Remote Sensing Data Indicate A -2.44ºC Summer Cooling For Antarctica Sea Ice Regions During 1982-2015

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

A new paper published in Remote Sensing reports substantial summer cooling of Antarctica’s entire sea ice region due to an increase in surface albedo between 1982 to 2015.

Zhou et al., 2019

The Characteristics of Surface Albedo Change
Trends over the Antarctic Sea Ice Region
during Recent Decades

“The Arctic sea ice is becoming thin and young, whereas the sea ice extent in Antarctica has slightly increased over the last four decades. Parkinson et al. (2012) used satellite passive–microwave data and found a substantial increasing trend (17100 ± 2300 km2 year−1) of sea ice extent over Antarctica from 1978 to 2010. Turner et al. (2016) determined an increasing trend by 195 × 103 km2 per decade for the total Antarctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2013. Then, the satellite-derived sea ice extent during 1979 to 2015 was studied by Jena et al. (2018) who declared that the increasing trend of sea ice extent in the Indian Ocean was about 2.4 ± 1.2% per decade. Thus, understanding the changes in sea ice in the Antarctic sea ice region (ASIR) is essential to global climate research.”
“The albedo, an important factor that affects the radiation balance of the earth–atmosphere system, has frequently been used for research on global climate change. Given the high albedo of snow and ice surfaces, most of the solar radiation on the surface of snow and ice in the ASIR are reflected back to the atmosphere. The albedo of unfrozen ocean is between 5% and 20% and is affected by solar zenith angle. Snow/ice albedo, which is strongly dependent on incident solar irradiance, snow grain size, and soot content, ranges from 50% to 90%, and fresh snow albedo reaches 90%. However, substantial incident solar radiation is absorbed by the Antarctic sea ice during summer; thus, the physical state of the snow/ice surface changes rapidly, such that the melting of snow and ice leads to dramatic changes in snow/ice surface albedo.”
These results demonstrated that the climate of the ASIR [the entire Antarctic Sea Ice Region, the (1) Weddell Sea (WS), (2) Indian Ocean, (3) Pacific Ocean (PO), (4) Ross Sea, and (5) Bellingshausen-Amundsen Sea (BS)] exhibits a cooling trend during summer [1982-2015], except for the BS.”
“Consistent with the trend of SAL [surface albedo], the slope values of SIC [sea ice concentration]  were mostly positive, except for the BS (Table 4), which further demonstrated that the climate of the ASIR exhibits a cooling trend in recent decades. … The average SAL (Table 3), SIC (Table 4), and SST (Table 5) for the total ASIR were 46.75%, 65.39%, and −2.44 °C during summer.”


In another new paper, scientists have located mummified remains of elephant seals dated to about 1,000 years ago indicating this species was able to breed and molt in a region of the western Ross Sea, Antarctica, that is far too cold and sea ice-covered for them to presently occupy.

In fact, the closest elephant seals breeding colony today is ~2,400 km to the north (sub-Antarctic islands) of where these Medieval Warm Period-era remains were found.

The authors conclude that “for much of the Holocene, open water was seasonally present on VLC beaches north and south of Terra Nova Bay” and that “land-fast and multiyear sea ice has become much more pronounced in coastal settings over the last millennium.”

Koch et al., 2019

Mummified and skeletal southern elephant
seals (Mirounga leonina) from the Victoria
Land Coast, Ross Sea, Antarctica

“We report on an accumulation of mummified southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) from Inexpressible Island on the Victoria Land Coast (VLC), western Ross Sea, Antarctica. This accumulation is unusual, as elephant seals typically breed and molt on sub-Antarctic islands further north and do not currently occupy the VLC. Prior ancient DNA analyses revealed that these seals were part of a large, Antarctic breeding population that crashed ~1,000 yr ago. Radiocarbon dates for Inexpressible Island mummies range from 380 to 3,270 yr before present.   This wide distribution of elephant seal remains is surprising, as the species typically breeds and molts on sub-Antarctic islands at lower latitudes. The closest extant breeding colony to VLC is on Macquarie Island (~54.5°S), ~2,400 km to the north.”
“The presence of southern elephant seals, geomorphic evidence for wave-generated beaches, and diatom data from nearshore cores all indicate that, for much of the Holocene, open water was seasonally present on VLC beaches north and south of Terra Nova Bay (Hall et al. 2006, Mezgec et al. 2017). Together, these lines of evidence suggest that land-fast and multiyear sea ice has become much more pronounced in coastal settings over the last millennium.”
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

German Government Falsified Key IPCC Statement In The Translation Of “IPCC Summary Report To Policy Makers”!

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

If you’re in government and don’t like the findings of the IPCC reports, then just change them! This is what the German government appears to have done recently.
=====================================================

The Falsification of IPCC Summary Reports by the German Government

By Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)
Was it sloppiness or intent? In the IPCC Summary Report for Policymakers published by the Federal Government in German, the most important statement of the original English report was falsified.

IPCC reports are available as comprehensive status reports and get strongly condensed as reports for policymakers. The latter are not to be taken as IPCC-authorized extracts as the governments concerned are allowed contribute in the writing. As a result, information or formulations from the English IPCC original which do not agree with German politics are often omitted in the German IPCC reports for policymakers. This is popularly called censorship. As a result of such falsifications, the status reports and the corresponding reports for policymakers are often contradiction.

Key finding deleted from Summary for Policymakers

One example in the past was the famous Chapter 2.6 of the AR5 Report, in which the IPCC explained in detail that no increase in extreme weather events could be found in climate periods (about 30 years) from 1950 onwards (beginning of more extensive measurements and statistics). EIKE reported on this. But in the accompanying German IPCC report for policymakers, this IPCC finding, which is hardly trivial, was nowhere to be seen.

German policymakers make up a new fact

And now it’s happened once again. The original IPCC Summary Report for Policymakers in English (here) states on page 6 under A.1 in the important core statement on the presumed influence of humans on climate development, whereby we have marked the decisive point “estimated” in bold:

Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C.”

But in the German language IPCC Report for Policymakers (here) that sentence suddenly becomes:

Human activities have caused about 1.0°C global warming compared to pre-industrial levels, with a probable range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C.”

The Federal Environment Agency, proClim of Switzerland, the Federal Environment Agency of Switzerland, etc., etc. casually turned an estimate into a fact. Listed below are some of the countless people who could be responsible for the incorrect translation from English into the German. Were they all asleep?

— Quote from the German language IPCC Report for Policymakers:

German Translation. The present translation is not an official translation by the IPCC. It was prepared with the aim of reproducing as accurately as possible the language used in the original text. Published by: Deutsche IPCC-Koordinierungsstelle [German IPCC Coordination Office], DLR Projektträgerwww.de-ipcc.de, de-ipcc@dlr.de Umweltbundesamt GmbH www.umweltbundesamt.at, publikationen@umweltbundesamt.atProClim, Akademie der Naturwissenschaften Schweiz. www.proclim.ch, proclim@scnat.ch Translation: A.C.T. Fachübersetzungen GmbH in cooperation with Carola Best, Paul Bowyer, Sabine Fuss, Gerrit Hansen, Daniela Jacob, Elmar Kriegler, Katja Mintenbeck, Urs Neu, Maike Nikolai, Juliane Petersen, Jan Petzold, Hans-Otto Pörtner, Klaus Radunsky, Nora WeyerLayout: CD Werbeagentur GmbHCofinancing: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU)Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (FOEN)Austrian Federal Environment Agency.”

A highly unlikely translation error can be ruled out because the falsification happened after the already published German Report which had the correct wording. A resourceful and knowledgeable EIKE reader researched and found that the initially correct German translation can still be found on the web server of the Protestant Regional Church (here). To do this, enter the title “IPCC-Sonderbericht über 1,5 °C globale Erwärmung” in “EKIBA from A to Z”. Here you will find the pdf and the old correct translation (highlighted in red).

From the web server of the Protestant Regional Church dated May 25, 2019, 6:58 p.m.:

A1. Menschliche Aktivitäten haben Schätzungen zufolge etwa 1,0 °C globale Erwärmung über vorindustrielle Werte verursacht,
mit einer wahrscheinlichen Bandbreite von 0,8 °C bis 1,2 °C.

In English:

A1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C.

That is: the original German text, which was originally correctly translated into the German.

The subsequent falsification of the original apparently took place between February and May 2019. It cannot be ruled out that further formulations were also amended. But who has the time to investigate such possible malicious manipulations in detail?

In France it is common to notice malicious smiles when it comes to bad estimations – such as those that might arise during the subsequent “corrections of an original translation error”. As the French say: “Evil (or shame) be to him that evil thinks.”

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

US Now Wettest In 2 Decades! Meteorologist Bastardi: 2012 “Permanent Drought” Predictions “As Big A Fiasco” As Ice-Free Arctic Prediction

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

Again today we are seeing earlier sensational, hysterical alarmist predictions made by “climate scientists” falling to pieces before our eyes.

Recall how back in 2012 parts of the USA were seeing drought conditions and so the climate alarmists declared the US climate was entering a “permanent drought” – due to man’s use of fossil fuels. The only hope, they claimed, was that we radically transform our free-market based system into an (experimental) authoritarian, eco-socialist society with diminished property rights and severely rationed energy. Major policy decisions would then be done by “science experts” sitting on a “Future Committee” and not by masses of ignorant voters.

Thankfully that nutty transformation yet to be implemented (so far). And guess what? The US hasn’t turned into a permanent barren desert with everyone being sorry for not having listened.

2012 drought predictions flop: today US wettest this century!

At Twitter, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. just tweeted how currently the US is in fact the wettest it’s been so far this century, with 91% of the country not being in a drought!

What an embarrassment this has got to be for the alarmist climate scientists.

Permanent drought prediction “a fiasco”, says veteran meteorologist

And on yesterday’s Weatherbell Daily Update, 40-year veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi also commented on the 2012 “permanent drought” predictions and the claims the US was at the dawn of a new Dust Bowl, saying that he considered “this as big a fiasco as saying the Arctic was gonna be ice-free or we weren’t gonna see snow any more.”

Opposite of the dire predictions

The climate scientists warned that oncoming permanent drought would severely impact food production, lead to shortages and as a result there would by an increased risk of social unrest, misery and falling skies.

But here, too, Joe Bastardi shows these warnings have turned out to be high-grade crackpot predictions. Here’s what has really happened in terms of food production in the USA since 2012 and beyond:

Image: Weatherbell Daily Update, May 24, 2019.

Worse in the 1930s and 1950s

In his Daily Update, Joe also showed how drought conditions in fact were worse in the 1950s and 1930s than they were in 2012. As the chart above shows, US food production has climbed more than 10% since the false and dire warnings made 7 years ago.

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

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: Climate Scientists’ “Apocalyptic Predictions Depend On Unrealistic Climate Model Simulations”

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

Dutch investigative journalist Marijn Poels recently interviewed leading climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, see following video:

In the interview, Curry told that climate scientists have been acting “overconfident” and have been ignoring too many unknowns and all the uncertainty which the science is fraught with.

“There”s a lot of scope for people to be wrong” concerning the future of what the climate might be like, she said.

Climate scientists ignoring wide scope of natural factors

She tells viewers that the scientists were contracted to be “narrowly focused” on man’s impact and thus ended up ignoring “what may be the most important factors”, such as solar and oceanic cycles.

Unrealistic climate models

She also called the climate models “very ambiguous” and characterized the IPCC business-as-usual scenario as being based on “flawed projections” and “unrealistic assumptions” and that the other climate models “seem to be running too hot”.

She said, “The apocalyptic predictions depend on unrealistic emissions scenarios and unrealistic climate model simulations.”

She adds that in the end “we are left with a modest amount of warming that may be counteracted by natural variability.”

Greatest risks stem more from natural factors

She calls the West Antarctic Ice Sheet the factor that poses the greatest risk, but that CO2 has little impact on it. Rather, it’s the geological instability below it that is the biggest factor. A collapse could potentially lead to a meter of sea level rise this century, she said.

Bullying a consensus

On why her climate colleagues turned against her, Curry said: “What really got to them was my criticism of the behavior of scientists. I saw them lacking in transparency. I saw them trying to sabotage people who disagreed with them. […] I spoke up and called them on it. That’s what the unforgiveable behavior was on my part.”

She said that what we have in climate science is “consensus enforcement” and that alternative views are simply shut out, and thus run contradictory to how science is supposed to work. Earlier she told a Congressional committee that scientists were “being bullied” into consensus.

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

New Paper: Arctic Sea Ice Was Far Less Extensive Than Today During The ‘Ice Free’ Early Holocene

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

Biomarker evidence for Arctic-region sea ice coverage in the northern Barents Sea indicates the most extensive sea ice conditions of the last 9,500 years occurred during the 20th century (0 cal yr BP). In contrast, this region was ice free with open water conditions during the Early Holocene (9,500-5,800 years ago).

Berben et al., 2019

Atlantic water inflow & sea ice distribution in the northern

Barents Sea: A Holocene palaeoceanographic evolution

“The early Holocene (ca. 9500 – 5800 cal yr BP) … Relatively low IP25 concentrations [a proxy for sea ice presence] with increased brassicasterol abundances indicate reduced seasonal (spring) sea ice cover and longer (warmer) summers with open water conditions suitable for phytoplankton production. The occurrence of reduced sea ice cover and longer summers is consistent with increased planktic foraminiferal concentrations (reported here and Carstens et al., 1997) and with longer ice-free seasons and a retreated ice margin in the northern Barents Sea (Duplessy et al., 2001) as well as increased phytoplankton production in the northern Fram Strait (Müller et al., 2009). Reduced spring sea ice cover also indicates the HTM recorded at the sea surface between ca. 9300 and 6500 cal yr BP, which probably results from maximum summer insolation at 78° N.”
“Our proposed sea ice scenario suggests that water masses south of the study area were ice free, which agrees with open water conditions observed in the western Barents Sea (Berben et al., 2014) and the West Svalbard margin (Müller et al., 2012) during the early Holocene.”
“For the West Svalbard margin, Werner et al. (2013) associated high planktic foraminiferal fluxes ca. 8000 cal yr BP to ice-free or seasonally fluctuating sea ice margin conditions.”
“The PBIP25 index shows the lowest values of the record (0.16 – 0.40) suggesting a period characterized by low or variable seasonal sea ice cover and influenced substantially by open water conditions (Müller et al., 2011).”
The late Holocene (ca. 2200 – 0 cal yr BP) is characterized by the highest abundances of IP25 (0.35 µg/g OC) and relatively low (but stable) brassicasterol (12.5 µg/g OC) (Figure 7A-B).). Consistent with the opposing trends in the IP25 and brassicasterol records, the PBIP25 values reach their highest value (0.87) of the record at ca. 0 cal yr BP. An increase in PBIP25 suggests a further extension in sea ice cover, reflecting Arctic Front conditions (Müller et al., 2011), most similar to modern conditions.”

The Early Holocene was about 6-7°C warmer than today in this region (NW Barents Sea).

Image Source: Tarasov et al., 2018

Another recent reconstruction for this region also indicated the Early Holocene was sea ice free and that modern sea ice conditions are among the most extensive of the last 9,500 years.

Image Source: Köseoğlu et al., 2018
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Potsdam Institute Caught Up In Contradiction: Says North Atlantic Cooling, Yet Blames May Snow On Warming!

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

Early May saw a surprise heavy snowfall across parts of central Europe and near record levels for that particular time of year up in the Alps. Such events do little to bolster public confidence in the claim the globe is warming.

So leave it to the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) to concoct an explanation for the media: All the cold and snow are in fact the result of global warming!

How the PIK did this gets described by Michael Krüger at Science Skeptical here in an article titled: “The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) does not rule out a connection between the current snow masses in the Alps and climate change!”

Climate change leading to May snow!

“The atmosphere has become warmer, and thus more moisture,” PIK climate scientist Peter Hoffmann explained to the German DPA press agency. “We are having a massive north inflow crossing the North Sea, which still has relatively mild temperatures for the season – there is the potential for humidity. This wind current is running exactly into the low mountain ranges and the Alps.”

Hoffmann added: “We saw 2018 as the warmest year since the beginning of weather records and we had nine months since last April which were above average warm. That made the oceans warmer than normal. If the air mass flow changes as a result of the climate and there are more frequent north-south weather conditions, which intensifies the mountain effect.”

PIK telling falsehoods

First, Krüger points out that 2018 in Germany was one of the driest and warmest recorded, yet last year the atmosphere did not “take in more moisture”.

Also the global temperature fell from +1°C anomaly in 2016 to +0.8°C anomaly in 2018, according to NASA. 2018 was not a record.

And the North Atlantic also was not warm, as implied by Hoffmann – not at all as the following NASA chart shows:

amaps1amaps2

Both during the summer and fall the North Atlantic – which vastly impacts Europe’s weather – were cool.

Benjamin

Source: Science Skeptical

Responsible for the May snowfall across Europe was not climate change, Krüger shows, but rather weather patterns that are consistent to Europe’s traditionally known climate.

As the above chart shows, a low positioned north of Poland and a high off the coast of France provided the blast of polar air which swept up moisture from the North Sea and led to snow precipitation across a large swath of Europe.

Rahmstorf: North Atlantic cooling, not warming

Krüger summarizes: “Global warming therefore has little to do with all this. Especially since climate impact researcher Stefan Rahmstorf of the PIK repeatedly points to a weakening “Gulf Stream” and a cooling across the North Atlantic off Greenland. The North Atlantic, i.e. our weather brewer, has not warmed in recent decades, but rather has cooled down and continues to cool down in Stefan Rahmstorf’s climate projections.”

Bottom line: The PIK’s Rahmstorf contradicts the claims made by the PIK’s Hoffmann.

Krüger concludes from a cooling North Atlantic:

Cold air can absorb less moisture, so there should be less rainfall in our region, which is caused by the lows over the cold North Atlantic in autumn and winter. The PIK has once again made a complete 180°U-turn. First the PIK says that the North Atlantic has cooled down and will continue to cool down and this is connected with a weakening “Gulf Stream” – due to climate change of course. But now we are being told that the ocean is getting warmer, even in our North Atlantic weather brewer and so the warmed air can absorb more moisture and bring more precipitation and snow with it. Of course, this too is also a consequence of climate change.”

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

Scientists Find No Human Impact On Extreme Rainfall Events In Southeastern Australia…Rather ENSO Related

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

Well, maybe we aren’t all going to die in 11 1/2 years, like some surrounding Australia’s Labour Party were insisting before the recent elections.

Hat-tip: reader Mary Brown

A new study appearing in the Journal of Weather and Climate Extremes titled “Historical extreme rainfall events in southeastern Australia” – led by Linden Ashcroft, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne – shows that even more extreme weather in terms of rainfall existed before 1900 in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide.

No real trend when examining Sydney, Australia data going back 178 years. Image: Ashcroft et al 2019.

Moreover, the authors found a “moderate and relatively stable relationship between El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and annual variations of total rainfall and the number of raindays.”

What follows is the paper’s abstract (my emphasis):

Abstract

The cities of Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide are home to almost half of the Australian population, and are often exposed to extreme rainfall events and high year-to-year rainfall variability. However the majority of studies into rainfall in these cities, and southeastern Australia in general, are limited to the 20th century due to data availability. In this study we use rainfall data from a range of sources to examine four rainfall indices for Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide for 1839–2017. We derive the total rainfall, number of raindays, wettest day of the month and the simple daily intensity index for each city over the past 178 years, and find relatively consistent relationships between all indices despite potential data quality issues associated with the historical data. We identify several extreme daily rainfall events in the pre-1900 period in Sydney and Melbourne that warrant further examination as they appear to be more extreme than anything in the modern record. We find a moderate and relatively stable relationship between El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and annual variations of total rainfall and the number of raindays at all three cities over the research period, but no relationship between ENSO and the annual wettest day, in agreement with other studies using shorter time series.”

Note how the authors mention how “extreme daily rainfall events in the pre-1900 period” in Sydney and Melbourne “appear to be more extreme than anything in the modern record.”

So despite the constant claims of worsening weather globally, objective analyses of longer term data consistently show that weather in terms of hurricanes, tornadoes, extreme precipitation, etc. were just as bad or even worse in the preindustrial times. It’s natural, stupid.

All the pagan-minded rain-dancing, socialism and wealth destruction and redistribution isn’t going to change our weather.

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

Greenland Has Been Cooling In Recent Years – 26 Of Its 47 Largest Glaciers Now Stable Or Gaining Ice

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

A new analysis of recent trends for the Greenland ice sheet reveals that since 2012 there has been an abrupt slowing of melt rates and a trend reversal to cooling and ice growth.

• In 2018, 26 of Greenland’s 47 largest glaciers were either stable or grew in size.

• Overall, the 47 glaciers advanced by +4.1  km² during 2018.  Of the 6 largest glaciers, 4 grew while 2 retreated.

• Since 2012, ice loss has been “minor” to “modest” due to the dramatic melting slowdown.

• Summer average temperatures for 2018 were lower than the 2008-2018 average by more than one standard deviation.

• Since 2000, the extent of the non-snow-covered areas of Greenland has increased by 500 km² per year.

Image Source: Polar Portal Season Report 2018

Large regions of the oceans surrounding Greenland have been rapidly cooling – by as much as 1-2°C – in the last few years.

Image Source: Willis et al., 2018

Temperature trends across the ice-free part of Greenland indicate cooling since 2001.

Image Source: Westergaard-Nielson et al., 2018

Central Greenland has undergone a slight cooling trend since 2005.

Image Source: Kobashi et al., 2017

Jakobshavn Isbrae, Greenland’s largest contributing glacier to sea level rise in recent decades, has stopped melting and begun advancing in line with an abrupt -2°C cooling that has encapsulated the region.

The glacier is now thickening at a rate of 20 meters per year.

Image Source: BBC

Ocean temperatures in the region have cooled to levels not seen since the 1980s.

Image Source: Khazendar et al., 2019

Image Source: Khazendar et al., 2019

Greenland’s climate has been observed to lag the North Atlantic’s.  If so, further cooling and glacier thickening may be in store during the coming decades.

Image Source: Piecuch et al., 2017

From a longer-term perspective, notice how cold the Subpolar North Atlantic sea surface temperatures are today. Temperatures have plummeted in the last century.

These short- and long-term trends appear to be at odds with what would be expected in a rapidly-warming world.

Image Source: Orme et al., 2018
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Australia Election Results Show Citizens Fed Up With Infantile “Vote For Us, Or Die!” Campaigns And Threats

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

Hysteria and insults get refuted

Australia’s election results are in, and once again major media are in state of shock.

The New York Times here for example called it a “stunning win” and claimed it was “propelled by a populist wave” that resembled “the force that has upended politics in the United States, Britain and beyond.”

The UK Guardian went on calling the result of the “climate change election” a “major upset”, complaining that in fact “the climate lost.”

The climate skeptic, German-language Ruhrkultour here commented that citizens have grown increasingly tired of the “climate hysteria”, and that this ultimately “cost Labour the election victory”.

Crosshairs on democracy

Now that the dust begins to settle, the search for answers begins in earnest. But as was the case in 2016 in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s stunning victory, don’t expect the losing side to acknowledge the truth and reality.

Rather look for them to search out a scapegoat. Expect them to even start criticizing democracy and blaming “misled voters”, who were deceived by fake news and populist disinformation campaigns. There will be more loud calls for even greater crackdowns on Internet social media platforms.

“Hope you die!”

The real reason for the loss by Labour is the towering arrogance that left of centre parties have been putting on display lately. Nothing illustrates this better than two tweets recently appearing:

Here’s the first by Australian academic, Daniel Best via Not Suit:

In other words it’s: “Vote for us, or eff yourself and die!”

That’s appalling. And these people think it’s “populism” or the “Russians” behind their losses? Try infantilism, and people being turned off by it.

Threats and insults

If these planet rescuers want to start winning elections again, they need to realize it’s their tantrummy, 6-year old attitude that’s turning everyone off. People are sick of — and frankly appalled — by all their phony “expertise”, bullcrap “consensus” claims, emotional hysteria and fake “climate crisis”. Never mind all the insults.

Yet, The Guardian pledges to get even more shrill about climate and use even bigger bogus threats.

Insulting the elderly

And here’s the second reaction, this one concerning the upcoming EU elections, by Matt Kelly

This tweet was written by Matt Kelly, editor of the pro-Remain New European newspaper

Source: Telegraph, via Twitter. Read story here.

So Mr. Kelly thinks the elderly are just disgusting incontinents who need constant cleaning up and cannot vote correctly.

Well, people are tired of being threatened and insulted into voting a certain way, and it’s people like Kelly and Best who are disgusting. This is the real reason why people aren’t voting for them.

Wishing us dead

And each time after they lose, none of us of course ends up dying and so in a tantrum they wish us all dead. Thankfully the majority of voters have been able to see through the infantile behavior.

In a way, The Guardian’s latest move ought to be welcome. It will only play into the hands of us “populists” and “deplorables” and ensure us more election victories ahead.

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

Royal Meteorological Society Confirms Urban Heat Island Effect… “Significantly Increased” Daily Minimum UK Temperature By Up To 1.70 K!

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

There’s really not any real doubt about it.

Cities, with their millions of tonnes of steel, asphalt and concrete act as ideal heat-absorbing sinks which take a long time to cool down at night. Just drive on a hot summer night through the country side and into a city makes that very clear.

Yet global warming activist scientists don’t like talking about that because it distracts from their flakey CO2 warming claims.

Now a new study looking at the urban heat island (UHI) effect on London titled “How much has urbanisation affected United Kingdom temperatures?” confirms real impact of the urban heat island effect. The study was published in the Atmospheric Science Letters.

Hat-tip: Reader Mary Brown

Here’s the abstract of the study (emphasis added):

That alone accounts for a very large part of the 20th century warming. But the alarmists certainly don’t want to hear it.

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

Cold Throttles N. Hemisphere Spring: “It’s Been Brutal” …”Can’t Remember Such A Delayed Spring” …”Barely A Hint Of Leaves On Trees”

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

There has been a flurry of major May cold weather and snow reports coming in from a variety of regions across the globe, leaving global warming alarmists speechless.

Australia in ice box

For example, weather site electroverse.net here just reported on how the entire Australian land mass is getting walloped by extreme cold as the winter season begins there.

“It’s a cold snap affecting the whole country, it’s a big one,” says Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) forecaster Sarah Scully. Temperatures would be 10C below normal “even in the Northern Territory and Queensland.”

German mountain peak sees 6 meters of snow – in May!

Much of Europe has also been seeing unusually cold temperatures as well. Germany’s highest peak, Zugspitze, recently saw snow pile up to 6 meters – in May.

“That’s “the most in 20 years,” reported Michael Krueger of Science Skeptical.

“Very remarkable” snow in Corsica

Dalmatia, Croatia has seen “its coldest May start since records began and a “very rare and very remarkable” just blanketed the Mediterranean island of Corsica.

“Very Rare and Very Remarkable” May Snowfall Blankets the Mediterranean Island of Corsica

New England: “Been brutal”…can’t remember such “delayed” spring

In North America in New England on May 13th, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine were forecast to get snow, and not just dustings, but real cover.

Vermont-resident and NTZ reader Indomitable Snowman PhD wrote by e-mail 2 days ago: “It’s been brutal.  I can’t remember a ‘spring’ – ever – that has been this slow and delayed.  The grass is starting to turn green, but there is barely a hint of leaves on the trees.”

“Huge piles of snow” linger

Indomitable Snowman Phd – also a pilot – also described how he had just flown some friends up to Quebec City on May 12th and how on the way up they could see “there was still some snow in the forest and in the ditches”:

Snow still remains on the ground in mid-May over southern Quebec, Canada. Photo: Indomitable Snowman PhD.

And upon landing at CYQB (Quebec City airport), he wrote: “There were still huge piles of snow on the grass between the taxiways and behind the perimeter fence from the dumping of snow during the winter”. See photo:

Piles of winter snow remain at Quebec City airport in mid-May, with bare trees in background. Photo: Indomitable Snowman PhD.

On the way back, inbound to Burlington, Vermont, they flew past Mount Mansfield. What follows is footage shot BEFORE more snow fell the very next night (May 13-14):

Footage by Indomitable Snowman PhD.

As the footage shows, one might think it’s February over Vermont, and not mid-May!

By the early morning of May 14, the National Weather Service (NWS) in Vermont reported snowfalls of 3.5 inches in Danville, 2.3 inches in Williamstown, 2.5 inches in Plainfield and 2 inches in Marshfield. Mount Washington in New Hampshire even saw a foot of new snow. Mid-May!

Major Greenland glacier “slams on the brakes”

A sign that the globe, or at least a major part of the Arctic (a claimed “climate canary in a coal mine”) has been seeing a major warming slowdown is that European satellites have been showing how a mighty Greenland glacier has “slammed on the brakes”. The Global Warming Policy Foundation site reports:

In the 2000s, Jakobshavn Isbrae was the fastest flowing ice stream on the island, travelling at 17km a year. […] But now it’s all change. Jakobshavn is travelling much more slowly, and its trunk has even begun to thicken and lengthen.”

 

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

Recent Studies Indicate Species Extinctions Decline With Warming – Mass Extinction Events Due To COOLING

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

During the last few hundred years, species extinctions primarily occurred due to habitat loss and predator introduction on islands.  Extinctions have not been linked to a warming climate or higher CO2 levels.  In fact, since the 1870s, species extinction rates have been plummeting.

Image Sources: Loehle & Eschenbach (2012), BBC, Wrightstone, 2019

In the past it has been widely reported that high and abruptly changing CO2 concentrations led to climate conditions that were “too hot for complex life to survive” on the planet.

More recently, though, scientists have determined that the opposite may have been true: mass extinction events occurred during periods of global cooling, expansive ice sheet growth, and marine-habitat-destroying sea level drops of more than 100 meters.

In fact, of the 5 previous mass extinctions, volcanism-induced glaciation is thought to be responsible for the 1st, 3rd, and 4th events, with the 2nd unknown and the 5th from an aseteroid impact.  None of these explanations have ties to CO2 concentrations or sudden warming.

Images Source: Jones et al., 2017, Phys.Org

Image Source: Creveling et al., 2018

Image Source: Isozaki and Servais, 2018

Image Source: Wu et al., 2014

Image Source: Kani et al., 2018

As suggeted above, scientists usually attribute the mass extinction cooling events to the same mechanism previously thought to cause sudden-onset warming: widespread volcanic eruptions.

More volcanism means more sulfate aerosols blocking out solar heat from penetrating into the ocean.  With “repeated clusters” of volcanic events gradually accumulating over time, decades to centuries of cooling can ensue.

Image Source: McGregor et al., 2015

Image Source: UPI.com

New (2019) research suggests that the global cooling extinction events could have been triggered by a solar-astronomical influence.

Again, this suggests no clear link between mass extinctions and CO2-induced or sudden-onset warming events.

Image Source: Isozaki, 2019

Image Source: Fang et al., 2018
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Defamation-pedia? Climate Institute Sends ‘Cease & Desist’ Against Wikipedia! 7-Page List Of “Falsehoods”, “Malicious Intentions”

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

The Jena-Germany based climate science and renewable energies- critical European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) has sent a cease and desist letter to Wikimedia headquarters in San Francisco demanding that the platform remove all the “false content” in the German language entry about the organization.

Slander: Wikipedia’s German site describes EIKE as an organization for “networking and public relations work for the organized climate denier scene”. Image cropped from Wikipedia here.

EIKE is a non-profit association with the statutory purpose of promoting science and research in the field of climate and energy. According to EIKE, “We pursue our statutory association purpose independently of political parties, religious communities, other associations or organizations.”

EIKE claims the German Wikipedia entry about its activities and members has very little to do with the reality and that the content was in large part written to mislead readers rather than inform them and to slander the institute. “The content of the Wikipedia entry is filled with falsehoods which results in casting EIKE in an extremely negative light,” the Jena-Germany based scientific think tank commented by e-mail.

“Almost every single claim made by the Wikipedia entry about EIKE is either maliciously misleading, grossly distorted or just outright false, wrote EIKE Vice President, Michael Limburg in an e-mail.  “The Wikipedia entry was designed to produce a contemptuous image of the organization with the aim discrediting it.” The list of deletions demanded by EIKE is 7-pages long!

“Climate denier scene”

In one example, the Wikipedia entry claims that the EIKE “is described by independent voices from science and media as the center of the politically active and organized scene of climate deniers in Germany” (see image above) and that “its goal is to promote systematic attacks on climate science’s findings.”

“This is absolutely false and malicious,” EIKE responded by e-mail when asked for comment.

In the long grievance to Wikipedia, the attorney representing EIKE wrote that the claim made by the Internet platform’s authors was “made up”, “untrue and unlawful”, adding: “My client does not deny climate change, and their goal is not to systematically attack the findings of climate science.”

Among the many other alleged false statements made at the Wikipedia site was also that EIKE “pretends to be scientific, deliberately disseminates misinformation and tries to influence parties.” In the cease and desist letter, the attorney representing EIKE called that statement “false” and “unlawful”, adding that EIKE is independent of all political parties and that EIKE “conducts its own research on climate and energy and publishes it in scientific journals and at international scientific congresses.”

Renowned speakers at EIKE conferences

Over the years, EIKE has organized around a dozen international climate and energy conferences, which often feature many renowned, yet dissenting scientists, such as astrophysicists Prof. Nir Shaviv of the University of Jerusalem and Prof. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen. Other speakers have included leading oceanographer Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner.

EIKE also notes that the conferences are open to any scientists, and that it is not solely a place where “climate deniers” meet.

Unlawful Holocaust slandering

Under the Wikipedia entry subheading “Grundsätze des Vereins” (principles of the association) it states that EIKE is “an organization of climate deniers” – a claim that is not only false but also “unlawful”, the EIKE attorney wrote. Climate alarmists routinely use the “denier” term in order to slander and equate global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

Big Oil/coal conspiracy

In the Wikipedia entry about EIKE, it is repeatedly suggested EIKE is funded by the oil and coal industry and the Koch Brothers through its links to CFACT, Heartland Institute, and other organizations.

The attorney representing EIKE underscored: “EIKE a scientific institute and think-tank, organized as a non-profit organization, with the sole purpose of presenting facts concerning climate and energy without any ideology. Yet, it is suggested that my client financially represents the interests of the oil and coal industry, which is demonstrably not true.”

In total, EIKE sent a list 7 pages long of false statements and misleading claims to Wikipedia demanding that they be removed.

Intent to unjustly inflict damage to reputation

EIKE has been working for sometime to get the needed corrections implemented at the Wikipedia site, but without success. Officials at EIKE say the falsehoods and deceptive claims platformed by Wikipedia risks inflicting great damage to their reputation and the overall perception among the unknowing public.

EIKE officials recently sent a cease and desist letter to Wikimedia head offices in San Francisco. But according to EIKE, they received a response from Wikimedia that said there were no German speakers there, and so they couldn’t help.

Wikipedia is a worldwide platform whose content is regularly posted in almost every major language worldwide. Over the years it has been sharply accused of poor quality control and political bias, especially concerning hot-button political issues such as climate science.

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

German Employer’s Association Op Ed: “No Expert Politician In Berlin Believes In Switch To Green Energies Any More”

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

As the pressure mounts in Germany to switch off coal power plants and to rapidly transition over to green energies, one gets the feeling that it all has more to do with a desperate, last-ditch effort by the green energy proponents to rescue their pet green project.

Photo right: Energy expert, Dr. Björn Peters. Image: Deutscher Arbeitgeberverband

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne

Recently, Der Spiegel wrote about how Germany’s once highly ballyhooed Energiewende (transition to green energies) has turned out to be a botched project. Then Michael Schellenberger at Forbes commented that the laws of physics tell us it was never meant to work in the first place.

Behind closed doors, no one in Berlin believes in it

Now, just days ago, energy expert Dr. Björn Peters wrote at the German Association of Employers site that the Energiewende has deteriorated to the point that: “No specialist politician in Berlin believes in the success of the Energiewende any more. Whoever you ask, everyone says this only behind closed doors and thinks that if you go to the press with it you can only lose against the ‘green’ media mainstream.”

Peters warns that what is needed in Germany is a good dose of reality and “a fresh start on energy policy.”

Advantages of fossil fuels “too great”

The German expert writes that despite the hundreds of billions of euros committed to green energies, “chemical energy from coal, oil and gas supplies about four fifths of primary energy worldwide and also in Germany and thus represents the present energy supply”.

And although at some point, the reserves will be exhausted, and alternatives will need to be found, but “for the time being, chemical energy sources are irreplaceable and will remain so for several decades to come. Their advantages are too great.”

Peters reminds that “petroleum-based fuels have the invaluable advantage of high energy density. At over 10 kWh/kg – a hundred times higher than batteries – they are the only energy sources that can reliably supply cars on overland journeys, trucks and ships with energy.”

Yet, Peters agrees that alternatives need to be sought out ultimately because traditional fossil fuels are limited in their supply and burning them entails questions concerning their impact on health.

Nuclear technology as the solution

In his opinion piece, Peters advocates nuclear power as the alternative, writing: “If now the chemical energy sources cause too much damage to humans and nature and will run out in the foreseeable future, and the surrounding renewable energies cannot provide a comprehensive energy supply, only nuclear energy sources remain. Physics does not permit other energy sources. From these we can show that they have the potential to deliver clean and highly concentrated energy forever. Of particular importance is the fact that nuclear energy can provide energy for all applications that human civilization needs, i.e. not only electrical energy but also for heating, transport and industrial process energy.”

Peters also notes that there are “candidates for a modern energy supply by means of nuclear energy”, with the most promising being the dual fluid reactor as it is inherently safe because the physical processes prevent it from getting out of control and it is emissions-free.

Sun and wind inadequate

In Peters view, it’s been shown on multiple occasions that energies from the sun, wind and biomass are not yet suitable for powering entire modern societies.

The German energy expert criticizes Germany and the EU’s narrow focus “on promoting only a few power generation technologies” while ignoring more comprehensive energy supply concepts.

He warns: “In the end, even the German public will not be able to avoid the banal physical reality: Without nuclear energy sources, it will not be possible to abandon chemical energy sources due to the pitfalls of renewable energies. A new start in energy policy is therefore urgently needed.”

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

CO2 Climate Forcing In The Earth System Context: The Honey Bee Versus The Sun

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

Over the course of a 12 hour period on a cloudless day, 500 Wm-2 of solar energy pummels past the ocean surface to depths of 20 or more meters, warming up the first 2 meters of the ocean by 2.0 K.

Image Source: Fairall et al., 1996

In contrast, the infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted in all directions by CO2 molecules cannot penetrate past the ocean’s 0.1 to 1 mm “thick” skin layer.

Image Source: Skeptical Science blog

Clouds and Ocean Domination

How much solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth system’s heat reservoir – the oceans, where 93% of the globe’s heat energy resides – is significantly determined by changes in decadal-scale cloud cover.

Direct short wave and long wave (i.e., “greenhouse effect”) forcing from the reduction or increase in cloud cover dominates as the modulator of Earth’s energy budget changes.

CO2’s influence is minimal and easily overwhelmed in these processes, as “the greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.”

Image Source: Ramanathan et al., 1989, Wielicki et al., 2002

Satellite observations of decadal-scale cloud cover changes indicate that between the 1980s and 2000s about 3 to 6-7 Wm-2 of direct short wave forcing was additionally absorbed by the Earth’s oceans.  This may account for the warming trend in recent decades.

Image Source(s): Ogurtsov et al., 2012 , Pinker et al., 2005, Goode and Palle, 2007

CO2’s Honey Bee-Sized Contribution

According to a widely cited analysis of the CO2 radiative contribution to the Earth’s greenhouse effect, there was a 0.2 Wm-2 per decade forcing associated with a CO2 change of 22 ppm during 2000 to 2010.

The seasonal mean range for DWLWR (downwelling long wave radiation) reaches amplitudes of ~30 Wm-2 over the course of months.  This range is more than a 100 times larger than the entire DWLWR CO2 forcing contribution over 11 years.

Image Source: Feldman et al., 2015, Okulaer, 2015

CO2 concentration changes are registered in parts per million (ppm, 0.000001).  This means that for the 100 ppm rise in CO2 from the last glacial period to the warm interglacial we enjoy now (from ~180 ppm to ~280 ppm), the gaseous representation of CO2 in the atmosphere rose from <2 parts in 10,000 parts to <3 parts in 10,000 parts.

Since it took about 5,000 years for CO2 to rise by 1 part in 10,000 parts, this is the forcing equivalent of 0.006 Wm-2 per decade using the calculations of Dr. James Hansen (and the IPCC).

A CO2 forcing of 0.006 Wm-2 per decade is “about a third of the energy required to power a honey bee in flight.”

Image Source: Hansen et al., 2012 and  Ellis and Palmer, 2016

Uncertainty, Errors 10-100 Times Larger Than CO2 Forcing

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), uncertainty in the factors influencing the ocean heat flux reach amplitudes of 20 Wm-2.  This uncertainty is more than 10 times larger than the entire forcing contribution from CO2 since 1900 (<2 Wm-2).

“Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes … are not well observed. The uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square metre for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.” IPCC AR4 (2007)

Image Source: IPCC AR5 (2013)

The IPCC also identifies error ranges for long wave (LW) forcing that range between 5-15 Wm-2.

Image Source: IPCC AR4 (2007)

The Earth’s energy budget is assumed to be imbalanced, as more energy is said to be absorbed by the system than leaving it.

During 2000-2010, Earth’s energy imbalance was believed to be 0.6 Wm-2. The uncertainty range for this value was ±17 Wm-2, meaning the energy imbalance could have ranged anywhere from -16.4 Wm-2 to +17.6 Wm-2, which is more than ten times larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

Image Source: Stephens et al., 2012

The ARGO data measuring ocean heat content launched in the early 2000s, but the coverage still leaves much of the non-uniformly warming and cooling regions of the ocean unsampled.  Sampling errors can range anywhere from 10 to 200 Wm-2.

Image Source: Hadfield et al., 2007

Renowned Climate Scientists Ask A Never-Answered Question

In late 2013, five American Physical Sociey (APS) climate scientists published a framing document designed to re-examine the physical basis for the IPCC’s “consensus” position(s) on climate change.

Using the IPCC’s acknowledgement of ocean data uncertainty and low confidence that an anthropogenic signal can be detected amid the noise of natural variability, a cogent question was posed pertaining to the claims of certainty that humans exert fundamental control over the the climate of the Earth system.

The question has never been answered.

Image Source: American Physical Society
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

New Findings Contradict Alarmist Rahmstorf: Arctic/Greenland Ice Melt “Barely Impacting AMOC”

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

Gulfstream “barely impacted” by Arctic ice melt

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


Arctic ice melt barely impacting AMOC. Day After Tomorrow scenario remains fantasy, new study suggests. Figure: R. Curry, http://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/File:OCP07_Fig-6.jpg; CC BY 3.0

Stefan Rahmstorf never tires of claiming the Gulf Stream system (AMOC, Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) is being strongly weakened by the fresh water input of the melting Greenland ice. In his Klimalounge blog at the end of January 2019 he wrote:

 ”The physics behind how global warming and ice melt (both without a doubt caused by man) is slowing down the AMOC is understood …”

Yet, on April 26, 2019, Dukhovskoy et al published a new paper in the JGR Oceans, which concludes that Greenland’s meltwater is having little impact on the AMOC:

Role of Greenland Freshwater Anomaly in the Recent Freshening of the Subpolar North Atlantic
The cumulative Greenland freshwater flux anomaly has exceeded 5000 km3 since the 1990s. The volume of this surplus fresh water is expected to cause substantial freshening in the North Atlantic. Analysis of hydrographic observations in the subpolar seas reveal freshening signals in the 2010s. The sources of this freshening are yet to be determined. In this study, the relationship between the surplus Greenland freshwater flux and this freshening is tested by analyzing the propagation of the Greenland freshwater anomaly and its impact on salinity in the subpolar North Atlantic based on observational data and numerical experiments with and without the Greenland runoff. A passive tracer is continuously released during the simulations at freshwater sources along the coast of Greenland to track the Greenland freshwater anomaly. Tracer budget analysis shows that 44% of the volume of the Greenland freshwater anomaly is retained in the subpolar North Atlantic by the end of the simulation. This volume is sufficient to cause strong freshening in the subpolar seas if it stays in the upper 50–100 m. However, in the model the anomaly is mixed down to several hundred meters of the water column resulting in smaller magnitudes of freshening compared to the observations. Therefore, the simulations suggest that the accelerated Greenland melting would not be sufficient to cause the observed freshening in the subpolar seas and other sources of fresh water have contributed to the freshening. Impacts on salinity in the subpolar seas of the freshwater transport through Fram Strait and precipitation are discussed.”

In the main text, it is stated:

This result agrees with the previous study of Saenko et al. (2017), who also show that the GFWA of similar magnitude (and even double of this magnitude) has negligibly small impact on the SPNA thermohaline fields, barely impacting AMOC.”

GFWA means the meltwater anomaly from Greenland and SPNA of subpolar North Atlantic. A study from 2017 finds something similar, which of course does not get mentioned by Rahmstorf in January, 2019. The fresh water from Greenland is mixed down to depths of 1000 m and thus the amount is practically meaningless for the AMOC, the paper finds.

What now?

For years we have been hearing from certain circles of climate research that we are melting the Greenland ice sheet and thus a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario gets conjured up. But a very recent paper finds that this is not the case. And when we report on it, are we thereby questioning the “credibility of climate science”, or are we correctly reflecting the progress made in climate research because the work is getting cited? Climate alarmists are desperately trying to convey the wrong image of a monolithic “climate science”, which in reality does not exist at all.

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

Japan Antarctic Research Station Shows No Warming In 50 Years! Also: Northern Stations Show No April Warming

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

By Kirye

Correction: 7 of 9 stations show no warming (not 8 of 9).

April data have been coming in, and they show that warming has been missing at many sub-Arctic stations over the past decades.

Canada cooling

Looking at 9 stations in Canada, where data from the Japan Meteorology Agency (JMA) are mostly complete, we see that the month of April hasn’t warmed at all despite all the hollering about a “climate warming crisis”.

Data source: JMA

In reality, the data show for April temperatures at 7 out of 9 Canada stations have been declining over the past 30-plus years!

Sweden no April warming in 2 decades

Next we look at data from 6 stations in the Nordic country of Sweden:

Data: JMA.

In Sweden, using stations with good data availability, we see that as a whole there has been no real April warming trend over the past 2 decades.

Irish spring is cooling

The same is true for the North Atlantic island of Ireland:

Data source: JMA

 

In fact, 5 of the 7 stations examined in Ireland have seen April cooling since 1993, a time when all the global warming hype was just getting started in earnest.

No warming at Antarctic station in 50 years

Finally. we move to the other end of the globe, Antarctica, and look at a plot of the annual data from the Japanese Showa research station:

Data source: JMA.

In an alleged time of “rapid warming”, nothing of the sort is actually happening. The Showa station, founded in 1957, in fact shows there hasn’t been any warming there in 50 years!

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

Scientists Request Revamping Of Climate Models After Finding Arctic 4.6°C WARMER In 1930s Than Today!

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

Earlier Arctic warmth unexplained: In Franz Josef Land it was several degrees warmer in early 1930s than today

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

In January 2019, a paper by Andrzej Araźny et al appeared in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, in which the researchers evaluated the weather data from four scientific expeditions to the Arctic Franz Josef Land.

Chart Source: A comparison of bioclimatic conditions on Franz Josef Land (the Arctic) between the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century and present day.

The Araźny team also came across an unusual heat that was registered during a trip in 1930/31 when it was 4.6 °C warmer than the modern average in 1981-2010. The authors explain that there have been two phases of warmth in the Arctic in the last 140 years. The first spanned from 1920-1938 and the second began in the 1980s or 90s. Both heat phases have a similar course, so that the proportion of natural versus anthropogenic climate drives is unclear.

Araźny and colleagues demand that climate models address this question more intensively in order to finally close the large gaps in understanding in the Arctic climate system – also with regard to attribution.

What follows is the abstract of the study, whose pdf can be downloaded free of charge:

A comparison of bioclimatic conditions on Franz Josef Land (the Arctic) between the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century and present day

The paper presents the variability of meteorological conditions: air temperature, wind speed and relative air humidity; and biometeorological indices: wind chill temperature, predicted clothing insulation and accepted level of physical activity on Franz Josef Land (in Teplitz Bay and Calm Bay) in the years 1899–1931. It employs meteorological measurements taken during four scientific expeditions to the study area. The analysis mainly covered the period October–April, for which the most complete data set is available. For that period of the year, which includes the part of the year with the Franz Josef Land’s coldest air temperatures, the range and nature of changes in meteorological and biometeorological conditions between historical periods and the modern period (1981–2010) were studied. The data analysis revealed that during the three oldest expeditions (which took place in the years 1899–1914), the biometeorological conditions in the study area were more harsh to humans than in the modern period (1981–2010) or similarly harsh. In contrast, during the 1930/1931 expedition, which represents the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW), conditions were clearly more favourable (including predicted clothing insulation being 0.3 clo lower and 4.0 °C higher wind chill temperature than conditions observed nowadays).”

In the discussion the authors address in detail the Arctic warmth phenomenon of the 1930s:

In approximately the last 140 years, there have been two periods of significant temperature increases in the Arctic. The first began in around 1918–1920 and lasted until 1938 and has been called the ‘1930s warming’ (Bengtsson et al. 2004). Other works have referred to this period as the ‘Early Twentieth Century Warming’ (ETCW, Brönnimann 2009) or the ‘Early Twentieth Century Arctic Warming’ (ETCAW, Wegmann et al. 2017, 2018). Our results confirm the observations for the last expedition from the historical study period in 1930/1931. These years covered the warmest part of the ETCW (Table 3, Fig. 4). In turn, the second increased warming of the Arctic began around 1980 (Johannessen et al. 2004) or according to Przybylak (2007) in about the mid-1990s. Changes in overall atmospheric circulation have long been believed to have been the cause of the ETCW (e.g. Scherhag 1937). As the modern climate warming (since 1975) has progressed in a largely similar manner to the progression of the ETCW (Wood and Overland 2010; Semenov and Latif 2012), there has been renewed interest in the insufficiently well-explained causes of the ETCW using the latest research methods, including, primarily, climate models. An analysis of the literature shows that the cause of such a significant warming in the present period is still not clear. There is even controversy over whether the main factors in the process are natural or anthropogenic, although the decided majority of researchers assign a greater role to natural factors (Bengtsson et al. 2004; Semenov and Latif 2012). It would appear that the greatest differences of opinion on the causes of the ETCW are to be found in works presenting climate models (see, e.g. Shiogama et al. 2006; Suo et al. 2013), which is an excellent illustration of the still insufficient knowledge of the mechanisms governing the Arctic Climate System.”

In the conclusion, the authors compare the warmth of the 1930s to today’s values:

during the 1930/31 expedition it was 4.6 °C warmer than the years 1981–2010.”

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

New Study: The Tropical Atlantic Was 7.5°C Warmer Than Now While CO2 Was 220 ppm

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

Another new paper published in Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology casts further doubt on the paradigm that says CO2 has historically been a temperature driver.

Evidence from the tropical Atlantic indicates today’s regional temperatures (15.5°C) are 7.5°C colder than a peak temperatures (23°C) between 15,000 to 10,000 years ago, when CO2 hovered around 220 ppm.

Image Source: Reißig et al., 2019
“[T]he Tobago Basin core 235 subSSTMg/Ca record is highly variable and ranges from ~13-23°C, which is approximately three times as much as at Beata Ridge.. In Tobago Basin, the subSSTMg/Ca decrease by ~2°C from 30 ka BP (18°C) to the onset of HS1 (16°C). Within HS1, the subSSTMg/Ca increase continuously by 2°C, while at ~15.5 ka it rises abruptly by ~6°C up to maximum temperatures of 23°C. The abrupt subSST rise is delayed too the reconstructed SST rise at the beginning of HS1 by Bahr et al. (2018) (Fig. S7). Subsequently, subSSTMg/Ca scatters around 20°C until the beginning of the Bølling-Allerød (B/A). During the B/A and the YD the subSSTMg/Ca remains higher than ~19°C, abruptly increases up to ~22°C at mid YD, while steadily decreasing afterwards reaching modern values of ~15.5°C in the mid Holocene. Lowest subSSTMg/Ca of ~13°C are observed after ~7 ka BP. On average, the LGM subSSTMg/Ca are warmer by ~2.5°C than during the Holocene.”
“[T]he subsurface temperature variability is a robust climate signal in the tropical W Atlantic. Both records show an increase of ~5°C in subSSTMg/Ca from the LGM to the early YD and a subSSTMg/Ca decrease by ~7-8°C during the Holocene suggesting that both sediment cores are influenced by the same oceanographic changes. Notably, the mid Holocene subSSTMg/Ca in Tobago and Bonaire Basins remain cooler by ~1.5°C and ~3°C, respectively, than during the LGM.”
At Tobago Basin and Bonaire Basin, the deglaciation is characterized by abrupt rises in subSSTMg/Ca by ~5.5°C at the end of HS1 and by ~6°C at the middle of the YD to peak values of up to ~23°C and ~22°C, respectively, accompanied by changes towards saline conditions (mean δ18Osw-ivf of ~2.25‰ and ~2‰, respectively (Fig. 3). These highly variable changes occur within less than 400 years.”
“In contrast to modern conditions Tobago Basin core 235 was influenced by a warm water mass between 30-10 ka BP, indicated by elevated subSSTMg/Ca (~2.5°C warmer than the modern conditions).”
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

100% Renewables At 764 Euros Per Household Per MONTH… Germany’s 4.6 TRILLION Euro Green Energies Flop

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

The 4.6 trillion euro German green energies flop

By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Frank Bosse
(German text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

The demands for the phasing out of coal, fuel and natural gas are becoming ever more shrill in Germany. At first early this year it began with the bold proposal of the coal commission, half of which was occupied by green activists from the Federal Chancellery, calling on the phase-out of coal by 2038. Then came the demand by Green party leader Robert Habeck and his green friends for the phase-out of the internal combustion engine by 2030. And when it was very dry for four weeks in April, Annalena Baerbock declared a climate crisis and called for doubling the CO2 price and a strong regulatory law!

Now the Friday Children of Lummerland are demanding a CO2 tax of 180 euros per tonne this year, and that we reduce “greenhouse gas emissions to zero” by 2035, i.e. 100% renewable energies.

So far wind and sun cover only 2.5% of Germany’s primary energy needs

So it is worth taking a look at the study of the Academy project “Energy Systems of the Future” of the “Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities” to see what’s ahead of us. All sectors, electricity, transport and heat are considered together. And look: 80% of the energy is produced by fossil fuels, 7.5% by nuclear energy and 13% by renewable energies. Once biomass (including biogas and biofuel) is subtracted from renewable energies, only 1.5% of primary energy is generated by wind power and 1% by photovoltaics (p. 10 of the study).

This is a long way from 100%. The study comes to the conclusion that if one wants to go the way of decarbonization, e.g. by 90% by 2050, then “around 1150 terawatt hours, almost twice as much electricity will be needed than today” will be needed (p. 10) because traffic and heat are also to be powered from electricity.

7-fold increase in wind and sun needed

Since only photovoltaics and wind power are considered, the study concludes:

In this case, the installed capacity of wind power and photovoltaics would have to be increased sevenfold compared to today (with the same energy consumption).”

Today, we (Germany) have around 28,000 wind turbines with an installed capacity of 57,000 megawatts and 46,000 megawatts of photovoltaics. A sevenfold increase in the photovoltaic area would require covering almost all roof-facades and other residential areas possible in Germany. A sevenfold increase in the capacity of the wind turbines would change Germany even if the capacity of the individual turbines were doubled. Every 1.5 kilometres a 200-meter tall 3-5 MW turbine would have to be installed.

Approaching abyss

The study also hints at the abyss that we are approaching in this way.

The dominance of the fluctuating renewable energies requires high flexibility on the electricity generation side and on the consumption side.”

In other words, if nature does not provide enough wind and solar power, you have to do without electricity for a while. It is interesting to note that even in the beautiful new world of decentralized green energy generation, it still wouldn’t be possible to go without large centralized power stations. The study estimates that some 60 – 100,000 megawatts of large-scale power plants, which of course would run on biogas or synthetic methane or hydrogen, would help prevent short-term grid collapses. For comparison: today’s large power plant capacity is 90,000 MW.

Storage absurdly expensive

The study’s claim that batteries could only be one solution for short-term storage is helpful. The prerequisite for long-term storage is the successful development of power-to-gas, that is converting wind power into hydrogen or even methane by electrolysis. This remains absurdly expensive today, but we can already do it. However, the authors warn that in days of a cold, dark lull (no sun and no wind in winter), there could be competition between power to heat (i.e. heat from wind power) and the demand for electricity when supply is scarce. That means one would have to choose between lighting and heating. The car would stop in any case.

The authors also correct the widespread misinterpretation of the car as a power storage device.

The buffer capacity of the electric fleet is in the range of a few hours.“

The 4.6 TRILLION euro power supply

The beautiful new world of the German Greens has a hefty price. In the study, the authors assume 60% CO2 reduction, which should be achieved by 2030. By then it will cost 4 trillion euros in a good 10 years. Today’s energy supply system costs 250 billion euros per year, but that will cost 1.5 trillion more. With 60 to 75% CO2 reduction, the authors expect a further 800 billion euros. From 75 to 85% yet another trillion. From 85 to 90% CO2 reduction will cost another 1.3 trillion euros. So 1.5 trillion euros up to 60%, and another 3.1 trillion euros up to 90% make together 4.6 trillion euros.

German households are to spend €4.6 trillion to avoid 800 million tonnes of CO2. This is the amount of CO2 that China emits additionally every year.

100% renewables would cost 764 euros – monthly!

So that the parents of Fridays for Future understand the 4.6 trillion figure correctly: that’s 153 billion euros a year. With 40 million households in Germany, each household would pay 382 euros per month. And if it goes according to Greta and her followers, namely to reach 100% renewable energies in 15 years, then that would be 764 euros per month – if it does not first come to a collapse of Germany, which would be very likely. That’s 764 euros for a monthly average income in Germany of 1,890 euros. This means that the average household would fall below the defined poverty line.

What a beautiful new world.

Sun and wind to decide when we can move or heat

We (Germans) are not even able even cope with the converting the electricity supply (see the warning of the Federal Network Agency to build reserve power plant capacity of 10,000 megawatts – 10 nuclear power plants – in 2022). Now we are expanding the problem to heat and transportation. All three sectors, which were previously dominated by different energy sources (coal, natural gas, crude oil), are to be made dependent on a single one: electricity from wind and sun. Wind and sun are to decide when we can move our car, how much heat we can use in winter and when the light can be switched on. This is what is best called a sustainable short-circuit.

Irrational rush

And why all this? Because of the climate crisis mentioned earlier, of course. And that’s why blogs like ours are necessary in order to make it clear to all decision-makers: Yes, we must leave the fossil era behind us by the end of this century. But we also have use this time, because the climate sensitivity of CO2 is much lower than the panic-makers and social system changers like to tell us.

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

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

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

Close