notrickszone--2020-09-15--New Study Shows German Offshore Wind Turbines May Cannibalize Each Other When Improperly Sited

According to a new study , the expansion of offshore wind energy planned to date could lead to less electricity actually being produced at higher costs because , according to current planning , wind farms are taking the wind away from each other .
The researchers from the Technical University of Denmark in Roskilde and the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena , Germany have investigated the topic .
The study entitled “ Making the Most of Offshore Wind ” was commissioned by the Agora Energiewende and Agora Verkehrswende think tanks .
The report looks at that the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farm planners and investors can adequately capture the interaction effects between turbines stemming from very large areas covered with offshore wind farms at high installed capacity density .
Offshore wind power needs sufficient space , as the full load operating time may otherwise shrink from currently around 4,000 hours per year to between 3,000 and 3,300 hours .
The more turbines are installed in a region , the less efficient offshore wind production becomes due to a lack of wind recovery .
If Germany were to install 50 to 70 GW solely in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full-load hours achieved by offshore wind farms would decrease considerably.
” Countries on the North and Baltic Seas should cooperate with a view to maximizing the wind yield and full-load hours of their offshore wind farms .
In order to maximize the efficiency and potential of offshore wind , the planning and development of wind farms – as well as broader maritime spatial planning – should be intelligently coordinated across national borders .
This finding is relevant to both the North and Baltic Seas .
In addition , floating offshore wind farms could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into wind farm planning.
” Chart source : Study : “ Making the Most of Offshore Wind “ , Agora Energiewende and Agora Verkehrswende .
In a nutshell : a central pillar of the German and European transition to green energies threatens to become even more inefficient and more expensive than planned .

Share this...
Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne
According to a new study, the expansion of offshore wind energy planned to date could lead to less electricity actually being produced at higher costs because, according to current planning, wind farms are taking the wind away from each other.
The researchers from the Technical University of Denmark in Roskilde and the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany have investigated the topic. The study entitled “Making the Most of Offshore Wind” was commissioned by the Agora Energiewende and Agora Verkehrswende think tanks.
The report looks at that the question whether energy models used today by wind farm planners and investors can adequately capture the interaction effects between turbines stemming from very large areas covered with offshore wind farms at high installed capacity density.
Among the study’s key findings:
Offshore wind power needs sufficient space, as the full load operating time may otherwise shrink
from currently around 4,000 hours per year to between 3,000 and 3,300 hours. The more turbines
are installed in a region, the less efficient offshore wind production becomes due to a lack of wind
recovery. If Germany were to install 50 to 70 GW solely in the German Bight, the number of full-load
hours achieved by offshore wind farms would decrease considerably.” Countries on the North and Baltic Seas should cooperate with a view to maximizing the wind yield
and full-load hours of their offshore wind farms. In order to maximize the efficiency and potential of
offshore wind, the planning and development of wind farms – as well as broader maritime spatial
planning – should be intelligently coordinated across national borders. This finding is relevant to
both the North and Baltic Seas. In addition, floating offshore wind farms could enable the creative
integration of deep waters into wind farm planning.”
Chart source: Study: “Making the Most of Offshore Wind“, Agora Energiewende and Agora Verkehrswende.
More unexpected costs, inefficiency
In a nutshell: a central pillar of the German and European transition to green energies threatens to become even more inefficient and more expensive than planned.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-18--Scientists: Antarctica Ice Sheet Thinned 400 Meters 5000 Years Ago, And Natural Oceanic Cycles Drive

Scientists: Antarctica Ice Sheet Thinned 400 Meters 5000 Years Ago, And Natural Oceanic Cycles Drive Climate

Today we present two papers on climate reconstruction using proxy data .
One about East Antarctica and the other about belize .
Hat-tip reader Mary Brown .
First we look at a paper authored by a team of German scientists : “ Great Blue Hole ( Lighthouse Reef , Belize ) : A continuous , annually-resolved record of Common Era sea surface temperature , Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and cyclone-controlled run-off “ .
The team looked at 2000 years of proxy data from Belize and found interesting natural cycles at play .
According to the authors , the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in time and that it controls the SW Caribbean sea surface temperature patterns on multi-decadal time scales .
The authors note that the Holocene ( < 11.7 kyr BP ) has been characterized by several periods of distinct climate changes and that the climate remains difficult to predict “ due to the lack of comprehensive , annually-resolved and continuous sea-surface temperature ( SST ) data ” .
So what about them models ?
Examining an 8.55 m long sediment core from the bottom of the Great Blue Hole ( Lighthouse Reef , Belize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extract “ an annually-resolved , continuous and unique south-western Caribbean climate record for the last 1885 years ” .
The result ?
The data imply a general SST rise within the south-western Caribbean and that the modulation of SST within the time series likely operated on two different time levels : ( 1 ) Solar ( e.g.
, “ Gleissberg Cycles ” ) and volcanic activity triggered climate changes , which in turn induced responses of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation ( AMO ) , the North Atlantic Oscillation ( NAO ) and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors conclude further in the abstract : We suspect long-term positive AMO and NAO modes as the primary key control mechanisms of the Dark Ages Cold and Medieval Warm Period SST patterns .
ENSO mode modulation likely exerted primary control on regional SST variability during the Little Ice Age and the Modern Global Warming .
( 2 ) Our δ18O data further indicate a striking secondary control on multi-decadal time scales : δ18O variations occur with 32–64 years periodicity .
This signal is clearly evidence of SST modulation controlled by AMO phase changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire Common Era .
Our carbon isotope record ( δ13C ) exhibits two remarkable negative anomalies and a long-term up-core decreasing trend .
The first excursion ( drop of 0.5‰ ) occurred with the onset of the Medieval Warm Period , which is reconstructed to be a peak time in south-western Caribbean tropical cyclone ( TC ) activity .
This overlap is stressing a potential context between TC activity , enhanced coastal run-off and increased soil-erosion reflected by 13C-depleted carbon isotopes .
A second anomaly ( > 1900 CE ) is more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( anthropogenic impact of the Industrial Revolution on carbon isotopes composition ) than another reflection of a TC peak activity interval.
” But since 1900 , man has taken over control of the earth ’ s climate , the authors seem to be suggesting .
That was probably written in witha wink to the funders .
In another new paper : Abrupt Holocene ice-sheet thinning along the southern Soya Coast , Lützow-Holm Bay , East Antarctica , revealed by glacial geomorphology and surface exposure dating , a team of Japanese scientists led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet ( EAIS ) .
The authors found that it had thinned from at least 400 m a.s.l .
during the Early to Mid-Holocene ( 9–5 ka ) and say the abrupt thinning was likely caused by the natural inflow of modified Circumpolar Deep Water via submarine valleys in Lützow-Holm Bay .
Geological reconstruction of the retreat history of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet ( EAIS ) since the Last Glacial Maximum ( LGM ) is essential for understanding the response of the ice sheet to global climatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including a possible abrupt melting event .
Such information is key for constraining climatic and ice-sheet models that are used to predict future Antarctic Ice Sheet AIS melting .
However , data required to make a detailed reconstruction of the history of the EAIS involving changes in its thickness and lateral extent since the LGM remain sparse .
Here , we present a new detailed ice-sheet history for the southern Soya Coast , Lützow-Holm Bay , East Antarctica , based on geomorphological observations and surface exposure ages .
Our results demonstrate that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Skarvsnes ( 400 m a.s.l . )
prior to ∼9 ka and retreated eastward by at least 10 km during the Early to Mid-Holocene ( ca .
9 to 5 ka ) .
The timing of the abrupt ice-sheet thinning and retreat is consistent with the intrusion of modified Circumpolar Deep Water ( mCDW ) into deep submarine valleys in Lützow-Holm Bay , as inferred from fossil foraminifera records of marine sediment cores .
Thus , we propose that the mechanism of the abrupt thinning and retreat of the EAIS along the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused by mCDW intrusion into deep submarine valleys .
Such abrupt ice-sheet thinning and retreat with similar magnitude and timing have also been reported from Enderby Land , East Antarctica .
Our findings suggest that abrupt thinning and retreat as a consequence of marine ice-sheet instability and intrusion of mCDW during the Early to Mid-Holocene may have led to rapid ice-surface lowering of hundreds of meters in East Antarctica.
” Today , if an ice sheet loses 60 cm , it ’ s deemed a crisis by climate bedwetters .
Just imagine if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose 400 meters thickness .

Share this...
Today we present two papers on climate reconstruction using proxy data. One about East Antarctica and the other about belize. Hat-tip reader Mary Brown.
AMO behind sea surface temperatures
First we look at a paper authored by a team of German scientists: “Great Blue Hole (Lighthouse Reef, Belize): A continuous, annually-resolved record of Common Era sea surface temperature, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and cyclone-controlled run-off“.
The team looked at 2000 years of proxy data from Belize and found interesting natural cycles at play. According to the authors, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) occurred 1885 years back in time and that it controls the SW Caribbean sea surface temperature patterns on multi-decadal time scales.
The authors note that the Holocene (<11.7 kyr BP) has been characterized by several periods of distinct climate changes and that the climate remains difficult to predict “due to the lack of comprehensive, annually-resolved and continuous sea-surface temperature (SST) data”.
So what about them models?
Examining an 8.55 m long sediment core from the bottom of the Great Blue Hole (Lighthouse Reef, Belize), the scientists were able to extract “an annually-resolved, continuous and unique south-western Caribbean climate record for the last 1885 years”.
The result? The data imply a general SST rise within the south-western Caribbean and that the modulation of SST within the time series likely operated on two different time levels: (1) Solar (e.g., “Gleissberg Cycles”) and volcanic activity triggered climate changes, which in turn induced responses of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the El-Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
The authors conclude further in the abstract:
We suspect long-term positive AMO and NAO modes as the primary key control mechanisms of the Dark Ages Cold and Medieval Warm Period SST patterns. ENSO mode modulation likely exerted primary control on regional SST variability during the Little Ice Age and the Modern Global Warming. (2) Our δ18O data further indicate a striking secondary control on multi-decadal time scales: δ18O variations occur with 32–64 years periodicity. This signal is clearly evidence of SST modulation controlled by AMO phase changes (50–70 years) over almost the entire Common Era. Our carbon isotope record (δ13C) exhibits two remarkable negative anomalies and a long-term up-core decreasing trend. The first excursion (drop of 0.5‰) occurred with the onset of the Medieval Warm Period, which is reconstructed to be a peak time in south-western Caribbean tropical cyclone (TC) activity. This overlap is stressing a potential context between TC activity, enhanced coastal run-off and increased soil-erosion reflected by 13C-depleted carbon isotopes. A second anomaly (>1900 CE) is more likely the result of the “Suess Effect” (anthropogenic impact of the Industrial Revolution on carbon isotopes composition) than another reflection of a TC peak activity interval.”
But since 1900, man has taken over control of the earth’s climate, the authors seem to be suggesting. That was probably written in witha wink to the funders.
Antarctica suddenly lost 400 meters of ice
In another new paper: Abrupt Holocene ice-sheet thinning along the southern Soya Coast, Lützow-Holm Bay, East Antarctica, revealed by glacial geomorphology and surface exposure dating, a team of Japanese scientists led by Moto Kawamata examined the deglacial history of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS).
Image: Figure 1 here.
The authors found that it had thinned from at least 400 m a.s.l. during the Early to Mid-Holocene (9–5 ka) and say the abrupt thinning was likely caused by the natural inflow of modified Circumpolar Deep Water via submarine valleys in Lützow-Holm Bay.
Abstract:
Geological reconstruction of the retreat history of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) is essential for understanding the response of the ice sheet to global climatic change and the mechanisms of retreat, including a possible abrupt melting event. Such information is key for constraining climatic and ice-sheet models that are used to predict future Antarctic Ice Sheet AIS melting. However, data required to make a detailed reconstruction of the history of the EAIS involving changes in its thickness and lateral extent since the LGM remain sparse. Here, we present a new detailed ice-sheet history for the southern Soya Coast, Lützow-Holm Bay, East Antarctica, based on geomorphological observations and surface exposure ages. Our results demonstrate that the ice sheet completely covered the highest peak of Skarvsnes (400 m a.s.l.) prior to ∼9 ka and retreated eastward by at least 10 km during the Early to Mid-Holocene (ca. 9 to 5 ka). The timing of the abrupt ice-sheet thinning and retreat is consistent with the intrusion of modified Circumpolar Deep Water (mCDW) into deep submarine valleys in Lützow-Holm Bay, as inferred from fossil foraminifera records of marine sediment cores. Thus, we propose that the mechanism of the abrupt thinning and retreat of the EAIS along the southern Soya Coast was marine ice-sheet instability caused by mCDW intrusion into deep submarine valleys. Such abrupt ice-sheet thinning and retreat with similar magnitude and timing have also been reported from Enderby Land, East Antarctica. Our findings suggest that abrupt thinning and retreat as a consequence of marine ice-sheet instability and intrusion of mCDW during the Early to Mid-Holocene may have led to rapid ice-surface lowering of hundreds of meters in East Antarctica.”
Today, if an ice sheet loses 60 cm, it’s deemed a crisis by climate bedwetters. Just imagine if an ice sheet in Antarctica were to lose 400 meters thickness.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-19--German Scientists’ Climate Skeptic Book Soars To No. 1 On Amazon List For “Engineering And Technolog

German Scientists’ Climate Skeptic Book Soars To No. 1 On Amazon List For “Engineering And Technology”

A new book challenging the climate hysteria , which Greta has helped whip in Germany has hit the German bookshelves : Unerwünschte Wahrheiten .
Was Sie über den Klimawandel wissen sollen ” ( Unwanted Truths .
What You Need To Know About Climate Change ) : “ Unwanted Truths ” has reached No .
1 at Amazon in the category “ Engineering and Technology ” , so it is the “ bestseller ” in this category .
For “ Books ” it has climbed to no .
49 ( Status : 17 Sept 2020 ; 21:20 hrs ) .
Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has it been as warm as today .
But is that true ?
Were the recent temperature changes really caused by us humans alone ?
And what influence do the fluctuations in solar activity have ?
Authors Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning examine 50 topics in the book to find the answers .
It turns out that large-scale natural cycles are very much at play , with the evidence showing that manmade climate change has been grossly exaggerated .
“ The book is based on the analysis of more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IPCC climate reports and web resources , ” wrote Lüning in a comment by email .
“ We found that many of the climate scare stories in the media have an additional angle .
In many cases , the full range of natural variability is omitted because the historical reference period that was selected is too short to fully inform about the pronounced natural climate changes.
” For example , when natural disasters of the last 150 years are placed in a climate historical context of the millennia , it becomes apparent that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not do justice to the complex interrelationships and leads to fear and uncertainty .
Overall , the book is a courageous statement against the overheated climate debate and all the alarmism and political showmanship surrounding climate policy .

Share this...
A new book challenging the climate hysteria, which Greta has helped whip in Germany has hit the German bookshelves: Unerwünschte Wahrheiten. Was Sie über den Klimawandel wissen sollen” (Unwanted Truths. What You Need To Know About Climate Change):
Image: Amazon
“Unwanted Truths” has reached No. 1 at Amazon in the category “Engineering and Technology”, so it is the “bestseller” in this category. For “Books” it has climbed to no. 49 (Status: 17 Sept 2020; 21:20 hrs).
Natural cycles dominate
Climate alarmists like to claim that never before has it been as warm as today. But is that true? Were the recent temperature changes really caused by us humans alone? And what influence do the fluctuations in solar activity have? Authors Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning examine 50 topics in the book to find the answers.
It turns out that large-scale natural cycles are very much at play, with the evidence showing that manmade climate change has been grossly exaggerated.
Media doing a poor job
“The book is based on the analysis of more than 2000 scientific peer-reviewed papers, government and IPCC climate reports and web resources,” wrote Lüning in a comment by email. “We found that many of the climate scare stories in the media have an additional angle. In many cases, the full range of natural variability is omitted because the historical reference period that was selected is too short to fully inform about the pronounced natural climate changes.”
Natural disasters put in a historical context
For example, when natural disasters of the last 150 years are placed in a climate historical context of the millennia, it becomes apparent that the simplistic depiction in the media does not do justice to the complex interrelationships and leads to fear and uncertainty. Overall, the book is a courageous statement against the overheated climate debate and all the alarmism and political showmanship surrounding climate policy.


notrickszone--2020-09-20--Green Revolution Hurting Environment, Planet Far More Than Helping, Newly Released Video Shows

Here ’ s a newly released 7-minute video that needs to be spread throughout the world .
It illustrates how @ @ @ @ @ for the planet than claimed .
More pollution , destruction of nature and exploitation of @ @ @ @ @ elitists in rich countries can feel like they are good stewards of the planet .
@ @ @ @ @ no surprise , especially to those who have seen Jeff Gibbs ’ recent documentary : @ @ @ @ @ “ .

Share this...
Here’s a newly released 7-minute video that needs to be spread throughout the world.
It illustrates how green energies are much worse for the planet than claimed. More pollution, destruction of nature and exploitation of poor countries – just so elitists in rich countries can feel like they are good stewards of the planet.
This of course comes as no surprise, especially to those who have seen Jeff Gibbs’ recent documentary: “Planet of the Humans“.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-21--Determined Scientists Add Phantom ‘Unprecedented’ Warmth To New Temperature Reconstructions

Paleoclimate reconstructions that find no unusual modern warming are nonetheless characterized as showing sharp temperature increases in recent decades anyway .
A new ( Li et al.
, 2020 ) 1818-2012 temperature reconstruction determined 1955 ( 6.33 °C ) and 2001 ( 7.17 °C ) were the 1st and 5th coldest years in northeastern China in the last 200 years .
The two warmest years were 1832 ( 9.63 °C ) and 1900 ( 9.57 °C ) .
Further , the highest “ continuous high decadal temperatures ” recorded were in 1818–1844 and 1856–1873 .
The post-1950s temperatures were colder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years of the temperature record .
And yet in spite of the warmer 19th-century temperatures , the authors chracterize the slight temperature rise since the 1950s as heralding in “ unprecedented ” warming .
They make this claim ( of “ unprecedented ” recent warmth ) in both the paper ’ s textual and graphical abstracts .
Forbes et al .
( 2020 ) use thermometer data from an Alaskan airport for the last ~90 years of their temperature record .
The instrumentals show surface temperatures cooled -0.7°C in winter ( January ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) from the 1950s- ’ 80s decades to the 1990s to 2010s .
For the summer temperature record ( shown in red below ) , nearly all the warming occurred during a step-change from the mid-1970s to mid-1980s .
Since about 1985 , summer temperatures seem to have been stable to slightly declining .
A lack of net overall warming in the last 50 or 60 years does not advance the anthropogenic global warming ( AGW ) cause , of course .
So the authors decided to add a “ cumulative mean summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharply rising green line in the graphic below ) to make it appear there has been a warmth accumulation of 30°C since mid-1980s .
Yes , 30°C cumulative warming during a period when there was no warming or even a slight cooling .
This statistic does not seem to have any relevance to the measured summer temperature record .
Aryal et al .
( Aryal et al.
, 2020 ) even acknowledged the region they studied is “ not yet warming ” in the title of their paper .
And yet they nonetheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ( the bottom of a cycle ) to start an arbitrary hotter-colored “ trend ” line .
In this way they could suggest there has been unusual warming in recent decades anyway .

Share this...
Paleoclimate reconstructions that find no unusual modern warming are nonetheless characterized as showing sharp temperature increases in recent decades anyway.
A new (Li et al., 2020) 1818-2012 temperature reconstruction determined 1955 (6.33 °C) and 2001 (7.17 °C) were the 1st and 5th coldest years in northeastern China in the last 200 years. The two warmest years were 1832 (9.63 °C) and 1900 (9.57 °C).
Further, the highest “continuous high decadal temperatures” recorded were in 1818–1844 and 1856–1873. The post-1950s temperatures were colder than nearly all of the first 100 years of the temperature record.
And yet in spite of the warmer 19th-century temperatures, the authors chracterize the slight temperature rise since the 1950s as heralding in “unprecedented” warming. They make this claim (of “unprecedented” recent warmth) in both the paper’s textual and graphical abstracts.
Forbes et al. (2020) use thermometer data from an Alaskan airport for the last ~90 years of their temperature record. The instrumentals show surface temperatures cooled -0.7°C in winter (January) and warmed 0.8°C in summer (July) from the 1950s-’80s decades to the 1990s to 2010s.
For the summer temperature record (shown in red below), nearly all the warming occurred during a step-change from the mid-1970s to mid-1980s. Since about 1985, summer temperatures seem to have been stable to slightly declining.
A lack of net overall warming in the last 50 or 60 years does not advance the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) cause, of course.
So the authors decided to add a “cumulative mean summer temperature departure” statistic (see the sharply rising green line in the graphic below) to make it appear there has been a warmth accumulation of 30°C since mid-1980s. Yes, 30°C cumulative warming during a period when there was no warming or even a slight cooling.
This statistic does not seem to have any relevance to the measured summer temperature record.
Aryal et al. (Aryal et al., 2020) even acknowledged the region they studied is “not yet warming” in the title of their paper.
And yet they nonetheless decided to select a cooler span of years (the bottom of a cycle) to start an arbitrary hotter-colored “trend” line. In this way they could suggest there has been unusual warming in recent decades anyway.


notrickszone--2020-09-22--Closing Ranks Of Climate Science And Youth “Like A Big Bang”, Says Gleeful Climate Prof. John Schell

Closing Ranks Of Climate Science And Youth “Like A Big Bang”, Says Gleeful Climate Prof. John Schellnhuber

In Berlin ’ s green movement , schools and officials aim to utilize youth to pave the way to a new world .
One lesson Germany loves to keep flunking : The risks of mass youth indoctrination .
Berlin daily , left-of-center Tagesspiegel here admiringly looks at the Fridays for Future movement in Berlin , a city where it is particularly strong and well-networked – and its schools serving as indoctrination farms .
Already some are sounding the alarms .
For example in a newly released book , former FFF activist Clemens Traub comments how the FFF movement is made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of them sporting the latest hip fashion and flashing the latest iPhone while fancying themselves as the rescuers of the planet and beholders of the truth .
Within its ivory tower , the movement does not even realize that its criticism affects the lifestyle of many socially weaker people who , for financial reasons , do not always have free choice .
They are branded as climate sinners because they don ’ t shop in organic food stores , but at discounters .
The consequence : We are all sitting on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the Tagesspiegel article , one interesting part was a comment on the importance of tapping the youth for the climate movement by former Potsdam Institute Director , Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber : The closing of ranks of science and youth in the fight for a new society that is sustainable in its management and living is like a big bang .
We need these heroes and heroines who are not even of age ” .
Using the youth indoctrination playbook of earlier German regimes , this is how leading scientists like Schellnhuber aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a radical ( experimental ) overhaul of the global society to one that is supposedly green .
These minors are well organized in their own schools – that is their basis .
But something has changed fundamentally .
Whereas ten years ago , the climate and environment clubs in the schools themselves were not taken seriously by students and particularly frequented , today they are the smallest units from which mobilization and organization for the big demonstrations are done .
Luis von Randow says : ‘ When people leave school , new ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ‘ It will not stop , that ’ s for sure . '
” Unwittingly , Randow and Rein are right if we use history as a guide .
Earlier attempts at German youth indoctrination by schools and state confirm this : Or this one here , an example of how extreme youth indoctrination can become : As talented a scientist Schellnhuber is , he obviously learned very VERY little about the lessons of history .

Share this...
In Berlin’s green movement, schools and officials aim to utilize youth to pave the way to a new world.
One lesson Germany loves to keep flunking: The risks of mass youth indoctrination.
Berlin daily, left-of-center Tagesspiegel here admiringly looks at the Fridays for Future movement in Berlin, a city where it is particularly strong and well-networked – and its schools serving as indoctrination farms.
Danger signals
Already some are sounding the alarms. For example in a newly released book, former FFF activist Clemens Traub comments how the FFF movement is made up mostly of privileged urban youth, most of them sporting the latest hip fashion and flashing the latest iPhone while fancying themselves as the rescuers of the planet and beholders of the truth.
Traub writes:
Within its ivory tower, the movement does not even realize that its criticism affects the lifestyle of many socially weaker people who, for financial reasons, do not always have free choice. They are branded as climate sinners because they don’t shop in organic food stores, but at discounters. The consequence: We are all sitting on a powder keg full of social explosives.”
Using old, dangerous playbooks
In the Tagesspiegel article, one interesting part was a comment on the importance of tapping the youth for the climate movement by former Potsdam Institute Director, Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber:
The closing of ranks of science and youth in the fight for a new society that is sustainable in its management and living is like a big bang. We need these heroes and heroines who are not even of age”.
Using the youth indoctrination playbook of earlier German regimes, this is how leading scientists like Schellnhuber aim to bring about The Great Transformation – a radical (experimental) overhaul of the global society to one that is supposedly green.
Schools: Berlin’s climate indoctrination farms
The Tagesspiegel itself writes:
These minors are well organized in their own schools – that is their basis. But something has changed fundamentally. Whereas ten years ago, the climate and environment clubs in the schools themselves were not taken seriously by students and particularly frequented, today they are the smallest units from which mobilization and organization for the big demonstrations are done. Luis von Randow says: ‘When people leave school, new ones always join them.’ Lilith Rein adds: ‘It will not stop, that’s for sure.'”
History’s lessons
Unwittingly, Randow and Rein are right if we use history as a guide. Earlier attempts at German youth indoctrination by schools and state confirm this:
Schools are tasked with producing good, socialist citizens.”
Obedience over independent thought
Or this one here, an example of how extreme youth indoctrination can become:
‘I begin with the young,’ said Adolph Hitler. ‘With them, I can make a new world.’ […] ‘…mold young people into passionate believers…’ […] ‘…unquestioning obedience over independent thought…'”
As talented a scientist Schellnhuber is, he obviously learned very VERY little about the lessons of history.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-23--Arctic Sea Ice Stability Extends To 14 Years…Long-Term, Arctic Has Been Stable Since 1900!

Arctic sea ice is not as unstable as alarmists like to claim it is .
This year saw the Arctic approaching a new record low minimum , and the alarmists began setting off the alarms with abandon .
Yet the melt stabilized in late July , and a new record failed to materialize .
When looking back at the data since sea ice peaked in 1979 , we realize that the overall trend for minimum September sea ice extent has flattened over the past 14 years : Next we look at the sea ice for the Okhotsk Sea , located @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the east and the eastern Siberian coast to the west .
Here we observe that the maximum sea ice reached each winter has surprisingly trended upwards over the past 16 years : Though global sea ice has bee been relatively low , over the past decade , it has remained quite stable and thus defied all the alarmist predictions made earlier this century .
Obviously natural factors are at work that are offsetting the alleged CO2 forcing .
To keep things in their proper context , here ’ s what Arctic sea ice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectacular is really happening .

Share this...
Arctic sea ice is not as unstable as alarmists like to claim it is.
This year saw the Arctic approaching a new record low minimum, and the alarmists began setting off the alarms with abandon. Yet the melt stabilized in late July, and a new record failed to materialize.
Chart: NSIDC Boulder
When looking back at the data since sea ice peaked in 1979, we realize that the overall trend for minimum September sea ice extent has flattened over the past 14 years:
Chart: NSIDC Boulder
Okhotsk Sea gaining
Next we look at the sea ice for the Okhotsk Sea, located between Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula on the east and the eastern Siberian coast to the west. Here we observe that the maximum sea ice reached each winter has surprisingly trended upwards over the past 16 years:
Data source: JMA
Though global sea ice has bee been relatively low, over the past decade, it has remained quite stable and thus defied all the alarmist predictions made earlier this century. Obviously natural factors are at work that are offsetting the alleged CO2 forcing.
Arctic sea ice stable since 1900
To keep things in their proper context, here’s what Arctic sea ice has been doing since 1900:
Nothing spectacular is really happening.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-24--Scientists Find Peak 1940s Warmth, Post-1950s Cooling In The Same Western US Region Where Hockey Sti

Scientists Find Peak 1940s Warmth, Post-1950s Cooling In The Same Western US Region Where Hockey Sticks Emerged

A new 1735-2015 temperature reconstruction ( Heeter et al.
, 2020 ) using Western US tree ring proxies shows peak @ @ @ @ @ .
This is the same region Dr. Michael Mann used tree ring data to construct @ @ @ @ @ .
A new Scandinavian temperature reconstruction ( Seftigen et al.
, 2020 ) that ’ @ @ @ @ @ past temperature changes over the past one to two millennia ” finds there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ Greta ’ s home country ( Sweden ) in the last 212 years .

Share this...
A new 1735-2015 temperature reconstruction (Heeter et al., 2020) using Western US tree ring proxies shows peak 1940s warmth and post-1950s cooling. This is the same region Dr. Michael Mann used tree ring data to construct his famous hockey stick graph.
A new Scandinavian temperature reconstruction (Seftigen et al., 2020) that’s “skillfull in characterizing past temperature changes over the past one to two millennia” finds there’s been no net warming in Greta’s home country (Sweden) in the last 212 years.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-25--2020: A Year Of Global Surface Cooling…And Sun Showing Little Activity, Spotless 30 Days

Our friend “ Snowfan ” here reports the sun has now gone 30 days without sunspots as we progress into @ @ @ @ @ number of scientists have been warning that the earth may be heading into a cooling @ @ @ @ @ activity over the past 15 years .
Is cooling in the works ?
Solar activity @ @ @ @ @ .
Source : SpaceWeatherLive .
The low sunspot activity comes after a 20th century of @ @ @ @ @ a major reason for the strong warming since 1980 , a number of atmospheric physicists @ @ @ @ @ of global 2-meter surface temperatures for September 20-27 , 2020 ( black line ) show @ @ @ @ @ respect to the WMO 1981-2010 climate mean .
This also applies to temperatures in the @ @ @ @ @ bold blue line ) .
Since 2016 there has been nothing more to do with @ @ @ @ @ were “ adjusted ” ( falsified ) with the warming NASA/GISS factor and are significantly @ @ @ @ @ .

Share this...
Our friend “Snowfan” here reports the sun has now gone 30 days without sunspots as we progress into solar cycle 25.
A number of scientists have been warning that the earth may be heading into a cooling phase due to lower sunspot activity over the past 15 years.
Is cooling in the works? Solar activity has been tapering Since 1980. Source: SpaceWeatherLive.
The low sunspot activity comes after a 20th century of high sunspot activity – perhaps a major reason for the strong warming since 1980, a number of atmospheric physicists suggest.
2020: A year of global surface cooling
Source: Global 2m-TA
The GFS forecast of global 2-meter surface temperatures for September 20-27, 2020 (black line) show a new annual low with respect to the WMO 1981-2010 climate mean. This also applies to temperatures in the southern hemisphere (SH, bold blue line).
Since 2016 there has been nothing more to do with global warming. The data were “adjusted” (falsified) with the warming NASA/GISS factor and are significantly lower in the unaltered reality.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-26--In Parts Of Japan, Mean Maximum Temperatures May Be More Impacted By Remote Ocean Cycles Than By CO2

Today , according to government scientists , CO2 is supposed to be the dominant climate driver , overwhelming all the other power natural forces such as solar variability and oceanic cycles .
Yet when we compare ( untampered ) datasets , we often find surprising parallels and underlying correlations with these now ignored natural factors , which tell us CO2 isn ’ t what the activists want us to believe it is and that things are really much messier than the simplistic CO2-temperature correlation .
Today we look at a plot of the annual mean daily maximum temperature from Uwajima @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation ( AMO ) going back almost 100 years .
Of course , nothing in a complex system like climate is going to show a perfect correlation , yet the above general fit is quite remarkable , which thus suggests regions are climatically interconnected in many yet to be understood ways .
Such things aren ’ t accidental .
In summary : climate science is far from being understood , let alone settled .
Anyone suggesting otherwise is likely just trying to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much about the subject and only parroting media sound bites .

Share this...
By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin
Today, according to government scientists, CO2 is supposed to be the dominant climate driver, overwhelming all the other power natural forces such as solar variability and oceanic cycles.
Map (right): JMA
Yet when we compare (untampered) datasets, we often find surprising parallels and underlying correlations with these now ignored natural factors, which tell us CO2 isn’t what the activists want us to believe it is and that things are really much messier than the simplistic CO2-temperature correlation.
Today we look at a plot of the annual mean daily maximum temperature from Uwajima, Japan, together with the plot of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) going back almost 100 years.
Data: http://data.jma.go.jp/… / https://psl.noaa.gov/data
Of course, nothing in a complex system like climate is going to show a perfect correlation, yet the above general fit is quite remarkable, which thus suggests regions are climatically interconnected in many yet to be understood ways. Such things aren’t accidental.
In summary: climate science is far from being understood, let alone settled. Anyone suggesting otherwise is likely just trying to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn – or they simply don’t know much about the subject and only parroting media sound bites.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-27--Plenty Of Physics Flaws Accumulate Into A Huge GHE Hoax: The Dark Secret Behind Surface Emissivity

Magic is all about illusion , and so is “ climate science ” .
Nothing about the GHE is as it seems and so far the “ critical ” side has failed to see through it .
No longer !
Examining the key question of surface emissivity , usually downplayed as a non-issue , reveals highly significant insights relativizing the common narrative and revealing another profound flaw in the theory .
Eventually this will lead to a totally disruptive Eureka moment .
Did you know that even the moon has a GHE ?
If we adapt our “ GHE formula @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we can easily calculate the maximum temperature it should yield at the equator ( with the sun at the zenith ) .
All we need to do is to allow for the specific albedo ( ~0.12 ) and the amount of solar radiation , which is about 1368W/m2 .
Since the albedo is a bit uncertain ( in the 0.11 to 0.13 range ) , let us just say 382°K straight .
So the moon , at the equator , should theoretically yield a temperature of up to 382°K .
The observed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 394°K [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] , 12°K hotter than it should be .
The same formula that tells us Earth had a GHE of 33°K , suggests 12°K of GHE on the moon .
Houston , there is a problem !
By the way , if the albedo was 0.3 , like that of Earth , the formula would give us 360.5°K in this case , with a GHE of 33.5°K .
Sounds strangely familiar , right ?
Of course we know there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does not hold an atmosphere .
Instead there must be something wrong with our theoretical approach , the formula itself .
And if the very formula that determines the GHE of Earth is wrong , as just demonstrated , it might be about time to ring the alarm bells .
There are two ways to get to the correct result with regard to the moon .
First we could simply ignore the albedo , or set it to zero respectively , and then the formula gives the correct result of 394°K .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the albedo is real and ignoring it is wrong , and yet it seems to work .
That is why the second approach makes way more sense .
Next to including an albedo of 0.12 , giving us an absorptivity of 0.88 , we also assume an emissivity of 0.88 , so that the two cancel each other out .
Then again the result is 394°°K and everything is fine .
In fact , an emissivity of 0.88 is the only value consistent with an albedo of 0.12 and an observed temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made is easy to identify .
We started with assuming an emissivity of 1 , while in reality it is far lower .
Such a mistake will always give you a calculative temperature which is too low , and thus an erroneous “ GHE ” .
Bearing that potentially fatal mistake in mind , how do leading climate experts around the globe account for it ?
They say emissivity is 1 , or so close to 1 that it is negligible , and certainly there was no reason to question it any further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ critical ” arena , where the question would usually be resolved by looking up text books .
It turns out , this is totally insufficient since a ) text books are mostly wrong and b ) it does not help understanding the nature of the problem .
It is pretty odd , given that what I am going to reveal is really climate science 101 .
If you don ’ t know that , you know nothing !
And it seems no one knows .
So what is the surface emissivity ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ NASA is operating some research projects on the subject , with satellites “ measuring ” surface emissivity .
Measuring may be a bit too much , since the actual data need interpretation in the context of models and so on .
Anyhow , those measurements show a quite significant deviation from 1 , especially with arid regions .
[ 5 ] : Now we would only need to calculate a weighted average of these data and we would finally have a definite answer on what surface emissivity of Earth is , right ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ complicated , and , spoiler alert , ironically much simpler eventually in the end ( we ’ ll get to that shortly ) .
There are two huge issues with these data .
First , quite obviously , water has been completely exempt and since it covers 71 % of the planet , we can not ignore it .
Second , the sensors usually top out at 15 µm ( or less ) and that leaves around 50 % of the emissions spectrum at 288°K unchecked , as the chart below shows ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The satellite data thus only cover 50 % of 29 % , or about 15 % of global surface emissivity , giving zero information on the remaining 85 % .
This is totally insufficient , like predicting the US presidential election by only polling California .
However , the problems we encounter ironically also lead the way to a solution .
A sunset over water is a beautiful sight .
You see the sun over the horizon , and a strong reflection of the sun in the water .
It would never look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher up in the sky .
Of course there is a reason for it , a law of physics , and that is exactly what we are after .
Fresnel equations allow us to determine precisely how much light is getting reflected on the surface of water , depending on the angle of incidence .
I will not try to explore the formulas themselves , as they look quite complicated .
Thank God they are not so hard to apply .
All you need to know is the refractive index of water with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.33 ) [ 6 ] [ 7 ] , that of air ( N=1 ) and then you get two results for s- and p- polarized light .
Then you just take the average of those two curves and you get the final result .
A chart tells us more than a thousand words : With the sun at the zenith , or anything near to it , water reflects only 2 % of sunlight .
But if the sun is close to the horizon , shining onto the water at a flat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflected , which is one of the reasons why sun sets look so beautiful .
Physically speaking sunlight is nothing but electromagnet radiation , just like LWIR , and thus the same physics apply .
We only have to adapt the formula slightly to show how well water emits LWIR .
First we need to know the appropriate refractive index in the LW range ( N=1.27 ) [ 9 ] and then we just invert the result , since we do not search for radiation reflected , but rather what is being emitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an excellent vertical emitter , with an emissivity of 0.986 .
This number so close to 1 that you could say the difference was indeed negligible .
But that is only part of the truth .
With flatter angles the picture changes dramatically and finally turns to 0 emissivity towards the horizon .
At this point it should become clear why satellites do not measure water emissivity .
To minimize atmospheric disturbance , satellites need to look straight down onto the surface , which in this case is kind of pointless .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by looking “ sideways ” , which satellites are very bad in .
Even then , water is a very homogeneous surface type , which renders global observation obsolete , while on the other side we a have a solid theoretic approach .
As far as empirical testing is concerned , 10 years ago “ scienceofdoom ” made a nice summary of research on the subject .
[ 10 ] If you google “ emissivity of water ” you will get all kinds of results .
Given the complexity of the subject ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite understandable .
Regrettably this means you will have to figure it out yourself , which is mainly a mathematical challenge .
The Fresnel equation tells us how water emits at a certain angle , but to get the hemispheric emissivity ( we live in a 3 dimensional world ) you will need to weight every gradient accordingly and also include Lambert ’ s cosine law .
If I do all that , the result is 0.944 .
Is this the final answer ?
I am not so certain !
Anyone good in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assist .
One of the causes of doubt is , that German wikipedia [ 11 ] , with reference to a noble German text book [ 12 ] , has it at 0.91 .
Maybe I made a mistake after all .
Then , just recently , I stumbled over an article stating “ the emissivity of far-IR by the oceans is only about 89 % of the 100 % “ efficiency ” of emission/absorption of a true blackbody ” [ 13 ] , thereby suggesting a relatively larger refractive index in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started again and with the help from a very useful site [ 14 ] calculated the average refractive index for the whole LWIR spectrum , which turned out to be N = 1.33 , exactly the same as with SW radiation .
With N = 1.33 my result for hemispheric emissivity drops to 0.934 .
By the way , I get 0.9 or 90 % for the 15-100µm of far IR range , still relatively consistent with the 89 % quoted above .
All this may sound rather complicated and in the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertainty .
We know for sure however , that surface emissivity , especially with regard to water , is significantly lower than 1 .
With an emissivity of 0.94 a surface at 288°K emits 367W/m2 , not 390 .
This alone shoves off 23W/m2 from the GHE at least and exposes the infamous “ Kiehl , Trenberth diagram ” , where they claim 390W/m2 of surface emission ( 396W/m2 in later editions ) , as fake science .
That ’ s it !
Oh yes , the big revelation .
At this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we just have not realized it yet .
If we wind back to our Fresnel charts , there is an opportunity we missed .
I did show reflectivity of water with regard to solar radiation and if we invert the chart , we get the result for absorptivity .
In the logical next step , we can directly compare absorptivity with emissivity and , as we can see , they are almost identical .
That is if we assume N = 1.27 for LWIR , which is in line with experimental observations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including far-IR would move N likely up to 1.33 , with absorptivity and emissivity then being perfectly identical .
What is the temperature of a body when absorptivity and emissivity are equal at given solar radiation ?
In other words , if there was no atmosphere , just the surface as it is ( excluding any dynamic changes , ceteris paribus ) , the surface of Earth would take on the temperature of 278.7K .
If we allow for N = 1.27 , thus the little asymmetry between the curves , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 278°K .
Without an atmosphere , Earth would be 10°K colder .
Or , alternatively spoken , the GHE is 10°K in size !
It is a revelation you may want to let sink , or protest respectively , but it is true .
Just like with the initial example of the moon , the surface of Earth absorptivity and emissivity largely cancel each other out .
This is not a law of physics , as Kirchhoff ’ s law only applies to identical wave lengths .
But as much as there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different wave lengths , the general tendency is for both of them to be more or less equal , especially with regard to wide spectra .
[ 15 ] The 33°K GHE narrative by comparison is build on a few “ imprecisions ” , so it seems .
There is the surface emissivity = 1 mistake , there is the formal impossibility of counting cloud albedo to the “ surface ” , while at the same time denying the sheer existence of clouds in terms of emissivity .
And then there are also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radiative effects , especially with regard to the CRE , that I have dealt with deeply in the previous article .
All these “ imprecisions ” point in the same direction , certainly not accidentally so , and all together they accumulate to a huge GHE hoax .
It is a hoax as far as the apologetic side of “ global warming ” is concerned , but for the “ critical ” side it is an appalling failure .
I have absolutely no understanding for how you can deal with the fiddliest questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or Greta Thunberg ’ s pigtails , but totally miss out on the core blunder .
To be accurate , the GHGE ( greenhouse gas effect ) needs to be distinguished from the GHE itself .
The 278°K are true for the surface alone , and the 10°K GHE is what the atmosphere does as a whole .
Of course it is perfectly thinkable there are components within the atmosphere which reduce the temperature of Earth , and then you can attribute more than just 10°K of GHE to GHGs .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 5°K , then we would arguably need 15°K of GHGE to get us back up to 288°K in the end .
The global warming narrative thus interestingly takes relatively little harm , and can still prevail .
The only precondition it needs is a significant net negative CRE .
That of course is another story .
[ 4 ] Actual maximum temperatures can reach over 400K , which is due to some craters serving as a kind of parabolic reflectors [ 9 ] N=1.27 is consistent with measurements on the subject .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave range .
A total weighted spectral average according to the data here ( https : //refractiveindex.info/ ?
shelf=main & book=H2O & page=Hale ) , would rather elevate N to 1.33 , meaning identical Ns for LW and SW radiation .
[ 15 ] Ironically NASA fully acknowledges this .
NASA does not really measure the surface temperature of the moon , rather they measure radiation emitted with a satellite .
To determine the actual temperature , they need to assume a certain emissivity .
Essentially they simply reverse the formula I used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to 394°K is by assuming absorptivity = emissivity .
And they need to do this in order to get reasonable scientific results .
When it comes to “ climate science ” however , they forget about science and stick rather to the emissivity = 1 myth .

Share this...
By Erich Schaffer
Magic is all about illusion, and so is “climate science”. Nothing about the GHE is as it seems and so far the “critical” side has failed to see through it. No longer!
Examining the key question of surface emissivity, usually downplayed as a non-issue, reveals highly significant insights relativizing the common narrative and revealing another profound flaw in the theory. Eventually this will lead to a totally disruptive Eureka moment.
Did you know that even the moon has a GHE? If we adapt our “GHE formula” to the circumstances on the moon, we can easily calculate the maximum temperature it should yield at the equator (with the sun at the zenith). All we need to do is to allow for the specific albedo (~0.12) and the amount of solar radiation, which is about 1368W/m2.
(1368 * ((1-0.12) / 1) / 5.67e-8) ^0.25 = 381.7°K
Since the albedo is a bit uncertain (in the 0.11 to 0.13 range), let us just say 382°K straight. So the moon, at the equator, should theoretically yield a temperature of up to 382°K. The observed (average) maximum temperature however is about 394K [1][2][3][4], 12°K hotter than it should be. The same formula that tells us Earth had a GHE of 33°K, suggests 12°K of GHE on the moon. Houston, there is a problem! By the way, if the albedo was 0.3, like that of Earth, the formula would give us 360.5°K in this case, with a GHE of 33.5°K. Sounds strangely familiar, right?
Of course we know there is NO GHE on the moon, since it does not hold an atmosphere. Instead there must be something wrong with our theoretical approach, the formula itself. And if the very formula that determines the GHE of Earth is wrong, as just demonstrated, it might be about time to ring the alarm bells.
What went wrong?
There are two ways to get to the correct result with regard to the moon. First we could simply ignore the albedo, or set it to zero respectively, and then the formula gives the correct result of 394°K. This is pretty odd, since we know the albedo is real and ignoring it is wrong, and yet it seems to work. That is why the second approach makes way more sense. Next to including an albedo of 0.12, giving us an absorptivity of 0.88, we also assume an emissivity of 0.88, so that the two cancel each other out. Then again the result is 394°°K and everything is fine. In fact, an emissivity of 0.88 is the only value consistent with an albedo of 0.12 and an observed temperature of 394°K.
The mistake we initially made is easy to identify. We started with assuming an emissivity of 1, while in reality it is far lower. Such a mistake will always give you a calculative temperature which is too low, and thus an erroneous “GHE”. Bearing that potentially fatal mistake in mind, how do leading climate experts around the globe account for it? They say emissivity is 1, or so close to 1 that it is negligible, and certainly there was no reason to question it any further.
This unawareness carries well into the “critical” arena, where the question would usually be resolved by looking up text books. It turns out, this is totally insufficient since a) text books are mostly wrong and b) it does not help understanding the nature of the problem. It is pretty odd, given that what I am going to reveal is really climate science 101.If you don’t know that, you know nothing! And it seems no one knows.
So what is the surface emissivity?
It should be easy to answer since NASA is operating some research projects on the subject, with satellites “measuring” surface emissivity. Measuring may be a bit too much, since the actual data need interpretation in the context of models and so on. Anyhow, those measurements show a quite significant deviation from 1, especially with arid regions.[5]:
Now we would only need to calculate a weighted average of these data and we would finally have a definite answer on what surface emissivity of Earth is, right? WRONG!
Regrettably it is far more complicated, and, spoiler alert, ironically much simpler eventually in the end (we’ll get to that shortly).
Inadequate global surface emissivity data
There are two huge issues with these data. First, quite obviously, water has been completely exempt and since it covers 71% of the planet, we can not ignore it. Second, the sensors usually top out at 15 µm (or less) and that leaves around 50% of the emissions spectrum at 288°K unchecked, as the chart below shows (black being the uncovered range).
The satellite data thus only cover 50% of 29%, or about 15% of global surface emissivity, giving zero information on the remaining 85%. This is totally insufficient, like predicting the US presidential election by only polling California. However, the problems we encounter ironically also lead the way to a solution.
A sunset over water is a beautiful sight. You see the sun over the horizon, and a strong reflection of the sun in the water. It would never look anything like it if the sun was higher up in the sky. Of course there is a reason for it, a law of physics, and that is exactly what we are after.
Fresnel equations allow us to determine precisely how much light is getting reflected on the surface of water, depending on the angle of incidence. I will not try to explore the formulas themselves, as they look quite complicated. Thank God they are not so hard to apply. All you need to know is the refractive index of water with regard to visible light (N = 1.33)[6][7], that of air (N=1) and then you get two results for s- and p- polarized light. Then you just take the average of those two curves and you get the final result.
A chart tells us more than a thousand words:
With the sun at the zenith, or anything near to it, water reflects only 2% of sunlight. But if the sun is close to the horizon, shining onto the water at a flat angle, most of sun light gets reflected, which is one of the reasons why sun sets look so beautiful.
Physically speaking sunlight is nothing but electromagnet radiation, just like LWIR, and thus the same physics apply. We only have to adapt the formula slightly to show how well water emits LWIR. First we need to know the appropriate refractive index in the LW range (N=1.27)[9] and then we just invert the result, since we do not search for radiation reflected, but rather what is being emitted.
As we can see water is an excellent vertical emitter, with an emissivity of 0.986. This number so close to 1 that you could say the difference was indeed negligible. But that is only part of the truth. With flatter angles the picture changes dramatically and finally turns to 0 emissivity towards the horizon.
Satellites do not measure water emissivity
At this point it should become clear why satellites do not measure water emissivity. To minimize atmospheric disturbance, satellites need to look straight down onto the surface, which in this case is kind of pointless. The more interesting data could only be gathered by looking “sideways”, which satellites are very bad in. Even then, water is a very homogeneous surface type, which renders global observation obsolete, while on the other side we a have a solid theoretic approach. As far as empirical testing is concerned, 10 years ago “scienceofdoom” made a nice summary of research on the subject.[10]
If you google “emissivity of water” you will get all kinds of results. Given the complexity of the subject (including the political aspect) it is quite understandable. Regrettably this means you will have to figure it out yourself, which is mainly a mathematical challenge. The Fresnel equation tells us how water emits at a certain angle, but to get the hemispheric emissivity (we live in a 3 dimensional world) you will need to weight every gradient accordingly and also include Lambert’s cosine law. If I do all that, the result is 0.944.
Is this the final answer? I am not so certain! Anyone good in physics, or mathematics is invited to assist. One of the causes of doubt is, that German wikipedia [11], with reference to a noble German text book[12], has it at 0.91. Maybe I made a mistake after all. Then, just recently, I stumbled over an article stating “the emissivity of far-IR by the oceans is only about 89% of the 100% “efficiency” of emission/absorption of a true blackbody”[13], thereby suggesting a relatively larger refractive index in the far-IR (15-100µm). So I started again and with the help from a very useful site[14] calculated the average refractive index for the whole LWIR spectrum, which turned out to be N = 1.33, exactly the same as with SW radiation. With N = 1.33 my result for hemispheric emissivity drops to 0.934. By the way, I get 0.9 or 90% for the 15-100µm of far IR range, still relatively consistent with the 89% quoted above.
Kiehl/Trenberth fake science
All this may sound rather complicated and in the end there is still this sour taste of uncertainty. We know for sure however, that surface emissivity, especially with regard to water, is significantly lower than 1. With an emissivity of 0.94 a surface at 288°K emits 367W/m2, not 390. This alone shoves off 23W/m2 from the GHE at least and exposes the infamous “Kiehl, Trenberth diagram”, where they claim 390W/m2 of surface emission (396W/m2 in later editions), as fake science. That’s it!
Did I forget something?
Oh yes, the big revelation. At this point we achieved more than we ever imagined, we just have not realized it yet. If we wind back to our Fresnel charts, there is an opportunity we missed. I did show reflectivity of water with regard to solar radiation and if we invert the chart, we get the result for absorptivity.
In the logical next step, we can directly compare absorptivity with emissivity and, as we can see, they are almost identical. That is if we assume N = 1.27 for LWIR, which is in line with experimental observations which exclude far-IR. As named before, including far-IR would move N likely up to 1.33, with absorptivity and emissivity then being perfectly identical.
What is the temperature of a body when absorptivity and emissivity are equal at given solar radiation?
(342 * (x / x) / 5.67e-8) ^0.25 = 278.7°K
GHE only 10°K
In other words, if there was no atmosphere, just the surface as it is (excluding any dynamic changes, ceteris paribus), the surface of Earth would take on the temperature of 278.7K. If we allow for N = 1.27, thus the little asymmetry between the curves, the temperature would drop straight by 0.7°K to 278°K . Without an atmosphere, Earth would be 10°K colder.
Or, alternatively spoken, the GHE is 10°K in size!
It is a revelation you may want to let sink, or protest respectively, but it is true. Just like with the initial example of the moon, the surface of Earth absorptivity and emissivity largely cancel each other out. This is not a law of physics, as Kirchhoff’s law only applies to identical wave lengths. But as much as there is variation in both absorptivity and emissivity with different wave lengths, the general tendency is for both of them to be more or less equal, especially with regard to wide spectra.[15]
Plenty of flaws – huge GHE hoax
The 33°K GHE narrative by comparison is build on a few “imprecisions”, so it seems. There is the surface emissivity = 1 mistake, there is the formal impossibility of counting cloud albedo to the “surface”, while at the same time denying the sheer existence of clouds in terms of emissivity. And then there are also plenty of flaws in the quantification of radiative effects, especially with regard to the CRE, that I have dealt with deeply in the previous article. All these “imprecisions” point in the same direction, certainly not accidentally so, and all together they accumulate to a huge GHE hoax.
It is a hoax as far as the apologetic side of “global warming” is concerned, but for the “critical” side it is an appalling failure. I have absolutely no understanding for how you can deal with the fiddliest questions of the science, polar bear populations, or Greta Thunberg’s pigtails, but totally miss out on the core blunder.
Difference between GHGE and GHE
To be accurate, the GHGE (greenhouse gas effect) needs to be distinguished from the GHE itself. The 278°K are true for the surface alone, and the 10°K GHE is what the atmosphere does as a whole. Of course it is perfectly thinkable there are components within the atmosphere which reduce the temperature of Earth, and then you can attribute more than just 10°K of GHE to GHGs.
If for instance clouds would cool the planet by 5°K, then we would arguably need 15°K of GHGE to get us back up to 288°K in the end. The global warming narrative thus interestingly takes relatively little harm, and can still prevail. The only precondition it needs is a significant net negative CRE. That of course is another story.
See previous article here.
Footnotes
[1] https://lunarpedia.org/w/Lunar_Temperature
[2] https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/203096main_TEC%20Splinter-Thermal%20control.pdf
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869
[4] Actual maximum temperatures can reach over 400K, which is due to some craters serving as a kind of parabolic reflectors
[5] https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/7/1027/htm
[6] https://pixabay.com/de/photos/hamilton-island-australia-sun-set-585659/
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices
[8] https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=H2O&page=Hale
[9] N=1.27 is consistent with measurements on the subject. These measurements yet exclude the far long wave range. A total weighted spectral average according to the data here (https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=H2O&page=Hale), would rather elevate N to 1.33, meaning identical Ns for LW and SW radiation.
[10] https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/
[11] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissionsgrad
[12] H. D. Baehr, K. Stephan: Wärme- und Stoffübertragung. 4. Auflage. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2004, ISBN 3-540-40130-X (Kap. 5: Wärmestrahlung)
[13] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-paper-finds-huge-false-physical.html
[14] https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=H2O&page=Hale
[15] Ironically NASA fully acknowledges this. NASA does not really measure the surface temperature of the moon, rather they measure radiation emitted with a satellite. To determine the actual temperature, they need to assume a certain emissivity. Essentially they simply reverse the formula I used above. The only way they can get to 394°K is by assuming absorptivity = emissivity. And they need to do this in order to get reasonable scientific results. When it comes to “climate science” however, they forget about science and stick rather to the emissivity = 1 myth.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-28--New Study Reports New York City Is Sinking…But Sea Level Rise Keeps Defying Alarmist Projections

In New York City , as the rest of the world , alarming rates of accelerated sea level rise continue to…not happen .
In 1986 , Dr. James Hansen , the Godfather of global warming alarmism , claimed Earth ’ s temperature would rise by about 4°F between 1986 and 2010 .
In 1988 Hansen predicted that within 20 years ( 2008 ) , New York City ’ s West Side Highway would be underwater due to rising seas .
According to a new study ( Boretti , 2020 ) , the rates of sea level rise along the coasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at best : 0.7 to 1.0 millimeters per year ( mm/yr ) with just 0.008 mm/yr² acceleration .
The factor affecting New York City ’ s relative sea level the most is subsidence , which amounts to -2 to 3 mm/yr .
The lack of significant sea level rise or acceleration not only applies to New York City , but to the rest of the world .
Dr. Boretti reports that the Earth ’ s long-tem tide gauges show sea levels are rising at a pace of just 0.3 mm/yr on average and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise ” in the last century .
So although “ climate models predict that rising CO2 levels should cause an accelerated sea-level rise , ” this , thus far , hasn ’ t happened .

Share this...
In New York City, as the rest of the world, alarming rates of accelerated sea level rise continue to…not happen.
In 1986, Dr. James Hansen, the Godfather of global warming alarmism, claimed Earth’s temperature would rise by about 4°F between 1986 and 2010.
That didn’t happen.
Image Source: New York Times
In 1988 Hansen predicted that within 20 years (2008), New York City’s West Side Highway would be underwater due to rising seas.
That didn’t happen.
Image Source: Salon
According to a new study (Boretti, 2020), the rates of sea level rise along the coasts of New York City are modest, at best: 0.7 to 1.0 millimeters per year (mm/yr) with just 0.008 mm/yr² acceleration.
The factor affecting New York City’s relative sea level the most is subsidence, which amounts to -2 to 3 mm/yr.
The lack of significant sea level rise or acceleration not only applies to New York City, but to the rest of the world.
Dr. Boretti reports that the Earth’s long-tem tide gauges show sea levels are rising at a pace of just 0.3 mm/yr on average and that “there has been no detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise” in the last century.
So although “climate models predict that rising CO2 levels should cause an accelerated sea-level rise,” this, thus far, hasn’t happened.


notrickszone--2020-09-29--MetOffice, IPCC Climate Scientist Prof. Richard Betts Misunderstood Science Behind Drying Forests

Just recently Anthony Watts posted an article on wildfires penned by Paul Homewood .
Lately alarmists have been blaming the active forest fire season on global warming .
They warn that warmer temperatures will lead to more wildfires .
Is it so ?
First it ’ s important to note that warmer temperatures don ’ t necessarily lead to more drought and wild fires .
For example in 2018 I reported here how the Sahara desert has shrunk by a whopping 700,000 sq km over the recent decades , even though this is a region with very warm temperatures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s surface has often been drier during cooler times .
Moreover , aspiring meteorologist Chris Martz here explains that long-term forest fires have not been getting worse in the USA , and “ are nowhere near as bad as they used to be ” .
U.S. wildland fire counts by year since 1926 ( Figure 5a – left ) and U.S. wildland fire burn acreage over that same time period ( Figure 5b – right ) .
On the WUWT article I commented at Twitter that when it comes to wildfires , temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to which University of Exeter , Met Office , IPCC .
UK Climate Prof. commented : Most laypersons of course believe that higher temperatures “ dry out ” surfaces and fuel faster , as climate expert Prof. Richard Betts obviously did .
After all , we use a hair dryer to dry our hair more quickly , or throw our wet laundry in the dryer .
So most people think that it ’ s the high temperature that is doing the drying .
But that ’ s not quite how it works .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this fundamental science , but it is spectacularly astonishing that a supposedly distinguished climate professor such as Prof. Betts would misunderstand it .
How on earth could someone with such a fundamental misunderstanding be expected to explain climate to us , let alone model it ?
Or perhaps , in his desire to be dramatic , he got sloppy and miscommunicated it .
There ’ s only one factor behind drying forest , grassland , ground surface : the relative humidity of the air next to the surface ( difference temperature and dew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air has a very high relative humidity , then drying will take a long time , no matter what the temperature is .
If temperature was the main factor behind drying , then places like the Amazon , Congo or Southeast Asian rainforests would have dried up and burned long ago .
But they haven ’ t .
In fact the planet ’ s biggest deserts are the Arctic and Antarctic .
Last I checked they are still cooler than the Amazon .
To help drive the point home to the MetOffice climatologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined in , asking Prof. Betts : Remember , these are the scientists who provide the input into the climate models .
Correct would be to say : Warming may lead to lower air humidity and less precipitation , which in turn increases the risk of wildfires .
But then again , they also like to tell us that warming leads to more rainfall .
A lot of confused ( or misleading ) scientists out there .

Share this...
Just recently Anthony Watts posted an article on wildfires penned by Paul Homewood. Lately alarmists have been blaming the active forest fire season on global warming. They warn that warmer temperatures will lead to more wildfires.
Is it so?
First it’s important to note that warmer temperatures don’t necessarily lead to more drought and wild fires. For example in 2018 I reported here how the Sahara desert has shrunk by a whopping 700,000 sq km over the recent decades, even though this is a region with very warm temperatures.
Also we know that the earth’s surface has often been drier during cooler times.
Moreover, aspiring meteorologist Chris Martz here explains that long-term forest fires have not been getting worse in the USA, and “are nowhere near as bad as they used to be”.
U.S. wildland fire counts by year since 1926 (Figure 5a – left) and U.S. wildland fire burn acreage over that same time period (Figure 5b – right).
Climate scientist doesn’t understand why forests dry
On the WUWT article I commented at Twitter that when it comes to wildfires, temperature is not a factor behind them, to which University of Exeter, Met Office, IPCC. UK Climate Prof. commented:
You're wrong. Higher temperatures mean more evaporation, drying out the fuel faster — Richard Betts (@richardabetts) September 26, 2020
Most laypersons of course believe that higher temperatures “dry out” surfaces and fuel faster, as climate expert Prof. Richard Betts obviously did. After all, we use a hair dryer to dry our hair more quickly, or throw our wet laundry in the dryer. So most people think that it’s the high temperature that is doing the drying. But that’s not quite how it works.
Astonishing misunderstanding of fundamental science
We can forgive a layperson for misunderstanding this fundamental science, but it is spectacularly astonishing that a supposedly distinguished climate professor such as Prof. Betts would misunderstand it. How on earth could someone with such a fundamental misunderstanding be expected to explain climate to us, let alone model it?
Or perhaps, in his desire to be dramatic, he got sloppy and miscommunicated it.
It’s the relative humidity, stupid!
There’s only one factor behind drying forest, grassland, ground surface: the relative humidity of the air next to the surface (difference temperature and dew point) and precipitation.
If the air has a very high relative humidity, then drying will take a long time, no matter what the temperature is. If temperature was the main factor behind drying, then places like the Amazon, Congo or Southeast Asian rainforests would have dried up and burned long ago. But they haven’t.
In fact the planet’s biggest deserts are the Arctic and Antarctic. Last I checked they are still cooler than the Amazon.
It’s not the temperature!
To help drive the point home to the MetOffice climatologist, veteran meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann at Twitter joined in, asking Prof. Betts:
Please visit the tropics and think. — Jörg | kachelmannwetter.com🇨🇭 (@Kachelmann) September 26, 2020
Kachelmann added:
I‘ll never understand why „scientists“ talk about heat while it‘s rather absence of rain and/or difference of temperature and dew point. Those same people must visit 90 degree hot saunas with the constant fear of an imminent fire. — Jörg | kachelmannwetter.com🇨🇭 (@Kachelmann) September 26, 2020
Remember, these are the scientists who provide the input into the climate models.
Correct would be to say: Warming may lead to lower air humidity and less precipitation, which in turn increases the risk of wildfires. But then again, they also like to tell us that warming leads to more rainfall.
A lot of confused (or misleading) scientists out there.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-09-30--“Thanks To All Readers”…First Print Run Of German Climate Skeptic Book Sells Out! Now In 2nd Print

We continue to receive many positive responses to our new book “ Unwanted Truths : What you should know about climate change “ .
At Amazon , Thalia and in bookstores there are still some copies of the first edition available .
If you still want a book , you should get one now .
The second edition is already in production .
At Langen Müller Publishing there are currently no more copies available – sold out .
This will hopefully change soon when the second edition arrives .
Thanks to all readers who helped to distribute this first edition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media had come to an agreement , not a single syllable of the book has been mentioned there yet .
Is this really a good and sustainable strategy to deal with “ unwanted truths ” ?
Silence and de-platforming instead of honest and fruitful scientific discussion ?
Christmas is still three months away , but perhaps we can already start thinking about gifts for the family .
An exciting book on climate change would certainly be a good addition to computer games and cutlery sets .
We are not so much interested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but rather in the chance to be offered to a broader public on the bestseller shelf .
Every sale helps in these critical starting weeks .
In the meantime , after Elke Scholz , the second activist in the review list , has immortalized himself with a one-star rating .
His name is SachenKaufer1234567 .
This review was probably also written without having read the book at all .
There is nothing in the review text that could indicate any knowledge of the content .
Furthermore it is not a verified purchase .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense of Amazon to let such presumed non-readers have their say here .
If you have read the book and have a different opinion than SachenKaufer1234567 , we would appreciate your review on Amazon .
===================================

Share this...
Good news about climate science skepticism from Germany…
From Die kalte Sonne
We continue to receive many positive responses to our new book “Unwanted Truths: What you should know about climate change“.
At Amazon, Thalia and in bookstores there are still some copies of the first edition available. If you still want a book, you should get one now.
The second edition is already in production. At Langen Müller Publishing there are currently no more copies available – sold out. This will hopefully change soon when the second edition arrives.
Thanks to all readers who helped to distribute this first edition so quickly. As if the mainstream media had come to an agreement, not a single syllable of the book has been mentioned there yet. Is this really a good and sustainable strategy to deal with “unwanted truths”? Silence and de-platforming instead of honest and fruitful scientific discussion?
Christmas is still three months away, but perhaps we can already start thinking about gifts for the family. An exciting book on climate change would certainly be a good addition to computer games and cutlery sets.
We are not so much interested in the economic success of the book, but rather in the chance to be offered to a broader public on the bestseller shelf. Every sale helps in these critical starting weeks.
In the meantime, after Elke Scholz, the second activist in the review list, has immortalized himself with a one-star rating. His name is SachenKaufer1234567. This review was probably also written without having read the book at all. There is nothing in the review text that could indicate any knowledge of the content.
Furthermore it is not a verified purchase. It should actually not be in the sense of Amazon to let such presumed non-readers have their say here.
If you have read the book and have a different opinion than SachenKaufer1234567, we would appreciate your review on Amazon.
===================================
Also read here.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-10-01--Earth’s Oceans Used To Be 20-25°C Warmer Than They Are Today

Today ’ s global ocean temperatures hover around 15°C on average .
About 400 to 500 million years ago , Earth ’ s ocean temperatures averaged 35-40°C and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were “ 5-10x higher than present day values ” ( Henke et al.
, 2018 ) .
During this period , the marine biosphere thrived ( Voosen et al.
, 2019 ) .
During the last 5.4 million years , CO2 has varied between 180 and 500 ppm ( Fletcher et al.
, 2019 ) .
During the Pliocene ( 5.4 to 2.5 million years ago ) , Arctic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warmer than today ( Fletcher et al.
, 2017 ) and tropical ocean temperatures were 3-6°C warmer than present ( Wycech et al.
, 2020 ) .
During the peak of the last glacial ( the Last Glacial Maximum ) 19,000 years ago , the Southern Ocean was 2°C warmer than it is today even though CO2 levels were a dangerously low 180 ppm at this time .
This was also the same period when the Earth ’ s bottom water temperatures warmed up by about 2°C 1,000 years before the oceans ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise ( Stott et al.
, 2007 ) .
As recently as 10,000 years ago , the Arctic Ocean ’ s bottom water temperatures were 6-10°C warmer than they are today ( Beierlein et al.
, 2015 ) .
Global ocean temperatures were still warmer than today througout nearly all of the last 10,000 years ( Rosenthal et al.
, 2017 ) , including the Medieval Warm Period ( Gebbie and Huybers , 2019 ) .
In sum , paleoclimate research strongly suggests there is nothing unprecedented or even unusual about ocean temperature @ @ @ @ @ @

Share this...
Today’s global ocean temperatures hover around 15°C on average. About 400 to 500 million years ago, Earth’s ocean temperatures averaged 35-40°C and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were “5-10x higher than present day values” (Henke et al., 2018). During this period, the marine biosphere thrived (Voosen et al., 2019).
During the last 5.4 million years, CO2 has varied between 180 and 500 ppm (Fletcher et al., 2019). During the Pliocene (5.4 to 2.5 million years ago), Arctic temperatures were said to have been 22°C warmer than today (Fletcher et al., 2017) and tropical ocean temperatures were 3-6°C warmer than present (Wycech et al., 2020).
During the peak of the last glacial (the Last Glacial Maximum) 19,000 years ago, the Southern Ocean was 2°C warmer than it is today even though CO2 levels were a dangerously low 180 ppm at this time. This was also the same period when the Earth’s bottom water temperatures warmed up by about 2°C 1,000 years before the oceans’ surface began warming and CO2 began to rise (Stott et al., 2007).
As recently as 10,000 years ago, the Arctic Ocean’s bottom water temperatures were 6-10°C warmer than they are today (Beierlein et al., 2015).
Global ocean temperatures were still warmer than today througout nearly all of the last 10,000 years (Rosenthal et al., 2017), including the Medieval Warm Period (Gebbie and Huybers, 2019).
In sum, paleoclimate research strongly suggests there is nothing unprecedented or even unusual about ocean temperature changes in the modern era.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-10-02--Leading German Virologist Prof. Hendrik Streeck: “Covid-19 Vaccine In The Near Future Is Unlikely”

Leading German virologist Professor Hendrik Streeck is skeptical about a quick vaccine for COVID-19 , reports t-online.de .
When asked in an interview why he was so skeptical , Streeck , director of the Institute of Virology at the University Hospital in Bonn , said nobody can say exactly when the vaccine against Covid-19 will be available and thinks “ a Covid-19 vaccine in the near future is unlikely ” .
Currently several vaccine projects are currently in the final clinical trial phase on volunteers .
Streeck told t-online : “ It may be that the next vaccine will work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that all vaccines that are in Phase III do not work .
This simply can not be seriously predicted.
” To caution against a new vaccine , Streeck cites a 1961 vaccine against RSV , where “ everything went well ” in initial tests on children .
Later it turned out it could make the disease even worse .
“ As a result of the vaccine trials in 1961 , two children who had previously received the vaccine died .
We know the same phenomenon from dengue and other pathogens , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : an AstraZeneca vaccine , which he says is likely to cause someone to become infected and so the ” virus can still be passed on ” .
According to Streeck , it ’ s far too early to say when a vaccine will be ready and effective .
“ I ’ m just saying we don ’ t know.
” Streeck also criticizes the lack of coordination and cooperation in the research and some researchers are more concerned about their egos than getting good results .
“ The research is not done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fastest for himself .
This is a pity , because it is partly about delivering fast results , so that the individual distinguishes himself with a better publication , ” Streeck told t-online .
“ A pandemic should lead to a distribution of tasks among all researchers .
That is my vision for science , that we all work together – worldwide.
” Virologist Streeck is sure about one thing : ” There is no question that the number of infections will increase .
”

Share this...
Leading German virologist Professor Hendrik Streeck is skeptical about a quick vaccine for COVID-19, reports t-online.de.
Virologist Prof. Hendrik Streeck. Image: Cropped here, University of Bonn.
When asked in an interview why he was so skeptical, Streeck, director of the Institute of Virology at the University Hospital in Bonn, said
nobody can say exactly when the vaccine against Covid-19 will be available and thinks “a Covid-19 vaccine in the near future is unlikely”.
Currently several vaccine projects are currently in the final clinical trial phase on volunteers. Streeck told t-online: “It may be that the next vaccine will work wonderfully. But it may also be that all vaccines that are in Phase III do not work. This simply cannot be seriously predicted.”
To caution against a new vaccine, Streeck cites a 1961 vaccine against RSV, where “everything went well” in initial tests on children. Later it turned out it could make the disease even worse. “As a result of the vaccine trials in 1961, two children who had previously received the vaccine died. We know the same phenomenon from dengue and other pathogens,” he told t-online.
He added another example: an AstraZeneca vaccine, which he says is likely to cause someone to become infected and so the ” virus can still be passed on”.
According to Streeck, it’s far too early to say when a vaccine will be ready and effective. “I’m just saying we don’t know.”
Streeck also criticizes the lack of coordination and cooperation in the research and some researchers are more concerned about their egos than getting good results. “The research is not done together, everyone tries to be the fastest for himself. This is a pity, because it is partly about delivering fast results, so that the individual distinguishes himself with a better publication,” Streeck told t-online. “A pandemic should lead to a distribution of tasks among all researchers. That is my vision for science, that we all work together – worldwide.”
Virologist Streeck is sure about one thing: ”There is no question that the number of infections will increase.”
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-10-03--Tens Of Thousands Of Automotive Jobs On The Brink, Climate Policy Hammers Once Mighty German Auto In

Tens Of Thousands Of Automotive Jobs On The Brink, Climate Policy Hammers Once Mighty German Auto Industry

The future for the backbone of the German economy is looking bleak .
A look at the impacts of climate policy on the German car industry .
=============================================== By AR Göhring at EIKE ( Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin ) Not only at Daimler , Volkswagen and others , but elsewhere the working people have to fear for their jobs after Brussels and Berlin have declared war on Germany ’ s most important industry .
Now the automotive supply chain is also being hard hit .
The value-adding industry has already been badly shaken by the exaggerated , simply senseless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now the Brussels EU government ( including former German minister Ursula von der Leyen ) are tightening the screws even more as they love to ban internal combustion engines completely .
The EU has just tightened the rules for limiting CO2 emissions .
Not only the well-known car manufacturers are under pressure , but also their suppliers , hardly known by name , such as Mahle from Stuttgart .
The globally producing parts manufacturer still has around 12,000 employees in Germany ( 72,000 globally ) .
In the country , 2,000 workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globally 7,600 , and this despite a partial switch to e-car parts .
It ’ s not enough , says a works council member , because there is no concept for the domestic combustion engine factories to convert over to electrical parts .
Why should there be , one might ask , since hardly anyone is buying e-cars anyway ?
Significant sales figures can only be achieved through massive tax incentives , but the government can not keep this up forever .
In other words , a complete “ transformation ” to e-mobility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would make sense to downsize existing locations and let them settle for the winter .
Only develop and produce burners in climate fanaticism-proof countries like Russia , Mexico and possibly the USA .
As soon as Merkel ’ s energy transition in Germany crashes for all to feel and a rationally acting government comes to the helm again , the locations could be rebuilt and production could be brought back .
The problem is that machines and buildings are only a part of the company portfolio .
The most important factor of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skilled workforce , whose skills , acquired and honed over decades , are not so easily exported or imported .
So Mahle and Co. would have to send their Swabian skilled workers with good programs and a lot of money to a safe foreign country for a few years .
Is that possible ?
With difficulty .
Home , mortgage , children , school , friends , family … skilled workers are people .
Mahle is unfortunately not the only supplier who is being needlessly driven out or exiled by the misguided caste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such tire manufacturer Continental will also have to take massive hits – Continental plans to cut 30,000 jobs worldwide .

Share this...
The future for the backbone of the German economy is looking bleak. A look at the impacts of climate policy on the German car industry.
===============================================
By AR Göhring at EIKE
(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
Not only at Daimler, Volkswagen and others, but elsewhere the working people have to fear for their jobs after Brussels and Berlin have declared war on Germany’s most important industry. Now the automotive supply chain is also being hard hit.
Berlin, Brussels tighten the screws
The value-adding industry has already been badly shaken by the exaggerated, simply senseless corona measures of the Merkel IV government. Now the Brussels EU government (including former German minister Ursula von der Leyen) are tightening the screws even more as they love to ban internal combustion engines completely. The EU has just tightened the rules for limiting CO2 emissions. Not only the well-known car manufacturers are under pressure, but also their suppliers, hardly known by name, such as Mahle from Stuttgart.
Mass job losses
The globally producing parts manufacturer still has around 12,000 employees in Germany (72,000 globally). In the country, 2,000 workers are expected to lose their jobs, globally 7,600, and this despite a partial switch to e-car parts. It’s not enough, says a works council member, because there is no concept for the domestic combustion engine factories to convert over to electrical parts.
E-mobility not economically feasible
Why should there be, one might ask, since hardly anyone is buying e-cars anyway? Significant sales figures can only be achieved through massive tax incentives, but the government cannot keep this up forever. In other words, a complete “transformation” to e-mobility cannot be economically feasible.
It would make sense to downsize existing locations and let them settle for the winter. Only develop and produce burners in climate fanaticism-proof countries like Russia, Mexico and possibly the USA. As soon as Merkel’s energy transition in Germany crashes for all to feel and a rationally acting government comes to the helm again, the locations could be rebuilt and production could be brought back.
Highly skilled workers risk going idle
The problem is that machines and buildings are only a part of the company portfolio. The most important factor of a medium-sized manufacturer, however, is its skilled workforce, whose skills, acquired and honed over decades, are not so easily exported or imported. So Mahle and Co. would have to send their Swabian skilled workers with good programs and a lot of money to a safe foreign country for a few years. Is that possible? With difficulty. Home, mortgage, children, school, friends, family … skilled workers are people.
Mahle is unfortunately not the only supplier who is being needlessly driven out or exiled by the misguided caste of the political media. Well-known companies such tire manufacturer Continental will also have to take massive hits – Continental plans to cut 30,000 jobs worldwide.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-10-04--International Trial Lawyer Takes Aim At Big Pharma, Big Tech: COVID Lockdown “Crime Against Humanity

International Trial Lawyer Takes Aim At Big Pharma, Big Tech: COVID Lockdown “Crime Against Humanity”

Recently I wrote a post about Reiner Fuellmich , a German trial lawyer who is certified to practice in both Germany and California .
Over the years , Fuellmich has landed some awfully impressive trophies , among them Deutsche Bank and VW .
Now he ’ s taking aim at Big Pharma and tech companies for what he considers to be crimes against humanity , mainly that the PCR test is a fraud .
.
In a recent video he talks about how all the COVID-19 measures imposed , such as social distancing , wearing a mask , lockdown and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panic so that they believe without asking questions that their lives are in danger so that in the end the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests , antigen and antibody tests and vaccines , as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprint.
” Fuellmich sees nothing less than attempted crimes against humanity taking place .
What follows is his video on the subject , and well worth viewing .
It ’ s terrible what ’ s going on .
People are made to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathogens and that we need to be continuously tested , drugged , covered up and controlled .
We ’ re on the brink of what was once thought to be an unimaginable dystopia .

Share this...
Recently I wrote a post about Reiner Fuellmich, a German trial lawyer who is certified to practice in both Germany and California.
PCR test is a fraud
Over the years, Fuellmich has landed some awfully impressive trophies, among them Deutsche Bank and VW. Now he’s taking aim at Big Pharma and tech companies for what he considers to be crimes against humanity, mainly that the PCR test is a fraud. .
Designed to make people panic, submit to Big Tech
In a recent video he talks about how all the COVID-19 measures imposed, such as social distancing, wearing a mask, lockdown and quarantine are designed to “make people panic so that they believe without asking questions that their lives are in danger so that in the end the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprint.”
Hat-tip: Reader Sommer
Fuellmich sees nothing less than attempted crimes against humanity taking place.
What follows is his video on the subject, and well worth viewing.
It’s terrible what’s going on. People are made to believe that we are now bearers of dangerous pathogens and that we need to be continuously tested, drugged, covered up and controlled. We’re on the brink of what was once thought to be an unimaginable dystopia.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000