Warmth Limits For Tree Growth Affirm Austria Was 4-7°C Warmer Than Today 2000 Years Ago

Share this...

Robust evidence from bison remains recovered from the Austrian Alps in 2020 and 2021 invalidate claims modern Alpine temperatures are unusually warm. 

new study suggests that from about 6000 to 1200 years ago European bison fed on deciduous tree/vegetation that grew at Alpine altitudes reaching around 800 m higher than they do today.

Known beech and oak tree growth warmth thresholds – the required number of days per year above a minimum temperature limit – thus affirm Austria needed to be 4-7°C warmer than now during this period (~2000 years ago).

“[T]he beech limit but also the forest line during the »wisent time« (6,000 to 1,200 years before today) was much higher and the average summer temperature had to be at least 3 to 6 °C higher than today. Remarkable is a palynological record (Ressl, 1980) from the shaft cave Stainzerkogelschaft near Lunz am See. Remains of wisent were found in the shaft (1,463 m, see Tab. 3). The clay with a skull fragment with horncores inside was examined palynologically. The dominating pollen were from alder (Alnus), oak (Quercus) and linden tree (Tilia). The oak boundary (boundary between colline and montane vegetation stages) today lies between 400 and 800 metres in the Northern Alpine Alps (Grabherr et al., 2004). Oaks (Quercus) at an altitude of 1,450 metres around 2,000 years ago also indicate a climate approximately 4 to 7 °C warmer than today.”

Image Source: Schaer et al., 2022

A 4-7°C warmer regional Holocene temperature is warmer than other estimates of an Austrian summer temperatures “3.0 to 4.5°C above the modern value” (Ilyashuk et al., 2011).

Image Source: Ilyashuk et al., 2011
Share this...

Hydrogen Not Likely A Feasible Alternative Energy…And: A Davos Lunatic Meltdown: “Boiling Oceans”

Share this...

Al Gore’s Davos meltdown, and how feasible hydrogen as an energy source really is 

First here’s a look at how environmentally friendly, feasible and sustainable hydrogen really is, given that hydrogen fuel cells rely on supply of rare metals like platinum and iridium.

The following video presents all the relevant numbers for you:

Al Gore’s Davos lunatic meltdown

“Rain bombs” and “boiling oceans”…

The other story today is Al Gore’s lunatic rantings at the 2023 WEF meeting in Davos.

If you thought Greta had put on a show at the UN, look at the unhinged Al Gore in Davos, who is fundamentally calling for what amounts to a coup d’état led by the climate-apocalypse loonies.


In summary, Mr. Gore, and his Lord of the Flies-like radical followers at the WEF, are basically demanding a return to 18th century standards of living, but controlled by 21st century technology. They definitely would be happy with a year 1750 population, and even happier with a Big Brother tracking system watching your every move.

The alarmists are desperate, hysterical and it seems they’re sensing their cause is in reality unworkable and falling to pieces.

Share this...

Antarctica’s Missing Warming: Japanese Syowa Station Shows Cooling Since 1977

Share this...

Chart by Mrs. Heller, a.k.a. Kirye

Despite all the claims of a “rapidly warming planet”, we know Antarctic sea ice extent has seen a rather impressive upward trend over the past 40 years, which tells us cooling is more likely at play.

Here’s southern hemisphere sea ice extent chart (up to 2017):

Antarctic sea ice has gained steadily over the past 40 years. Chart: Comiso et al, 2017

It’s not what you’d expect from a CO2-induced warming planet.

The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) has collected temperature data from the Syowa station in Antarctica since 1977. Today we present the latest data, which now includes the year 2022:

Data source: JMA

Here we in fact see a modest long-term downward trend. There’s no detectable CO2 warming signal. The periodic warming and cooling cycles are likely related to oceanic cycles.

No warming along the Antarctic mainland coast

In 2019, we in fact plotted the data from 10 Antarctic stations scattered along the Antarctic coastline and operated by various countries. None of them showed any warming trend at all.

In 2019 we also looked at the annual temperatures of the 5 stations of the South Shetland Islands (located in the Antarctic Ocean).

Where’s the warming? Other than the volcanic activity, there certainly hasn’t been any at the South Pole since the global warming hysteria began in the late 1980s.

Share this...

New Study: COVID Vaccines ‘Profoundly Impair’ Protective Immunity, ‘Probably Enhance Disease Severity’

Share this...

Recipients of repeated COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations may have fully damaged their immune system’s capacity to protect them from severe effects from the disease. Each successive booster shot may actually worsen protection.

Even though it has been determined that COVID-19 vaccinated young people aged 18-24 are 44 times (males) and 41 times (females) more likely to be afflicted with heart-damaging myocarditis than the unvaccinated in this same age group, many US universities nonetheless required students to receive booster shots as a condition of attendance in 2022-’23.

But now new mice research (Gao et al., 2022) provides damning evidence that continued COVID-19 booster vaccinations “negatively impact the immune response” and “fully impair the…neutralizing efficacy” of COVID-19 antibodies and memory.

Scientists warn that continuing the course of booster COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations may pose risks of “enhanced disease severity” for those re-infected with COVID-19 and thus the administration of boosters “should be preceded with caution.”

“Our findings revealed that repeated dosing after the establishment of vaccine response might not further improve the antigen-specific reactivity; instead, it could cause systematic tolerance and inability to generate effective humoral and cellular immune responses to current SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

In other words, health authorities have mandated young people get a shot that may fully impair their immune system’s capacity to protect them from the very variants the shots were intended to neutralize.

Image Source: Gao et al., 2022
Share this...

Climate Scientists Using Grossly Simplified, Deplorably Unrealistic Models And Assumptions

Share this...

Climate science stance amounts to a gross misrepresentation of reality

The DIY way to demystify “greenhouse gas” claims

By Fred F. Mueller
Part 2

Fig. 1. The sun and the clouds – here a thin cover of high clouds and some aviation chemtrails – are the main driving forces for the energy fluxes determining our climate. The “greenhouse gases” are – if ever – just a minor factor.

In Part 1, we looked at the deplorable tendency of climate doomsayers to reduce the factual complexity and variability of parameters influencing our climate by focusing on a single aspect – the so-called “greenhouse gases” – and among these on the declared most odious villain: CO2. Its content in the atmosphere is declared to be the one and only factor 1) that determines our climate and hence earth’s temperature.

The efficiency of this one parameter is attributed to the power to restrain the currently positive planet-wide temperature trend to within + 1.5 °C, thus urging politicians to set a residual CO2 budget 2) of 400 billion tonnes subdivided and allocated to each nation within narrow allowances. These national budgets are then again subdivided and enforced onto the different sectors of industry and the population with grave consequences for the welfare of society, e.g. cement and metal production, building and heating standards or private car use.

Any other variables affecting the energy budget of our planet such as water vapor, actually a much more potent “greenhouse gas” than CO2, are simply ignored by treating them either as constants or as mere amplifying factors. The influence of clouds – the other aggregate states of water in the atmosphere – is simply and willfully suppressed.

Interesting discrepancies with respect to clouds

One of the most striking methodical imprecisions (if not outright untruths) of current climate science is demonstrated when looking at Fig. 2, a diagram elaborated by NASA that purports to convey a realistic impression of the energy fluxes on earth’s surface and in the atmosphere.

Fig. 2. This representation of the energy flux densities on earth elaborated by NASA is misleading with respect to some decisive facts (Chart by NASA 3), public domain. Note: This picture and the corresponding link have been withdrawn after completion of the article. In a subsequent part, the replacement graphic and its amendments will be treated in detail. Nevertheless, this graphic and its errors have been displayed for a prolonged time, thus warranting a suited discussion).

The chart is, to put it politely, a bit misleading when it comes to the role of clouds. In this graphic we see, from left to right, just three representations of clouds. The cloud symbol to the left does not absorb any energy; its only role is to reflect incoming solar radiation, together with the atmosphere and without detailing the share of both participants.

In the center, the cloud is an emitting-only entity (!) radiating 29.9 W/m2 towards outer space through the atmospheric window without any discernible energy input. And finally, the cloud symbol on the right is soaking up a constant power input of 86.4 W/m2 without any discernible output. For anybody having had a basic scientific education, this leaves question marks. And even if we piece together the different input and output figures related to clouds, we are left with an unexplained balance difference of +56.5 W/m2. This discrepancy warrants a certain degree of suspicion with respect to the presented role of clouds within the atmospheric energy fluxes.

Fig. 3. The sun’s global radiation input flow density over two days in July 2022 lying close to each other with strongly different cloud cover (Graphic: Author, own calculation with values taken from Kachelmannwetter 4)

 Clouds – an elusive yet decisive climate variable

To this end, we will look at clouds with a strict focus on macroscopic energy fluxes. Clouds are the result of the over-saturation of air with water vapor as a result of falling temperatures, resulting in the formation of microscopic water droplets or ice crystals inside an air bubble that is saturated to 100% with water vapor und contains a certain amount of aerosol particles that serve as seeds for the condensation. The main difference to air merely saturated to 100% with water vapor but containing neither droplets nor ice particles is that the pure water vapor is fully transparent while the cloud is visible and can displays an amazing variety of sizes, shapes and colors.

Cooling: clouds prevent sun’s energy from reaching the earth

In a first approach, we will omit all other aspects with the exception of the reflection, absorption and emission of light, be it visible or infrared. Contrary to water vapor that is reacting with Infrared (IR) photons exclusively in molecule-specific frequency bands, the tiny particles within clouds interact with all radiation photons just like any solid or liquid bodies. The particles deflect, break or reflect visible light, e.g. forming rainbows under certain conditions, and also absorb light of all wavelengths, as can be seen by the changing color of cumulus clouds that appear brilliant white at the top and become darker towards their bottom.

229 times greater than CO2

Due to their very different sizes and structures, their reflectance (also called albedo) 5) – e.g. the fraction of incoming sunlight that will be reflected back into space – can vary between 10% for cirrus clouds and up to 90% for cumulonimbus clouds. In other words, a big cloud may prevent up to 90% of the incoming solar energy from reaching the earth’s surface. This means that during daytime, the ever-changing cloud cover of earth functions just like a variable lid or filter determining how much energy input we receive at surface level. The max difference of energy flux densities between these two days amounts to 715 W/m2, see Fig 4:

Fig 4. This graphic shows the absolute differences between the solar energy flux densities of July 2nd and July 7th, 2022 in the Konstanz region of Germany. The black line representing the 3.11 W/m2 attributed to the combined effect of greenhouse gases cannot even be discerned from the x-axis.

This max difference of 715 W/m2 is more than 229 times the 3.11 W/m2 attributed to the climate effect of the main greenhouse gases. In Fig 4, the corresponding black line can’t even be discerned from the x-axis. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand this relationship. Everybody’s practical experience confirms the fact that a noticeable cloud cover will prevent ambient temperatures from climbing as high than would be the case in sunnier conditions.

Worse still for the narrative of “water vapor reinforcement” currently advanced by our climate science pundits, the cumulated solar input flux density for both days amounts to 7.2 kWh and 4.1 kWh respectively, while by comparison the 24-h-effect attributed to the greenhouse gases adds up to just 0.075 kWh. The difference between the solar input for both days is 3.1 kWh, a figure that is 40 times higher than the alleged climate sensitivity contribution of greenhouse gases.

Warming: clouds emit substantial quantities of IR energy

Furthermore, clouds do not only block enormous quantities of solar energy from reaching the soil by reflecting the related radiation back into space, they have another characteristic that can best be understood by assuming that when it comes to IR radiation energy: they behave like massive bodies (in reality, the exact mechanism is more complicated). Don’t be fooled by the fact that clouds seem to have no mass, hovering high in the air without losing height and being blown around at the mercy of the winds. Despite their apparent weightlessness, clouds have an important mass sometimes even exceeding one metric ton per square meter. This becomes obvious when their water content comes down to earth as rain. Just 50 mm of rain translate to a water mass of 50 kg/m2, and the corresponding clouds will usually continue their path towards the horizon without showing signs of thinning or fading away. A collection of extreme weather events assembled by the World Meteorological Organisation 6) lists a 1-hour rainfall of 305 mm and a 12-hour rainfall of 1,144 mm, which translates to water masses of 305 kg and 1,144 kg per square meter of cloud cover.

These considerable masses of water above in the sky emit IR radiation characterizing their temperature in line with the physical law established by Stefan and Boltzmann 7). On rainy days, the base of bad weather clouds often comes down to just a few hundred meters above ground. It has the temperature of the ambient air at this altitude, which can be estimated as being about 2-5 °C below the temperature at ground level (the air temperature usually drops by approximately 6.5 °C over a height gain of 1,000 m). Knowing the temperature of the cloud base thus yields the input for calculating the IR output flux density of the cloud towards the soil. This brings us to the first interesting DIY tip when trying to assess energy flows in the system earth/atmosphere for the given location, see Fig. 5:

Fig. 5. With modern infrared surface temperature sensing instruments (1) available in DIY shops, one can easily measure the surface temperature of the soil and of the base of clouds. (2)=soil temperature Jan. 13th, 2013, (4)=cloud cover overhead and (5)=the respective temperature value.

Assessing a cloud’s downward IR radiation

Sophisticated instruments enable meteorologists to accurately measure the downward IR emission flux density from clouds and other sources (such as the clear sky atmosphere without clouds, mainly containing water vapor, aerosols and greenhouse gases). At the same time, advancements in the mass production of IR thermometry has also given the public the ability to buy a fairly viable instrument for just a few dozen bucks at the local DIY shop (by the way, for measuring clouds, a model with a min temperature limit of about -50°C might be preferable to one limited to only – 20°C).

With such equipment, it is astonishingly easy to measure the temperature of the soil and the cloud base at the same place within just a minute or so, see Fig 5. Take care to measure directly on the soil (bare earth or short lawn) (2), since especially on hot summer days, stones, metals and asphalt (3) can reach temperatures exceeding soil levels by sometimes more than 10 °C. On the other hand, clouds that are too thin such as cirrus clouds (6) will not deliver valid readings. Avoid trying to measure individual clouds surrounded by clear sky since the instrument has a rather wide-angled input cone and will almost inevitably include portions of clear sky causing it to deliver an invalid reading.

Measuring ground and clouds should be performed as vertically as possible und always at the same date and time. On a side note, such IR thermometers can help you in your home in the winter to assess the quality of your outer wall insulation. Just compare the readings from inner and outer walls (or windows) or the values from the middle of your outer wall with those obtained from the corner where that most darned mold stain keeps reappearing despite the chemicals you used to combat it.

How to calculate IR energy flux densities from surface temperatures

Thanks to the availability of such simple and pricey means to measure soil as well as cloud base temperatures, even laymen can easily calculate two of the four main radiation energy flux densities that influence the energy balance at a given location. These “big four” are (1) the local global solar radiation 8), (2) the upwelling IR radiation governed by the current surface temperature at ground level and (3) the downwelling IR radiation emanating from the cloud cover. The first figure can be obtained by scanning the homepages of your local weather stations for one that has the instrumentation to perform this task. Additionally, several other important energy transport mechanisms such as convection and rain have for now been left aside in order to facilitate the basic understanding of the energy fluxes determined by radiation, since in this chapter, we focus on the radiative mechanisms assigned to the so-called “greenhouse gases”.

Going forward, we first look at an easy way to assess factors (2) and (3). As already mentioned in Part 1, there are internet service providers such as Spectralcalc 9) that can be freely accessed where one can input temperature values and instantly gets a figure (and ideally a graph) for the power flux density of the IR radiation emitted by a surface. (The results presented here were checked against figures published by a well-equipped meteorological station in Germany 10). The differences were just in the low one-digit percentage range). When keying in the figures, keep in mind that in the relevant temperature range, emissivity values are very close to one and that the wavelength output boundaries should be set to 4 and 40 µm.

Furthermore, check if you have selected the correct temperature scale (°C or Kelvin). Using the values taken from Fig. 5, this gives us the energy flux densities shown in Fig. 6:


Fig. 6. Energy flux densities of IR radiation from the soil and from a compact cloud cover hovering probably some 800 meters above (Graphics: Spectralcalc 9), author)

Just to again compare orders of magnitude, the downwelling radiation density of about 297 W/m2 emanating from the cloud is 95 times higher as the alleged “radiative forcing” effect of the main “greenhouse gases”.

(For readers wanting to perform such calculations themselves, Fig. 7. shows a simplified equation that will deliver reasonably accurate results):

Fig. 7. A simplified calculation for IR emissions delivering the flux density in W/m2

The decisive dual role of clouds

As has been demonstrated, the measurement results are not in line with the official climate science that largely exaggerates the influence of CO2 and the other “greenhouse gases” while at the same time withholding the decisive role of water in its disregarded aggregate states in the atmosphere, e.g. when it condensates to droplets ore ice particles forming clouds. This official stance amounts to a gross misrepresentation of reality as has been shown in this chapter.

Clouds dwarf the alleged contribution of “greenhouse gases”

Clouds play a dual role in the transfer of energy in the atmosphere. Putting aside for the moment energy transfer by other mechanisms such as evaporation/condensation and convection, we have seen that just by blocking sunlight input by day and emitting downwelling IR radiation by day as well as by night, clouds can act as coolant and heating agents transmitting or blocking energy in quantities that literally dwarf the alleged contribution of “greenhouse gases”. Another factor that also has to be taken into account is the blocking of the IR radiation earth’s surface is constantly emitting. Clouds can absorb a very high percentage of this radiation and re-emit a large portion of it back downwards, thus trapping it inside the system earth/atmosphere, a role some climate pundits attribute solely to “greenhouse gases”, as demonstrated by Fig. 8., see also the first chapter of this article 11).

Fig. 8. The misleading cloud-free lead-in picture of the Wikipedia chapter about the “greenhouse effect” (Author: Efbrazil 12), CC 4.0).

The climate reality is thus shaped to a large extent by a complex interaction of all functions of clouds – including downpour, convection, radiative warming and radiative cooling – in combinations that the currently available science cannot model and, even less so, credibly forecast.

Meteorological stations should urgently be upgraded

It should be noted that a given cloud can change its overall function from warming to cooling according to the time of day. These interactions should be monitored with sophisticated equipment that up to now, not many meteorological stations have at their disposal. Keeping in mind that climate is defined as the average course of weather conditions for a particular location over a period of many years, this implies that the existing networks of meteorological stations should urgently be upgraded with the necessary instruments, software and workforce training.

The next part will look at some interesting professional-level meteorological results underscoring the fact that clouds, not greenhouse gases, and energy balances, not air temperatures 2 m above ground are the decisive levers to assess changes in our climate.

Stay tuned.


1. https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3143/relationships-how-water-vapor-amplifies-greenhouse-effect/

2)     https://www.carbonindependent.org/122.html#:~:text=This%20400%20between%20countries

3)     The figure and the corresponding link were removed from the Internet after completion of this article.

4)     https://kachelmannwetter.com/de/messwerte/baden-wuerttemberg/globalstrahlung-10min/20220621-1000z.html

5)     https://www.nln.geos.ed.ac.uk/courses/english/ars/a3110/a3110008.htm

7)     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

8)     https://www.smhi.se/en/climate/climate-indicators/climate-indicators-global-radiation-1.91484

9)     https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

10)  https://wettermast.uni-hamburg.de/frame.php?doc=Home.htm

11)  https://notrickszone.com/2023/01/14/a-diy-guide-to-demystifying-greenhouse-gas-claims-the-science-that-cuts-corners/

12)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Share this...

Big Brother Keeps Getting Bigger: Smart Meters In Germany Mandatory Beginning 2025!

Share this...

New law: by 2032, almost every German household will be monitored by smart meters.

Image credit: Smart Grid Awareness

It’s unavoidable: history shows that as technology develops, governments use it to control and monitor the masses. The latest are smart electricity meters.

But how could you not want them? There’s an energy crisis after all, and the intelligent meters will help us overcome this and help us use energy more efficiently and wisely. Why on earth would anyone resist that? It’s for the common good, after all. In times of crisis, there is no time for long discussions.

Draft law approved

Germany online site Blackout News here recently reported that the German cabinet has approved a draft law that will aim to digitize the country’s green energy transition and install smart electricity meters in every home.

Installation is planned to be mandatory from 2025.

The draft law: “Law to Restart the Digitization of the Energy Transition,” foresees the use of intelligent electricity meters. that will automatically transmit consumption to electricity providers.

“By 2032, the majority of households should have switched to the new technology,” reports Blackout News.

As Germany struggles today to supply electricity, the job of balancing out the grid will be made easier through the smart meters, lawmakers claim. “From 2025, installation is to be mandatory for consumers who use between 6000 and 100,000 kilowatt hours. By the end of 2030, 95 percent of these consumers are to be equipped with smart meters.”

Will be passed “in just a few weeks”

Economics Minister Habeck says the smart meters are necessary because: “The expansion of renewable energies and the greater use of electric cars in the transport sector and heat pumps in buildings require an intelligent link between power generation and consumption,”

“The law is therefore expected to come into force in just a few weeks.”

More costs for consumers, much less privacy

Of course, the intelligent meters are going to cost consumers. According to the Federal Environment Agency, “these meters consume an average of 26 kilowatt hours per year themselves”, will have a “significantly shorter service life” and need replacement “every twelve years on average”. Supposedly consumers will be able to save money via “flexible electricity tariffs”.

Critics warn that the data privacy of consumers will be infringed and face the risk of being hacked.

From citizens, to inmates

It’s the next phase to Big Brother, to be accompanied by central bank digital currencies, digital IDs, reduced private property rights, digitized health care, smart cars, censored media and full coverage surveillance facial recognition cameras watching your every move. We’ll soon go from being citizens of a country, to inmates of the planet. The cornerstones have long been laid, and the walls are rising quickly.

Share this...

New Study Indicates North American Pacific Coast Sea Levels Declining From 1952-2014

Share this...

Sea level changes along the Pacific coast have not been cooperating with an alarmist narrative.

New research reveals sea level rise has decelerated from ~5 mm/yr from the 1970s to 1990s down to about 1.5 mm/yr since the late 1990s along the Peruvian coast.

Further, the entire North America Pacific coast has undergone “statistically significant negative trends” (-0.11 to -33 mm/yr) in sea level change over the 1952-2014 period.

Image Source: Jigena-Antelo et al., 2023

Historically, this region of the world had sea surface temperatures about 4°C warmer than today throughout much of the last several thousand years (Salvatecci et al., 2019). Temperatures have been declining precipitously in recent decades (as indicated by the black star markings in the below study).

Image Source: Salvatecci et al., 2019

Boretti (2022) indicates the IPCC has been using “inappropriate” methods to claim rising greenhouse gas emissions will lead to 15 mm/yr sea level rise rates by 2100.

The actual rate of sea level rise from tide gauges is globally less than 1 mm/yr, and “the present acceleration is small.” Subsidence and uplift are up to 10 times more determinative of relative sea level variability than eustatic change.

Image Source: Boretti, 2022
Share this...

Elitism: German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach Views The Voting Public As A Flock Of Sheep

Share this...

Creating majorities through panic…the wolf in a sheepskin gets exposed…German federal health minister Karl Lauterbach sees citizens as a flock of sheep.

Some 2 days ago, madeyousmile Twitter account owner posted a video title “Employee of the Month” depicting a dog rapidly and effectively herding sheep through a gate, see video below.

Hat-tip: Prof. Stefan Homburg

That video got the attention of German federal health minister Karl Lauterbach, who earlier in 2022 had tried to ram through a law to make the COVID vaccines mandatory.

Lauterbach’s reaction to the sheepherding video:

“Fantastic how a majority gets organized here.”

Lauterbach is also an overzealous climate crackdown proponent in the mold of WEF ideology. In his view, people should be handled like a herd of sheep, panicked through whatever gate or transport vehicle they deem fit.

Lauterbach’s tweet unveils everything we suspected, if not more, about the overall agenda. The masses are to be herded about like sheep as they wish.

Minutes later, Lauterbach realized he had overstepped, and removed his comment.

Share this...

A DIY Guide To Demystifying “Greenhouse Gas” Claims…The Science That Cuts Corners

Share this...

By Fred F. Mueller

Do you feel helpless when trying to assess the veracity of “climate doom is looming” claims we are constantly bombarded with?

For ordinary citizens not having acquired at least a Ph.d. degree in atmospheric physics or comparable climate-relevant sciences, it seems nearly impossible to tell right from wrong when it comes to assess such claims. Do so-called greenhouse gases really reflect infrared energy back to earth in such quantities that this affects earth’s temperature?

Don’t give up trying to understand the relevant basics: there are rather simple ways to get an idea about what this is all about. Even without a scientific background, most people have at least a good common sense. And that’s all it takes to get a grasp of how vigorously and chaotically enormous energy fluxes slosh up and down, back and forth between earth’s surface and the skies.

Fig. 1. The setting sun illuminating a fairly thin veil of clouds from below – thus injecting energy into the space between the earths’s surface and cloud cover.

Part 1 – some basics

Let’s first clarify where the heat that allows us to live rather comfortably in our habitats is coming from and where it goes to. Despite the enormous energy content of the molten core of our planet, the bulk of our energy comes from the sun, which sends us energy mainly using three forms of electromagnetic radiation: visible, ultraviolet and infrared light.

At the top of the atmosphere, every square meter oriented towards the sun thus receives a fairly constant power influx of 1361 to 1362 W/m2. Although not being a real constant, this value is often referred to as the solar constant.

The alleged greenhouse effect

The notion of a “greenhouse effect” in our atmosphere has been used and misused incredibly often, resulting in an incredible mess of erroneous perceptions not only among the public, but even in the scientific world. A striking example for an obvious misrepresentation can be seen in the lead-in picture of the Wikipedia chapter on the topic, Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. The lead-in picture of the Wikipedia chapter about the “greenhouse effect” (Author: Efbrazil 2), CC 4.0)

This graphic highlights the extent to which Wikipedia gives the impression of having fallen prey to climate activism. The complex reality of transfers and transformations of energy on our planet involving soils, waters, gases, clouds, aerosols, heat storage, conduction and convection, chemical reactions and phase transformations, as well as a host of additional factors are simply swept under the carpet, attributing all their combined effects solely to the odious “greenhouse gases”.

This Wikipedia chapter is a saddening example for the downfall of an allegedly scientific encyclopedia actually spreading rather crude ideology under the guise of educating the public. The related chapter comprises more than 7,000 words and tries to underscore its claim of being “scientific” by a list of 80 citations including papers about the atmospheric conditions on far-away cosmic bodies such as Titan and Venus. But this cannot excuse the use of such a grossly misleading graphic as the lead-in picture for the abstract. Such tricks commonly used in tabloids or yellow journals. Wikipedia touts itself to be an encyclopedia addressing not only scientists but also laymen and the general public and should therefore care all the more not to disseminate content that may be misunderstood by people lacking a scientific background.

Fig. 3. This more detailed representation of the energy fluxes on earth elaborated by NASA is still misleading with respect to some decisive facts (Picture by NASA 3), public domain) Note: This graphic and the corresponding link have been withdrawn after completion of the article. In a subsequent part, the replacement graphic and its amendments will be treated in detail. Nevertheless, this graphic and its errors have been displayed for a prolonged time, thus warranting a suited discussion.

Although the more detailed Fig. 3 elaborated by NASA gives a better impression of the many different factors influencing energy transfer fluxes between earth’s surface and space, it still misleads in a subtle way that makes it unfit to convey a correct understanding of the vital facts. Let’s look at the main inconsistencies.

Mean values intended to mask natural variations

One of the favourite tricks of climate prophets of doom is to suggest that all major factors influencing our climate are more or less constant, with the sole exception of “greenhouse gases”. They intend to exploit the fact that the CO2-level of the atmosphere is rising while at least for the past some 150 years, meteorologists have also seen a moderate rise of the temperature levels they monitor on their stations. Though both trends are far from being in lockstep, this coincidence of trends has been declared to be the proof for a causality, although no clear mechanism or quantitative deduction could hitherto be established. Despite many striking discrepancies e.g. with respect to the natural cycles of CO2 or the absorption and sequestration of CO2 in our oceans, the perceived rise in temperatures has been almost exclusively attributed to CO2.

Misusing water vapor

Another diversion has been to declare that water vapor is simply reinforcing the leading role of CO2. This might be viewed as a real masterpiece of twisting reality since water vapor has not only a much higher efficiency with respect to absorbing (and re-emitting) infrared radiation (see Fig.4.), but is also exceeds the content of CO2 in the atmosphere by factors between 25 (= median concentration value at sea level) and up to 100!

Fig. 4. Comparing the spectral IR radiance of a surface with 14 °C with the overlapped absorption bands of CO2 (brownish) and water vapor (bluish) shows the highly superior absorption capacity of water vapor for the IR emission of soil or water at 14 °C – (which is the “mean” temperature on earth’s surface). Please mind the different scales of the x axes: linear for the spectral radiance, logarithmic for the absorption. (Graphics: SpectralCalc 4) (above), NASA, Robert Rohde 5) Public domain (below)).

 Notwithstanding these inconsistencies, the climate science community has in its vast majority adopted this approach. This might be attributable to the fact that the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere is subjected to wild temporal and local variations between nearly zero – e.g. at high altitudes and very low temperatures – and sometimes up to 4% at sea level.

Cutting corners

Additionally, especially when transforming to clouds, water vapor tends to condense or freeze out of the atmosphere in ways that have up to now resisted any realistic attempt to describe them mathematically. Trying to establish realistic three-dimensional models of water vapor distribution over a certain location at a given moment and to calculate the resulting effects on absorption and re-emission of IR radiation thus remain a much more arduous task than using a single value for all and every condition, as can conveniently be done when attributing the whole “greenhouse effect” solely to CO2. And voilà, truckloads of complicated research work may simply be skipped. This approach also greatly reduces the scale of expenditures in data acquisition, manpower, computer time – and in waiting time before reaping academic awards. After all, the beacon for all climate science, the IPCC, is doing it too, e.g. by simply omitting water vapor from its account of “greenhouse gases”, see Fig. 5.

Pic.5. Contribution to observed climate change from 12 different drivers, as taken from the Summary for Policymakers of the sixth IPCC assessment report, adapted from figure SPM.2c (Graphic: Erik Fisk, CC 4.0 6))

The numerous advantages of such a cutting of (scientific) corners might be one of the main driving forces for the deplorable tendency towards the “single number fallacy” explained by Kip Hansen 7) as being “the belief that complex, complicated and even chaotic subjects and their data can be reduced to a significant and truthful single number.”

Unfortunately for us, that’s exactly what the official climate science is doing. Under the headline “One number to track human impact on climate”, NOAA scientists released the first AGGI 8) (aggregated greenhouse gas index) in 2006 as “a way to help policymakers, educators, and the public understand the cumulative impact of greenhouse gases on climate over time”.

The minuscule driving forces of “greenhouse gases”

When trying to assess the real impact of “greenhouse gases” on earths energy balance, the first step should be to assess the driving force they are alleged to exert on the input and output of energy fluxes. Corresponding parameters can be found in a table within the Wikipedia chapter about Greenhouse gases 9). They reveal that in the view of the leading climate scientists, just four gases have a relevant influence on the budget of energy exchange between incoming and outgoing radiation energy since the alleged start of “human- induced climate change” in 1750. These are:

Carbon dioxide with                          + 2.05    W/m2
Methane with                                      + 0.49    W/m2
Nitrous oxide with                             + 0.17    W/m2
Tropospheric ozone                           + 0.4      W/m2
Total GHG contribution             +3.11     W/m2

This figure is extraordinarily small when comparing it with the enormous temporal and local variability of energy fluxes within our planet’s ocean/atmosphere/soil system within short time periods, and amounts to just a low single digit percentage of the daily variations. This will be treated in more detail in the following chapter.

Peculiarly enormous greenhouse effect range 

On a side note, it is interesting to see that the IPCC gives an enormous range for the greenhouse effect (TCR, Transient Climate Response or “climate sensitivity10)) of CO2, which is estimated to range “likely” between 1.5 and 4.5°C. The figure represents the alleged rise of earth’s mean temperature in °C for every doubling of the CO2 level of the atmosphere. Given this extraordinarily broad range of ± 50%, one might be surprised that IPCC, NOAA and Wikipedia authors advance temperature rise values for greenhouse gases calculated with up to three “significant” digits. This too might be attributable to the feeling of certainty about climate relevant figures instilled into the public by the “one number fits it all” mentality prevalent in our current climate science community.


  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
  3. http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/pdf/Energy_Budget_Litho_10year.pdf (Note: This link seems to have been deactivated very recently.)
  4. https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
  5. File:CO2 H2O absorption atmospheric gases unique pattern energy wavelengths of energy transparent to others.png – Wikimedia Commons
  6. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg
  7. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/03/unknown-uncertain-or-both/
  8. https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2877/Greenhouse-gas-pollution-trapped-49-more-heat-in-2021-than-in-1990-NOAA-finds
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
  10. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-climate/climate-sensitivity-explained

Share this...

2022 Data Are In: Pacific Typhoon Trend Continues To Drop, Alarmist Claims Contradicted!

Share this...

Pacific typhoons formed and those making landfall in Japan both have seen no rising trend for the past 70 years.

Charts by Kirye

Now that all the data are in for 2022, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) presents the latest data for Pacific typhoons. Their data go back more than 70 years, to 1951.

First we look at the latest data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) for the number of typhoons formed annually in the Pacific since 1951.

Data source: JMA.

Contrary to the claims often heard from alarmists that typhoons are getting worse and more frequent, the trend has been clearly downward since the globe has warmed nearly 1°C. This is good news. No crisis here.

Next we look at the number of typhoons that have made landfall in Japan.

Data source: JMA.

Here as well we see nothing terrible at all is happening. The trend has been constant over the past 70 years and the alarmists and media have been shown to be wrong. If anything, the modern warming has led to less typhoons, which is good news, but extremely inconvenient for the agenda-driven climate bedwetters.

Share this...

A Glaring Inconsistency In The Claimed Forcing Values Driving Past Versus Present Climate

Share this...

It is claimed that an additional 60-75 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation can only produce a climate warming of 4-5°C. Doubling CO2 since pre-industrial times (280 to 560 ppm) is said to result in an additional 3.7 W/m² increase in radiative forcing. However, it is inconsistently claimed this ~20 times smaller value will also lead to 3-5°C climate warming. 

Anthropogenic global warming proponents claim that the addition of an accumulated 1.82 W/m² CO2 surface forcing since 1750 (ensuing from the 280 to 400 ppm CO2 increase) is predominantly responsible for the alleged 1.2°C rise in global surface temperatures in the last 150 years.

But scientists have concluded the Last Interglacial (LIG, about 130,000 to 115,000 years before present) had an additional  60-75 W/m² direct shortwave forcing relative to today (Diamond et al., 2021).

Image Source: Diamond et al., 2021

But despite the additional 60-75 W/m² insolation forcing, it is simultaneously claimed the LIG was only 4-5°C warmer than today with 5 meters higher-than-present global sea levels (Dalton et al., 2022). This is nearly the same amount of warming claimed to ensue from a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm – despite the roughly 20 times smaller forcing associated with that CO2 increase (3.7 W/m²).

Image Source: Dalton et al., 2022

How is it that a 60-75 W/m² insolation forcing yields about the same relative warming as 3.7 W/m²?

Share this...

As Germany’s Economy Falters, Green-Socialist Government Moves To Redefine “Prosperity”

Share this...

If Germany’s Federal Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Green Party) gets his way, prosperity will no longer be defined by GDP and income, but by how many wind parks are built, social inclusiveness, groundwater nitrate content and many other vague social metrics. 

Is Germany’s Federal Economics Minister Robert Habeck trying to hide economic woes by redefining “prosperity? Image: Sandro Halank, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

Politically this is becoming a hot issue as citizens struggle to make ends meet. If governments don’t act quickly enough to curb this erosion, they may find themselves booted out of office soon.

Yet, many green-leaning government don’t want citizens to see more prosperity because they feel prosperity is precisely what’s ruining the planet in the first place. Somehow green leaders need to convince citizens that worse is better.

Prosperity will soon mean something else

Blackout News here reports precisely how German Federal Economics Minister Robert Habeck, Green Party, plans to do this: by redefining the term “prosperity”.

The problem, in their eyes, isn’t that things are getting worse for Germans, but that the wrong metrics are being used to calculate prosperity. “Growth equals prosperity” no longer applies.  In the old days, prosperity was often gauged by GDP, but for the German Greens and Economics Minister Habeck, this will no longer be the case. Prosperity will mean something very different from now on: like how green and inclusive society is.

Hey look! Things getting better for you, really!

Habeck’s new approach to measuring prosperity “includes 34 indicators that are intended to show what the actual state of prosperity in Germany is.” The factors include, for example, “the number of wind turbines”. “the nitrate content in groundwater” or “the average proximity to public transport” reports Blackout News. Maybe you won’t have any money to buy a car, but at least there will be a bus stop half a mile away. And look, now more people have a wind park near the back yard of their energy-efficient tiny apartment!

Already some are arguing that there are other motives behind the government’s new definition: “Is Habeck already preparing us for an economic downturn?”  As the economic crisis intensifies, the new definition would allow the government to claim that things aren’t really that bad after all, and that things are in fact better than they appear. And if you complain about it, then it just means you’re a right wing nut who’s a danger to democracy.

Prosperity = how green and socially just

The German federal government’s draft annual economic report states, “Individual and thus overall societal welfare depends on far more than just the economic framework data.” but on whether it is “ecological, social, just, inclusive, innovative and forward-looking”.

The government wants to include indicators that show the extent to which Germany is “on a socially balanced, sustainable, innovative, greenhouse gas-neutral development path.”

“The picture that emerges from the ministry’s data is mixed: Germany is doing well after many years of upswing in the past decade, but prosperity is unevenly distributed, economic momentum is low and energy transition goals are still a long way off,” Blackout News adds.

Meant to prepare us for economic downturn

“That GDP should no longer be a measure of prosperity suggests that the new definition of prosperity is meant to prepare us for an economic downturn. As prosperity declines, so does approval of current policies. To conceal the loss of prosperity, prosperity is then simply redefined,” Blackout News suspects.

Will Habeck and the German government get away with it? Not likely. But if they did, the question would become: For how long? The former Soviet Union and communist East Germany did it for decades, using political brute force. But eventually, like all social engineering experiments, it’ll end all ends failing in a heap socialist excrement, which in turn will serve as rich compost for better ideas.

Share this...

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

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