notrickszone--2020-08-29--Young Generation Threatens Older Generation With Spreading COVID-19 If They Don’t Bow To Climate Ala

Young Generation Threatens Older Generation With Spreading COVID-19 If They Don’t Bow To Climate Alarm!

“ The corona crisis is a test case for global emergency prevention and management in general , “ says lead author Kira Vinke .
“ The pandemic has shown that when reaction time is kept to a minimum , a larger public health crisis can be averted .
In fact , we should take this very lesson to heart and apply it to managing the climate emergency.
“ Vinke and the team of authors have looked at four dimensions of risk management : diagnosis , prognosis , therapy , and rehabilitation .
They deduced which lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature .
“ The risks and causes of both the coronavirus and the climate crisis have to be scientifically assessed and quantified , “ explains PIK director and co-author Johan Rockström .
But just as important as diagnostics are prognostic approaches : “ Countries like New Zealand and Germany were able to predict the outbreak ’ s possible effects and moreover had the ability of immediate action .
In the same vein , the global community must integrate climate risks assessments into decision making and act accordingly.
“ The authors argue that insights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identify pathways for treating the causes and symptoms of climate change .
“ Both the Corona and the climate crisis are the result of increasing human pressure on the planet , “ says co-author Sabine Gabrysch , “ But the good news is that the pandemic has demonstrated that with a combination of government action and individual lifestyle changes , it is possible to prevent damages .
If there is a will , there is a way.
” The researchers conclude by proposing an intergenerational Climate Corona Contract informed by reason and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director and co-author Hans Joachim Schellnhuber explains : “ Younger generations would agree to protect the elderly from COVID-19 by adhering to social distancing measures , while the older generations would push for measures to keep global warming in line with the Paris Agreement.
” Thus , the researchers ’ outlook is cautiously optimistic : The outpouring of generosity and new forms of social interactions in the wake of the pandemic show great potentials for cooperation towards the much needed stabilization of the global climate .
Article : Kira Vinke , Sabine Gabrysch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hans Joachim Schellnhuber ( 2020 ) : Corona and the Climate : A Comparison of Two Emergencies .
Global Sustainability .
DOI : [ 10.1017/sus.2020.20 ]

“The corona crisis is a test case for global emergency prevention and management in general,“ says lead author Kira Vinke. “The pandemic has shown that when reaction time is kept to a minimum, a larger public health crisis can be averted. In fact, we should take this very lesson to heart and apply it to managing the climate emergency.“
Assessing risks and predicting outcomes
Vinke and the team of authors have looked at four dimensions of risk management: diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and rehabilitation. They deduced which lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic could be used to stabilize global mean temperature. “The risks and causes of both the coronavirus and the climate crisis have to be scientifically assessed and quantified,“ explains PIK director and co-author Johan Rockström. But just as important as diagnostics are prognostic approaches: “Countries like New Zealand and Germany were able to predict the outbreak’s possible effects and moreover had the ability of immediate action. In the same vein, the global community must integrate climate risks assessments into decision making and act accordingly.“
The authors argue that insights from the Corona crisis can help to identify pathways for treating the causes and symptoms of climate change. “Both the Corona and the climate crisis are the result of increasing human pressure on the planet,“ says co-author Sabine Gabrysch, “But the good news is that the pandemic has demonstrated that with a combination of government action and individual lifestyle changes, it is possible to prevent damages. If there is a will, there is a way.”
Compassion and solidarity as guiding principles
The researchers conclude by proposing an intergenerational Climate Corona Contract informed by reason and the principle of social justice. Former PIK director and co-author Hans Joachim Schellnhuber explains: “Younger generations would agree to protect the elderly from COVID-19 by adhering to social distancing measures, while the older generations would push for measures to keep global warming in line with the Paris Agreement.” Thus, the researchers’ outlook is cautiously optimistic: The outpouring of generosity and new forms of social interactions in the wake of the pandemic show great potentials for cooperation towards the much needed stabilization of the global climate.
Article: Kira Vinke, Sabine Gabrysch, Emanuela Paoletti, Johan Rockström, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (2020): Corona and the Climate: A Comparison of Two Emergencies. Global Sustainability. DOI: [10.1017/sus.2020.20]
Link to the article: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.20


notrickszone--2020-08-30--International Corporate Trial Lawyer Optimistic COVID-19 Test Fraud Will Lead To Expensive Compensat

International Corporate Trial Lawyer Optimistic COVID-19 Test Fraud Will Lead To Expensive Compensation For Damages

While today the German mainstream media attempt to shame the tens of thousands of protesters for showing up to PEACEFULLY protest the COVID-19 restrictions and the loss of freedom , independent media have been presenting real substance .
One example is the following Youtube video that shows some of the speakers at the demonstration .
Among them was international attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich who has 26 years of experience going after corporate fraudsters ( Video 00:54 to 8:48 ) .
According to Fuellmich , the German government , “ including all opposition parties ” , are abusing their power , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over the last 6 weeks , Fuellmich and a group of experts have been examining the COVID “ scandal ” carefully .
Among the factors they ’ ve examined are the real danger posed by the virus , how reliable the PCR tests are , and the “ collateral damage ” that the COVID-19 measures used by the government are .
Fuellmich and his group of experts have found that COVID-19 is “ no more dangerous than a flu and that there has been no excess mortality ” .
“ However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive health damage – of both psychological and physical nature – and devastating economic damage , ” he told the audience .
All of it based on a faulty test .
Fuellmich said that the PCR test developed by Professor Drosten of Berlin ’ s Charité Hospital “ is not only unsuitable , but here it is not even approved for diagnostic purposes.
” The test , Fuellmich says , has been checked over by other leading experts internationally and has been found to produce meaningless positive results .
The test is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that persons incurring damages from its use are entitled to compensation for damages according to California and German law .
“ For this reason , a number of German and international colleagues have sort of banded together in order to compensate for these damages caused by those responsible , ” said Fuellmich .
“ These responsible persons are not only , among others , Drosten of Charité and Wieler of the RKI , but also the WHO – who was the first to recommend the German test and so it being marketed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will put the US justice system in motion and cause great panic among those behind the faulty test .
Overall , the primary claim made by the demonstration organizers is that the COVID-19 “ pandemic ” was over-hyped and that it is still being misused to spread needless angst among the citizens to get them to surrender their liberties .
The latest figures bear that out .
Although the number a new cases has risen over the past few weeks , something the media has been trumpeting loudly , the number of @ @ @ @ @ @

Share this...
While today the German mainstream media attempt to shame the tens of thousands of protesters for showing up to PEACEFULLY protest the COVID-19 restrictions and the loss of freedom, independent media have been presenting real substance.
One example is the following YouTube video that shows some of the speakers at the demonstration. Among them was international attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich who has 26 years of experience going after corporate fraudsters (Video 00:54 to 8:48).
According to Fuellmich, the German government, “including all opposition parties”, are abusing their power, but there are reasons for optimism. Over the last 6 weeks, Fuellmich and a group of experts have been examining the COVID “scandal” carefully. Among the factors they’ve examined are the real danger posed by the virus, how reliable the PCR tests are, and the “collateral damage” that the COVID-19 measures used by the government are.
Fuellmich and his group of experts have found that COVID-19 is “no more dangerous than a flu and that there has been no excess mortality”.
“However, the anti-Corona measures have led to the most massive health damage – of both psychological and physical nature – and devastating economic damage,” he told the audience. All of it based on a faulty test.
PCR test developers “in panic”
Fuellmich said that the PCR test developed by Professor Drosten of Berlin’s Charité Hospital “is not only unsuitable, but here it is not even approved for diagnostic purposes.”
The test, Fuellmich says, has been checked over by other leading experts internationally and has been found to produce meaningless positive results. The test is so false that Fuellmich calls it fraudulent and that persons incurring damages from its use are entitled to compensation for damages according to California and German law.
Billion dollar lawsuits loom
“For this reason, a number of German and international colleagues have sort of banded together in order to compensate for these damages caused by those responsible,” said Fuellmich. “These responsible persons are not only, among others, Drosten of Charité and Wieler of the RKI, but also the WHO – who was the first to recommend the German test and so it being marketed in the USA.”
This, says Fuellmich, will put the US justice system in motion and cause great panic among those behind the faulty test.
German daily COVID-19 deaths near zero
Overall, the primary claim made by the demonstration organizers is that the COVID-19 “pandemic” was over-hyped and that it is still being misused to spread needless angst among the citizens to get them to surrender their liberties. The latest figures bear that out.
Although the number a new cases has risen over the past few weeks, something the media has been trumpeting loudly, the number of deaths has long since flat-lined.
Image cropped here.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-08-31--Wild Horses And Mammoths Were Still Eating Grass Year-Round In The Arctic Until 2500-4000 Years Ago

Surface temperatures needed to have been much warmer than today to supply enough grass year-round for horses and mammoths to subsist in the Arctic through the Late Holocene .
Wrangel Island is located in the Arctic ’ s Chukchi Sea , which is covered in sea ice for all but a few weeks of the year today ( Porter et al.
, 2019 ) .
As recently as a few hundred years ago , the Chukchi was sea ice-free 4-5 months per year , suggesting the Western Arctic is much colder today than it was even during the Little Ice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until 3700 years ago Until the 1990s , it was thought the Earth ’ s last wooly mammoths went extinct during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition about 15,000 to 10,000 years ago .
But the Arctic ’ s Wrangel Island is home to extensive mammoth remains .
Radiocarbon dating indicates the wooly mammoth continued living on this island until 3700 years ago , or until the Arctic climate became too cold to provide enough grass year-round to sustain them ( Bryson et al.
, 2010 , Arppe et al.
, 2019 ) .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small mammoth is modeled to have conservatively required 25 kg of grass per day to survive .
Mean July temperatures decreased from above 5°C during the Early Holocene to below 2.5°C – the threshold for grass production – by about 4,000 years ago .
Consequently , without enough year-round grass to feed on , the wooly mammoth died out .
Wild horses lived in the Arctic until ~2500 years ago A new study ( Boeskorov , 2020 ) provides further evidence the Arctic climate was hospitable to grass-eating megafauna until as recently as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains of wild horses have been located north of the Arctic circle in the East Siberian Sea ( Arctic Ocean ) dating to 5300 to 2200 calibrated years before present .
The northernmost Siberian climate is far too cold to sustain wild horses with enough food year-round today .
The geological evidence that the modern Arctic is still much colder than it was when CO2 concentrations were below 270 ppm a few millennia ago is robust .
Temperature reconstructions with hockey-stick-like shapes suggesting we are currently living in an “ unprecedentedly ” warm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in light of the extensive paleoclimate evidence contradicting this viewpoint .

Share this...
Surface temperatures needed to have been much warmer than today to supply enough grass year-round for horses and mammoths to subsist in the Arctic through the Late Holocene.
Wrangel Island is located in the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea, which is covered in sea ice for all but a few weeks of the year today (Porter et al., 2019). As recently as a few hundred years ago, the Chukchi was sea ice-free 4-5 months per year, suggesting the Western Arctic is much colder today than it was even during the Little Ice Age.
Mammoths lived in the Arctic until 3700 years ago
Until the 1990s, it was thought the Earth’s last wooly mammoths went extinct during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition about 15,000 to 10,000 years ago.
But the Arctic’s Wrangel Island is home to extensive mammoth remains. Radiocarbon dating indicates the wooly mammoth continued living on this island until 3700 years ago, or until the Arctic climate became too cold to provide enough grass year-round to sustain them (Bryson et al., 2010, Arppe et al., 2019).
According to Bryson et al., 2010, a small mammoth is modeled to have conservatively required 25 kg of grass per day to survive. Mean July temperatures decreased from above 5°C during the Early Holocene to below 2.5°C – the threshold for grass production – by about 4,000 years ago. Consequently, without enough year-round grass to feed on, the wooly mammoth died out.
Wild horses lived in the Arctic until ~2500 years ago
A new study (Boeskorov, 2020) provides further evidence the Arctic climate was hospitable to grass-eating megafauna until as recently as a few thousand years ago.
The remains of wild horses have been located north of the Arctic circle in the East Siberian Sea (Arctic Ocean) dating to 5300 to 2200 calibrated years before present. The northernmost Siberian climate is far too cold to sustain wild horses with enough food year-round today.
Modern warmth is not “unprecedented”
The geological evidence that the modern Arctic is still much colder than it was when CO2 concentrations were below 270 ppm a few millennia ago is robust.
Temperature reconstructions with hockey-stick-like shapes suggesting we are currently living in an “unprecedentedly” warm global climate need to be seriously re-examined in light of the extensive paleoclimate evidence contradicting this viewpoint.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-01--The Super-Spreaders Of Panic… COVID-19 Hype, Hysteria Have Reached Dimensions of Absurdity

We hear it from the panic-obsessed media and politicians all the time .
Even kids too have to go to school with masks and maintain distance from one another .
Large events are being called super-spreaders and so being shut down .
Global travel restrictions abound .
The virus is far more dangerous than the influenza and we are living in a worldwide pandemic , they say .
Moreover , all the world citizens are being told that restrictions – and vaccinations – may be mandatory .
So get used to the idea .
But it ’ s all for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want us to believe .
All the panic , however , is based on rising “ new cases ” .
And charts from Worldometer show that new cases are indeed on the rise in many countries and that the second wave has come !
But how dangerous is this second wave really ?
Today we look at the statistic that really counts : the daily death rate .
Here in Germany , where tens of thousands of anti COVID-19 restriction protesters are now being savaged by the media as ignorant everything under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions , the death rate has in reality been close to zero for some 2 months now .
Skyrocketing new cases in France , but deaths near zero !
Lately France has seen a sharp rise in “ new cases ” , as the chart below shows .
But the next chart shows that despite all the “ new cases ” , there have been virtually no change in the number of daily deaths , which are very close to zero .
Next we look at the situation in Italy – the epicenter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which the media and leaders shamelessly used to spread mass panic worldwide .
Also Italy has just experienced a “ second wave ” of the “ deadly virus ” , but as the above chart shows , there have been almost zero daily deaths since early July !
Experts also say that many of the new cases are not even showing any symptoms .
The story is very much the same at many locations around the world .
Lots of testing , lots of false positives and so lots of panic reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly rare .
Despite the low death numbers , the panic has taken on new , unprecedented dimensions of public health hysteria and absurdity .
Though the virus in combination with the lack of preparedness indeed had posed a risk earlier this year , the situation today is totally better now and there is no need to continue on with all the restrictions .
Very few people are dying of it in Europe .
All the mass economy-killing restrictions are in fact leading to far greater death numbers , especially in poor countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the insanity .

Share this...
We hear it from the panic-obsessed media and politicians all the time. Even kids too have to go to school with masks and maintain distance from one another. Large events are being called super-spreaders and so being shut down. Global travel restrictions abound.
The virus is far more dangerous than the influenza and we are living in a worldwide pandemic, they say. Moreover, all the world citizens are being told that restrictions – and vaccinations – may be mandatory. So get used to the idea. But it’s all for our own good, leaders and media want us to believe.
All the panic, however, is based on rising “new cases”. And charts from Worldometer show that new cases are indeed on the rise in many countries and that the second wave has come!
But how dangerous is this second wave really?
Today we look at the statistic that really counts: the daily death rate. Here in Germany, where tens of thousands of anti COVID-19 restriction protesters are now being savaged by the media as ignorant everything under the sun because they dared to question the restrictions, the death rate has in reality been close to zero for some 2 months now.
Images cropped from worldometer.com
Skyrocketing new cases in France, but deaths near zero!
Lately France has seen a sharp rise in “new cases”, as the chart below shows. But the next chart shows that despite all the “new cases”, there have been virtually no change in the number of daily deaths, which are very close to zero.
Images cropped from worldometer.com
Viva bella Italia
Next we look at the situation in Italy – the epicenter of the COVID pandemic earlier this year, which the media and leaders shamelessly used to spread mass panic worldwide.
Images cropped from worldometer.com
Also Italy has just experienced a “second wave” of the “deadly virus”, but as the above chart shows, there have been almost zero daily deaths since early July!
Experts also say that many of the new cases are not even showing any symptoms.
The story is very much the same at many locations around the world. Lots of testing, lots of false positives and so lots of panic reports – but the deaths in Europe are increasingly rare.
Time to end the public health insanity
Despite the low death numbers, the panic has taken on new, unprecedented dimensions of public health hysteria and absurdity. Though the virus in combination with the lack of preparedness indeed had posed a risk earlier this year, the situation today is totally better now and there is no need to continue on with all the restrictions. Very few people are dying of it in Europe.
All the mass economy-killing restrictions are in fact leading to far greater death numbers, especially in poor countries. It’s time to end the insanity.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-02--German Psychotherapists Offer Free Workshops For Youth Struggling With Climate Crisis Emotional Stra

German Psychotherapists Offer Free Workshops For Youth Struggling With Climate Crisis Emotional Strain

Climate alarm fatigue syndrome : Climate alarmism turning the youth into emotional basket cases…once again Germany talks itself into a new psychosis .
Here ’ s a short but interesting report on how all the climate alarmism in Germany is now taking a psychological toll , especially on the youth .
German broadcaster RTL here has an article at its site titled : “ Climate Change and Psyche : Burnout Courses for Demonstrators “ .
According to RTL : One year after the start of the Fridays for Future protests in Lower Saxony , psychologists are observing that the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strain on young people .
Psychotherapists are therefore now offering free workshops , for example in the Hanover region .
Nationwide , therapists have joined forces with “ Psychologists for Future ” – an environmental group of psychologists that now has 400 volunteers who want to support the climate activists.
” Die kalte Sonne comments : “ If you preach climate catastrophe all day long , you will eventually believe it yourself .
Then burnout is not far off .
Fortunately there are now courses against it .
Will the health insurance soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarmism ’ now be a recognized disease ?
”

Share this...
Climate alarm fatigue syndrome: Climate alarmism turning the youth into emotional basket cases…once again Germany talks itself into a new psychosis.
Image cropped from Twitter GIF file.
Here’s a short but interesting report on how all the climate alarmism in Germany is now taking a psychological toll, especially on the youth.
Hat-tip Die kalte Sonne.
German broadcaster RTL here has an article at its site titled: “Climate Change and Psyche: Burnout Courses for Demonstrators“. According to RTL:
One year after the start of the Fridays for Future protests in Lower Saxony, psychologists are observing that the climate crisis may be putting a heavy emotional strain on young people. Psychotherapists are therefore now offering free workshops, for example in the Hanover region. Nationwide, therapists have joined forces with “Psychologists for Future” – an environmental group of psychologists that now has 400 volunteers who want to support the climate activists.”
Die kalte Sonne comments: “If you preach climate catastrophe all day long, you will eventually believe it yourself. Then burnout is not far off. Fortunately there are now courses against it. Will the health insurance soon pay for it? Will ‘climate alarmism’ now be a recognized disease?”
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-03--New Study: An East Antarctica Region Has Cooled -0.7°C Per Decade Since The 1980s

Scientists extend a 15-station East Antarctica record from 1986 to 2017 and find a -0.7°C per decade cooling ( -1.4°C total ) until 2006 , but no trend from 2006-2017 .
Doran et al ( 2002 ) reported “ a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000 ” .
Obryk et al .
( 2020 ) – with P.T .
Doran a co-author – have extended the Doran et al .
( 2002 ) record to 2017 and found the -0.7°C cooling that lasted from 1986 to 2000 persisted until 2006 .
A recovery since 2006 has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be documented as statistically significant .
Turner et al .
( 2020 ) report cooling of the Antarctic Peninsula since about 2000 and no net warming in East Antarctica since the early 1980s .
Hrbáček and Uxa , 2020 report a “ significant air temperature decrease started around 2000 along most of the Western AP [ Antarctic Peninsula ] .
” Specifically , “ the north‐eastern AP region exhibited a MAAT more than 1°C lower in the period 2006–2015 compared to 1996–2005 , and autumn ( MAM ) air temperature was even about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 find “ a cooling of -0.60°C/decade of the air temperature for Greenwich Island ” ( Antarctica ) from 1998 to 2015 .
In summary , scientists have been consistently documenting significant cooling trends throughout the Antarctic continent in recent decades despite the common media portrayals of rapid Antarctic warming in response to human activities .

Share this...
Scientists extend a 15-station East Antarctica record from 1986 to 2017 and find a -0.7°C per decade cooling (-1.4°C total) until 2006, but no trend from 2006-2017.
Doran et al (2002) reported “a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000”.
Obryk et al. (2020) – with P.T. Doran a co-author – have extended the Doran et al. (2002) record to 2017 and found the -0.7°C cooling that lasted from 1986 to 2000 persisted until 2006. A recovery since 2006 has been observed, but not enough to be documented as statistically significant.
Turner et al. (2020) report cooling of the Antarctic Peninsula since about 2000 and no net warming in East Antarctica since the early 1980s.
Hrbáček and Uxa, 2020 report a “significant air temperature decrease started around 2000 along most of the Western AP [Antarctic Peninsula].” Specifically, “the north‐eastern AP region exhibited a MAAT more than 1°C lower in the period 2006–2015 compared to 1996–2005, and autumn (MAM) air temperature was even about 1.5°C lower.”
Fatras et al., 2020 find “a cooling of -0.60°C/decade of the air temperature for Greenwich Island” (Antarctica) from 1998 to 2015.
In summary, scientists have been consistently documenting significant cooling trends throughout the Antarctic continent in recent decades despite the common media portrayals of rapid Antarctic warming in response to human activities.


notrickszone--2020-09-04--Hachijojima, Isolated Rural Island In Pacific, Shows No Warming In 80 Years

Hachijojima is a volcanic Japanese island some 287 kilometers south of Tokyo , to which it belongs .
7,522 people live on its 63 km2 of area .
What makes Hachijojima interesting climatically is its rural , non-urban features – in the middle of the ocean – making station siting there less prone to factors that could corrupt the data , such as airports , asphalt , concrete , steel and other heat-sink-acting infrastructure .
Today we look at data from the Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA ) going back almost 80 years .
Hearing all the claims about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many readers would think that there must be warming happening there as well .
The data have a surprise in store .
Now that summer has ended , we plot the latest data to see if summers have indeed been warming at this island .
As the above data show , there has been virtually no trend at all over the past 80 years .
Warming ?
Still no sign of it at all .
Next we look at the mean winter temperatures at this location since 1947 : Like summer , also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way or the other .
Where ’ s the bad climate change news here ?
To round out the analysis and to summarize , we plot the annual mean temperature data recorded for Hachjojima : Interestingly , the annual temperature behavior appears to follow a cyclic behavior that very much resemble some ocean surface temperature cycles we see from around the globe , like the PDO or AMO .
Climate indeed changes , but what we see above it can not be due to anything anthropogenic .

Share this...
By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin
Hachijojima is a volcanic Japanese island some 287 kilometers south of Tokyo, to which it belongs. 7,522 people live on its 63 km2 of area.
Image cropped from Google Maps.
What makes Hachijojima interesting climatically is its rural, non-urban features – in the middle of the ocean – making station siting there less prone to factors that could corrupt the data, such as airports, asphalt, concrete, steel and other heat-sink-acting infrastructure.
Today we look at data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) going back almost 80 years. Hearing all the claims about a rapidly warming world from the media, many readers would think that there must be warming happening there as well. The data have a surprise in store.
Summer
Now that summer has ended, we plot the latest data to see if summers have indeed been warming at this island.
Data source: JMA
As the above data show, there has been virtually no trend at all over the past 80 years. Warming? Still no sign of it at all.
Winter
Next we look at the mean winter temperatures at this location since 1947:
Data source: JMA
Like summer, also winter has shown no long-term trend one way or the other. Where’s the bad climate change news here?
Annual
To round out the analysis and to summarize, we plot the annual mean temperature data recorded for Hachjojima:
Data source: JMA
Interestingly, the annual temperature behavior appears to follow a cyclic behavior that very much resemble some ocean surface temperature cycles we see from around the globe, like the PDO or AMO. Climate indeed changes, but what we see above it cannot be due to anything anthropogenic.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-05--Yawn…Central Europe Sees Near Normal Summer As Earlier Predictions Of Record Heat, Drought Fail

Earlier this year in spring , the WMO and others warned of another record hot summer and drought .
The German media went bonkers in response warning that 2020 could even be hotter and drier than the 2018 and 2019 summers .
But now that the meteorological summer ( June 1 – August 31 ) has ended , the data show that these earlier predictions were WRONG .
Germany ’ s DWD national weather service , having tabulated data from some 2000 stations nationwide , has issued its preliminary report for the summer of 2020 .
The results : a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DWD , the summer of 2020 was often variable , seeing only short periods of heat and that it was not until August that the midsummer “ turned up the heat ” for a spell of about 10 days .
With a mean of 18.2 °C , the summer of 2020 across Germany was was 1.1 C above the mean of the 1981 to 2010 period .
In July , many locations did not see the thermometer reach even 30°C .
Only in August did a heat wave lasting several days see temperatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around 230 liters per square meter ( l/m² ) of precipitation nationwide , summer 2020 fell only slightly short of its long term mean of 239 l/m² , the DWD reports .
Thus the projection of a continued extreme drought such as seen in 2018 and 2019 failed to appear .
Some regions , such as the Uckermark , the Leipzig lowland bay , Saarland and along the Rhine , saw less than half of the typical rainfall .
At the same time , there were continuous rainfalls , such as in early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 150 l/m² in 24 hours , which also brought flooding .
In total , over 700 l/m² were measured in the Alps over the summer .
At around 675 hours , the sunshine duration in summer exceeded its long-term mean of 614 hours by around 10 percent .
The coastal regions recorded over 700 hours of sunshine .
In the western low mountain ranges , however , the DWD measured only 500 hours .
Die kalte Sonne here summarizes Germany ’ s summer of 2020 : “ Summer 2020 was completely normal in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One could have wished for an abnormally humid one after the dry years 2018 and 2019 , but weather is not about wishful thinking .
When it comes to precipitation ( which is first and foremost decisive for drought ) , there has been no remarkable trend .
Everything else you hear is not based on facts .
”

Share this...
Earlier this year in spring, the WMO and others warned of another record hot summer and drought. The German media went bonkers in response warning that 2020 could even be hotter and drier than the 2018 and 2019 summers.
But now that the meteorological summer (June 1 – August 31) has ended, the data show that these earlier predictions were WRONG.
Germany’s DWD national weather service, having tabulated data from some 2000 stations nationwide, has issued its preliminary report for the summer of 2020. The results: a near normal summer.
Only 1°C warmer than normal
According to the DWD, the summer of 2020 was often variable, seeing only short periods of heat and that it was not until August that the midsummer “turned up the heat” for a spell of about 10 days.
With a mean of 18.2 °C, the summer of 2020 across Germany was was 1.1 C above the mean of the 1981 to 2010 period. In July, many locations did not see the thermometer reach even 30°C.
Only in August did a heat wave lasting several days see temperatures over 35°C.
Overall near normal rainfall
With an average of around 230 liters per square meter (l/m²) of precipitation nationwide, summer 2020 fell only slightly short of its long term mean of 239 l/m², the DWD reports. Thus the projection of a continued extreme drought such as seen in 2018 and 2019 failed to appear.
Some regions, such as the Uckermark, the Leipzig lowland bay, Saarland and along the Rhine, saw less than half of the typical rainfall. At the same time, there were continuous rainfalls, such as in early August in Upper Bavaria with up to 150 l/m² in 24 hours, which also brought flooding. In total, over 700 l/m² were measured in the Alps over the summer.
10% more sunshine (hence a bit warmer)
At around 675 hours, the sunshine duration in summer exceeded its long-term mean of 614 hours by around 10 percent. The coastal regions recorded over 700 hours of sunshine. In the western low mountain ranges, however, the DWD measured only 500 hours.
“Summer 2020 was completely normal”
Die kalte Sonne here summarizes Germany’s summer of 2020: “Summer 2020 was completely normal in terms of precipitation, including regional differences. One could have wished for an abnormally humid one after the dry years 2018 and 2019, but weather is not about wishful thinking. When it comes to precipitation (which is first and foremost decisive for drought), there has been no remarkable trend. Everything else you hear is not based on facts.”
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-06--Environmental Disaster: Northern Europe Deforestation Up 49% Due To Effort To Meet “CO2 Targets”!

Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann calls it “ the dumbest energy and environmental policy ever ” .
Now , finally , after years of being warned , Germany ’ s mainstream media are finally showing signs of waking up to it .
Idiots and energy policy : Burning of “ CO2-friendly ” wood pellets driving mass European deforestation .
Illustrative photo by P. Gosselin Germany ’ s flagship ARD public broadcasting recently presented a report earlier today about how “ CO2 neutral ” wood burning is leading to widespread deforestation across northern Europe – a rather embarrassing development for the Europeans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brazilian forest policy .
The ARD ’ s “ Das Erste ” reports how satellite images show deforestation has risen 49 % since 2016 in Sweden , Finland and the Baltic countries .
The reason : “ Because of the CO2 targets .
That sounds totally crazy but precisely because of the trend to renewable energies is in part responsible for deforestation in Estonia , ” says the Das Erste moderator .
Having spent some time working for the EU , Liiana Steinberg explains in the report how she recently returned to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much deforestation had taken place over the recent years ( 2:25 ) .
“ I discovered how the forests no longer exists here left and right.
” Where once massive hardwoods once stood now grows tiny fir trees .
The harvested trees , the report says , were used for wood pellets – a form of renewable green energy .
The trees , the pellet industry says , will grow back .
Not only are the forests taking a hit , but so is the wildlife that once inhabited in them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has fallen some 25 % .
“ It ’ s wasted .
Now we have to start all over again.
” Climate activists , including the media like ARD , have long insisted that burning trees was good for the climate and environment because the emitted CO2 would simply be recycled back into nature – “ follow the science ” they insisted again and again .
But they failed to understand that trees , depending on their age , acted as sinks and that some 100 years of stored carbon would be unloaded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hours if burned for heat .
It ’ s sad that they are just waking up to this ( maybe ) .

Share this...
Wood pellets.
Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann calls it “the dumbest energy and environmental policy ever”. Now, finally, after years of being warned, Germany’s mainstream media are finally showing signs of waking up to it.
Idiots and energy policy: Burning of “CO2-friendly” wood pellets driving mass European deforestation. Illustrative photo by P. Gosselin
Germany’s flagship ARD public broadcasting recently presented a report earlier today about how “CO2 neutral” wood burning is leading to widespread deforestation across northern Europe – a rather embarrassing development for the Europeans, who recently expressed their condemnation over Brazilian forest policy.
Deforestation up 49%
The ARD’s “Das Erste” reports how satellite images show deforestation has risen 49% since 2016 in Sweden, Finland and the Baltic countries. The reason: “Because of the CO2 targets. That sounds totally crazy but precisely because of the trend to renewable energies is in part responsible for deforestation in Estonia,” says the Das Erste moderator.
Having spent some time working for the EU, Liiana Steinberg explains in the report how she recently returned to her native Estonia and was shocked to see how much deforestation had taken place over the recent years (2:25). “I discovered how the forests no longer exists here left and right.”
For “CO2-neutral” wood pellets
Where once massive hardwoods once stood now grows tiny fir trees. The harvested trees, the report says, were used for wood pellets – a form of renewable green energy. The trees, the pellet industry says, will grow back.
Not only are the forests taking a hit, but so is the wildlife that once inhabited in them. According to Ms. Steinberg, bird life has fallen some 25%. “It’s wasted. Now we have to start all over again.”
Idiots “follow the science”
Climate activists, including the media like ARD, have long insisted that burning trees was good for the climate and environment because the emitted CO2 would simply be recycled back into nature – “follow the science” they insisted again and again. But they failed to understand that trees, depending on their age, acted as sinks and that some 100 years of stored carbon would be unloaded into the atmosphere in just a matter of hours if burned for heat.
It’s sad that they are just waking up to this (maybe).
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-07--Scientists Just Discovered Their Past Carbon Budget Guesses Have All Along Been Twice As Wrong As Th

Scientists Just Discovered Their Past Carbon Budget Guesses Have All Along Been Twice As Wrong As They Thought

A new assumption about carbon budgets reveals climate scientists have been vastly underestimating ( by a factor of 2 ) the amount of carbon absorbed by the ocean for decades .
Every past carbon budget estimate has been twice as wrong as the current estimate .
When it comes to the ocean heat fluxes and source vs. sink carbon budget estimates , climate scientists have been providing little more than educated guesses for decades .
For example , climate models have long suggested the ocean heat fluxes may only vary around 1 W/m² .
But “ objective ” analyses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using different assumptions ( equations ) reveals fluxes were likely closer to 10 W/m² during 1981-2005 ( Yu and Weller , 2007 ) .
So our modeled guesses were off by a factor of 10 compared to newer analyses .
Ocean carbon sink processes not understood and driven by natural variability McKinley et al .
( 2017 ) analyzed ocean carbon sink estimates and was willing to admit that due to a lack of observation , we lack a “ detailed , quantitative , and mechanistic understanding of how the ocean carbon sink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variability in oceanic carbon uptake is so massive and largely unobserved , we can not yet detect an anthropogenic influence .
McKinley and co-authors go so far as to acknowledge the “ change in CO2 flux over 10 years ( 1995-2005 ) …is due almost entirely to the internal variability ” because in most ocean regions “ the forced [ human-induced ] trends in CO2 flux are too small to be statistically significant ” and the “ variability in CO2 flux is large and sufficient to prevent detection of anthropogenic trends in ocean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Southern Ocean absorbs more than 10 times less carbon than previously thought The Southern Ocean is where the largest portion of anthropogenic carbon ( from our emissions ) is said to be absorbed , or Earth ’ s largest oceanic CO2 sink .
Just 2 years ago , a carbon uptake analysis ( Gray et al , 2018 with a Physics Today press release ) that utilized estimates from biochemical floats instead of estimates from ships suggested the exact opposite of what had been previously thought .
Instead of absorbing close to 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , the Southern Ocean is barely even a carbon sink at all – just 0.08 PgC of yearly absorption .
In fact , large regions of the Southern Ocean near Antarctica are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere .
In other words , when estimates are float-based rather than ship-based , one estimate is more than 10 times different than the other .
The global ocean absorbs 2 times more CO2 than previously thought And now a new study ( Buesseler et al.
, 2020 ) has scientists insisting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ocean carbon uptake are substantially wrong because we ’ ve been measuring from a fixed depth rather than varying depths .
Previously scientists had been using flux estimates from the “ canonical fixed 150-m depth.
” The new-and-improved way to assess carbon uptake is from varying but often much shallower depths : the euphotic zone ( Ez ) .
This is the section of the upper ocean layer that sunlight is able to penetrate , and it can “ vary from less than 20 m to almost 200 m ” in depth .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon absorption versus export , the absorption changes from 2.8 petagrams of carbon ( PgC ) per year to 5.7 .
So the global ocean sink can be more than doubled just by varying the depth of measurement rather than using a fixed depth .
So , up to this point , scientists ’ past guesses about ocean carbon uptake have been emphatically wrong .
We can be assured , though , that our current guesses are anywhere from 2 to 10 times less wrong than the last ones .

Share this...
A new assumption about carbon budgets reveals climate scientists have been vastly underestimating (by a factor of 2) the amount of carbon absorbed by the ocean for decades. Every past carbon budget estimate has been twice as wrong as the current estimate.
When it comes to the ocean heat fluxes and source vs. sink carbon budget estimates, climate scientists have been providing little more than educated guesses for decades.
For example, climate models have long suggested the ocean heat fluxes may only vary around 1 W/m². But “objective” analyses of oceanic latent heat flux (LHF) using different assumptions (equations) reveals fluxes were likely closer to 10 W/m² during 1981-2005 (Yu and Weller, 2007). So our modeled guesses were off by a factor of 10 compared to newer analyses.
Ocean carbon sink processes not understood and driven by natural variability
McKinley et al. (2017) analyzed ocean carbon sink estimates and was willing to admit that due to a lack of observation, we lack a “detailed, quantitative, and mechanistic understanding of how the ocean carbon sink works…”
In addition, because internal variability in oceanic carbon uptake is so massive and largely unobserved, we cannot yet detect an anthropogenic influence.
McKinley and co-authors go so far as to acknowledge the “change in CO2 flux over 10 years (1995-2005)…is due almost entirely to the internal variability” because in most ocean regions “the forced [human-induced] trends in CO2 flux are too small to be statistically significant” and the “variability in CO2 flux is large and sufficient to prevent detection of anthropogenic trends in ocean carbon uptake on decadal timescales.”
The Southern Ocean absorbs more than 10 times less carbon than previously thought
The Southern Ocean is where the largest portion of anthropogenic carbon (from our emissions) is said to be absorbed, or Earth’s largest oceanic CO2 sink.
Just 2 years ago, a carbon uptake analysis (Gray et al, 2018 with a Physics Today press release) that utilized estimates from biochemical floats instead of estimates from ships suggested the exact opposite of what had been previously thought. Instead of absorbing close to 1 petagram of carbon (PgC) per year, the Southern Ocean is barely even a carbon sink at all – just 0.08 PgC of yearly absorption. In fact, large regions of the Southern Ocean near Antarctica are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.
In other words, when estimates are float-based rather than ship-based, one estimate is more than 10 times different than the other.
Image Source: Physics Today
The global ocean absorbs 2 times more CO2 than previously thought
And now a new study (Buesseler et al., 2020) has scientists insisting that all of our previous estimates of global ocean carbon uptake are substantially wrong because we’ve been measuring from a fixed depth rather than varying depths.
Previously scientists had been using flux estimates from the “canonical fixed 150-m depth.” The new-and-improved way to assess carbon uptake is from varying but often much shallower depths: the euphotic zone (Ez). This is the section of the upper ocean layer that sunlight is able to penetrate, and it can “vary from less than 20 m to almost 200 m” in depth.
When we use the Ez to estimate carbon absorption versus export, the absorption changes from 2.8 petagrams of carbon (PgC) per year to 5.7. So the global ocean sink can be more than doubled just by varying the depth of measurement rather than using a fixed depth.
So, up to this point, scientists’ past guesses about ocean carbon uptake have been emphatically wrong. We can be assured, though, that our current guesses are anywhere from 2 to 10 times less wrong than the last ones.


notrickszone--2020-09-08--Year Of Global Cooling. JRC Analysis Show Land And Sea Surface Temperatures Continue To Fall

The global mean temperature of the satellite-based measurements remained almost unchanged in August compared to July .
The deviation from @ @ @ @ @ to 2010 ) was 0.43 degrees Celsius .
Temperature measurements on land and in the @ @ @ @ @ as the graph of the JRC analysis shows , especially in the southern hemisphere ( @ @ @ @ @ institutes predict with high probability a La Nina in the Pacific Ocean next winter .
@ @ @ @ @ in global temperatures is expected until next spring .
The following diagram shows the incipient @ @ @ @ @ .

Share this...
By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
The global mean temperature of the satellite-based measurements remained almost unchanged in August compared to July. The deviation from the 30-year average (1981 to 2010) was 0.43 degrees Celsius.
Temperature measurements on land and in the sea continue to decrease, as the graph of the JRC analysis shows, especially in the southern hemisphere (blue).
Approaching La Nina
The research institutes predict with high probability a La Nina in the Pacific Ocean next winter. Therefore, a further decrease in global temperatures is expected until next spring. The following diagram shows the incipient cooling effect in the Pacific.


notrickszone--2020-09-09--Green Dream Arrives In Germany! But Repowering Obstacles Pose “Imminent Catastrophe” For Wind Power

The green dream , with all its scenic beauty and nature conservation , has arrived in northern Germany .
But now that green dream faces more obstacles .
All is not so wunderbar when it comes to Germany ’ s wind power outlook .
Germany ’ s Renewable Energy Sources Act , passed in 2000 , was intended to ensure the generation of “ green ” electricity .
Operators of wind turbines were guaranteed subsidies for a period of twenty years – with the hopes the technology would develop to such an extent that it would operate economically without subsidies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turbines are still not competitive reports trendsderzukunft.de here .
The first problem with the old turbines ?
The costs .
They require comparatively frequent maintenance .
“ This drives up the costs , which is why operation is not economical in many cases.
” reports trendsderzukunft.de .
“ A study has shown that at an electricity price of 3.375 cents euro per kilowatt-hour , only 23 percent of the old plants can be operated without subsidies.
” The second problem : “ The Feed-in priority ” law which forced power grid operators to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is unclear whether this regulation will continue to apply despite the expiration of subsidies , ” says trendsderzukunft.de .
“ This question will probably have to be cleared up by the courts in the end .
However , many operators will probably not wait for this and prefer to shut down the old wind turbines instead.
” Sites will have to be abandoned Trendderzukunft.de .
adds : “ By 2025 , there is a risk of losing 2,300 to 2,400 megawatts of capacity every year.
” Moreover , legal hurdles prevent repowering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turbines with one new and larger one.
” The problem , reports trendsderzukunft.de is that at many existing locations “ there is a height limit for wind turbines .
The installation of the latest generation of wind turbines is therefore not possible there .
However , smaller turbines are no longer available on the market .
In many cases , therefore , the sites simply have to be abandoned.
” For that reason , around 1,000 of 1691 wind turbine sites are affected in Lower Saxony alone and are currently not available for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Minister of Energy and Environment , Olaf Lies ( SPD ) , speaks of an imminent ‘ catastrophe ’ for wind power in Germany , ” writes trendsderzukunft.de .

Share this...
The green dream, with all its scenic beauty and nature conservation, has arrived in northern Germany. But now that green dream faces more obstacles.
All is not so wunderbar when it comes to Germany’s wind power outlook.
Germany’s Renewable Energy Sources Act, passed in 2000, was intended to ensure the generation of “green” electricity. Operators of wind turbines were guaranteed subsidies for a period of twenty years – with the hopes the technology would develop to such an extent that it would operate economically without subsidies.
20 years later, the wind turbines are still not competitive reports trendsderzukunft.de here.
Plagued by high costs
The first problem with the old turbines? The costs. They require comparatively frequent maintenance. “This drives up the costs, which is why operation is not economical in many cases.” reports trendsderzukunft.de. “A study has shown that at an electricity price of 3.375 cents euro per kilowatt-hour, only 23 percent of the old plants can be operated without subsidies.”
Feed-in requirement running out
The second problem: “The Feed-in priority” law which forced power grid operators to purchase wind electricity. “However, it is unclear whether this regulation will continue to apply despite the expiration of subsidies,” says trendsderzukunft.de. “This question will probably have to be cleared up by the courts in the end. However, many operators will probably not wait for this and prefer to shut down the old wind turbines instead.”
Sites will have to be abandoned
Trendderzukunft.de. adds: “By 2025, there is a risk of losing 2,300 to 2,400 megawatts of capacity every year.”
Moreover, legal hurdles prevent repowering, which involves “replacing several old turbines with one new and larger one.” The problem, reports trendsderzukunft.de is that at many existing locations “there is a height limit for wind turbines. The installation of the latest generation of wind turbines is therefore not possible there. However, smaller turbines are no longer available on the market. In many cases, therefore, the sites simply have to be abandoned.”
“Imminent catastrophe”
For that reason, around 1,000 of 1691 wind turbine sites are affected in Lower Saxony alone and are currently not available for so-called repowering. “Lower Saxony’s Minister of Energy and Environment, Olaf Lies (SPD), speaks of an imminent ‘catastrophe’ for wind power in Germany,” writes trendsderzukunft.de.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-10--Two New Temperature Records Show No Warming In Central Asia Since 1766 A.D. Or In Spain Since 1350 A

Two New Temperature Records Show No Warming In Central Asia Since 1766 A.D. Or In Spain Since 1350 A.D.

Scientists continue to publish papers revealing no unusual climate trends for the last several centuries in many regions of the world .
Despite the 135 ppm increase in CO2 concentration ( 275 ppm to 410 ppm ) since the 1700s , a new 250-year temperature ( precipitation ) reconstruction ( Peng et al.
, 2020 ) shows there has been no net warming in Central Asia since 1766 .
Two other reconstructions from this region also show no warming trend in recent centuries .
Earlier this year we highlighted a new study that indicated France was up to 7°C warmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooling by 3°C in the last 200 years .
Another new study ( Esper et al.
, 2020 ) suggests there has been no net warming in Spain since 1350 A.D .
The years that spanned 1474-1606 A.D. scored 7 of the 10 warmest years in the record .
In contrast , there has been only 1 warmest year ( 1961 ) and 4 of the 10 coldest years since 1880 .
The 2 warmest 30-year ( climate ) periods occurred in the decades surrounding the ~1530s and ~1820s .
The authors record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within decades ) 1°C warming trend during the late 1700s to early 1800s that exceeds any temperature change in the modern record .

Share this...
Scientists continue to publish papers revealing no unusual climate trends for the last several centuries in many regions of the world.
Despite the 135 ppm increase in CO2 concentration (275 ppm to 410 ppm) since the 1700s, a new 250-year temperature (precipitation) reconstruction (Peng et al., 2020) shows there has been no net warming in Central Asia since 1766. Two other reconstructions from this region also show no warming trend in recent centuries.
Earlier this year we highlighted a new study that indicated France was up to 7°C warmer than today about 7800 years ago after cooling by 3°C in the last 200 years.
Another new study (Esper et al., 2020) suggests there has been no net warming in Spain since 1350 A.D.
The years that spanned 1474-1606 A.D. scored 7 of the 10 warmest years in the record. In contrast, there has been only 1 warmest year (1961) and 4 of the 10 coldest years since 1880.
The 2 warmest 30-year (climate) periods occurred in the decades surrounding the ~1530s and ~1820s.
The authors record a “striking” and abrupt (within decades) 1°C warming trend during the late 1700s to early 1800s that exceeds any temperature change in the modern record.


notrickszone--2020-09-11--Austrian Analyst: Things With Greenhouse Effect (GHE) Aren’t Adding Up…”Something Totally Wrong”

Something is rotten with the GHE The greenhouse effect ( GHE ) is a well established theory which most people consider a solid fact , even those who are otherwise “ critical ” over global warming .
On the other side there are some voices who “ deny ” the GHE with flatearther-like arguments , which seemingly only adds to the credibility of the theory .
This is a very odd situation , since the are huge issues with the GHE hidden in plain sight .
“ Without GHGs , the Earth would be a frozen planet with a temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This definition is all too familiar to us all and the experts naming it are legion .
The 255°K isthe result of a ( relatively ) simple formula .
342W/m2 is the amount of solar radiation ( the exact number may vary ) , 5.67e-8 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and ^0.25 ( or the 4th root ) represents the Stefan-Boltzmann law according to which radiation is a function of temperature to the power of 4 .
The interesting part however is ( 1-0.3 / 1 ) .
0.3 is the albedo of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is the share of solar radiation the Earth absorbs ( ~70 % ) .
The 1 below the comma , which is usually omitted , represents emissivity , which is the share of LWIR emitted by the Earth relative to a perfect black body of the same temperature .
In other words , it is being assumed Earth would be emitting just like a perfect black body if it were not for GHGs .
And that is where the trouble starts .
Quite obviously there are two factors that “ violate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The surface of the Earth , mainly consisting of water , is not a perfect emitter , pretty much like any real surface .
Although it is not the scope of this article , it can be shown there is a significant deviation from 1 ( in the 0.91 to 0.94 range ) .
One needs to look up Fresnel equations , the refractive index of water and so on to sort out this subject .
• Clouds interfere massively with LWIR emissions .
Actually this is common wisdom , as “ clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people have made the according experience .
Even the IPCC states clouds would block a 50W/m2 of SW radiation , retain a 30W/m2 of LWIR and thus have a net CRE ( Cloud Radiative Effect ) of -20W/m2 [ 1 ] .
Of course those -50W/m2 of SW CRE are already included in the formula above ( part of the 30 % albedo ) , while the 30W/m2 of LW CRE are not .
For this reason we need to make some minor corrections to the GHE as presented above .
Basically Earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( = 0.7 x 342 ) and is meant to emit some 390 W/m2 at 288°K at the surface .
Next to a temperature of 33°K , the GHE would thus amount to about 150W/m2 respectively ( =390-240 ) .
Since in reality the surface is not a perfect emitter , the 390W/m2 are totally inaccurate .
In fact it is easy to call it “ fake science ” whenever someone claims this number , or an even higher one .
Rather we need to reduce this figure by at least 20 W/m2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Next we need to allow for the 30 W/m2 that clouds provide and thus our GHE shrinks from 150 W/m2 to a maximum of only 100 W/m2 ( 150 – 20 – 30 ) .
For the sake of clarity we should rename the GHE to GHGE ( greenhouse gas effect ) as this is the pivotal question .
How much do GHGs warm up the planet ?
It is important so see that GHGs were attributed with their specific role in a kind of “ diagnosis of exclusion ” .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be the temperature of Earth ?
Any delta to the observed temperature can then be attributed to GHGs .
Such a “ diagnosis of exclusion ” is always prone to failure , be it in the medical field or anywhere else .
Essentially a large number of variables need to be taken into account and the slightest mistake in the process , will necessarily cause a faulty outcome .
For that reason it should be considered an approach of last resort , maybe helpful to treat a patient or solve a criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physics it is a no-go , and as we can see , it delivers wrong results .
But maybe that is the reason why it was chosen in the first place .
Faulty approaches give a certain freedom of creativity .
Still , we have not broken any barriers so far .
Yes , the GHGE is notoriously being exaggerated and anyone who claims Earth would be 255°K cold if it were not for GHGs , is either incompetent , or simply lying .
You can not excuse such a claim as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by some 50 % at least is certainly beyond negligible .
On the other side , this does not deny the global warming narrative at all .
One might consider downgrading climate sensitivity a bit , which would only result in climate models better matching reality .
Even then , this will only put things on a healthier and more appropriate basis , eventually supporting the theory of CO2 induced global warming .
So far I have not introduced anything substantially new , but only pointed out to what is known and yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its quoted magnitude is pretty much an undisputed fact of science .
Although I do not know exactly what the origins of these estimates were , experts like Veerabhadran Ramanathan already zeroed in on it in the 1970s .
Satellite driven projects like ERBE or CERES later confirmed and specified those estimates .
The net CRE of -20W/m2 thus can be found in the IPCC reports , NASA gives detailed satellite data on it , and even “ sceptics ” like Richard Lindzen name and endorse it [ 2 ] .
Such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my argumentation above , it is also great for the GHGE itself .
In fact the negative CRE is pretty much a conditio sine qua non .
If clouds were not cooling the planet , the scope for GHGs might become marginal .
There are indeed some issues with the CRE I need to talk about and things are not nearly as settled as I just suggested .
• Whatever experts name a net CRE of about -20 W/m2 , they refer to the same sources , which are ERBE and CERES satellite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data at all , but models which are getting fed with some satellite data , among others .
• These models were largely developed by the same people who predicted the negative CRE in the first place .
They might not even have a ( significant ) GHGE if the result would not turn out how it did .
• A closer look on these model results show totally inconsistent outcomes over time .
Regions with massively negative local CREs turned into having positive CREs , and vice verse .
[ 3 ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constant over time was the overall negative CRE of the named magnitude .
Of course , that is a precondition to the GHGE and can not be put into question , if “ climate science ” wants to have an agenda .
There is yet another side to it .
Obviously the net CRE is the sum SW and LW CREs , which can easily be formulated as CREsw + CRElw = CREnet .
Since the CRElw is what is being forgotten so notoriously ( as it diminishes the GHGE ) , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tendency to minimize the CRElw .
Given the logical restrictions , this can be achieved by making the CREnet as negative , and the CREsw as small as possible .
In other words , there is a trinity of issues with the CRE .
• The -50 W/m2 of SW CRE .
This figure is pretty low as compared conventional wisdom , according to which clouds make up for about 2/3s of the albedo , or almost -70W/m2 .
• The net CRE of some -20 W/m2 .
We are going to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The LW CRE of +30 W/m2 which is reducing the GHGE as shown above , but for some strange reason tends to be “ forgotten ” .
Since the net negative CRE is “ confirmed ” by nothing but models of dubious nature , since logic might suggest the opposite ( to cut a long story short ) and the whole GHGE theory totally depends on it , this question made a perfectly legit target for fact checking .
It is the one pivotal question it all boils down to .
Is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly put it to the test ?
As on my previous works in forensic science it seemed mandatory to pass by any conventional approach subject to predictable restrictions .
Rather you will have to go beyond the understanding of those who might conspire so that their possible defences turn futile .
And of course this would require brute force of intellect , creativity and a bit of luck to find an appropriate leverage .
At least the latter turns out to be a friendly gift by the NOAA .
Under the title “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all METAR data from US weather stations [ 4 ] .
Regrettably they pulled these valuable data from their site soon after I downloaded it , and the alternative “ Global-Hourly Files ” is not quite working [ 5 ] .
The METAR data , as far I understand , are taken at airports and contain , next to usual meteorologic data , cloud conditions originally meant to assist aircraft operating around these airports .
The data are anything but perfect for our scope and are subject to a couple of restrictions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ only reported up to 12,000 ft , yet individual exceptions may occur .
Then this cloud condition is reported in 5 different “ flavours ” , which are CLR , FEW , SCT , BKN and OVC , or combinations of which .
For our purpose any combination will be reduced to the maximum cloud condition .
Even if this is not an ideal data pool , it meets a lot of necessary requirements .
First it is a totally independent data source , which has never been meant to be used for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been collected by many people , who may have made individual mistakes in the process , but were certainly not systemically biased .
Third these data are thus “ democratic ” in nature , not controlled by the bottle neck of a few experts .
Eventually , and that is the most important point , we need no models here , but we can look straight onto the empiric evidence .
First I need to tell how such basic research gives you amazing insights otherwise not available anywhere .
You will not get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or expect to see , but what there is .
Just like Christopher Columbus searching for India and finding America , you will have to take things for face value .
Analyzing the data back and forth , using different perspectives , this was not a simple look up to confirm a certain expectation , but rather a process of continuous learning .
Accordingly there are lots of results giving excellent insights into the nature of clouds , or their impacts on climate respectively .
This graph was taken from Harvard ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject .
Here , like in later iterations of the ERBE / CERES modelling , the northern Pacific is meant to be one of the areas with a massively negative CRE , which are of special interest to me .
Since the Aleutian islands are US territory , my NOAA data set included 10 stations located right there .
For the years 2016 and 2017 , these stations report about 325,000 valid datasets , with almost 60 % of which being overcast .
So it is indeed a very cloudy region .
Once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we find a very typical outcome .
OVC skies are correlated with lower temperatures in spring and early summer , and with higher temperatures throughout the rest of the year .
This pattern has been seen in all subsets featuring distinct seasons and is due to surface temperatures lagging behind solar intensity .
It is an analogy to the day/night cycle , where clouds hold down day time temperatures , while keeping nights relatively warm .
It is about the relation of incoming SW to outgoing LW radiation .
As clouds interfere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect will be relative to which of these fluxes is stronger .
In spring surface temperatures lag behind solar intensity , LW emissions will be relatively weak and thus clouds are cooling .
In autumn this relation naturally reverses and then clouds are warming .
Note : These “ tidal effects ” are a direct representation of the LW CRE .
Although it goes way beyond the scope of this article , such data are very helpful in assessing the actual magnitude of the LW CRE .
Finally , if we add up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annual average ( thus seasonally adjusted ) , we are in for a huge surprise ( or possibly no more at this point ) .
The correlation between clouds and temperature is strictly positive .
The more clouds , the warmer it is , and that is in a region where models suggest a massively negative CRE .
Obviously something is totally wrong here .
I am confident the METAR data are correct , and I am certain my analysis is correct , since I have gone over it many times and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perspectives .
Instead , the ERBE/CERES models are wrong when compared to empiric evidence a.k.a .
“ reality ” .
That is not much of a surprise given a track record of inconsistent results .
And as much as the Bering Sea looks like “ a perfect match ” to fact check these models , the problems go far beyond the region .
No matter where ever I looked , a negative CRE could not be found .
Just the tip of the ice berg Yet this is just the tip of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check for biases to see how much a correlation also means causation , and there are a few .
Humidity , as much as it may serve as an indicator for the assumed GHG vapour , is indeed correlated with cloudiness ( 78 % rel .
humidity with CLR , 85 % with OVC ) , but this delta is a ) influenced by rain and b ) too small to explain what we see .
More importantly , this analysis is all about low clouds up to 12.000 ft and it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the higher up clouds are .
Then there is the subject of rain chill , which makes clouds look statistically colder than they are .
Finally temperatures are sluggish relative to ever changing cloud conditions and we would certainly see a larger delta in temperatures if respective cloud conditions were permanent .
Unlike what I named before , this is not just a scratch on the GHE theory , but systemic failure .
If clouds warm the planet indeed , and all the evidence points this way , the very foundation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GHGs might not play a certain role in Earth ’ s climate , but the size of the GHGE will be only a fraction of 33°K , and one that is yet to be precisely determined .
[ 5 ] Documentation does not fit the data format , for some reason I am unable to locate temperature readings , the format itself is hard to read , and finally for some reason these data , station by station , do not correspond to those of the “ QCLCD ASCII Files ”

Share this...
Something is rotten with the GHE
By Erich Schaffer
Introduction
The greenhouse effect (GHE) is a well established theory which most people consider a solid fact, even those who are otherwise “critical” over global warming. On the other side there are some voices who “deny” the GHE with flatearther-like arguments, which seemingly only adds to the credibility of the theory. This is a very odd situation, since the are huge issues with the GHE hidden in plain sight.
“Without GHGs, the Earth would be a frozen planet with a temperature of only -18°C, or 255°K”. This definition is all too familiar to us all and the experts naming it are legion. The 255°K isthe result of a (relatively) simple formula.
(342 x ((1-0.3) / 1) / 5.67e-8) ^0.25 = 255
342W/m2 is the amount of solar radiation (the exact number may vary), 5.67e-8 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and ^0.25 (or the 4th root) represents the Stefan-Boltzmann law according to which radiation is a function of temperature to the power of 4.
Black body assumption trouble
The interesting part however is (1-0.3 / 1). 0.3 is the albedo of Earth and 1-0.3 os thus the absorbtivity, which is the share of solar radiation the Earth absorbs (~70%). The 1 below the comma, which is usually omitted, represents emissivity, which is the share of LWIR emitted by the Earth relative to a perfect black body of the same temperature. In other words, it is being assumed Earth would be emitting just like a perfect black body if it were not for GHGs. And that is where the trouble starts.
The basic problem
Quite obviously there are two factors that “violate” the assumption named above.
The surface of the Earth, mainly consisting of water, is not a perfect emitter, pretty much like any real surface. Although it is not the scope of this article, it can be shown there is a significant deviation from 1 (in the 0.91 to 0.94 range). One needs to look up Fresnel equations, the refractive index of water and so on to sort out this subject. Clouds interfere massively with LWIR emissions. Actually this is common wisdom, as “clear nights are cold nights” and most people have made the according experience. Even the IPCC states clouds would block a 50W/m2 of SW radiation, retain a 30W/m2 of LWIR and thus have a net CRE (Cloud Radiative Effect) of -20W/m2 [1]. Of course those -50W/m2 of SW CRE are already included in the formula above (part of the 30% albedo), while the 30W/m2 of LW CRE are not.
For this reason we need to make some minor corrections to the GHE as presented above. Basically Earth receives some 240 W/m2 of solar radiation (= 0.7 x 342) and is meant to emit some 390 W/m2 at 288°K at the surface. Next to a temperature of 33°K, the GHE would thus amount to about 150W/m2 respectively (=390-240).
Since in reality the surface is not a perfect emitter, the 390W/m2 are totally inaccurate. In fact it is easy to call it “fake science” whenever someone claims this number, or an even higher one. Rather we need to reduce this figure by at least 20 W/m2 to allow for a realistic surface emissivity. Next we need to allow for the 30 W/m2 that clouds provide and thus our GHE shrinks from 150 W/m2 to a maximum of only 100 W/m2 (150 – 20 – 30).
For the sake of clarity we should rename the GHE to GHGE (greenhouse gas effect) as this is the pivotal question. How much do GHGs warm up the planet? It is important so see that GHGs were attributed with their specific role in a kind of “diagnosis of exclusion”. If it were not for GHGs, what would be the temperature of Earth? Any delta to the observed temperature can then be attributed to GHGs.
Such a “diagnosis of exclusion” is always prone to failure, be it in the medical field or anywhere else. Essentially a large number of variables need to be taken into account and the slightest mistake in the process, will necessarily cause a faulty outcome. For that reason it should be considered an approach of last resort, maybe helpful to treat a patient or solve a criminal case. As a starting point in physics it is a no-go, and as we can see, it delivers wrong results. But maybe that is the reason why it was chosen in the first place. Faulty approaches give a certain freedom of creativity.
GHGE being notoriously exaggerated
Still, we have not broken any barriers so far. Yes, the GHGE is notoriously being exaggerated and anyone who claims Earth would be 255°K cold if it were not for GHGs, is either incompetent, or simply lying. You cannot excuse such a claim as “simplification”, since exaggerating the GHGE by some 50% at least is certainly beyond negligible.
On the other side, this does not deny the global warming narrative at all. One might consider downgrading climate sensitivity a bit, which would only result in climate models better matching reality. Even then, this will only put things on a healthier and more appropriate basis, eventually supporting the theory of CO2 induced global warming.
Digging deeper
So far I have not introduced anything substantially new, but only pointed out to what is known and yet constantly forgotten. Especially the CRE in its quoted magnitude is pretty much an undisputed fact of science. Although I do not know exactly what the origins of these estimates were, experts like Veerabhadran Ramanathan already zeroed in on it in the 1970s. Satellite driven projects like ERBE or CERES later confirmed and specified those estimates.
The net CRE of -20W/m2 thus can be found in the IPCC reports, NASA gives detailed satellite data on it, and even “sceptics” like Richard Lindzen name and endorse it[2]. Such a solid agreement is not just good for my argumentation above, it is also great for the GHGE itself. In fact the negative CRE is pretty much a conditio sine qua non. If clouds were not cooling the planet, the scope for GHGs might become marginal.
There are indeed some issues with the CRE I need to talk about and things are not nearly as settled as I just suggested.
Whatever experts name a net CRE of about -20 W/m2, they refer to the same sources, which are ERBE and CERES satellite data. This are not satellite data at all, but models which are getting fed with some satellite data, among others. These models were largely developed by the same people who predicted the negative CRE in the first place. They might not even have a (significant) GHGE if the result would not turn out how it did. A closer look on these model results show totally inconsistent outcomes over time. Regions with massively negative local CREs turned into having positive CREs, and vice verse.[3] The only thing which really held constant over time was the overall negative CRE of the named magnitude. Of course, that is a precondition to the GHGE and cannot be put into question, if “climate science” wants to have an agenda.
There is yet another side to it. Obviously the net CRE is the sum SW and LW CREs, which can easily be formulated as CREsw + CRElw = CREnet. Since the CRElw is what is being forgotten so notoriously (as it diminishes the GHGE), we could assume there might be a motivated tendency to minimize the CRElw. Given the logical restrictions, this can be achieved by making the CREnet as negative, and the CREsw as small as possible. In other words, there is a trinity of issues with the CRE.
The -50 W/m2 of SW CRE. This figure is pretty low as compared conventional wisdom, according to which clouds make up for about 2/3s of the albedo, or almost -70W/m2. The net CRE of some -20 W/m2. We are going to have a look into this hereafter. The LW CRE of +30 W/m2 which is reducing the GHGE as shown above, but for some strange reason tends to be “forgotten”.
Putting things to the test
Since the net negative CRE is “confirmed” by nothing but models of dubious nature, since logic might suggest the opposite (to cut a long story short) and the whole GHGE theory totally depends on it, this question made a perfectly legit target for fact checking. It is the one pivotal question it all boils down to. Is the CRE negative indeed and how could we possibly put it to the test?
As on my previous works in forensic science it seemed mandatory to pass by any conventional approach subject to predictable restrictions. Rather you will have to go beyond the understanding of those who might conspire so that their possible defences turn futile. And of course this would require brute force of intellect, creativity and a bit of luck to find an appropriate leverage.
At least the latter turns out to be a friendly gift by the NOAA. Under the title “QCLCD ASCII Files” the NOAA provided all METAR data from US weather stations[4]. Regrettably they pulled these valuable data from their site soon after I downloaded it, and the alternative “Global-Hourly Files” is not quite working[5].
The METAR data, as far I understand, are taken at airports and contain, next to usual meteorologic data, cloud conditions originally meant to assist aircraft operating around these airports. The data are anything but perfect for our scope and are subject to a couple of restrictions. As a rule, cloud condition is only reported up to 12,000 ft, yet individual exceptions may occur. Then this cloud condition is reported in 5 different “flavours”, which are CLR, FEW, SCT, BKN and OVC, or combinations of which. For our purpose any combination will be reduced to the maximum cloud condition.
Even if this is not an ideal data pool, it meets a lot of necessary requirements. First it is a totally independent data source, which has never been meant to be used for climate research. Second these data have been collected by many people, who may have made individual mistakes in the process, but were certainly not systemically biased. Third these data are thus “democratic” in nature, not controlled by the bottle neck of a few experts. Eventually, and that is the most important point, we need no models here, but we can look straight onto the empiric evidence.
The Result
First I need to tell how such basic research gives you amazing insights otherwise not available anywhere.
You will not get to see what you like to, or expect to see, but what there is. Just like Christopher Columbus searching for India and finding America, you will have to take things for face value. Analyzing the data back and forth, using different perspectives, this was not a simple look up to confirm a certain expectation, but rather a process of continuous learning. Accordingly there are lots of results giving excellent insights into the nature of clouds, or their impacts on climate respectively.
This graph was taken from Harvard’s educational site [6] on the subject. Here, like in later iterations of the ERBE / CERES modelling, the northern Pacific is meant to be one of the areas with a massively negative CRE, which are of special interest to me.
Since the Aleutian islands are US territory, my NOAA data set included 10 stations located right there.
For the years 2016 and 2017, these stations report about 325,000 valid datasets, with almost 60% of which being overcast. So it is indeed a very cloudy region.
Once we resolve the cloudiness/temperature correlation by season, we find a very typical outcome. OVC skies are correlated with lower temperatures in spring and early summer, and with higher temperatures throughout the rest of the year. This pattern has been seen in all subsets featuring distinct seasons and is due to surface temperatures lagging behind solar intensity.
It is an analogy to the day/night cycle, where clouds hold down day time temperatures, while keeping nights relatively warm. It is about the relation of incoming SW to outgoing LW radiation. As clouds interfere with both radiative fluxes, their primary effect will be relative to which of these fluxes is stronger. In spring surface temperatures lag behind solar intensity, LW emissions will be relatively weak and thus clouds are cooling. In autumn this relation naturally reverses and then clouds are warming.
Note: These “tidal effects” are a direct representation of the LW CRE. Although it goes way beyond the scope of this article, such data are very helpful in assessing the actual magnitude of the LW CRE.
A huge surprise
Finally, if we add up the above results and look at the annual average (thus seasonally adjusted), we are in for a huge surprise (or possibly no more at this point). The correlation between clouds and temperature is strictly positive. The more clouds, the warmer it is, and that is in a region where models suggest a massively negative CRE.
Obviously something is totally wrong here.
I am confident the METAR data are correct, and I am certain my analysis is correct, since I have gone over it many times and the outcome is consistent with all the different perspectives. Instead, the ERBE/CERES models are wrong when compared to empiric evidence a.k.a. “reality”. That is not much of a surprise given a track record of inconsistent results.
And as much as the Bering Sea looks like “a perfect match” to fact check these models, the problems go far beyond the region. No matter where ever I looked, a negative CRE could not be found.
Just the tip of the ice berg
Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course you need to check for biases to see how much a correlation also means causation, and there are a few. Humidity, as much as it may serve as an indicator for the assumed GHG vapour, is indeed correlated with cloudiness (78% rel. humidity with CLR, 85% with OVC), but this delta is a) influenced by rain and b) too small to explain what we see.
More importantly, this analysis is all about low clouds up to 12.000 ft and it is undisputed the net CRE turns more positive the higher up clouds are. Then there is the subject of rain chill, which makes clouds look statistically colder than they are. Finally temperatures are sluggish relative to ever changing cloud conditions and we would certainly see a larger delta in temperatures if respective cloud conditions were permanent.
Systemic GHE failure
Unlike what I named before, this is not just a scratch on the GHE theory, but systemic failure. If clouds warm the planet indeed, and all the evidence points this way, the very foundation of the theory is getting annihilated. Not that GHGs might not play a certain role in Earth’s climate, but the size of the GHGE will be only a fraction of 33°K, and one that is yet to be precisely determined.
[1] 5th AR of the IPCC, page 580
[2] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/29/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-414/
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-annual-mean-SW-LW-and-net-CRE-of-E55H20-E61H22-and-E63H23-to-CERES-40_fig2_335351575
[4] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/quick-links
[5] Documentation does not fit the data format, for some reason I am unable to locate temperature readings, the format itself is hard to read, and finally for some reason these data, station by station, do not correspond to those of the “QCLCD ASCII Files”
[6] https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/ccf.html
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-12--Schizophrenic German Wind Power Output In August, Plagued By Wild Volatility

Here ’ s another example illustrating just how volatile and unreliable wind energy really is .
Wind energy proponents like @ @ @ @ @ installed on land don ’ t produce so optimally , the ones at sea are @ @ @ @ @ is always blowing and so it all kind of evens out .
The chart below @ @ @ @ @ wind turbines installed in Germany , both on land and offshore , from the five @ @ @ @ @ The dark horizontal line denoting 60,000 MW represents the so-called installed total capacity .
Readers @ @ @ @ @ 10 % of rated capacity often gets produced .
Only rarely does an output of @ @ @ @ @ ) ever get reached .

Share this...
Here’s another example illustrating just how volatile and unreliable wind energy really is.
Wind energy proponents like to claim that although turbines installed on land don’t produce so optimally, the ones at sea are wonderful because the wind there is always blowing and so it all kind of evens out.
The chart below shows the output of all wind turbines installed in Germany, both on land and offshore, from the five major German grid operators:
The dark horizontal line denoting 60,000 MW represents the so-called installed total capacity. Readers will note that less than 10% of rated capacity often gets produced. Only rarely does an output of 33% (20 MW) ever get reached.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-13--Greta Thunberg’s Scandinavia Has Seen August Cooling Trend Over The Past Quarter Century

Today we plot the Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA ) data for Northern Europe for the month of August , 2020 .
We have selected this region because it is the home of 17-year old climate alarmist/activist Greta Thunberg , who thinks the planet is heating up rapidly and so we ’ re all doomed .
We plot the data for the stations for which the JMA has sufficient data going back over 2 decades .
First we plot the August data for Sweden , Greta ’ s home country : Five of the 6 stations plotted show a cooling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mystery how Greta thinks her country is warming up .
The data suggest that summers have been shortening a bit .
Over the course of Greta ’ s life , she has yet to see warming in August .
Here we see 6 of the 11 stations have seen an August cooling trend over the past quarter century .
The colder stations have warmed somewhat , while the warmer ones have cooled .
Overall , no warming to speak of , really .
The story is similar in Finland ( further from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stations have cooled , while the warmer stations have warmed slightly – but statistically insignificantly : Finally we plot the data for the emerald island , Ireland , next to the tempestuous Atlantic : Four of the six stations in Ireland have been cooling in August .
Those warming have done so insignificantly .
Overall the emerald island has been cooling during the month of August since 1983 !

Share this...
By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin
Today we plot the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) data for Northern Europe for the month of August, 2020.
We have selected this region because it is the home of 17-year old climate alarmist/activist Greta Thunberg, who thinks the planet is heating up rapidly and so we’re all doomed.
We plot the data for the stations for which the JMA has sufficient data going back over 2 decades. First we plot the August data for Sweden, Greta’s home country:
Data: JMA
Five of the 6 stations plotted show a cooling trend. So it’s a mystery how Greta thinks her country is warming up. The data suggest that summers have been shortening a bit. Over the course of Greta’s life, she has yet to see warming in August.
Next we examine Norway, Greta’s western neighbor:
Data: JMA
Here we see 6 of the 11 stations have seen an August cooling trend over the past quarter century. The colder stations have warmed somewhat, while the warmer ones have cooled. Overall, no warming to speak of, really.
The story is similar in Finland (further from the Atlantic), but here the colder stations have cooled, while the warmer stations have warmed slightly – but statistically insignificantly:
Data: JMA
Finally we plot the data for the emerald island, Ireland, next to the tempestuous Atlantic:
Data: JMA
Four of the six stations in Ireland have been cooling in August. Those warming have done so insignificantly. Overall the emerald island has been cooling during the month of August since 1983!
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-14--New Study Finds Weak CO2-Induced Warming An ‘Implausible’ Explanation For The End-Triassic Mass Exti

New Study Finds Weak CO2-Induced Warming An ‘Implausible’ Explanation For The End-Triassic Mass Extinction

Evidence that temperature swings of ±17°C occurred during the end-Triassic mass extinction event imply that CO2 would have needed to increase 8- to 1,024-fold ( 3 to 10 doublings ) to have induced that magnitude of temperature change .
It didn ’ t .
Evidence from a new study ( Petryshyn et al.
, 2020 ) suggests “ repeated ” temperature swings of 16-17°C occurred in Cotham Marble ( CM , southwest United Kingdom ) at the end of the Triassic epoch , when the worst extinction event of the last 500 million years occurred .
However , Petryshyn and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millennial-scale increases in temperatures in the region , implying that , at least locally , the initial extinction is not attributable to extreme warming.
” But even if the end-Triassic mass extinction ( ETME ) could be attributable to extreme warming , CO2 would be “ implausible ” as a mechanism .
According to models , CO2 increases up to 8 times the pre-industrial baseline ( 280 ppm ) could only increase sea surface temperatures 5.4°C at most ( Petryshyn et al.
, 2020 ) .
CO2 concentrations would need to increase up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 or 17°C .
Therefore , “ the initial onset of the biodiversity crisis may necessitate another mechanism .
”

Share this...
Evidence that temperature swings of ±17°C occurred during the end-Triassic mass extinction event imply that CO2 would have needed to increase 8- to 1,024-fold (3 to 10 doublings) to have induced that magnitude of temperature change. It didn’t.
Evidence from a new study (Petryshyn et al., 2020) suggests “repeated” temperature swings of 16-17°C occurred in Cotham Marble (CM, southwest United Kingdom) at the end of the Triassic epoch, when the worst extinction event of the last 500 million years occurred.
However, Petryshyn and colleagues acknowledge they “cannot resolve millennial-scale increases in temperatures in the region, implying that, at least locally, the initial extinction is not attributable to extreme warming.”
But even if the end-Triassic mass extinction (ETME) could be attributable to extreme warming, CO2 would be “implausible” as a mechanism.
According to models, CO2 increases up to 8 times the pre-industrial baseline (280 ppm) could only increase sea surface temperatures 5.4°C at most (Petryshyn et al., 2020). CO2 concentrations would need to increase up to 1,024-fold to elicit temperature changes reaching 16 or 17°C.
Therefore, “the initial onset of the biodiversity crisis may necessitate another mechanism.”


notrickszone--2020-09-17--Scientists: No Correlation Between Climate Change And Wildfires In California – Or Anywhere Else On

Scientists: No Correlation Between Climate Change And Wildfires In California – Or Anywhere Else On Earth

A “ potential connection ” between anthropogenic global warming and the frequency or intensity of wildfires in California has yet @ @ @ @ @ observations .
Scientists have found a “ lack of correlation between late summer/autumn wildfires ” @ @ @ @ @ temperature ” in coastal California .
In fact , “ there is no long-term trend @ @ @ @ @ over coastal California ” in the last 50 years ( Mass and Ovens , 2019 @ @ @ @ @ the Western USA has recently declined to the lowest point in the last 1,400+ years @ @ @ @ @ 2012 ) .
As CO2 concentrations have risen from 300 ppm to 400 ppm ( @ @ @ @ @ the decline in global burned area has been significant ( Yang et al.
, 2014 @ @ @ @ @ in global-scale wildfires can even be dectected over the short-term 2001-2016 period ( Earl and @ @ @ @ @

Share this...
A “potential connection” between anthropogenic global warming and the frequency or intensity of wildfires in California has yet to emerge in the trend observations.
Scientists have found a “lack of correlation between late summer/autumn wildfires” and “summer precipitation or temperature” in coastal California. In fact, “there is no long-term trend in the number of fires over coastal California” in the last 50 years (Mass and Ovens, 2019).
Fire history in the Western USA has recently declined to the lowest point in the last 1,400+ years (Marlon et al., 2012).
As CO2 concentrations have risen from 300 ppm to 400 ppm (1900 to 2007), the decline in global burned area has been significant (Yang et al., 2014).
The falling trends in global-scale wildfires can even be dectected over the short-term 2001-2016 period (Earl and Simmonds, 2018).


notrickszone--2020-09-16--German Electricity Imports Hit New Record, Rise 43.3 Percent in First Half Of 2020!

You would think that with all the added wind and solar energy in Germany , along with all the conventional power plants on standby , all totaling up to huge unneeded capacity , there would be no need to import any power at all .
Well , think again .
The German epochtimes.de here reports that German imports of electricity in fact : “ rose by 43.3 percent to 25.7 billion kilowatt hours in the first half of 2020 compared with the first half of 2019.
” One reason for this was the declining share of domestic feed-in from base-load-capable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which mainly use coal , nuclear energy and natural gas .
As a result , electricity was imported to cover the demand for electricity , especially when there was no wind or darkness .
The main import country for electricity was France with 8.7 billion kilowatt hours .
Overall , however , more electricity was still exported from Germany.
” What the article does not mention , however , is the reason for the rise in export from Germany .
On windy and sunshine-plenty days , Germany produces more electricity than needed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excess power into neighboring foreign markets – often at negative prices .
The negative prices , in combination with the mandatory feed-in tariffs and excess production capacity , all means higher costs for consumers .
Little wonder that at close to 35 US cents per kwh , Germany ’ s electricity prices are among the highest in the world .

Share this...
You would think that with all the added wind and solar energy in Germany, along with all the conventional power plants on standby, all totaling up to huge unneeded capacity, there would be no need to import any power at all. Well, think again.
Photo: P. Gosselin
The German epochtimes.de here reports that German imports of electricity in fact: “rose by 43.3 percent to 25.7 billion kilowatt hours in the first half of 2020 compared with the first half of 2019.”
The epochtimes.de explains further:
One reason for this was the declining share of domestic feed-in from base-load-capable, mostly conventionally operated power plants, which mainly use coal, nuclear energy and natural gas. As a result, electricity was imported to cover the demand for electricity, especially when there was no wind or darkness. The main import country for electricity was France with 8.7 billion kilowatt hours. Overall, however, more electricity was still exported from Germany.”
What the article does not mention, however, is the reason for the rise in export from Germany. On windy and sunshine-plenty days, Germany produces more electricity than needed, and so is forced to dump the excess power into neighboring foreign markets – often at negative prices. The negative prices, in combination with the mandatory feed-in tariffs and excess production capacity, all means higher costs for consumers.
Little wonder that at close to 35 US cents per kwh, Germany’s electricity prices are among the highest in the world.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000