region – including rising from 5.1 million in 2011 to over 7 million by 2019 – the modeling suggests that sea-ice-dependent seals will experience a dramatic population decline in the coming decades.
The study even presents data showing there has been more extensive sea ice in this region during recent years (2014 to 2019) than there was in 1969, 1978, 1981, and 1998. The trend also shows the sea ice in this region was stable to increasing from 1969 to 1995.
A recent study (Weckstrom et al., 2020) indicated that northern North Atlantic sea ice has been growing since the 1930s and that sea surface temperatures have been cooling overall for the last 90 years.
It should be noted that if harp seals are wholly dependent on sea ice presence for survival then it’s a wonder they were able to survive throughout most of the last 10,000 years. Much of the Arctic (north of the North Atlantic) was sea ice free for all but “a couple of months per yr” during these millennia when sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were 2 to 4°C during summer (Brice et al., 2020). Today these same waters are sea ice covered for 10 to 11 months per year and <0°C in summer.
The same picture emerges in the subarctic North Pacific. The Bering Sea was sea ice free year-round throughout the Early Holocene. Today this same region is sea ice covered for 9 months per year (Meheust et al., 2018).
In sum, the perception that harp seal populations are currently at risk due to declining sea ice trends would appear to be contradicted by evidence that suggests the exact opposite is true.
Analyzing the cyclic nature of solar activity, leading scientists suggest a solar minimum is set to persist until 2050.
It’s important to estimate the features of the next solar cycle because they serve to improve preparedness in space exploration and minimizing risks in technological and sociological activities.
The ability to understand historical solar magnetic parameters more accurately, beyond the highly dominant 11-year cycle, is a key to estimating solar variability, researchers say. Moreover, a number of scientists believe there is a clear link between solar activity and climatic patterns in terms of precipitation and temperature worldwide.
The authors applied Machine Learning (ML) algorithms and analyses to the World Data Center’s newly constructed annual sunspot time series (1700–2019; Version 2.0), which allowed insights into the Sun’s magnetic dynamo which drives the solar activity maxima and minima.
Fig. 1. Results of the time–frequency wavelet spectral analysis. (a) Annual sunspot time series records from 1700–2019. (b) The global time-averaged wavelet period (left-hand panel) . (c) The Morlet wavelet power spectral density (MWPSD) in arbitrary units adopting the red-green–blue color scales. (d) Periodic variations of the 11-year solar cycle (e.g., the Schwabe cycle). (e) Periodic variations of the solar cycle of 22 years (Hale cycle). (f) The periodic variations of the 60-year solar cycle (the Yoshimura-Gleissberg cycle). (g) Periodic variations of the solar cycle of 120 years. The Roman numerals ‘‘I”, ‘‘II”, and ‘‘III” in panels (a) and (d) denote the Wolf’s cycle discussed in the main text. Image: Advances in Space Research.
“We found that the variability in the ~11-year Sunspot Cycle is closely connected with 120-year oscillatory magnetic activity variations,” the authors summarized. “In addition, our ML model forecasts a new phase of extended solar minima that began prior to Sunspot Cycle 24 (ca. 2008–2019) and will persist until Sunspot Cycle 27 (ca. 2050 or so).”
“Unwelcome meteorological and climatic consequences”
This means there’s a high likelihood that we will find out if the Earth’s climatic changes are indeed in large part linked to solar activity – as a number of scientists worldwide claim.
Dr. Willie Soon, a co-author of the paper, commented by email that although their paper did not set out to address the question of the sun-climate connection, two consequence are imminent should solar activity remain weak as they forecast:
First the good news is that we can be at a lower risk of any major solar storms shutting down the electromagnetic communications and even electricity generation and transmission.
However, a persistently weaker and dimmer Sun will also likely bring forth unwelcome meteorological and climatic consequences in which humanity must be fully prepared for.”
Solar activity-earth’s climate link confirmed by 100s of papers
Looking at the history of solar activity and the Earth’s climate change, the odds are better than even that these scientists will be proven correct. This has been evidenced by hundreds of papers. Also see here.
An extremely dangerous political development is in full swing in Europe: Legal courts are now taking it upon themselves to decide the questions of science.
================================================
Europe‘s climate courts infringing on the freedom of science
While constantly claiming they are “following the science”, climate change partisans are in reality suppressing it.
By Fred F. Mueller
This has been blatantly demonstrated in a decision of the Karlsruhe-based Federal Constitutional Court of Germany on March 24, 2021. For many years, “Climate change Chancellor” Angela Merkel had the opportunity to staff this court with her devoted followers. The recent ruling on the Climate Protection Act of Germany’s government will certainly set a mark in history. Although the word “climate” is nowhere to be found in the current version of the German Basic Law (= Germany’s Constitution), “climate protection” and, moreover, even the “establishment of climate neutrality” have now been virtually elevated to constitutional articles. In the view of Germany’s highest court, compliance with the “2-degree target” and, if possible, even the “1.5 -degree target” of the Paris Climate Agreement even justifies considerable state interference with the civil liberties enshrined in the Basic Law.
The first right of freedom now to be marginalized is the freedom of research and teaching, as is documented in the written opinion of court President Stephan Harbarth and his seven fellow judges in the first chamber: The Federal Constitutional Court considers itself authorized to decide on scientific questions by judgement instead of by scientific proof, as is usually the case. This might be regarded as a kind of reversion to the Middle Ages, when people who relied on their own intellect were considered as a thorn in the side of the religious and political rulers of that era. Such independent spirits dared to put into doubt everything that was put before the people by princes and priests.
In the centuries of conflict between the natural sciences on the one hand and the religious and secular elites on the other, the verdict of the Catholic Inquisition against Galileo Galilei – an outstanding founder of modern science – marked a turning point in some ways. His trial was basically about whether a subject was allowed to clarify the processes in nature through experiment and logic or whether the rulers – at that time the Catholic Church with the help of inquisition courts, which also exercised secular power up to burning at the stake or incarceration – also had the final say in this matter. After the scandalous verdict against Galileo, the church lost more and more of its prestige.
The natural sciences, on the other hand, were able to gradually assert themselves in a long, tough struggle, even though it took the Catholic Church until 1992 before Galileo Galilei was officially rehabilitated. Secular courts, on the other hand, had been much more reluctant to trying to legally “clarify” scientific questions. Customarily, it was accepted that in physics, chemistry or mathematics, neither majority opinions nor court rulings apply, but only logic, experiment and evidence.
Figure 1. Henry’s law in action: CO2 dissolved under pressure in sparkling water outgases when poured, forming bubbles (Photo: Author)
It is all the more surprising, therefore, when a secular court nowadays sets out to elevate the views of just two academic bodies to quasi-binding constitutional requirements. The first of these is the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which for years has been presented as the world authority on climate issues. The second source of justifications for this epochal ruling is the German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU). This body was staffed by the government with hand-picked specialists, all of whom hold professorial titles. They have expertise in numerous fields such as medicine, biology, waste and recycling, environmental law and research, and political science. Just one member – a physicist and geographer – has the background required to assess climate science issues. The deputy chair of the SRU is Prof. Kemfert. This telegenic economist and staunch supporter of the “climate change” narrative has been hyped up to become a media and talkshow star. Although she is presented there as highly competent in energy issues, she is de facto just a steadfast lobbyist of the solar and wind energy industry. She also occasionally attracts attention by using terms from the vocabulary of an obscure neo-Marxist sect.
Henry’s Law Declared irrelevant
The scientific victim of the Karlsruhe ruling is Henry’s Law, which hardly anyone would be able to describe if asked about it on the street. Yet its effects are well known, since it has a visible and audible effect every time one opens a bottle of sparkling water or a can of soft drinks: Gas bubbles form in the beverage over a longer period of time with an intense hissing sound. This gas is CO2, which the bottler had previously added to the beverage under high pressure, causing it to dissolve in the liquid. When the bottle is opened, this pressure drops and the CO2 is forced out of the liquid again in the form of gas bubbles.
Figure 2. This statement by the Federal Constitutional Court contradicts Henry’s Law
Henry’s law also explains why fish suffocate in midsummer because the oxygen content of warming water drops below the minimum threshold, or why divers can suffer severe health damage from nitrogen bubbles in their blood when they surface too quickly.
Figure 3. Henry recognized that there is a constant exchange of gas molecules at the interface of water with the air, resulting in an equilibrium between the “internal pressure” of the gas in the liquid and its partial pressure in the atmosphere (Graphic: Author)
The basics of Henry’s law are easy to grasp: The interface between water and air is well permeable for gas molecules, who constantly migrate from the atmosphere into the water and vice versa from the water into the atmosphere. After some time, an equilibrium is established where the number of molecules migrating in each direction per unit of time becomes equal. One can imagine the whole thing in such a way that the gas in the liquid is under an “internal pressure” which brings about a balance of its pressure share (partial pressure) in the atmosphere. If for example, the nitrogen content of the atmosphere were suddenly increased, additional nitrogen would dissolve in the water until a new equilibrium is restored. This law also applies to all other gases in the atmosphere. The results can be calculated quite simply with the help of the so-called Henry constant.
These relationships were recognized and scientifically investigated as early as 1802/03 by the English physician and chemist William Henry (1774 to 1836). Henry’s law describes the influence of pressures and temperatures on the quantity of gases dissolved in water. He probably never imagined that his findings would be challenged by top courts in faraway Europe more than 200 years later. But exactly that happened in Karlsruhe.
Figure 4. This court statement too contradicts the findings of William Henry.
Key statements of the Karlsruhe ruling
Crucial statements in the Karlsruhe ruling are:
– Only small portions of anthropogenic emissions are absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere…
– The large remainder of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, however, remains in the atmosphere over the long term, accumulates, contributes to the increase of the CO2 concentration and thus has an effect on the temperature of the earth.
– Unlike other greenhouse gases, CO2 does not leave the Earth’s atmosphere naturally over a period of time that is relevant to humanity. Every additional quantity of CO2 that enters the Earth’s atmosphere and is not artificially removed from it….therefore permanently increases its CO2 concentration and leads to a further rise in temperature.
The more water there is, the more gas it can hold
The ratio of the total amounts of a particular gas in the atmosphere and in the ocean depends on the total amounts of it in the water and in the atmosphere. This is easy to understand: If you increase the amount of water, you also increase the amount of gas it must absorb to restore pressure equilibrium, given the same pressure and temperature conditions. Since our oceans are huge in relation to the atmosphere, they contain many times more gas than the atmosphere itself.
Figure 5. The more water there is, the greater the amount of gas that must dissolve into the oceans until equilibrium is restored (Graphics: Author)
Figure 6. With its statement, the Karlsruhe court is in contradiction not only to Henry’s law, but also to findings e.g. made by the NOAA (US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Organization)
Since it is known what quantities of CO2 are contained in the atmosphere and in the ocean, respectively, it is quite easy to calculate, assuming constant temperature and air pressure conditions, what fractions of an additional amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans will remain in the atmosphere and how much of it will dissolve in the ocean. In 2008, the Earth’s atmosphere contained an approximate 3,000 gigatons of CO2 (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons). The equilibrium amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is about 140,000 gigatons, about a factor of 50 higher. This results in a ratio of 98 to 2. According to Henry’ Law, therefore, of each additional ton of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere, about 98% or 980 kg will be permanently dissolved in the oceans. Claims about a climate catastrophe due to humans “littering of the atmosphere with CO2” resulting in a “self-immolation” of humanity as well as any calculations of “CO2 residual budgets” based on this false claim contradict elementary scientific findings. This misjudgement is also at the base of the recent judgement of a Dutch court against Shell. And more lawsuits of this caliber are underway thought Europe.
Figure 7: The exchange of CO2 between the ocean and the atmosphere is evaluated quite differently by scientists such as Prof. Andrew Watson than by the German Federal Constitutional Court, which, however, has given its interpretation quasi-constitutional status.
A 38-year old German Greenpeace activist definitely wins the idiot of-the-day award…as the environmental organization’s stunt damn near killed people!
Click here for video made by a Playboy Germany editor, who was in the stadium at the time of the incident. Another angle here. Also video below…
The opening European Cup match for the French and German national teams was about to start at Munich’s Allianz Stadium when suddenly a paraglider flew in from the sky before briefly getting tangled with a steel cable and then swerving uncontrollably across the fans and crash-landing on the pitch.
Moron of the day. Hoping to get lots of attention and drawing millions in donations, this Greenpeace activist wound up injuring two fans and crash-landing on the pitch before a televised European Cup football match between Germany and France. Image cropped here.
Two fans suffered head injuries and had to be treated at a nearby hospital. The German DFB football organization now promises legal consequences for the “reckless stunt”. The outcome narrowly missed being much worse.
Greenpeace blames “technical problem”
Greenpeace Germany apologized for the botched bid to send its climate-rescue message. A spokesman tweeted: “We sincerely apologize to the two people who were injured during the #Greenpeace action yesterday. The pilot wanted to drop a balloon with the message ‘Kick Out Oil’ into the stadium, but then had to make an emergency landing because the hand throttle control of the paraglider failed.”
Anti-terrorist police sharpshooters held fire
German authorities were not amused by the brazen publicity stunt. Though Greenpeace insists they had notified the police just prior to the stunt, authorities say they never got the information a paraglider was about to fly in.
Moreover, it was only because of the Greenpeace logo that police anti-terrorist sharpshooters did not open fire.
“Criminal offenses”
Police spokesman Andreas Franken said the activist was apprehended, but was later released. The Greenpeace activist, 38, is now under investigation for the criminal offenses of obstructing aviation space, bodily injury and trespassing. (Reckless stupidity, however, is still not a crime in Germany).
“Crazy acts”
Franken added, “We have to note that a large number of people were endangered, both for the people in stadium and for the pilot himself. Greenpeace here disregarded the risks of serious injury”. The environmental organization seemed to even willing accept collateral damage if that’s what it takes to get the message out and grab attention.
Greenpeace, once darlings of the German media, have since reaped some criticism and condemnation from the media. T-online.de for example commented: “We can only hope that the activist will be punished accordingly. And that Greenpeace will refrain from such crazy acts from now on.”
Will probably get off easy again
Skeptics, however, assume that the reckless activist and his Greenpeace organization will get off easy though – as they always do. Many say that if something similar had been carried out by a COVID lockdown protester, or a Trump supporter or an anti-vax activist, there would surely be loud media calls for prosecution for attempted manslaughter and terrorism…arguably deserved.
Big Oil thanks loyal customer Greenpeace?
What’s also rather remarkable and hypocritical: all the gear employed by the Greenpeace activist – parachute, clothing, etc. – were made out of or through the use of hydrocarbon fuels. Even the ultralight likely used hydrocarbon fuel for its power. And what was used to transport the paragliding activist above the stadium? Did he flap a pair of wings?
It has been assumed COVID lockdowns and their associated reductions in human CO2 emissions would be a “step in the right direction” with regard to climate change mitigation. But a new study finds the particulate (aerosol) pollution reductions from less industrial and transportation activity in Europe during the months of March to May (2020) actually led to an increase in surface radiative forcing ~65 times greater than from business-as-usual CO2 emissions.
From one year to the next, the gigatons of carbon (GtC) increase from human activity typically has averaged +0.1 to +0.2 GtC since 1900 (Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz, 2020). In 2020, however, CO2 emissions plummeted and the annual emissions rate fell by -0.75 GtC (see the red bar on the far right). Despite this dramatic decline, the atmospheric CO2 levels rose by a little more than 2 ppm in 2020, which is essentially the same growth total as previous years.
1 month of atmospheric CO2 increases results in 0.0017 W/m² radiative forcing
But even if we were to assume that human CO2 emissions reductions from COVID lockdown policies actually did (do) have a quantifiable impact on the year-to-year change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the total net radiative impact of a ~2 ppm increase in CO2 concentrations over the course of 12 months amounts to about 0.02 W/m², which is the extrapolation from the 0.2 W/m² per decade (22 ppm) radiative forcing determined by Feldman et al. (2015). On a per-month basis, the additional forcing from atmospheric CO2 would thus be 0.0017 W/m².
2 months of traffic/industry pollution reduction results in +2.3 W/m² forcing
A new study (van Heerwaarden et al., 2021) finds the “consequent changes to the atmospheric composition and the radiation balance” of “less traffic and industrial activity” resulting from two months (late March to late May, 2020) of Europe’s COVID lockdowns led to an increase in aerosol optical depth radiative forcing (a warming influence) of +2.3 W/m². This would be the radiative equivalent of more than +1.1 W/m² per month, which is about 65 times larger than the 0.0017 W/m² monthly impact from atmospheric CO2 increases.
Succinctly put, the total net human impact on climate is realized far more profoundly by adding to or reducing our industrial/traffic particulate or pollutive output than by altering our CO2 emissions. Assuming the goal actually is to reduce the human contribution to Earth’s radiation imbalance, climate policies that solely focus on CO2 emissions mitigation are therefore rather pointless.
Removing a greenhouse gas, water vapor, from the atmosphere leads to +131 W/m² additional forcing
The van Heerwaarden study emphasizes the role of cloud cover in driving the dramatic increase in radiative forcing during the spring of 2020. The authors seem to make the case that clouds and water vapor are the dominant radiative forcing variables in the Earth’s greenhouse effect, but also that removing clouds and water vapor actually has a far greater radiative impact than their influence as greenhouse warming agents.
The authors note that a cloud-free day at noon results in an extra +251 W/m² of radiative forcing relative to a cloudy day at noon. Removing water vapor , a greenhouse gas, leads to a forcing increase of +131 W/m².
In contrast, it has taken 265 years of CO2 increases (1750-present) to exert a total net radiative impact of 1.82 W/m² (Feldman et al., 2015).
If removing a main greenhouse gas (water vapor) from the atmosphere actually results in a sharp increase in radiative forcing, then there would appear to be something amiss with the greenhouse effect paradigm.
Climate scientists have been underestimating the role of aerosol-cloud interactions, a new study suggests, thus again throwing climate models into disarray… accurate future climate projections unlikely.
A new paper by Hailing et al appearing in Nature Communications found a “significant underestimation of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions derived from satellite-based methods.
Image: Nature, cropped here.
Accurate projections of future climate change hampered
The new paper’s abstract notes that satellite-based estimates of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions (RFaci) are consistently smaller than those from global models, and thus hamper accurate projections of future climate change.
That means that climate modelers are not simulating the climate system correctly, and thus makes accurate climate projections unlikely.
By acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei and thus can alter cloud properties and precipitation. This influences the Earth’s radiation budget and hence climate change. This means a major model perturbation in a very complex system.
“An increase in CCN number concentration will generate a cloud with more droplets,” the authors say. “The consequence is scattering more solar radiation back to space, thus exerting a negative climate forcing.”
The authors show that the discrepancy could be substantially reduced by correcting sampling biases and satellite measurements tend to artificially discard the clouds with high cloud fraction.
Clouds’ cooling effect underestimated
This has significant implications, as the missed clouds exert a stronger cooling effect and are more sensitive to aerosol perturbations.
The abstract continues:
By accounting for the sampling biases, the magnitude of RFaci (from −0.38 to −0.59 W m−2) increases by 55% globally (133% over land and 33% over ocean). Notably, the RFaci further increases to −1.09 W m−2 when switching total aerosol optical depth (AOD) to fine-mode AOD that is a better proxy for CCN than AOD. In contrast to previous weak satellite-based RFaci, the improved one substantially increases (especially over land), resolving a major difference with models.”
Statistical data alterations, huge data gaps and dissenting experts are among the problems plaguing climate science, new Japanese CIGS working paper highlights.
In November 2019, the Canon Institute for Global Studies (CIGS) released a working paper noting that natural factors are also very much at work when it comes to climate change.
Now CIGS has added another.
New working paper
A new working paper has been released, in Japanese – authored by KiryeNet – and it reports that climate change goes well beyond one trace gas running the climate show and that there are a number of data inconsistencies and sloppiness in climate science and computing trends.
The latest 28-page document (below) cites a number of sources, including NoTricksZone and many other leading critical sites and dissenting scientists.
Canon Institute for Global Studies’ working paper looks at some of the great data inconsistencies of climate science.
NASA GISS data alterations
For example, the recent CIGS paper looks at how NASA GISS has tampered with the historical datasets so that trends that were once flat or even cooling now end up showing warming instead:
Image: Canon Institute for Global Studies (CIGS), cropped here.
Another example of NASA fudging data to produce warming trends cited in the CIGS paper was one published by NoTricksZone:
The new CIGS publication also shows how Japan’s mean winter temperature has in fact cooled over the past 30 years, and not warmed like many have been falsely led to believe:
The working paper also talks about Japanese climatologist and former NASA researcher Mototaka Nakamura, who points out that changes in the average temperature on the Earth’s surface before 1980 are unreliable – as discussed here at NoTricksZone’s article.
Much of the globe’s surface indeed was never measured in the past, with stations mainly located only in USA and Europe, NASA shows:
The Canon Institute for Global Studies aims to play an active role in shaping the future by precisely plotting out future directions and visions, disseminating information, providing roadmaps, and serving as a venue for outstanding human resources with the sophistication and sensibility to substantively improve the world.
Scientists continue to publish new drought reconstructions indicating there were far more frequent and severe drought periods in the past several thousand years than anything observed in the modern period.
A new study (Berg and McColl, 2021) indicates there have long been “qualitatively incorrect” estimates of the impact modern and future warming has on drought trends and dryland expansion because atmospheric aridity is “not an accurate proxy of the future extent of drylands.” Consequently, the authors suggest there will be “no global drylands expansion under greenhouse warming, contrary to previous claims based on atmospheric aridity.”
Indeed, instead of being driven by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and warming, droughts along the western coast of the United States are “predominantly [84%] driven by internal atmospheric variability” and cooling sea surface temperatures (Baek et al., 2021).
“Despite its significant recent impacts, the 2000s drought is ranked as only the sixth driest run in the CHU reconstruction, is only half or less the duration of the 1700s, early 1900s, and 1950s droughts, and has a magnitude (running SWE total of years with snowpack below the mean) 50–75% less severe than these others.”
“The magnitude of the 1950s drought in the WSR reconstruction is only 67% of the magnitude of the highest-ranking droughts in the same record, 1818–1834 and 1728–1744.”
“The 20th century has less frequent and long dry or wet periods. … Our findings are also consistent with studies that document pre-instrumental droughts that have been more intense or longer-lasting than dry periods of the 20th century (Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998, Novak, 2007).”
“For the final reconstruction, the instrumental target data are adjusted to provide realistic estimates of high-elevation summer rainfall back to 729 CE. The reconstruction contains substantially more low-frequency variability than other high-resolution hydroclimate records from the eastern Mediterranean including extended dry periods from 1,350 to 1,379 CE (39 ± 4.5 mm) and 913 to 942 (40 ± 8.4 mm), and moist periods from 862 to 891 (86 ± 11 mm) and 1,522 to 1,551 (80 ± 3.5 mm), relative to the long-term mean of 61 mm. The most recent 30-year period from 1986 to 2015 is characterized by above average June–July precipitation (73 ± 2 mm).”
“Results showed that years with high drought magnitude ranged from 1920−22, 1926−29, 1942−46 and 1947−51 with values corresponding to 2.2, 3.2, 3.4 and 2.6, respectively while years with low drought magnitude ranged from 1930−31, 1988−89 and 2001−02 with values as 0.2, 0.12 and 0.15, respectively.”
“The longest droughts occurred from 1926−29, 1937−41, 1942−46, 1947−51, 1952−56, and 1958−61 with values in years as 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, and 3 years, respectively, while the shortest droughts occurred in time period of 1 year and ranged from 1930−31, 1964−65, 1979−80, 1981−82, 1983−84, 1988−89, 1991−92, 1993−94, 1996−97 and 2001−02.”
“Another hot day in the forecast for Bern, Switzerland, today. Meteorologists have issued another heat warning as temperatures are expected to average 25°C in Bern today. Authorities advise people to stay indoors and to drink plenty of fluids.”
This is what weather forecasts in Switzerland may sound like very soon as the country goes full Orwellian.
25°C is dangerous heat, Swiss authorities say. People in Bern need to be careful today as the temperature has reached 25°C. Image cropped from accuweather.com.
A daily average of 25°C, i.e. about room temperature, is now considered in Switzerland high enough to issue a “heat warning”.
“The ‘Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology‘ now issues a heat warning as soon as the daily average temperature reaches 25 degrees,” reports Baur. “The daily alert is meant to remind us of climate change.”
Danger: you may have to put on shorts and a t-shirt
Applying the new Swiss standard, Baur notes sarcastically that traveling to the Mediterranean this summer, where the thermometer regularly rises above 30 degrees, now means putting your “health at risk”, never mind people living in the tropics are “in a death zone”.
Cold far more dangerous
Though cold kills far more people than heat does, authorities would never get the idea to issue a cold warning for a daily mean of 5°C.
It seems that in their minds, hikers would be in far greater danger getting lost in the shade of a forest at 25°C than they would at a temperature of 5°C in the rain.
The Swiss move sounds all a bit preposterous.
“Beating climate change into our heads”
“According to a Lancet study, the cold kills ten times more people worldwide than the heat, so it is much more threatening. But of course that’s not a topic in the news, Baur writes. “After all, it’s all about beating climate change into our heads.”
Bigger demand for red ink
Granted that a high of 31°C and a low of 20°C is a warm day (average 25.5°C), it seems absurd to declare it a health risk – especially when we know a majority of the world’s population lives under such conditions because they feel it is ideal to do so.
A look at the naïve platform of the German Green Party, who currently stand no. 2 in German polls after briefly occupying the top position – ahead of Merkel’s CDU/CSU party.
In March the German “Alliance 90, The Greens” – or simply called “The Green Party” released its election program in the run up to the September national elections.
German Green Party leader Annalena Baerbock, 40, leads radical green program that would completely overhaul how we live. Image: Twitter profile picture.
Just recently, the Greens saw their poll numbers soar to the top, even ahead of the traditional CDU/CSU conservatives and SPD socialist parties. People were already speculating on the chances of a Green Chancellor – the youthful and perky Annalena Baerbock.
But recent scandals surrounding allegations sexing up her resume and not declaring income have led to plummeting poll numbers.
At FaceBook, Jörn Kunzle wrote a summary of the Greens election program, which Swiss online news magazine Cicero called “harsh”:
The election program of the GREENS in 2021: Love for the ‘environment’ and for the ‘climate’ , but without regard for the people who ‘live here’ and towards a totalitarian eco-state, immigration & migration country.
– Higher taxes on heating fuels, gasoline and diesel fuels and thus still higher and higher energy costs: We will soon hibernate in the dark with cold butts.
– Higher national debt to further fuel inflation.
– Right to vote already at 16 years old was clear, because the votes from the FFF climate activists need to count.
– Higher taxes, especially for ‘rich and high wage earners’, although the state is already not in a position to invest/spend the money purposefully and sensibly.
– More redistribution from citizens and companies to the state, where the money lies in stockpiles for lack of professional management, to then disappear at the Greensill Bank.
– Ban on the internal combustion engine from 2030, speed 130 of km/hr on the autobahns so that the German automotive industry finally, finally goes to hell.
– Climate protection in the manner of the Greens is a strategy of renunciation, impoverishment and redistribution from citizens to the state and its functionaries.
– Agriculture to be converted into a nature reserve parks, or solar or wind farms.
– Especially the middle class and the lower middle class are targeted by this contemptible policy – as once aptly said by former chancellor Helmut Schmidt: “Whoever votes for the Greens will bitterly regret it afterwards!”
– Or Franz-Josef Strauss: “The Greens are like melons, green on the outside and red on the inside!”
Those who vote Green will see in 4-5 years that the state failure proven in the current COVID crisis management has spread to all other areas as well.
Let’s do it like the Dutch: Let’s make sure that the Greens finally do something sensible again: Let’s simply vote them out of office!”
Much of the Biden Administration’s program is a copy of the German Greens. Both will lead to economic and social deterioration, and even environmental harm.
A fire at a bus depot in Hanover caused millions of euros in damage. According to fire fighters, the fire broke out on Saturday afternoon at the Üstra transport company where electric buses were parked,
According to Üstra spokesman Udo Iwannek, the fire caused damage running in the millions. Five e-buses, two hybrids and two combustion engines were destroyed, as were also the building and the charging station.
According to the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), Hanover’s administration wants to run only e-buses in the city center area by 2023 and is purchasing 50 new vehicles in a bid to reduce the air pollution.
E-buses have shown to catch fire very rapidly. For example, four shuttle buses in Guangxi, China, exploded into flames last month:
Scary! Four shuttle buses on a campus of Guangxi, China, bust into flames on Saturday, as intense smoke roaring upward. Luckily, injuries were reported in the incident. pic.twitter.com/worqpY6GHj
Although fires can happen anywhere, they become critical and dangerous when e-vehicles are involved. An affected battery acts as a powerful fire accelerant due to a chain reaction and must also burn out completely, which can take as long as two days. In February, Kulmbach in Bavaria became the first German city to close underground garages to e-cars as a result.
Regardless of the many question marks behind e-mobility, the city of Hanover is pushing it by hook or by crook, and even more so under its Green mayor Belit Onay.
Numerous technical and practical problems associated with e-mobility are far from being satisfactorily solved. And anyone who is just a little bit familiar with the subject also knows that e-mobility is by no means as good as we are always led to believe, even from an environmental and “climate protection” point of view. And what’s particularly bad is that the left-wing green media are keeping quiet about the event.”
On the Kulmbach, Bavaria, e-vehicle fire, read here.
Scientists have calculated the years of life lost (YLL) attributed to exposure to “non-optimum” temperatures. It turns out that during the 2000s – supposedly the warmest years on record – people were still far more likely to die from exposure to cold temperatures than warm temperatures.
The country with the largest human population has recently experienced “the coldest records since the monitoring service first operated,” the “lowest [air temperature] in 44 years,” and “the coldest temperature in the past 59 years” during prolonged cold waves that directly led to excess mortality (Ho et al., 2020).
Early or excess deaths across China attributable to exposure to cold temperatures is far more common than early or excess deaths attributable to exposure to warm temperatures. This is not just true for China; it’s consistent with global trends.
“Gasparrini et al. (2015) studied 74,225,200 deaths in various periods across 384 worldwide locations between 1985 and 2012, and found that 7.29% of deaths were attributable to cold, while there were only 0.42% attributable to heat.”
Three new studies calculate the attributable contribution of cold versus warm temperatures to early or excess deaths across China during the 2000s. Scientists found non-optimum temperatures led to 1.02 years of life lost (YLL) per two independent studies, whereas a third study suggests the non-optimum temperature YLL is 1.51 years.
All three studies reach the same conclusion: exposure to cold temperatures led to 0.89, 0.98, and 1.07 years of life lost out of 1.02, 1.02, and 1.51 years lost to non-optimum temperatures, respectively.
In other words, people were about 7 to 10 times more likely to die from exposure to cold temperatures during the supposedly warmest years on record.
“In general, 6.90% (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.62%, 9.18%) of YLLs [years of life lost] could be attributed to non-optimum temperatures at the national level, with differences across different regions, ranging from 5.36% (95% CI: −3.36%, 6.89%) in east region to 9.09% (95% CI: −5.55%, 23.73%) in northwest region. For each deceased person, we estimated that non-optimum temperature could cause a national-averaged 1.02 years (95% CI: 0.68, 1.36) of life loss, with a significantly higher effect due to cold exposure(0.89, 95% CI: 0.59, 1.19) than that of hot exposure (0.13, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.16).”
“Although numerous studies have investigated premature deaths attributable to temperature, effects of temperature on years of life lost (YLL) remain unclear. We estimated the relationship between temperatures and YLL, and quantified the YLL per death caused by temperature in China. We collected daily meteorological and mortality data, and calculated the daily YLL values for 364 locations (2013–2017 in Yunnan, Guangdong, Hunan, Zhejiang, and Jilin provinces, and 2006–2011 in other locations) in China. A time-series design with a distributed lag nonlinear model was first employed to estimate the location-specific associations between temperature and YLL rates (YLL/100,000 population), and a multivariate meta-analysis model was used to pool location-specific associations. Then, YLL per death caused by temperatures was calculated. The temperature and YLL rates consistently showed U-shaped associations. A mean of 1.02 (95% confidence interval: 0.67, 1.37) YLL per death was attributable to temperature. Cold temperature caused 0.98 YLL per death with most from moderate cold (0.84).”
“Life loss of cardiovascular diseases per death attributable to ambient temperature: A national time series analysis based on 364 locations in China … This study examines the health effects of non-optimal temperature, and quantify temperature-related life loss per death. Life loss per CVD death attributable to non-optimal temperatures was 1.51. Most [1.07 (95% eCI: 1.00, 1.15) years] of temperature-related life loss of CVD was attributed to moderate cold.”
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
Recent Comments