Norwegian climate blog site avdekt.no here reports how the GISP2 ice core data from Greenland shows the current temperature is well below the Holocene average.
Moreover, these temperatures also match perfectly with the historical sources in Norway and Europe, according to avedkt.no.
The chart below shows a temperature reconstruction based on ice cores going back more than 10,000 years.
The temperature over the Holocene was above today’s level on at least 9 occasions, each spanning many years. Indeed today’s temperature is still on the cool side for the Holocene.
Although man is having a heating impact on today’s modern climate through land-use and modest greenhouse gas warming, natural solar and oceanic factors are still far more powerful than man’s impact. How else can the wide variations occurring over the Holocene be explained?
Today’s temperature is still 2°C below the warmer peaks seen 7,900, 7,000 and 3,400 years ago.
The Greenland GISP2 ice core is viewed as a gold standard when it comes to proxy data-based temperature reconstructions, unlike other proxy data reconstructions based on dubious tree ring analyses.
Germany’s green movement was propelled mainly by activists opposed to nuclear power in the 1980s and 90s. Since then, Germany has shut down its entire fleet of nuclear power reactors and is struggling to keep the lights on with renewable energy, mainly wind and sun.
Today German activists are focused on shutting down the remaining fossil fuel power, which in a normal world would make nuclear power attractive again. But not for the fundamentalist enviro-nutjobs. However, they may need to give in if they want to continue enjoying the amenities of the modern digital world and smartphones.
Blackout News here reports. “After Oracle and Microsoft, Google also plans to power its data centers with nuclear power.” apparently, wind and sun just don’t make the grade. CO2-neutrality just won’t be possible without nuclear power.
“Google’s leadership confirms the company is working on large-scale data centers that require over 1 gigawatt of electricity. Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and Alphabet, spoke last week at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh about the potential use of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) for power generation,” reports Blackout News, citing powermag.
According to reports, Google is currently forming a team to research alternative energies without CO₂ emissions and plans to use small modular nuclear reactors to power its AI data centers.
“We are now working on data centers with over 1 gigawatt of power. Two years ago, we wouldn’t have imagined that, and all of that requires energy,” said Pichai in Pittsburgh.
Today, many of Google’s data centers operate on a basis of about 90 percent CO2-free. But 100% won’t be possible without nuclear, it appears.
Pichai said he sees money going into SMRs …for nuclear energy and that he’s optimistic about the medium to long term energy needs being met.
As AI expands, so is the interest in data centers, which require enormous amounts of power to operate. Oracle CEO Larry Ellison plans to invest more than 10 billion dollars in building data centers and Microsoft aims to restart the reactor at the decommissioned Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania to meet the energy requirements for AI.
Amazon Web Services plans to buy power from the 2.5-GW Susquehanna nuclear plant for its nearby data center campus.
Big Tech’s move to nuclear energy to power its data centers show that green energies like wind and sun alone cannot meet the energy needs of our modern digital world.
“The heat retention in the greenhouse Earth is caused by all gas components…mainly by nitrogen and oxygen. It is not permissible to exclusively assign the GH effect of 33° to water vapour, CO2, and the other trace gases.” – Ullmann and Bülow, 2024
Chemical physicists Helmut Ullmann and Martin Bülow have published a new paper detailing the lack of meaningful or noticeable “specialness” that trace greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2, 0.042% of the atmosphere) and methane (CH4, 0.00018%) possess in determining Earth’s greenhouse effect heating.
The imagined 33°C greenhouse effect thought experiment
The popularized greenhouse effect thought experiment requires imagining what temperature the Earth would be if there were no atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, CO2, CH4). It is believed these trace (less than 0.1% of the atmospheric composition combined) heat-absorbing gaseous agents, combined with water vapor (up to 4% of the atmosphere in tropical areas), are the only gases capable of restricting heat loss to space. Thus, greenhouse gases are thought to ultimately keep the Earth’s land and ocean surface temperature 33°C warmer (288 K vs. 255 K) than it would otherwise be in their imagined absence.
It is simultaneously imagined that even though oxygen (O2, 21%), nitrogen (N2, 78%), and argon (Ar, 0.9%) together account for 999,000 ppm (99.9%) of the atmosphere’s gaseous composition, none of these gases absorb and re-emit heat, and thus they cannot slow cooling or count as contributors to the imagined 33°C warmer Earth atmosphere. Only the trace gases and water vapor – the so-called greenhouse gases – can slow cooling, or retain heat.
That’s what the thought experiment says, anyway. Physics say otherwise.
The O2 and N2 greenhouse effect
Ullmann and Bülow point out that the greenhouse effect is not only not exclusively determined by trace greenhouse gases like CO2 or CH4, but these trace gases play such an unimportant role that they’re not even noticeable. Only water vapor has the capacity to absorb heat to a degree that is detectable. The primary gaseous determinants of Earth’s greenhouse effect are not trace gases like CO2 and CH4, but, consistent with their atmospheric abundance, N2 and O2.
“The basic constituents of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, are the main contributors to heat storage in the Earth’s GH [greenhouse effect].”
“The heat retention in the greenhouse Earth is caused by all gas components…mainly by nitrogen and oxygen. It is not permissible to exclusively assign the GH effect of 33° to water vapour, CO2, and the other trace gases.”
Non-greenhouse gases absorb heat too
There is good reason to conclude O2 and N2 are the primary greenhouse effect determinants. Contrary to popular belief, real-world experiments show that N2, O2, and Ar actually do absorb heat, albeit about 20% less effectively than the so-called greenhouse gases do. A mere 20% dropoff is not significant when the abundance (99.9%) of these gases is considered relative to the abundance (less than 0.1%) of greenhouse gases.
“The heat capacities of polyatomic gases, H2O and the trace gases such as CO2, CH4, and SO2 are a further approx. 20% greater than those of O2 and N2 molecules. … Multiplied by the low concentration of trace gases, they cannot noticeably increase heat storage in the air. Only H2O…is able to store great amounts of heat.”
As mentioned, this phenomenon has been observed experimentally. For example, when air (99% O2 and N2), pure (100%) CO2, and pure (100%) Ar are warmed in experimental conditions, they all absorb heat to nearly the same degree.
An earlier work published in Geophysical Research Letters (Hopfner et al., 2012) also clarifies that O2 and N2 should be considered “natural greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere.” Although O2 and N2 absorb heat (infrared radiation) more weakly than CO2 and CH4, they do indeed absorb heat, and they do not have a negligible role in Earth’s greenhouse effect because of their relative abundance when compared to CO2 and CH4.
“This work challenges a common perception on the negligible role of O2 and N2 as natural greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere…”
“It is in fact the large abundance of oxygen and nitrogen which compensates for their only weak interaction with infrared radiation…”
“Due to the atmospheric concentration of atmospheric N2 (O2) that is about 2000 (550) times higher than that of Co2 and about 4.4 x 10⁵ (1.2 x 10⁵) times more abundant than CH4, even the weak infrared absorption of N2 (O2) can become radiatively important.”
“Thus, we object to the view that the radiative forcing of N2 increase operates only indirectly by broadening the absorption lines of other gases.”
Finally, Drs. Ullmann and Bülow emphasize just how non-special CO2 is as a greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. As noted above, they point out that CO2’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is not even noticeable. They also assert that the laws of physics require there is no so-called “hotspot” in Earth’s atmosphere due to the conglomeration of CO2 molecules. There is nothing CO2 does that is thermally “special” relative to other gases.
“According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, heat is distributed from hot to cold molecules; there are no hotspots among molecules or types of molecules in the atmosphere. A special role of carbon dioxide cannot be confirmed.”
In a conversation with the EIKE editorial team, our reader Garik Müller noted that recent solar storms have promoted cloud formation – which would contradict the Svensmark-Shaviv effect and the Forbush effect.
But the Earth’s atmosphere is known to be much more complicated than the computer models of climate researchers – solar radiation can also have a different effect under different circumstances.
A discussion article by Garik Müller
Question from EIKE:
When there is a lot of solar wind, the particles from space are deflected away from the earth, the Forbush effect. If there are fewer particles, there are fewer cloud nuclei. The recent solar ejections should therefore have reduced the clouds, nnless certain solar events produce particles that can penetrate the van Allen belt.
Garik Müller:
It is high-energy radiation that comes both from the cosmic realm and is emitted towards the Earth during certain solar activities. Usually the starting point on the sun points away from the Earth. This time, however, the Earth was directly in focus. Due to the cascade effect, the ionizing radiation reaches the troposphere.
The Forbush effect actually only works if the “solar storm” points towards the Earth at the same time.
If it is offset in time, it does not have such a strong effect.
However, the Svensmark-Shaviv effect, which I believe to be conclusive and correct after having studied it for a long time, is only the first stumbling block in events like this year and is far more strongly influenced by the sun. There was still little cloud cover until the beginning of June. As a result, we had higher global surface temperatures, which subsequently fell, as the evaporation rate over the oceans increased considerably, which in turn led to a partial fall in sea surface temperatures, especially in the Atlantic and Pacific.
After that, there was a period of increased solar activity, as I was able to learn from observations of a friend in Frankfurt. Whenever large-scale cloud formation began, the number of sunspots were considerably higher. This has also been the case recently. It has also been interesting to observe that the processes were always congruent in time.
If you then take the work of Zharkova, it seems striking that such events seem to accumulate towards the end of a solar maximum, which then often coincides with local weather phenomena such as the current one, which again raises many questions. It becomes unpleasant when the flow systems intensify the whole thing together with the topographical conditions.
The reactions from the climate hysterics are neither helpful nor appropriate. BBut then it becomes so mathematically complex that 99.9% of scientists can hardly describe it. Meticulous work would be necessary. This cannot be done using existing algorithmic models because the models would then crash.
This is the point where mathematics catches up with conventional theory. There is some work on this, but you won’t find anything about it without targeted research.
The idea came to me when I thought of my work on meson passages in this context. The theoretical foundations from this are very helpful for this topic.
More literature on this:
[1] Review of Particle Physics, C. Amsler et al., Physics Letters B667, 1 (2008)
[2] O.C. Allkofer, H. Jokisch, A survey on the recent measurements of the absolute vertical cosmicray muon flux at sea level, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996), Volume 15, Number 3, 1973, Pages 371-389.
[3] Thomas Hebbeker, Charles Timmermans, A compilation of high energy atmospheric muon data at sea level, Astroparticle Physics, Volume 18, Issue 1, August 2002, Pages 107-127.
[4] M. Fuidl, Kosmische Myonen in Schulversuchen, Johannes-Gutenberg-Universitaet Mainz, Institut fur¨ Physik, September 2003.
[5] C. Wiebusch, Astroteilchenphysik -Vorlesungsskriptum, RWTH Aachen, III. Physikalisches Institut, Sommer 2010.
[6] S. Schael, Teilchen und Astrophysik -Vorlesungsskriptum, RWTH Aachen, I. Physikalisches Institut, Winter 2008.
[7] W.R.Leo: Techniques for Nuclear and Particle Physics Experiments, Springer Verlag 1987
[8] J.Krieger, GNU Public License / wikimedia Commons http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Photomultiplier_schema_de.png
[9] J.N. Crookes, B.C. Rastin, An investigation of the absolute intensity of muons at sea-level, Nuclear Physics B, Volume 39, 1 April 1972, Pages 493-508.
[12] R. Haeusler, A. F. Badea, H. Rebel, I. M. Brancus, J. Oehlschlager, Distortions of experimental muon arrival time distributions of extensive air showers by the observation conditions, Astroparticle Physics, Volume 17, Issue 4, July 2002, Pages 421-426.
[13] Allkofer, O. C., Grieder, P. K. F., Cosmic Rays on Earth, Physik Daten, ISSN 0344-8401, 1984.
[14] Helios Dr. Bulle GmbH & Co. KG, Tea Boy Nr. 3334 -002 http://www.helios-wertheim.com/Sitemap/Tea_Boy/
[15] S. Sciutto, COSMUS work group, AIRES Simulations http://astro.uchicago.edu/cosmus/projects/aires/
[16] Auger Engineering Array Group, Pierre Auger Observatory http://www.auger.org/observatory/animation.html
[17] F. Schmidt, CORSIKA Shower Images http://www.ast.leeds.ac.uk/~fs/showerimages.html
[18] K.-H. Kampert and A. A. Watson. Extensive air showers and ultra high-energy cosmic rays: a historical review., European Physical Journal H 37:359-412 (August 2012). doi:10.1140/epjh/e2012-30013-x
[19] I. Allekotte et al., The Surface Detector System of the Pierre Auger Observatory , Nucl. Inst. Meth., vol. A586, pp. 409-420 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0712.2832
[20] J. de Mello Neto (for the Pierre Auger Collaboration), Studies of Cosmic Rays at the Highest Energies with the Pierre Auger Observatory, EPJ Web of Conferences(2014), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20147100036
[21] J. Bl¨ orandel, Cosmic rays from the knee to the highest energies, Progressumer, R. Engel and J.R. H¨ in Particle and Nuclear Physics, vol. 63, p. 293-338 (October 2009),http://arxiv.org/abs/0904. 0725
[22] M.G. Aartsen et al., Observation of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos in Three Years of IceCube Data, IceCube Collaboration, Phys.Rev.Lett., Volume 113, 2014 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5303
[23] Anne Schukraft, Search for a diffuse flux of extragalactic neutrinos with the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, Dissertation, Rheinisch-Westf¨alische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Aachen, June 2013
[24] IceCube Collaboration, Evidence for High-Energy Extraterrestrial Neutrinos at the IceCube Detector, Science, 22 November 2013, Vol. 342 no. 6161, DOI: 10.1126/science.1242856
Per a new study, the last 200 years of global warming are associated with cloud cover decline, and this decreasing cloud albedo can be linked to “the dominant roles of external forces – volcanic, solar, and oceanic – in their mutual influence after the LIA [Little Ice Age].”
Scientists have now formulated new 1500 to 2022 CE reconstruction of cloud cover over the Mediterranean region. The authors suggest their reconstruction of cloud cover may be representative of more than just this region, as it is a product of large scale processes that may “transcend geographical boundaries.” In other words, what happens in the Mediterranean region may well have global implications.
The reconstruction indicates the modern declining cloud cover trend may not only have been occurring since 2000, but, except for a brief increasing period from about 1945 to 1980 (that coincided with a global cooling trend), has been ongoing for over 200 years. The “turning point” years were 1815-1818, following the eruption of Mount Tambora. From that point on there has been a precipitous decline in cloud cover that departs from multi-decadal variability.
The authors suggest the “dominant” factors linked to the post-1800s include solar forcing, volcanic forcing, and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO).
“Our study…indicating the dominant roles of external forces – volcanic, solar, and oceanic – in their mutual influence after the LIA”
“This combination of factors [AMO surging to a positive phase, a significant rise in solar forcing] likely contributed to a substantial decrease in cloud cover in the Mediterranean area.”
Interestingly, the authors also repeat the model-based assumption that the post-LIA rising temperatures could have been a contributing causal factor in the 1800s-to-present cloud cover decline. In other words, the warming led to cloud decline, and not the other way around. This assumption is odd, at best. It is well known warmer seawater adds more water to the air than cooling seawater. Which is why, for example, water vapor concentrations reach 35,000 ppm in the tropics, but less than 1,000 ppm at the poles.
Also, it is well known that warmer summers are cloudier than colder winters (see Malliard et al., 2021 and Abrahim et al., 2022 below, for example). Cloudier summers can be 10 to 15°C warmer than clearer-sky winters across the middle and high latitudes. In contrast, the modern warming trend of only tenths of a degree in recent decades could only produce negligible changes in clouds relative to these much larger seasonal temperature changes. Besides, a decline in cloud cover is the opposite of what occurs with warmer temperatures anyway.
Anthropogenic global warming apologists want to believe the observed decline cloud cover in recent decades is human caused. Thus, climate model inputs have been programmed to say warming from rising greenhouse gases leads to cloud decline, and cloud decline leads to more warming – a perpetual, runaway positive feedback.
Problematically, actual, real-world observations show warming leads to cloud increases, not decreases. Thus, neither warming nor rising greenhouse gases can explain the observed modern cloud decline.
And since declining cloud cover, a function of “unforced internal variabilty,” allows more solar radiation absorption at the surface, this can explain modern warming.
The 2m temperatures in the northern hemisphere are expected to fall by -0.34°C, which will also pull global temperatures down by -0.24°C. Source: GFS 7-day trend T2m Global:
When assessing the climate-altering effects of downwelling longwave radiation, the root mean square error associated with calculating this value is 29.7 W/m². For some reason, scientists characterize measurements with an observation error this large as “high accuracy”.
In an imaginary world where no clouds exist (clear-sky), the surface longwave downward radiation (LWDR) calculated for a CO2 increase of 22 ppm (2000-2010) has been assessed to be 0.2 W/m² (Feldman et al., 2015) per decade, or 0.02 W/m² per year. This value is acknowledged to contribute just 10 percent of the LWDR trend over this period. The other 90 percent is linked to clouds and water vapor.
Climate modeling error in assessing LWDR is quite large. This is due primarily to the inability of the models to accurately assess the all-sky conditions occurring in the real world, where clouds exist.
Scientists acknowledge clouds are the principal “controlling factor” of LWDR trends, and yet their impacts “cannot be directly measured” (Du et al., 2024). Instead, they must be estimated using surrogate constructs with simulated values. Consequently, the real-world, all-sky atmosphere cannot be assessed with sufficient accuracy.
“With increasing attention to cloudy-sky LWDR retrieval, cloud-base height or cloud-base temperature is a primary controlling factor of cloudy-sky LWDR but cannot be directly measured by optical sensors and need to be estimated. To address this, some surrogate parameters are used to quantify the cloud contribution.”
Despite these fatal flaws, climate scientists eager to attribute climate forcing to human activity literally characterize measurements with observation error 150 times larger (~30 W/m²) than 10 years of CO2 forcing (0.2 W/m²) as “high accuracy.”
“This study generates an all-sky global LWDR product called LessRad LWDR with high accuracy.”
“Accuracy was evaluated using root-mean-square-error (RMSE), mean bias error (MBE) … an MBE of 5.5 W/m², and a RMSE of 29.7 W/m².”
“LessRad exhibits RMSE values of 29.7, 21.4, 31.0, 32.0, and 24.2 W/m² over the globe, low latitudes, midlatitudes, the Tibetan Plateau, the Arctic, and the Antarctic, respectively.”
Proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claim CO2’s LWDR forcing is the factor driving modern climate change. However, if the CO2 forcing contribution to LWDR is 150 times smaller than the error in calculating the surface background LWDR, then there can be no valid attribution assessment for CO2 forcing in LWDR trends.
Photovoltaic projects crumble in harsh alpine environments…Swiss solar panels on dam project fails after just 2 years.
Who cares if it works or not?
It’s often how the green racket works: Conjure up some green energy producing pie-in-the-sky project, no matter how unfeasible it may be, propose it to technically illiterate bureaucrats – who permit and fund it with little hesitation – build it, and, after realizing it won’t ever work, abandon it and let the next generation deal with the mess. In the meantime, you will have earned a tidy sum of money.
The latest likely example of such a project is “Axpo in Glarus Süd”, described at Blackout News here: “Solar panels at Muttsee dam fail after two years – solar plant not suitable for mountain use.”
PV system installed on a dam in Switzerland. AI-generated image, Source: Blackout News.
It was heralded as a pioneering project and designed to last 20 years while providing green power (at least in the summertime) to nearly 3000 people. But, as Blackout News reports: “After just two years, considerable problems are already apparent. Of the 5,000 or so solar panels installed, around 270 are damaged, reports the newspaper Südostschweiz.”
A solar system in the harsh environment of the Swiss Alps? What could possibly go wrong?
Surely the builders and those approving the project had to have been familiar with extremely harsh winter conditions and massive snowfalls of the Swiss Alps, and that the system would never have a chance. Obviously no one cares much about reality anymore. The important thing, it seems, is to grab all that green cash and make a stash.
Panels damaged after just 2 years
Already, just 2 years in operation, 270 panels (5%) of the Muttsee project need to be replaced, and that at an exorbitant cost. Just check out the Axpo promotion video and take a look at the equipment needed to build the project. The helicopters, cranes, rigging and this caliber of personnel aren’t cheap.
Axpo promotion video: “Construction start of Switzerland’s largest solar facility.”
So far I haven’t found data on the project’s return on investment time.
Another embarrassing fact: “The full extent of the damage only became clear when the snow at 2500 meters above sea level had completely melted,” reports Blackout News.
No one became aware of the damage until spring had arrived?
Yet another scientific study concludes CO2 is an insignificant contributor to Earth’s recent temperature changes.
New research involving a comparative analysis of satellite (CERES) observations of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and CO2 radiative forcing modeling finds CO2 may have contributed just 0.09°C to the 0.52°C temperature increase from 2000 to 2023.
The rising ASR trend is instead the primary (0.39°C of 0.52°C) cause of the 21st century warming, and it is solely responsible for the high temperatures achieved during the second half of 2023.
Thus, it can be said that “carbon dioxide has an insignificant impact on annual and monthly temperature changes.”
Professor Gerd Ganteför was called a lot of names when he reported on the so-called wake effect of wind turbines on the high seas in spring 2024. Wind turbines in wind farms not only take the wind away from each other, they can also have an impact on the wind behind the turbines up to 100 kilometers away.
In the meantime, the realization has also reached the windpark operators. The company Orstedt, which is heavily involved in so-called renewable energies, has some interesting results on its website. In a nutshell, it says that the turbines in the network deliver less yield, which means that the profitability per turbine decreases.
Overall, electricity production increases with more wind farms, but also the time until the investment per turbine pays off. The yield decreases if the calculated 4,000 – 4,500 hours of electricity generation per year are not achieved. The effect is likely to increase with more and more wind farms. It’s like a downward spiral. Let’s see what the German response to this is. It wouldn’t be surprising if it was to pay even more feed-in tariffs.
The size of the German areas is not the decisive factor. ‘Theoretically, much higher capacities than 70 gigawatts could be built there,’ says Martin Dörenkämper from Fraunhofer IWES in Oldenburg.
Admittedly, the wake effects would increase if the wind turbines were planned even closer together than they already are. But overall electricity production would still increase, even if the yield per turbine were lower. The question is therefore not whether Germany has enough space for 70 gigawatts, but how many terawatt hours of electricity can be produced each year – and at what price.
The higher the power density and the lower the yield per turbine, the more difficult it will be for the operator to refinance the construction and generate a return on investment.”
In his video, Ganteför explains that it is now possible to visualize the wake effect with the help of radar images from the Sentinel 2 satellite. In spring, he was ridiculed for this theory.
He points out that the wake effect can have various effects. On the one hand, there are the turbines on land, which could receive less wind, and the possible warming behind the turbines. Also there’s the influence of precipitation. Ganteför calls for more research in this area.
Two years ago, the Fraunhofer Institute Hereon already pointed out another problem. Another effect: disturbing the stratification of the water can have an impact on plankton production, i.e. the start of the food chain.
Another consequence of wake vortices is the reduction of shear-related processes on the sea surface. In other words, the turbulent mixing of the water surface caused by the winds is reduced for dozens of kilometers around the wind farm.
Water is usually stratified, e.g. a layer of warmer water lies on top of a layer of cold water.
The natural stratification is disturbed by the wind farms. Due to the reduced mixing, a more stable stratification of the water is favored. This was particularly noticeable during the decline in summer stratification. The natural stratification of the water is particularly striking in summer and decreases towards the fall. In the area of the wind farms, however, a more stable stratification was calculated outside of the seasonal fluctuation.
What do the results mean for the North Sea?
‘The magnitude of the induced mean changes does not indicate serious local effects, but far-reaching structural changes are occurring in the system,’ says Christiansen. ‘The changes in currents and mixing are likely to affect plankton production and food web structure and may influence the functioning of protected areas. It is therefore important to take these consequences into account when developing marine protection concepts,’ says Prof. Corinna Schrum, and Hereon Institute Director. Schrum provides an outlook for the implementation of the results, adding that further studies are required to analyze possible feedbacks on the air-sea exchange. A change in this exchange has a potential impact on regional atmospheric conditions and ecosystem dynamics and will be the subject of further studies.”
Climate models failed to simulate the observed 1970-2014 Pacific Ocean cooling. The 21st century southwestern US megadrought has been linked to this cooling, which “may have been caused by a forced response to greenhouse gas emissions.”
A new study provides a fresh look at the circular, self-contradictory reasoning that proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative routinely employ.
The authors acknowledge that the Central and East Pacific region has been cooling since 1970, and that climate models failed to simulate this cooling. The modeling failure stems from the assumption that rising greenhouse gas emissions lead to warming, not over four decades of cooling.
“While AO-GCMs [climate models] predicted a warming SST trend in the Central and East Pacific, the region instead experienced a cooling SST trend from 1970 to 2014…”
After insisting that “internal atmospheric variability has a larger role than SST forcing in explaining SWUS [Southwestern United States] precipitation variance,” and that “most historical droughts are unrelated to SST [sea surface temperature] forcing,” the authors nonetheless pivot, explaining that only during recent decades is the SWUS megadrought causally linked to SST forcing.
“In this study, we confirmed the connection between the Equatorial Pacific SST trend pattern and SWUS precipitation trends with Green’s function approach, which allows us to establish a causal link between SST and precipitation.”
But the SST forcing that suddenly explains recent SWUS drought trends (after not explaining these trends historically) is not the sign expected with rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. No, drought has not been caused by warmer SSTs, but cooler SSTs. They say warmer SSTs will lead to a wetter climate, or less drought.
“…a cooling SST trend from 1970 to 2014…which potentially led to the observed megadrought in the SWUS due to a decrease in precipitation.”
“If the Central and East Pacific continue cooling, a prolonged period of drought is more likely to continue in the SWUS.”
However, in the future, warmer East and Central Pacific SSTs due to rising GHGs are expected (according to modeling) to cause less precipitation, or more SWUS drought. So over 40 years of cooling explains drought now, but sometime in the future warming will explain drought…even though neither warming or cooling SSTs explained SWUS drought historically.
“At least part of the megadrought was related to a lack of precipitation from the cooling Central and East Pacific, rather than due to a significant increase in evapotranspiration from global warming, which will likely cause droughts in the future as anthropogenic climate change worsens.”
But it’s worse than we thought. The authors assert the cooling SSTs causally linked to the 1970s-to-present SWUS megadrought – but that may not be the cause of drought in the future – may be explained by – yes, indeed – rising GHG concentrations. GHG forcing leads to warming SSTs – which, again, may not cause drought now, but may in the future. And yet the recent decades of cooling SSTs may be a response to the rising GHGs too. Rising GHG concentrations may simultaneously cause warming SSTs and cooling SSTs.
“The cooling of the Central and East Pacific not simulated by AO-GCMs [climate models] may have been caused by a forced response to greenhouse gas emissions.”
So let’s review what the authors found with a “Plain Language Summary” of own.
Until recent decades, internal atmospheric variability explained historical trends in drought. Warming or cooling SST trends did not. Then, in recent decades, a cooling SST trend (1970-2014) has been “confirmed” as the causal link to the SWUS megadrought. In the future, however, warming SSTs may cause SWUS megadrought. And both the warming and cooling trends in the SWUS are (and have been) caused by the same mechanism: rising GHGs.
It would appear the modern version of what constitutes peer-reviewed “climate science” has devolved into something resembling more of a creative writing exercise than actual science.
In response to draconian COVID lockdowns, censorship, media bias, economic collapse and infrastructure decay, Germany’s youth swings to the right.
Germany’s political establishment will soon pay dearly for its errors, arrogance and insolence.
A profound and accelerating mood swing is underway across Germany, and nothing is stopping it. And the more the establishment tries to denounce it, the more the elites are getting rebuffed.
Germans, once seemed to be caught up in a dreamland and unwilling to wake up from it, appear to have finally awakened to the fact the country is in deep DEEP trouble. Especially the the under 25 age group.
Quiet but powerful rebellion
Germany’s youth have woken up and have undergone a truly profound change of mind. The days of Fridays for Future, led by Greta Thunberg, have disappeared faster than a snowball on a hot summer day. Indeed, the youth have kept their “we’ll be watching you” promise, and, ironically, hate what they are now seeing: a crumbling of their country and future.
Now they are leading a quiet but powerful rebellion.
COVID lies
It started in 2020. Recall how just a few years ago, Germany’s young population was all caught up with Fridays For Future hype and climate hysteria. Then, suddenly, it got interrupted by the COVID pandemic. The youth, like everyone else, got locked down and were forced to abide by ridiculous rules and experimental medial treatment. No age group suffered more than young people under 20. Today these young people have since realized that the media and political establishment lied to them.
War lies and energy woes
The next fundamental lie then revealed: The warm and fuzzy Greens and Socialists weren’t pacifists at all but rather reckless warmongers who cheered on the war in Ukraine.
Next, a major natural gas pipeline was clandestinely sabotaged by the west, which led to skyrocketing energy prices and inflation. Suddenly the youth’s dreams of a future of prosperity went up in smoke. Next, the German Greens began to call for imposing harsh policies on everyone, threatening to make life even more unbearable for the poor.
Censorship
To make things worse, during COVID and the Ukraine war, the youth became aware of just how “democratic” the west really was. Dissidents were silenced as censorship spread across major social media platforms. In Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, people expressing different views found themselves slandered and criminalized. Dissident leaders were even arrested and locked up. Thousands of social media accounts were suspended.
In July, 2024, we saw Germany’s “far right” Compact magazine get raided by German special forces and shut down by the overzealous socialist Interior Minister, Nancy Faeser.
Last month, instant messaging service Telegram’s founder, Pavel Durov, was arrested by French authorities. His crime: providing free speech. The youth now realize how “free speech” in the west is just a joke.
Open borders and immigrant violence
Last month’s killing of three people (and many more injured) by a Syrian refugee at a festival highlighted a long streak of growing violence by migrants. The public reacted by loudly calling Europe’s border policies into question. Despite a string of lofty promises, politicians have taken no real action to stem the flood of migrants from the Middle East and Africa.
Crime and violence have made many parts of Germany unsafe, and it’s dawning on the youth that their country is potentially going to hell in a basket. On September 1st, voters in the states of Saxony and Thuringia turned out in large numbers, and handed the right wing AfD party huge results.
Once voting Green, the youth under 18 have swung in masses to the right. Last August in Thuringia, 9000 youths under age 18 were asked in a survey who they would vote for. The winner by a huge margin was the right wing AfD party, pulling in 37.4% of the vote – more than double compared to 16.5% it got in 2019. The Greens, on the other hand, lost a whopping 83% of their supporters, see here.
German bridge is falling down
Popularity for the German Greens and Socialists is in collapse, and so is Germany’s infrastructure.
Last week, part of a major bridge in the Saxony city of Dresden mysteriously collapsed. The incident highlights Germany’s neglect of its own infrastructure while it funnels tens of billions of euros into dubious green projects at home and abroad. The collapse of the Dresden bridge is an accurate metaphor for Germany.
“Part of the AfD’s success can be attributed to its economic policy,” reports Unherd here. “It calls for an end to government subsidies that distort the market, an end to the country’s expensive green energy transition and, crucially, a reversal of the current deindustrialisation. If such moderate economic policy is abandoned by the centrists in power, then voters will look elsewhere.”
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