notrickszone--2020-06-25--‘Green’ Carnage Study: In 2019 US Wind Turbines Killed 3.7 Million Bats – And This Is A Gross Undere

‘Green’ Carnage Study: In 2019 US Wind Turbines Killed 3.7 Million Bats – And This Is A Gross Underestimate

Due to the expansion of wind energy projects in the United States in the last decade , a conservative estimate for yearly bat fatalities from wind turbines ranges between 1.7 to 3.7 million .
A new study suggests death numbers may be 4 to 7 times higher due to carcass search deficiencies .
It is estimated that North American migratory bat populations will decline by 90 % over the next 50 years due to the expanding presence of wind turbines ( Frick et al.
, 2017 ) .
As of 2015 , about 25 % of North American bat species @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hammerson et al.
, 2017 ) .
A harrowing new study suggests researchers may be vastly underestimating wind turbine bat fatalities due to biased-low carcass detection practices .
Smallwood and Bell ( 2020 ) report that dogs perform far better than humans at locating bat carcasses , but even dogs miss 3 out of every 4 bats observed colliding with wind turbines .
This is because a ) injured bats may temporarily recover enough to fly 10s of meters away from the collision site , and b ) because scavengers can quickly collect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dogs ( and humans ) can recover them .
Consequently , the 1.7 to 3.7 million bats killed by U.S. wind turbines each year ( 2019 ) may be a vast underestimate .
Smallwood and Bell suggest the real death numbers are likely 4 to 7 times higher than that .
At this rate , the extinction clock for North American bats may not be 50 years off , but only a decade or two away .

Share this...
Due to the expansion of wind energy projects in the United States in the last decade, a conservative estimate for yearly bat fatalities from wind turbines ranges between 1.7 to 3.7 million. A new study suggests death numbers may be 4 to 7 times higher due to carcass search deficiencies.
It is estimated that North American migratory bat populations will decline by 90% over the next 50 years due to the expanding presence of wind turbines (Frick et al., 2017). As of 2015, about 25% of North American bat species were already considered vulnerable or endangered (Hammerson et al., 2017).
A harrowing new study suggests researchers may be vastly underestimating wind turbine bat fatalities due to biased-low carcass detection practices.
Smallwood and Bell (2020) report that dogs perform far better than humans at locating bat carcasses, but even dogs miss 3 out of every 4 bats observed colliding with wind turbines. This is because a) injured bats may temporarily recover enough to fly 10s of meters away from the collision site, and b) because scavengers can quickly collect the freshly dead or injured bats before dogs (and humans) can recover them.
Consequently, the 1.7 to 3.7 million bats killed by U.S. wind turbines each year (2019) may be a vast underestimate. Smallwood and Bell suggest the real death numbers are likely 4 to 7 times higher than that.
At this rate, the extinction clock for North American bats may not be 50 years off, but only a decade or two away.


notrickszone--2020-06-26--Alarmist Claims Of Increasing European Drought Are A Myth, New Scientific Findings Show

It sounds so simple : it is undoubtedly getting warmer in Central Europe , and this is leading to increasing droughts .
If you take the last two summers , this seems to be confirmed .
And just like that it was exploited by the media : There ’ s a strong link between past climate change and increasing drought .
“ Climate change leads to drought , ” wrote MDR “ Wissen ” in April 2020 , and many examples of the hype could be given about two summers in a row that were too dry , let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is this true ?
Does the unmistakable signal of warming , which is man-made , really show an increasing trend in drought here and in Europe ?
This paper by a team of 20 authors from meteorological institutes in Europe gets to the bottom of this question by evaluating really long-lasting observations between 1850 and 2018 .
One could take the easy way out , because the result is already in the short summary : The results reveal the absence of statistically significant long-term trends in the area studied .
The warming is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing drought is not .
This is astonishing .
What have the authors done ?
The authors use the “ Standardized Precipitation Index ” ( SPI ) as a scientifically recognized measure of the occurrence of droughts to examine the European region .
For this purpose , they not only evaluate whole years , but also evaluate seasonally ( 3 months ) the very carefully validated data .
The evaluation valid for Central Europe can be found in the freely accessible “ Supporting Information ” : Fig .
4 : The paper ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vicente-Serrano et .
al ( 2020 ) .
If one also sees an anthropogenic warming trend in the temperatures since about 1980 , we are missing such a long-term trend in the drought index .
Frequent very dry periods also occurred in the 1920s , 1940s and 1970s .
The team of authors really wanted to know exactly and looked everywhere in Europe ( except Eastern Europe ) for long-term trends matching temperature developments for different time periods : Figure 5 : The geographical distribution of the evaluated station data for the period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the paper .
There are occasional trends at individual stations , but nothing significant over longer periods over larger areas .
So the authors write in the summary : So why are all claims of climate-related droughts increasing in this country ?
Most of the time , according to the authors , these are based only on short-term observations using insufficiently validated data or areas that are too small .
With great meticulousness , the authors prove that these claims are not scientifically substantiated .
Up to now , readers could plead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drought caused by climate change ” in the media and elsewhere .
But from now on , one can assume the media are fibbing .
The scientifically based facts indicate that the connection simply does not exist .
So if you as an enlightened reader read such nonsense soon again , then take a close look at the authors of such reports : They are probably are trying to take you for a ride .

By Frank Bosse
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)
It sounds so simple: it is undoubtedly getting warmer in Central Europe, and this is leading to increasing droughts. If you take the last two summers, this seems to be confirmed. And just like that it was exploited by the media: There’s a strong link between past climate change and increasing drought.
“Climate change leads to drought,” wrote MDR “Wissen” in April 2020, and many examples of the hype could be given about two summers in a row that were too dry, let’s leave it at that. But is this true? Does the unmistakable signal of warming, which is man-made, really show an increasing trend in drought here and in Europe?
“Astonishing results”
This paper by a team of 20 authors from meteorological institutes in Europe gets to the bottom of this question by evaluating really long-lasting observations between 1850 and 2018. One could take the easy way out, because the result is already in the short summary:
Results reveal a general absence of statistically significant long-term trends in the study domain…”
The results reveal the absence of statistically significant long-term trends in the area studied. The warming is a confirmed long-term trend, the allegedly increasing drought is not. This is astonishing. What have the authors done?
The authors use the “Standardized Precipitation Index” (SPI) as a scientifically recognized measure of the occurrence of droughts to examine the European region. For this purpose, they not only evaluate whole years, but also evaluate seasonally (3 months) the very carefully validated data. The evaluation valid for Central Europe can be found in the freely accessible “Supporting Information”:
Fig. 4: The paper’s Figure 6 of the supplement from Vicente-Serrano et. al (2020).
Trends “are statistically non-significant”
If one also sees an anthropogenic warming trend in the temperatures since about 1980, we are missing such a long-term trend in the drought index. Frequent very dry periods also occurred in the 1920s, 1940s and 1970s. The team of authors really wanted to know exactly and looked everywhere in Europe (except Eastern Europe) for long-term trends matching temperature developments for different time periods:
Figure 5: The geographical distribution of the evaluated station data for the period 1871-2018, source: Fig. 2 of the paper.
There are occasional trends at individual stations, but nothing significant over longer periods over larger areas. So the authors write in the summary:
With few exceptions, trends in droughts over Western Europe are statistically non-significant from a long-term perspective.”
Alarmist claims based on insufficient data
So why are all claims of climate-related droughts increasing in this country? Most of the time, according to the authors, these are based only on short-term observations using insufficiently validated data or areas that are too small.
Media are fibbing
With great meticulousness, the authors prove that these claims are not scientifically substantiated. Up to now, readers could plead ignorance when reading and hearing about “drought caused by climate change” in the media and elsewhere. But from now on, one can assume the media are fibbing.
The scientifically based facts indicate that the connection simply does not exist.
So if you as an enlightened reader read such nonsense soon again, then take a close look at the authors of such reports: They are probably are trying to take you for a ride.


notrickszone--2020-06-27--Greta Thunberg’s Confusion: Verhojansk COOLED 1930-1980… 38°C In Siberia 1 Week Long In 1957!

This is how alarmists operate today : Find one single extreme weather event and immediately behold it as proof of an impending climate change catastrophe .
Never mind such events have happened earlier when CO2 was much lower .
Earlier this week , for example , teenage activist Greta Thunberg tweeted over at the now highly censored Twitter of a record warm reading recorded in Verhojansk , Siberia .
Siberia has continental climate , temps range from -70°C to +40°C What is supposed to be alarming about the reading is that it was recorded at the Arctic circle , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Equator .
It ’ s supposed to be icy up there , with polar bears , so many people believe .
But that is of course not the case in the summertime .
Hot temperature near 40°C near the Arctic circle have happened time and again in the past .
The new record recorded at Verhojansk still needs to be confirmed by the World Meteorological Organization ( WMO ) , and if it stands , it will break the old record set back on July 25 , 1988 , when the town hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because records get broken all the time .
Arctic circle heat not uncommon in the summertime High temperatures up in the Arctic occurred also much earlier in the past .
For example meteorologist Chris Martz tweeted how 105 years ago Anchorage and Fort Yukon climbed to 100°F ( 37.8°C ) .
100°F for one week in 1957 Reader Don Penim then added how the Chicago Tribune reported on July 14 , 1957 , that the temperature at Vorkuta , Russia , “ inside the Arctic circle ” , reached 100°F for en entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GHCN Version 3 and Version 4 mean annual temperature data for the weather station located at Verhojansk , Russia : Note how the mean annual temperature trend fell 50 years long while CO2 emissions climbed .
Clearly CO2 is not driving the temperature in Siberia , and many experts question the claimed large atmospheric warming effect that CO2 has on the globe .
Climate blogger Tony Heller also tweeted how the Arctic above 80° north is at normal temperature , and has not risen above normal in the summertime for 20 years !

Share this...
By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin
This is how alarmists operate today: Find one single extreme weather event and immediately behold it as proof of an impending climate change catastrophe. Never mind such events have happened earlier when CO2 was much lower.
“Record” heat at Verhojansk
Earlier this week, for example, teenage activist Greta Thunberg tweeted over at the now highly censored Twitter of a record warm reading recorded in Verhojansk, Siberia.
Verhojansk north of the Arctic Circle in Siberia recorded +38°C today… https://t.co/qla2lfvxeh — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) June 20, 2020
Siberia has continental climate, temps range from -70°C to +40°C
What is supposed to be alarming about the reading is that it was recorded at the Arctic circle, which currently runs at 66°33′48.1″ north of the Equator. It’s supposed to be icy up there, with polar bears, so many people believe.
But that is of course not the case in the summertime. Hot temperature near 40°C near the Arctic circle have happened time and again in the past. The new record recorded at Verhojansk still needs to be confirmed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and if it stands, it will break the old record set back on July 25, 1988, when the town hit 37.3°C. But this is nothing unusual because records get broken all the time.
Arctic circle heat not uncommon in the summertime
High temperatures up in the Arctic occurred also much earlier in the past. For example meteorologist Chris Martz tweeted how 105 years ago Anchorage and Fort Yukon climbed to 100°F (37.8°C).
On June 20, 1915, Anchorage, Alaska (Merrill Field) hit 100°, which set the state's hottest temperature on record. Seven days later, Fort Yukon also hit 100° which is the hottest temperature ever recorded within the Arctic Circle. — Chris Martz Weather (@ChrisMartzWX) June 21, 2020
100°F for one week in 1957
Reader Don Penim then added how the Chicago Tribune reported on July 14, 1957, that the temperature at Vorkuta, Russia, “inside the Arctic circle”, reached 100°F for en entire week!
What about 100 degree temperatures "EVERY DAY FOR A WEEK" inside the Arctic circle? Chicago Tribune – July 14, 1957 pic.twitter.com/DXHUcsX7jf — Don Penim (@Don_Penim) June 22, 2020
Siberia temperatures fell as CO2 rose
Next we look at NASA GHCN Version 3 and Version 4 mean annual temperature data for the weather station located at Verhojansk, Russia:
Data source: NASA GISS and here.
Note how the mean annual temperature trend fell 50 years long while CO2 emissions climbed. Clearly CO2 is not driving the temperature in Siberia, and many experts question the claimed large atmospheric warming effect that CO2 has on the globe.
Climate blogger Tony Heller also tweeted how the Arctic above 80° north is at normal temperature, and has not risen above normal in the summertime for 20 years!
Temperatures north of 80N were slightly below normal yesterday, and summertime temperatures in the high Arctic have been consistently below normal for the past twenty years. "Zero emissions" means massive job loss, suffering, misery and genocide.https://t.co/xp37wkT2wc pic.twitter.com/HmY0YZ9dIe — Tony Heller (@Tony__Heller) June 22, 2020
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-06-28--Chancellor Merkel Calls For Talks Between Representatives Of Different Opinions In Climate Debate!

German chancellor Angela Merkel gave a speech at the 50th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos on 23 January 2020 , which included a section on climate change .
It says : How do you reconcile those who simply do not want to believe in climate change and who act as if it were a question of faith ?
For me , however , this is a classic question of evidence that is absolutely clear in the light of scientific data .
But since we live in an age where facts compete with emotions , one can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotions , which is then just as important .
So that means we have to reconcile emotions with facts .
That is perhaps the greatest social task .
In order to tackle it , at least we have to talk to each other .
The irreconcilability and speechlessness that sometimes exists between those who deny climate change and those who see it and fight for us to tackle it must be overcome .
There are many people here talking to each other who otherwise rarely speak to each other , but there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If we enter a world where speechlessness is perhaps sometimes even greater than it was during the Cold War , when there were fairly orderly exchange mechanisms , then we have a problem .
That is why I would argue that , however difficult it may be , we should exchange ideas – even between groups with the most controversial opinions – because otherwise we will only live in our prejudices and bubbles .
This is much better in the digital age than in earlier ages .
That could be the downfall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chancellor Merkel calls for the different camps in the climate debate to talk to each other .
This is very laudable and right .
But now the representatives of the climate alarm line are doing their utmost to NOT talk to the climate realists .
If Ms. Merkel took her own call seriously , she would create forums where we can talk to each other in a structured manner ( without emotions ) .
However , she has so far failed to do so .
Most of her consultants come from the Potsdam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not balanced .
Merkel ’ s proximity to PIK has probably led her to use the term “ denying climate change ” , which is more in the vocabulary of Greenpeace than that of a head of state .
A bad faux pas .
Let us generously overlook this .
It will be interesting to see whether Merkel will now put her words into action .
Where and how can the two climate camps discuss with each other objectively .
Who moderates such discussions ?
What happens to criticism that is expressed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a round table on climate change define a series of research questions in order to have disputed points examined in a targeted and scientifically neutral manner ?

Share this...
Image for illustration only. Credit: NASA JPL, public domain photo
By Die kalte Sonne
(Text translated by P. Gosselin)
German chancellor Angela Merkel gave a speech at the 50th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos on 23 January 2020, which included a section on climate change. It says:
How do you reconcile those who simply do not want to believe in climate change and who act as if it were a question of faith? For me, however, this is a classic question of evidence that is absolutely clear in the light of scientific data. But since we live in an age where facts compete with emotions, one can always try to create an antifacticism through emotions, which is then just as important. So that means we have to reconcile emotions with facts. That is perhaps the greatest social task. In order to tackle it, at least we have to talk to each other. The irreconcilability and speechlessness that sometimes exists between those who deny climate change and those who see it and fight for us to tackle it must be overcome. There are many people here talking to each other who otherwise rarely speak to each other, but there are not enough people talking to each other. If we enter a world where speechlessness is perhaps sometimes even greater than it was during the Cold War, when there were fairly orderly exchange mechanisms, then we have a problem. That is why I would argue that, however difficult it may be, we should exchange ideas – even between groups with the most controversial opinions – because otherwise we will only live in our prejudices and bubbles. This is much better in the digital age than in earlier ages. That could be the downfall; and that must be overcome.”
Chancellor Merkel calls for the different camps in the climate debate to talk to each other. This is very laudable and right. But now the representatives of the climate alarm line are doing their utmost to NOT talk to the climate realists. If Ms. Merkel took her own call seriously, she would create forums where we can talk to each other in a structured manner (without emotions). However, she has so far failed to do so.
Most of her consultants come from the Potsdam PIK Alarm Institute. This is also not balanced.
Merkel’s proximity to PIK has probably led her to use the term “denying climate change”, which is more in the vocabulary of Greenpeace than that of a head of state. A bad faux pas. Let us generously overlook this.
It will be interesting to see whether Merkel will now put her words into action. Where and how can the two climate camps discuss with each other objectively. Who moderates such discussions? What happens to criticism that is expressed in such discussions? Couldn’t such a round table on climate change define a series of research questions in order to have disputed points examined in a targeted and scientifically neutral manner?
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-06-30--Lockdown Based On Scientific Fraud…Viral German Documentary Demolishes COVID-19 Hype …Panic Based On

Lockdown Based On Scientific Fraud…Viral German Documentary Demolishes COVID-19 Hype …Panic Based On “Data Falsification”

300,000 views in first 48 hours… ” no basis for lock-down… ” falsification of scientific data ” …Soviet style psychiatry for dissenters… On June 28 , two days ago , German psychology student ‘ Sebastian ’ released a video that completely demolishes the hype surrounding the COVID-19 “ pandemic ” and how dangerously authoritarian the government is handling the matter .
It claims that the basis supposedly underpinning the lock-down was “ grossly unscientific ” and that the numbers were padded to create fear and panic among the public .
The video is also available here with English subtitles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday , the documentary has already been viewed 300,000 times and surely will become controversial and attacked viciously by self-anointed “ fact-checkers ” .
In the video , Sebastian begins by noting how in 2009 the WHO removed two criteria that were part of the definition of a pandemic : there had to be high death counts in a number of countries .
“ Today that is no longer the case , ” says Sebastian .
“ Why the change was made is unclear.
” Sebastian also explains how the media and authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than they actually are , for example showing how the number of “ infected persons ” is very different from the number of people who “ test positive ” .
The number of infected is much higher .
And so if that number were used to calculate the death rate , then the death rate would be much lower .
But the authorities hide that .
There never was an exponential growth Next the German psychology student shows how the weekly number of cases increased in late March not because the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing rose dramatically .
More tests = more cases .
But the media and authorities made it look like the virus was spreading faster when it really wasn ’ t .
But that trick was enough to cause the panic and allow the government to get away with enacting the economy-crushing lock down .
The reality , however , is that there never was an exponential growth .
Sebastian adds that there was a failure to distinguish between the number of infected and the number who are actually ill : “ Not distinguishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but grossly unscientific.
” The young German critic also sharply criticizes the methodology used to count the number of people dying from COVID-19 .
Every death where the patient tested positive was deemed to be a COVID-19 death , no matter what the real cause was .
“ In other words , if today I was tested positive with Corona and showed no symptoms , and tomorrow I jumped out of a window , then Corona would be the official cause of death , ” says Sebastian .
“ That ’ s astonishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the falsification of scientific data .
It ’ s the worst thing a scientist can do.
” And that ’ s how we get a “ massive overstating ” of the death rate , the documentary shows .
The chart below depicts how 2020 has been a rather normal year in terms of daily death in Germany .
Things were dramatically worse in 2018 , when the country was reeling from the flu , in the absence of media hype : Daily death rates for 2020 in normal range .
2018 flu epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We ’ re nowhere even close to 2017 and 2018 , ” Sebastian notes .
“ These numbers alone are enough to convince me that the restrictions were totally over the top.
” The German student , whose video has been seen over 300,000 times since its release two days ago , also shows how COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the regular flu , citing recent publication by Streeck et al , which found a COVID-19 death rate of maximum 0.36 % .
Also the figures show “ COVID-19 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The new Germany : Soviet-style psychiatry for dissenters The documentary also looked at the pitfalls of the COVID 19 tests , how overrated the lock-down measures really are , and how they inflicted even more damage .
One grisly aspect of the Corona “ pandemic ” in Germany was a call by a leading politician , Saxony Social Minister Petra Köpping , to admit persons refusing to go into quarantine to psychiatric hospitals .
One vocal dissenter was even forcibly brought by the police to a psychiatric ward , something , Sebastian says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very dark chapter of German history ” .
“ That , I would have never imagined possible.
” Viewers approved of the video overwhelmingly , with over 20,000 thumbs up compared to 1,450 thumbs down .
For example viewer Karin Steinbach commented : “ A great review of the facts and figures and social impact !
Many thanks !
As a scientist , I have long been horrified by the way in which we have been presented with ‘ facts ’ in this ‘ pandemic ’ and the way in which it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also in the media .
Moreover , no scientific discussion is taking place at all.
” Other viewers are calling for special commission to investigate the whole panic .

Share this...
300,000 views in first 48 hours…”no basis for lock-down…”falsification of scientific data”…Soviet style psychiatry for dissenters…
On June 28, two days ago, German psychology student ‘Sebastian’ released a video that completely demolishes the hype surrounding the COVID-19 “pandemic” and how dangerously authoritarian the government is handling the matter.
It claims that the basis supposedly underpinning the lock-down was “grossly unscientific” and that the numbers were padded to create fear and panic among the public.
The video is also available here with English subtitles, thanks to Tony Heller.
Released just yesterday, the documentary has already been viewed 300,000 times and surely will become controversial and attacked viciously by self-anointed “fact-checkers”.
Watering down definition of a pandemic
In the video, Sebastian begins by noting how in 2009 the WHO removed two criteria that were part of the definition of a pandemic: there had to be high death counts in a number of countries. “Today that is no longer the case,” says Sebastian. “Why the change was made is unclear.”
Padding the corona numbers
Sebastian also explains how the media and authorities use tricks to make the numbers appear worse than they actually are, for example showing how the number of “infected persons” is very different from the number of people who “test positive”. The number of infected is much higher. And so if that number were used to calculate the death rate, then the death rate would be much lower. But the authorities hide that.
There never was an exponential growth
Next the German psychology student shows how the weekly number of cases increased in late March not because the virus was rapidly spreading, but because the testing rose dramatically. More tests = more cases. But the media and authorities made it look like the virus was spreading faster when it really wasn’t. But that trick was enough to cause the panic and allow the government to get away with enacting the economy-crushing lock down.
“Grossly unscientific”
The reality, however, is that there never was an exponential growth. Sebastian adds that there was a failure to distinguish between the number of infected and the number who are actually ill: “Not distinguishing the two is not only negligent, but grossly unscientific.”
“Falsification of scientific data”
The young German critic also sharply criticizes the methodology used to count the number of people dying from COVID-19. Every death where the patient tested positive was deemed to be a COVID-19 death, no matter what the real cause was.
“In other words, if today I was tested positive with Corona and showed no symptoms, and tomorrow I jumped out of a window, then Corona would be the official cause of death,” says Sebastian. “That’s astonishing! That’s what we call the falsification of scientific data. It’s the worst thing a scientist can do.”
And that’s how we get a “massive overstating” of the death rate, the documentary shows. The chart below depicts how 2020 has been a rather normal year in terms of daily death in Germany. Things were dramatically worse in 2018, when the country was reeling from the flu, in the absence of media hype:
Daily death rates for 2020 in normal range. 2018 flu epidemic far worse. Chart cropped from here.
“We’re nowhere even close to 2017 and 2018,” Sebastian notes. “These numbers alone are enough to convince me that the restrictions were totally over the top.”
The German student, whose video has been seen over 300,000 times since its release two days ago, also shows how COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the regular flu, citing recent publication by Streeck et al, which found a COVID-19 death rate of maximum 0.36%. Also the figures show “COVID-19 is not significantly more contagious than influenza.”
The new Germany: Soviet-style psychiatry for dissenters
The documentary also looked at the pitfalls of the COVID 19 tests, how overrated the lock-down measures really are, and how they inflicted even more damage.
One grisly aspect of the Corona “pandemic” in Germany was a call by a leading politician, Saxony Social Minister Petra Köpping, to admit persons refusing to go into quarantine to psychiatric hospitals. One vocal dissenter was even forcibly brought by the police to a psychiatric ward, something, Sebastian says, reminds him of “a very very dark chapter of German history”.
“That, I would have never imagined possible.”
Overwhelming viewer approval
Viewers approved of the video overwhelmingly, with over 20,000 thumbs up compared to 1,450 thumbs down. For example viewer Karin Steinbach commented:
“A great review of the facts and figures and social impact! Many thanks! As a scientist, I have long been horrified by the way in which we have been presented with ‘facts’ in this ‘pandemic’ and the way in which it has stirred up fears among the population – also in the media. Moreover, no scientific discussion is taking place at all.”
Other viewers are calling for special commission to investigate the whole panic.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-06-29--When Exposed To Natural, Long-Term Extreme ‘Ocean Acidification’, Coral And Urchin ‘Persist’ And Eve

When Exposed To Natural, Long-Term Extreme ‘Ocean Acidification’, Coral And Urchin ‘Persist’ And Even ‘Thrive’

Marine species subjected to high CO2 extremes – 8,891 to 95,000 ppm – in their natural environments may not be adversely affected .
They may even “ thrive ” .
Earlier this year we highlighted a study that says coral reefs “ thrive ” near seafloor volcanic vents where CO2 concentrations reach 60,000 to 95,000 ppm .
Urchins basking in volcanic vent streams of 8,891 ppm CO2 and daily CO2 variations of more than 2,000 ppm as well as day-to-day pH fluctuations ranging from 6.9 ( “ acidification ” ) to 8.1…grow more than two times faster than nearby control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pH ) urchins ( Uthicke et al.
, 2016 ) .
According to a new study , corals “ were observed to persist within acidified [ < 7 U ] waters ” , with pH lows reaching as low as 6.5 ( Enochs et al.
, 2020 ) .
This effectively means corals can endure any doomsday “ ocean acidification ” scenario allegedly linked to human fossil fuel burning .
“ Herein , we have characterized an area of volcanic acidification at Mayreau Island , St. Vincent and the Grenadines .
Despite localized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrounding area has high hard and soft coral cover , as well as extensive carbonate frameworks .
Twice daily extremes in acidification [ with pH levels as low as 6.540 ] , in some cases leading to undersaturation of aragonite , are correlated with tidal fluctuations and are likely related to water flow .
Corals persisting despite this periodic acidification can provide insights into mechanisms of resilience and the importance of natural pH variability on coral reefs.
” “ To date , natural acidification hotspots have been identified corresponding to upwelling ( Manzello @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crook et al .
2013 ) , and biological activity ( Shamberger et al .
2014 ) , as well as volcanic CO2 seeps.
” “ At Mayreau , as with the sites in New Caledonia , corals were observed to persist within acidified waters , potentially indicating mechanisms of resilience to extreme acidification stress .
”

Share this...
Marine species subjected to high CO2 extremes – 8,891 to 95,000 ppm – in their natural environments may not be adversely affected. They may even “thrive”.
Earlier this year we highlighted a study that says coral reefs “thrive” near seafloor volcanic vents where CO2 concentrations reach 60,000 to 95,000 ppm.
Urchins basking in volcanic vent streams of 8,891 ppm CO2 and daily CO2 variations of more than 2,000 ppm as well as day-to-day pH fluctuations ranging from 6.9 (“acidification”) to 8.1…grow more than two times faster than nearby control (stable 394 ppm CO2, 8.1 pH) urchins (Uthicke et al., 2016).
According to a new study, corals “were observed to persist within acidified [<7 U] waters”, with pH lows reaching as low as 6.5 (Enochs et al., 2020). This effectively means corals can endure any doomsday “ocean acidification” scenario allegedly linked to human fossil fuel burning.
“Herein, we have characterized an area of volcanic acidification at Mayreau Island, St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Despite localized CO2 enrichment and gas venting, the surrounding area has high hard and soft coral cover, as well as extensive carbonate frameworks. Twice daily extremes in acidification [with pH levels as low as 6.540], in some cases leading to undersaturation of aragonite, are correlated with tidal fluctuations and are likely related to water flow. Corals persisting despite this periodic acidification can provide insights into mechanisms of resilience and the importance of natural pH variability on coral reefs.”
“To date, natural acidification hotspots have been identified corresponding to upwelling (Manzello 2010), submarine groundwater discharge (Crook et al. 2013), and biological activity (Shamberger et al. 2014), as well as volcanic CO2 seeps.”
“At Mayreau, as with the sites in New Caledonia, corals were observed to persist within acidified waters, potentially indicating mechanisms of resilience to extreme acidification stress.”


notrickszone--2020-07-01--Climate Alarmist, PhD Physicist David Appell Fails Freshman Physics… Misunderstands Climate-Critical

Climate Alarmist, PhD Physicist David Appell Fails Freshman Physics… Misunderstands Climate-Critical Evaporation

A comment by PhD physicist David Appell , a contributing writer to Scientific American and Nature , shows he does not understand the fundamental climate-driving mechanism of water evaporation in a recent comment .
Amazon rain forest still exists despite very warm , year-round temperatures .
Image cropped : NASA Many readers are familiar with climate alarm dogmatist David Appell .
He sometimes goes off on comment tirades here at NTZ , getting huffed up .
Though a large part of his dogma-filled comments fail to meet editorial standards , and so don ’ t get published , some have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to leave up one of his comments , though it was a falsehood .
I did so because it illustrates how this Physics PhD really does not even understand the basic physics behind water evaporation – a critical element in our climate system .
If you don ’ t understand how evaporation works , how can you possibly understand how climate works , let alone model it ?
Appell ’ s gaffe comment came in response to the recent NTZ article : “ Alarmist Claims Of Increasing European Drought Are A Myth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though it may be counter-intuitive to some , Appell ’ s statement is false .
Indeed many laypersons believe that heat ( higher temperatures ) do dry things out .
For example , we throw our wet clothes in the dryer because “ the heat dries them ” .
But it isn ’ t quite so .
Heat is not what dries , and PhD physicist David Appell really should know better .
Drying depends on the relative humidity , and not on temperature .
According to Mr. Appell ’ s understanding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 35°C persist , should have dried out long ago .
But they haven ’ t .
They don ’ t dry out because of their high relative humidity that keeps them green and lush .
It has nothing to do with temperature .
In fact , as reader Yonason points out , some of the largest deserts in the world are located in extremely cold regions .
Temperature is not what drives drought !
Lack of moisture is what does it , and nothing else .
In fact , the driest periods on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Appell is not the only “ expert ” who misunderstand what drives evaporation .
German “ expert ” Volker Quaschning also misunderstood it last year .
Veteran Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann had to sit him down and school him on the subject .
It ’ s no wonder many alarmists and modelers have been so wrong when it comes to climate change .
And one really has to pause and wonder about the quality control at renowned publications like Scientific American and Nature , who Appell claims he has written for , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who clearly do not understand the fundamental physics of water vapor – a crucial component of our climate system .

Share this...
A comment by PhD physicist David Appell, a contributing writer to Scientific American and Nature, shows he does not understand the fundamental climate-driving mechanism of water evaporation in a recent comment.
Amazon rain forest still exists despite very warm, year-round temperatures. Image cropped: NASA
Many readers are familiar with climate alarm dogmatist David Appell. He sometimes goes off on comment tirades here at NTZ, getting huffed up.
Though a large part of his dogma-filled comments fail to meet editorial standards, and so don’t get published, some have merit and are welcome.
Doesn’t understand evaporation
Recently I decided to leave up one of his comments, though it was a falsehood. I did so because it illustrates how this Physics PhD really does not even understand the basic physics behind water evaporation – a critical element in our climate system. If you don’t understand how evaporation works, how can you possibly understand how climate works, let alone model it?
Appell’s gaffe comment came in response to the recent NTZ article: “Alarmist Claims Of Increasing European Drought Are A Myth“, to which he commented:
Though it may be counter-intuitive to some, Appell’s statement is false. Indeed many laypersons believe that heat (higher temperatures) do dry things out. For example, we throw our wet clothes in the dryer because “the heat dries them”. But it isn’t quite so. Heat is not what dries, and PhD physicist David Appell really should know better. Drying depends on the relative humidity, and not on temperature.
Wet jungles, desert polar regions
According to Mr. Appell’s understanding, hot jungles, where hot temperatures of 35°C persist, should have dried out long ago. But they haven’t. They don’t dry out because of their high relative humidity that keeps them green and lush. It has nothing to do with temperature.
In fact, as reader Yonason points out, some of the largest deserts in the world are located in extremely cold regions. Temperature is not what drives drought! Lack of moisture is what does it, and nothing else. In fact, the driest periods on earth have occurred in cold periods.
Other “experts” also misunderstood
David Appell is not the only “expert” who misunderstand what drives evaporation. German “expert” Volker Quaschning also misunderstood it last year. Veteran Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann had to sit him down and school him on the subject. It’s no wonder many alarmists and modelers have been so wrong when it comes to climate change.
Lack of quality control
And one really has to pause and wonder about the quality control at renowned publications like Scientific American and Nature, who Appell claims he has written for, that they would print material from persons who clearly do not understand the fundamental physics of water vapor – a crucial component of our climate system.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-07-02--New Study: ‘The Most Suitable Place In The World For Temperature Reconstruction’ Shows Net Cooling S

New Study: ‘The Most Suitable Place In The World For Temperature Reconstruction’ Shows Net Cooling Since The 1930s

A new 1876-present temperature reconstruction for Northern Finland shows the 1930s were the warmest period of the last 140 years .
And there has been no net warming since .
Tree density analysis , MXD , has a “ more prominent association with temperature ” than measuring tree ring widths because it can more clearly separate precipitation factors affecting tree growth from temperature-limiting factors ( Bjorklund et al.
, 2020 ) .
Northern Finland is characterized as “ the most suitable place in the world for temperature reconstruction ” because it sits on the edge of where trees can or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to clearly defined temperature limits on growth .
( For example , forests used to extend to the coast of the Arctic Ocean during the Early Holocene , indicating the Arctic region needed to have been 2.5 to 7°C warmer to accommodate such tree growth . )
Pinus sylvestris ( 29 trees ) from northeastern Finland indicate the warmest interval since 1876 occurred in the 1930s , and since then there has been no net warming .
This is visible in both tree ring width ( RW ) and density ( MXD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” studies also show a similar temperature pattern of a warm early/mid-twentieth century and a subsequent cooling in the 1960s and 1970s prior to another warming in the 1990s-2000s .
For example , in China , tree ring evidence suggest such a pattern for soil temperatures ( Yuan et al.
, 2020 ) , and Keyimu et al .
( 2020 ) find “ A.D .
1940–1965 witnessed the longest extended warm period at Big Snow Mountain Scenic Area over the past 180 years ” .
Proxy evidence from across the Northern Hemisphere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pattern .
They also show the modern period is not climatically unusual relative to past ~1,500 years ( Stoffel et al.
, 2015 , Schneider et al.
, 2015 ) .

Share this...
A new 1876-present temperature reconstruction for Northern Finland shows the 1930s were the warmest period of the last 140 years. And there has been no net warming since.
Tree density analysis, MXD, has a “more prominent association with temperature” than measuring tree ring widths because it can more clearly separate precipitation factors affecting tree growth from temperature-limiting factors (Bjorklund et al., 2020).
Northern Finland is characterized as “the most suitable place in the world for temperature reconstruction” because it sits on the edge of where trees can or cannot grow (or survive) due to clearly defined temperature limits on growth. (For example, forests used to extend to the coast of the Arctic Ocean during the Early Holocene, indicating the Arctic region needed to have been 2.5 to 7°C warmer to accommodate such tree growth.)
Pinus sylvestris (29 trees) from northeastern Finland indicate the warmest interval since 1876 occurred in the 1930s, and since then there has been no net warming. This is visible in both tree ring width (RW) and density (MXD) analysis.
Other new “dendroclimatic” studies also show a similar temperature pattern of a warm early/mid-twentieth century and a subsequent cooling in the 1960s and 1970s prior to another warming in the 1990s-2000s. For example, in China, tree ring evidence suggest such a pattern for soil temperatures (Yuan et al., 2020), and Keyimu et al. (2020) find “A.D. 1940–1965 witnessed the longest extended warm period at Big Snow Mountain Scenic Area over the past 180 years”.
Proxy evidence from across the Northern Hemisphere may also show this same warming-cooling-warming temperature pattern. They also show the modern period is not climatically unusual relative to past ~1,500 years (Stoffel et al., 2015, Schneider et al., 2015).


notrickszone--2020-07-03--Criminal Complaint Against Lead Author Of Heinsberg 2020 COVID-19 Paper DISMISSED By Prosecutor

The war on non-alarmist , rational science takes a hit… Bonn state prosecutor ’ s office decides to dismiss criminal complaint filed by “ unnamed scientist ” against lead author of the sensational Heinsberg paper , Prof. Hendrik Streeck , who had been accused of “ having made up research results ” Professor of Virology , Henrik Streeck .
Institute for HIV Research , Germany , CC BY 2.5 The online German General Anzeiger here reports that the Bonn state prosecutor ’ s office has decided not to pursue a criminal investigation of renowned researcher Hendrik Streeck , Professor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 100-page criminal complaint from an unnamed person who claimed to be a scientist .
The unnamed scientist who filed the criminal complaint accused Streeck of “ having made up research results and made false statements in connection with the Heinsberg study.
” Also German business magazine “ Capital ” reported on its online site about alleged “ contradictory data on which the ethics committee of the University of Bonn gave the green light for the study to be carried out.
” Streeck was also accused if “ making up research results ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for verification ” .
The distinguished virologist Streeck is the head of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research at the University Hospital of Bonn , and the lead author of the now famous “ Heinsberg study ” whose results showed that the mortality rate of COVID-19 was in fact significantly lower than that previously claimed by numerous health officials and the media .
According to the University of Bonn : “ This number of unreported cases is about 10 times higher than the officially reported cases ( 162,496 on May 3rd , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Minister President used the results of Streeck ’ s study to defend his decision to relax restrictions .
A number of officials and parties with an interest in spreading panic reacted angrily to the study ’ s panic-silencing affect .
It ’ s still unknown who was behind the 100-page criminal complaint effort .
Wolfgang Holzgreve , Director the University Clinic in Bonn , told the General-Anzeiger he was concerned about “ the increasing number of accusations against scientists ” and : “ It ’ s amazing what people have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virologists have even received death threats .
I think we ’ ll have to live with that .
”

Share this...
The war on non-alarmist, rational science takes a hit… Bonn state prosecutor’s office decides to dismiss criminal complaint filed by “unnamed scientist” against lead author of the sensational Heinsberg paper, Prof. Hendrik Streeck, who had been accused of “having made up research results”
Professor of Virology, Henrik Streeck. Institute for HIV Research, Germany, CC BY 2.5
Investigation dropped
The online German General Anzeiger here reports that the Bonn state prosecutor’s office has decided not to pursue a criminal investigation of renowned researcher Hendrik Streeck, Professor of Virology, after the police had received a 100-page criminal complaint from an unnamed person who claimed to be a scientist.
No criminal science behavior found
“After examining a criminal complaint against the Bonn virologist Hendrik Streeck, the Bonn public prosecutor’s office has refused to start investigations,” reports the General Anzeiger, “No criminal behavior was found to justify investigations, a press spokesman said.”
The unnamed scientist who filed the criminal complaint accused Streeck of “having made up research results and made false statements in connection with the Heinsberg study.”
Flurry of accusations
Also German business magazine “Capital” reported on its online site about alleged “contradictory data on which the ethics committee of the University of Bonn gave the green light for the study to be carried out.”
Streeck was also accused if “making up research results” and refusing “to provide raw data for verification”.
Study: COVID-19 death rate overstated by factor of 10
The distinguished virologist Streeck is the head of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research at the University Hospital of Bonn, and the lead author of the now famous “Heinsberg study” whose results showed that the mortality rate of COVID-19 was in fact significantly lower than that previously claimed by numerous health officials and the media.
According to the University of Bonn: “This number of unreported cases is about 10 times higher than the officially reported cases (162,496 on May 3rd, 2020).”
North Rhine Westphalia’s Minister President used the results of Streeck’s study to defend his decision to relax restrictions.
A number of officials and parties with an interest in spreading panic reacted angrily to the study’s panic-silencing affect. It’s still unknown who was behind the 100-page criminal complaint effort.
Virologists receiving death threats
Wolfgang Holzgreve, Director the University Clinic in Bonn, told the General-Anzeiger he was concerned about “the increasing number of accusations against scientists” and: “It’s amazing what people have to put up with these days. Some virologists have even received death threats. I think we’ll have to live with that.”
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-07-04--‘Die Zeit’ Slams Science Dogmatism, The ‘Delusion Of Total Controllability’…’Relapse Into Pre-Enligh

‘Die Zeit’ Slams Science Dogmatism, The ‘Delusion Of Total Controllability’…’Relapse Into Pre-Enlightenment’

A German weekly “ Die Zeit ” commentary criticizes the hostility directed at skeptical climatologists and epidemiologists .
“ Where do we end up if a scientist ’ s degree of alarm becomes a litmus test for his scientific respectability ?
” Science activism represents “ relapse into pre-enlightened thinking ” .
Dogmatists refusing to look through Galileo ’ s telescope .
Image cropped here .
Over the recent years , we ’ ve seen a number of alarmist climate scientists demanding we believe that they are the beholders of the truth , and so policymakers need to heed their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gotten so dreadful that journalist Thea Dorn has since felt compelled to pen a commentary appearing in the centre-left Die Zeit : “ Don ’ t preach , do research instead !
” Rather than arrogantly declaring that the science is settled , scientists shine through by remaining doubtful , Dorn writes .
She warns of climate scientists having become “ ideologists ” in the climate debate , and that this is threatening to happen in epidemiology/virology as well .
“ There is a world of difference between an irrational dogmatist and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It is not acceptable to immediately defame anyone who expresses doubts about the reliability of epidemiological or climate models as a ‘ climate ’ or ‘ corona denier ' ” .
In Germany there have been a number of renowned virologists who have recently come under fire for dissenting against the alarmist claims made by other virologists .
Dorn writes : “ In contrast to religion , modern science owes its success to its openness to doubt , criticism and self-correction.
” Thea Dorn particularly fires harsh criticism at Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for suggesting in an essay in Spiegel in 2019 that mankind somehow had control over the “ earth system ” but was losing that control , an assumption that Dorn called “ absurd and highly questionable ” .
Dorn slams Rahmstorf and Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber for mischaracterizing the earth ’ s complexity as a mere set a dominoes on the verge of toppling , and claiming they have the models to predict the future , and they and the alarmist virologists and immunologists should be heeded .
On the role of skeptics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrary : we can be thankful that – still ?
– there are enough scientists who reject the magic of the crystal ball and the delusion of total controllability.
” Dorn also sharply criticizes the concept of the “ activist scientist ” , which Hans Joachim Schellnhuber calls himself .
She comments : “ It represents a relapse into pre-enlightened thinking .
With a slogan like “ Unite behind the Science !
” one might swear crusaders to a holy mission .
”

Share this...
A German weekly “Die Zeit” commentary criticizes the hostility directed at skeptical climatologists and epidemiologists.
“Where do we end up if a scientist’s degree of alarm becomes a litmus test for his scientific respectability?” Science activism represents “relapse into pre-enlightened thinking”.
Dogmatists refusing to look through Galileo’s telescope. Image cropped here.
The false prophets
Over the recent years, we’ve seen a number of alarmist climate scientists demanding we believe that they are the beholders of the truth, and so policymakers need to heed their advice without question.
Science hubris
That hubris has gotten so dreadful that journalist Thea Dorn has since felt compelled to pen a commentary appearing in the centre-left Die Zeit: “Don’t preach, do research instead!”
Rather than arrogantly declaring that the science is settled, scientists shine through by remaining doubtful, Dorn writes.
She warns of climate scientists having become “ideologists” in the climate debate, and that this is threatening to happen in epidemiology/virology as well.
Not acceptable to defame doubters
“There is a world of difference between an irrational dogmatist and a reasonable skeptic, Thea Dorn writes. “It is not acceptable to immediately defame anyone who expresses doubts about the reliability of epidemiological or climate models as a ‘climate’ or ‘corona denier'”.
In Germany there have been a number of renowned virologists who have recently come under fire for dissenting against the alarmist claims made by other virologists.
Dorn writes: “In contrast to religion, modern science owes its success to its openness to doubt, criticism and self-correction.”
Rahmstorf suggestion “absurd”
Thea Dorn particularly fires harsh criticism at Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf, alarmist scientist at the Potsdam Institute, for suggesting in an essay in Spiegel in 2019 that mankind somehow had control over the “earth system” but was losing that control, an assumption that Dorn called “absurd and highly questionable”.
Dorn slams Rahmstorf and Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber for mischaracterizing the earth’s complexity as a mere set a dominoes on the verge of toppling, and claiming they have the models to predict the future, and they and the alarmist virologists and immunologists should be heeded.
Be thankful for skeptics
On the role of skeptics, Dorn writes: “On the contrary: we can be thankful that – still? – there are enough scientists who reject the magic of the crystal ball and the delusion of total controllability.”
Science crusaders
Dorn also sharply criticizes the concept of the “activist scientist”, which Hans Joachim Schellnhuber calls himself. She comments: “It represents a relapse into pre-enlightened thinking. With a slogan like “Unite behind the Science!” one might swear crusaders to a holy mission.”
Dorn summarizes:
One of the most tragic acts that a democracy can commit is self-submission to the rigid rules of a clerical natural science for fear of submission to the power of nature.”


notrickszone--2020-07-05--No Need To Panic: Leading Scientists See Little Global Warming In The Works – Due To “Natural Variab

No Need To Panic: Leading Scientists See Little Global Warming In The Works – Due To “Natural Variability”

A commentary titled “ ‘ Just don ’ t panic – also about climate change ’ ” by Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt appearing at German site achgut.com tells us there ’ s no need for panic with respect to climate change , as leading scientists dial back earlier doomsday projections .
Vahrenholt claims a negative Atlantic oscillation is ahead of us and the expected second weak solar cycle in succession will reduce anthropogenic warming in the next 15-30 years .
He cites a recent publication by Judith Curry , who sees a pause in the temperature rise until 2050 as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not alone when it comes to believing a natural-variability-watered-down warming is in the works .
Also IPCC heavyweight Jochem Marotzke from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg takes a similar stand in a publication in the Environmental Research Letters .
In the paper Marotzke concludes that all locations examined show “ a cooling trend or lack of warming trend ” and that there is “ no warming due to natural cooling effects ” and that in calculations up to 2049 .
The researchers find “ a large part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internal variability ” .
And recently The Max Planck Institute Director Marotzke said in an interview with Andreas Frey of the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung ( FAZ ) that there was no need to panic , thus clearly splitting from the doomsday scenarios put out by his alarmist colleagues Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf .
In the FAZ interview , Marotzke also said there was no need to worry that the port city of Hamburg would be flooded in 2100 : “ Hamburg will not be threatened , that is totally clear.
” Areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then told the FAZ that the fears that children have today for the future are not absolutely well founded , and that entire areas are not going to be wiped out , as often often suggested by alarmists .
When asked why the French issued a press release warning of worse than expected warming , Marotzke said : “ We thought , my God , what are you doing ?
Because it is very unlikely that the true climate is as sensitive as shown in the new models.
” When asked by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such dramatic numbers , Marotzke said : “ I don ’ t know , ” adding that the climate models are highly complex .
“ Too many calculation steps overlap , and sometimes we ourselves are amazed at what we do not understand “ .
Vahrenholt summarizes the growing doubt by scientists such as Curry and Marotzke over the use of alarmist models : One gets the impression someone is speaking out against the alarmist use of models .
Perhaps Jochem Marotzke is aware that with the warming coming to an end in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Schellnhuber : “ We only have 10 years left “ ) will have unpleasant questions to answer .
When society realizes that the climate modelers have exaggerated in order to make a political difference , we will know who misled the politicians .
”

Share this...
A commentary titled “‘Just don’t panic – also about climate change’” by Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt appearing at German site achgut.com tells us there’s no need for panic with respect to climate change, as leading scientists dial back earlier doomsday projections.
Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt. Image: GWPF
No warming until 2050
Vahrenholt claims a negative Atlantic oscillation is ahead of us and the expected second weak solar cycle in succession will reduce anthropogenic warming in the next 15-30 years. He cites a recent publication by Judith Curry, who sees a pause in the temperature rise until 2050 as the most likely scenario.
Vahrenholt and Curry are not alone when it comes to believing a natural-variability-watered-down warming is in the works. Also IPCC heavyweight Jochem Marotzke from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg takes a similar stand in a publication in the Environmental Research Letters.
In the paper Marotzke concludes that all locations examined show “a cooling trend or lack of warming trend”and that there is “no warming due to natural cooling effects” and that in calculations up to 2049. The researchers find “a large part of the earth will not warm up because of internal variability”.
Distancing from alarmists Schellnhuber, Rahmstorf
And recently The Max Planck Institute Director Marotzke said in an interview with Andreas Frey of the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung (FAZ) that there was no need to panic, thus clearly splitting from the doomsday scenarios put out by his alarmist colleagues Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf.
In the FAZ interview, Marotzke also said there was no need to worry that the port city of Hamburg would be flooded in 2100: “Hamburg will not be threatened, that is totally clear.”
Areas not going to be wiped out
Marotzke then told the FAZ that the fears that children have today for the future are not absolutely well founded, and that entire areas are not going to be wiped out, as often often suggested by alarmists.
Sensational French models
When asked why the French issued a press release warning of worse than expected warming, Marotzke said: “We thought, my God, what are you doing? Because it is very unlikely that the true climate is as sensitive as shown in the new models.”
When asked by the FAZ why the French had put out such dramatic numbers, Marotzke said: “I don’t know,” adding that the climate models are highly complex. “Too many calculation steps overlap, and sometimes we ourselves are amazed at what we do not understand“.
Speaking up against alarmist models
Vahrenholt summarizes the growing doubt by scientists such as Curry and Marotzke over the use of alarmist models:
One gets the impression someone is speaking out against the alarmist use of models. Perhaps Jochem Marotzke is aware that with the warming coming to an end in the next 30 years, model alarmists (Schellnhuber: “We only have 10 years left“) will have unpleasant questions to answer. When society realizes that the climate modelers have exaggerated in order to make a political difference, we will know who misled the politicians.”
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-07-06--Schooled: Warmth-Sensitive Fish Teach Us They Swam In A 4-5°C Warmer Ocean About 5000 Years Ago

Extensive hake ( fish ) skeletal remains in ocean waters too cold for this species to occupy today suggest past ocean temperatures were several degrees warmer .
Fish habitats are limited by specific temperature boundaries .
In a new study , for example , Wheeland and Morgan ( 2020 ) found there was a pronounced ocean warming from the 1980s to late 1990s off the coasts of Greenland .
This temperature shift changed the distribution of halibut habitat .
Since then , however , there has been no net warming in the study region ( through 2016 ) .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( 2020 ) document a large presence of a temperature-sensitive fish species ( hake ) at 53°S ( southernmost South America ) when current hake venture no further south than 47°S .
This latitude differential for hake habitat suggests the ocean was 4-5°C warmer than today about 5000 years ago ( Mid-Holocene ) .
Evidence for anomalously cold present-day sea surface temperatures in southern South America relative to past millennia has also been documented by Caniupán et al.
, 2014 .
This region ’ s temperatures may actually be nearly the coldest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the temperature depths reached during the “ global Little Ice Age ” .

Share this...
Extensive hake (fish) skeletal remains in ocean waters too cold for this species to occupy today suggest past ocean temperatures were several degrees warmer.
Fish habitats are limited by specific temperature boundaries. In a new study, for example, Wheeland and Morgan (2020) found there was a pronounced ocean warming from the 1980s to late 1990s off the coasts of Greenland. This temperature shift changed the distribution of halibut habitat. Since then, however, there has been no net warming in the study region (through 2016).
In a new study, Bas et al. ( 2020) document a large presence of a temperature-sensitive fish species (hake) at 53°S (southernmost South America) when current hake venture no further south than 47°S. This latitude differential for hake habitat suggests the ocean was 4-5°C warmer than today about 5000 years ago (Mid-Holocene).
Evidence for anomalously cold present-day sea surface temperatures in southern South America relative to past millennia has also been documented by Caniupán et al., 2014. This region’s temperatures may actually be nearly the coldest of the last 10,000 years – cooler than the temperature depths reached during the “global Little Ice Age”.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-07-07--Flawed Models: New Studies Find Plants Take Up “More Than Twice As Much” CO2 Than Expected

First , the global mean temperature of satellite based measurements was surprisingly much higher in May 2020 than in April .
In contrast , the global temperatures of the series of measurements on land and sea decreased .
The difference can be explained by the fact that under warm El-Nino conditions the satellite measurements lag about 2-3 months behind the earth-based measurements .
From November 2019 to March 2020 a moderate El-Nino was observed , which has now been replaced by neutral conditions in the Pacific .
Therefore , it is to be expected that also the satellite based measurements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will show a decrease in temperatures within 2-3 months .
The average temperature increase since 1981 remained unchanged at 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade .
The sunspot number of 0.2 corresponded to the expectations of the solar minimum .
In August 2019 , I reported on a remarkable publication by the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg : “ Our main finding , ” said Aexander Winkler ’ s researchers at the time , “ is that the effect of CO2 concentration on terrestrial photosynthesis is greater than previously thought and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon cycle .
According to this , the CO2 attenuation effect of plants is 60 % higher than the average of climate models had assumed .
“ In the last two decades , an average of 310,000 km² of additional leaf and needle area – roughly the size of Poland or Germany – has been created every year , ” the researchers say .
I had shared this important finding with the members of the German Bundestag at the time , which led Stefan Rahmstorf to conclude that I was “ trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessment was taken up by some media such as the TAZ and ultimately led to my dismissal as sole director of the German Wildlife Foundation .
New confirmation : CO2 uptake by plants is increasing In April ,2020 , a research group led by the Australian scientist Vanessa Haverd published a paper in Global Change Biology which more than confirmed the findings of the Max Planck Institute .
The researchers describe that plants have absorbed 30 % more CO2 since 1900 .
The previous estimates were 17 % .
In their calculation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century ( IPCC scenario 2.6 ) , the researchers led by Vanessa Haverd arrived at a net uptake of 528 billion tonnes of CO2 by plants by 2100 , compared to the 238 billion tonnes of CO2 previously calculated by climate models .
According to Adam Riese , this is more than twice as much .
By way of comparison : In scenario 2.6 , a total of 1000 billion tonnes of CO2 ( IPCC , Chapter 6 , p. 468 ) will be emitted in this century .
Today the plant world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 annually , the oceans another 24 % .
In contrast , the statement of the IPCC in its last report from 2013 ( p.26 of the Summary for Policymakers ) is diametrically different : “ Based on Earth system models , there is a high confidence that the feedback between climate development and the carbon cycle in the 21st century is positive .
As a result , more of the anthropogenic CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere .
Maybe I need to write to the German Bundestag again .

Share this...
By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt at Die kalte Sonne
(Translated by P. Gosselin)
June 7, 2020
Dear ladies and gentlemen
First, the global mean temperature of satellite based measurements was surprisingly much higher in May 2020 than in April. In contrast, the global temperatures of the series of measurements on land and sea decreased. The difference can be explained by the fact that under warm El-Nino conditions the satellite measurements lag about 2-3 months behind the earth-based measurements.
From November 2019 to March 2020 a moderate El-Nino was observed, which has now been replaced by neutral conditions in the Pacific. Therefore, it is to be expected that also the satellite based measurements, which we use at this point, will show a decrease in temperatures within 2-3 months.
The average temperature increase since 1981 remained unchanged at 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade. The sunspot number of 0.2 corresponded to the expectations of the solar minimum.
The earth is greening
In August 2019, I reported on a remarkable publication by the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg: “Our main finding,” said Aexander Winkler’s researchers at the time, “is that the effect of CO2 concentration on terrestrial photosynthesis is greater than previously thought and therefore has important implications for the future carbon cycle.
According to this, the CO2 attenuation effect of plants is 60% higher than the average of climate models had assumed.
“In the last two decades, an average of 310,000 km² of additional leaf and needle area – roughly the size of Poland or Germany – has been created every year,” the researchers say. I had shared this important finding with the members of the German Bundestag at the time, which led Stefan Rahmstorf to conclude that I was “trying to fool the German Bundestag“. This assessment was taken up by some media such as the TAZ and ultimately led to my dismissal as sole director of the German Wildlife Foundation.
New confirmation: CO2 uptake by plants is increasing
In April ,2020, a research group led by the Australian scientist Vanessa Haverd published a paper in Global Change Biology which more than confirmed the findings of the Max Planck Institute. The researchers describe that plants have absorbed 30% more CO2 since 1900. The previous estimates were 17%. In their calculation for a mild increase in CO2 in this century (IPCC scenario 2.6), the researchers led by Vanessa Haverd arrived at a net uptake of 528 billion tonnes of CO2 by plants by 2100, compared to the 238 billion tonnes of CO2 previously calculated by climate models.
According to Adam Riese, this is more than twice as much. By way of comparison: In scenario 2.6, a total of 1000 billion tonnes of CO2 (IPCC, Chapter 6, p. 468) will be emitted in this century. Today the plant world absorbs about 30% of the anthropogenic CO2 annually, the oceans another 24%.
In contrast, the statement of the IPCC in its last report from 2013 (p.26 of the Summary for Policymakers) is diametrically different: “Based on Earth system models, there is a high confidence that the feedback between climate development and the carbon cycle in the 21st century is positive. As a result, more of the anthropogenic CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere. Maybe I need to write to the German Bundestag again.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-07-08--New Zealand Shows Little Warming In 130 Years, Before Alterations To Show Warming

We continue to hear warming horror stories coming from the island of New Zealand , and the socialist by sales pitch how “ climate change is the biggest challenge of our time “ .
Yet this doesn ’ t seem to be the case in New Zealand .
For example , we learned from Electroverse here that the Pacific island country “ just recorded its coldest June temperature in 5 years ” .
Moreover , when we examine NASA GISS data , we uncover where all the warming rumors come from : alterations to the recorded historical data .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aerodome , going back more 130 years ( It ’ s the only NASA station that has data going back over 100 years ) .
Plotted are the unadjusted Version 3 data and the Version 4 unadjusted : The old data set showed no warming , until NASA GISS went back and rewrote it Orwellian style , and made up a warming trend and called it Version 4 .
Tony Heller also reported earlier : “ NASA didn ’ t like the fact that New Zealand wasn ’ t warming , so they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : There really hasn ’ t been that much change at many locations around the globe .
In fact the real changes are taking place in the NASA GISS datasets .

Share this...
UPDATE: Here’s an even earlier version of the NASA GISS data plot of Hokitika station before all the data altering began (hat-tip Iggie). It shows temperatures had been COOLING:
Source: NASA
By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin
We continue to hear warming horror stories coming from the island of New Zealand, and the socialist by sales pitch how “climate change is the biggest challenge of our time“.
Yet this doesn’t seem to be the case in New Zealand. For example, we learned from Electroverse here that the Pacific island country “just recorded its coldest June temperature in 5 years”.
Moreover, when we examine NASA GISS data, we uncover where all the warming rumors come from: alterations to the recorded historical data.
The following chart shows the data from Hokitika Aerodome, going back more 130 years (It’s the only NASA station that has data going back over 100 years). Plotted are the unadjusted Version 3 data and the Version 4 unadjusted:
Data source: NASA GISS V3 and V4
The old data set showed no warming, until NASA GISS went back and rewrote it Orwellian style, and made up a warming trend and called it Version 4.
Tony Heller also reported earlier: “NASA didn’t like the fact that New Zealand wasn’t warming, so they simply changed the data.”
In summary: There really hasn’t been that much change at many locations around the globe. In fact the real changes are taking place in the NASA GISS datasets.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-07-08--New Zealand Station Showed No Warming In 130 Years, Before Alterations To Show Warming

UPDATE : Here ’ s an even earlier version of the NASA GISS data plot of Hokitika station before all the data altering began ( hat-tip Iggie ) .
It shows temperatures had been COOLING : We continue to hear warming horror stories coming from the island of New Zealand , and the socialist by sales pitch how “ climate change is the biggest challenge of our time “ .
Yet this doesn ’ t seem to be the case in New Zealand .
For example , we learned from Electroverse here that the Pacific island country “ just recorded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Moreover , when we examine NASA GISS data , we uncover where all the warming rumors come from : alterations to the recorded historical data .
The following chart shows the data from Hokitika Aerodome , going back more 130 years ( It ’ s the only NASA station that has data going back over 100 years ) .
Plotted are the unadjusted Version 3 data and the Version 4 unadjusted : The old data set showed no warming , until NASA GISS went back and rewrote it Orwellian style , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called it Version 4 .
Tony Heller also reported earlier : “ NASA didn ’ t like the fact that New Zealand wasn ’ t warming , so they simply changed the data.
” In summary : There really hasn ’ t been that much change at many locations around the globe .
In fact the real changes are taking place in the NASA GISS datasets .


notrickszone--2020-07-09--In 2006 The ‘Science’ Of Pandemic Mitigation Was Nearly The Opposite Of What It Is In 2020

A 2006 peer-reviewed scientific paper ( ) on pandemic mitigation policy said the efficacy of 3-feet social distancing is unknown @ @ @ @ @ to prevent virus droplet inhalation , and closing schools , restaurants , stores…have seriously adverse @ @ @ @ @ refers to what policymakers should recommend if there is an influenza pandemic .
Keep in @ @ @ @ @ about 500,000 people a year worldwide and there have been some years when it has @ @ @ @ @ over a million people ( i.e.
, 1957- ’ 58 , 1968- ’ 69 ) @ @ @ @ @ pandemic killed 50 million out of 500 million infections worldwide .
At the time , @ @ @ @ @ world ’ s population .
And yet at no time have we ever responded to @ @ @ @ @ have with COVID-19 .

Share this...
A 2006 peer-reviewed scientific paper ( Inglesby et al., 2006 .
The paper refers to what policymakers should recommend if there is an influenza pandemic.
Keep in mind that the flu kills about 500,000 people a year worldwide and there have been some years when it has reached pandemic proportions, killing over a million people (i.e., 1957-’58, 1968-’69).
In 1918 the flu pandemic killed 50 million out of 500 million infections worldwide. At the time, that was one-third of the world’s population.
And yet at no time have we ever responded to a pandemic the way we have with COVID-19.


notrickszone--2020-07-10--Junk Journalism: NYT’s Claim “More Torrential Rains” In Japan Takes A Bath, No Basis

The Kyushu region of Japan has been getting lots of rain lately , which has led to flooding and 62 reported deaths because local officials failed to properly heed warnings to evacuate .
The New York Times , however , blames it all on the “ collision ” of “ demographic change and global warming ” instead of incompetence by local authorities .
“ In recent years , climate change has spurred more torrential rains in Japan , causing deadly flooding and mudslides in a nation with many rivers and mountains , ” reports Motoko Rich of the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NYT neither provides data nor cites any study showing this to be the case .
So we look at Japan precipitation trends going back decades – something the NYT journalists obviously neglected to do themselves ( or they did , but then decided not to bring it up ) .
JMA data tell a whole different story Using data from the Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA ) , Japanese blogger Kirye first plotted the annual precipitation anomaly for Japan since 1898 : The plotted data above show how Japan ’ s precipitation has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not risen .
The most recent decade in Japan has seen precipitation levels similar to that of the 1950s , and the very early part of the 20th century .
Nothing unusual is happening here .
Next we look at the JMA annual precipitation data for Hitoyoshi , Kumamoto Prefecture itself since 1948 : Here we observe very little trend change at all .
The recent rainfall in the region over the past decade has been similar to that seen in the 1950s .
Extremes are no more intense or frequent today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Going a step further into greater detail , we look at the southern Japan region ’ s rainfall for July , going back to 1948 .
Also the here we have the same story : no major trend changes to speak of .
Very wet July months in fact were just as frequent and more intense in 1950s .
Finally we look at the region ’ s number of days recording a temperature of 30°C or higher .
Here as well the REAL trend is in fact bucking what the NYT always likes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of global warming .
Later in the article , Rich does ultimately get around to the real cause of the recent flooding deaths in Kyushu : “ The Japanese government issues standardized evacuation protocols , but they do not take into account the unique characteristics or terrain in different parts of the country , said Professor Tsukahara of Kyushu University.
” But all in all , very shoddy journalism here by the New York Times .
They would do their readers a service by checking the data instead of lazily repeating old @ @ @ @

Share this...
The Kyushu region of Japan has been getting lots of rain lately, which has led to flooding and 62 reported deaths because local officials failed to properly heed warnings to evacuate.
The New York Times, however, blames it all on the “collision” of “demographic change and global warming” instead of incompetence by local authorities.
NYT claims: “More torrential rains”
“In recent years, climate change has spurred more torrential rains in Japan, causing deadly flooding and mudslides in a nation with many rivers and mountains,” reports Motoko Rich of the New York Times (NYT).
Unfortunately the NYT neither provides data nor cites any study showing this to be the case.
So we look at Japan precipitation trends going back decades – something the NYT journalists obviously neglected to do themselves (or they did, but then decided not to bring it up).
JMA data tell a whole different story
Using data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), Japanese blogger Kirye first plotted the annual precipitation anomaly for Japan since 1898:
Data source: here
The plotted data above show how Japan’s precipitation has indeed trended downward somewhat since 1898, and not risen.
The most recent decade in Japan has seen precipitation levels similar to that of the 1950s, and the very early part of the 20th century. Nothing unusual is happening here.
Next we look at the JMA annual precipitation data for Hitoyoshi, Kumamoto Prefecture itself since 1948:
Data source: here
Here we observe very little trend change at all. The recent rainfall in the region over the past decade has been similar to that seen in the 1950s. Extremes are no more intense or frequent today than they were in the past.
No July precipitation trend changes
Going a step further into greater detail, we look at the southern Japan region’s rainfall for July, going back to 1948.
Data source: here
Also the here we have the same story: no major trend changes to speak of. Very wet July months in fact were just as frequent and more intense in 1950s.
Decreasing hot days
Finally we look at the region’s number of days recording a temperature of 30°C or higher.
Data source here
Here as well the REAL trend is in fact bucking what the NYT always likes to suggest: increasingly more hot days because of global warming.
Incompetent authorities after all
Later in the article, Rich does ultimately get around to the real cause of the recent flooding deaths in Kyushu: “The Japanese government issues standardized evacuation protocols, but they do not take into account the unique characteristics or terrain in different parts of the country, said Professor Tsukahara of Kyushu University.”
But all in all, very shoddy journalism here by the New York Times. They would do their readers a service by checking the data instead of lazily repeating old, exaggerated narratives.
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-07-11--Central Europe Summer Refuses To Make Its Debut, “Permanent Alarmism Dulls The Senses”

By ( Translated/edited and image added by P. Gosselin ) Stupidity clicks well in Germany .
Alarmist messages about tropical @ @ @ @ @ the Internet on numerous websites have been no better in quality than the earlier reports @ @ @ @ @ heat shocks ( The opposite has been true so far this summer ) .
On @ @ @ @ @ like those by Fabian Ruhnau of Kachelmannwetter are beneficial , which assess former tropical strom @ @ @ @ @ neglecting the powerful thunderstorms : “ On Friday , a small , but rather weather-intensive @ @ @ @ @ Northern Germany .
It is ‘ formerly EDOUARD ’ , the low was once a @ @ @ @ @ now just a normal low .
In the run-up to the cold front , hot @ @ @ @ @ southeast , where powerful thunderstorms can form .
During the weekend the weather will calm @ @ @ @ @ ” The kneejeck digital excitement and constant alarms are clearly a sign of our times @ @ @ @ @ one , because permanent alarm dulls the senses .

Share this...
Former Tropical Storm Edouard brings bitter temperature drop to Germany
By
(Translated/edited and image added by P. Gosselin)
Stupidity clicks well in Germany. Alarmist messages about tropical storm Edouard now running through the Internet on numerous websites have been no better in quality than the earlier reports of an impending summer of heat shocks (The opposite has been true so far this summer).
On the other hand, reports like those by Fabian Ruhnau of Kachelmannwetter are beneficial, which assess former tropical strom Edouard somewhat differently, without neglecting the powerful thunderstorms:
“On Friday, a small, but rather weather-intensive low-pressure system will sweep over Northern Germany. It is ‘formerly EDOUARD’, the low was once a tropical storm, but is now just a normal low. In the run-up to the cold front, hot air reaches the south and southeast, where powerful thunderstorms can form. During the weekend the weather will calm down and get colder again.”
Image cropped from kachelmannwetter.com
The kneejeck digital excitement and constant alarms are clearly a sign of our times. But a very dangerous one, because permanent alarm dulls the senses.


notrickszone--2020-07-12--Just Use A Mouthwash, Stupid! New British Study Suggests “Oral Rinsing” Effective Against COVID-19 S

Just Use A Mouthwash, Stupid! New British Study Suggests “Oral Rinsing” Effective Against COVID-19 Spread

Expect this new study to be greeted by an angry mob with pitch forks and torches .
Results Big Pharma , Bill Gates and social engineering technocrats don ’ t want to see .
So picture this : tens of thousands of scientists , doctors and health authorities worldwide spending billions and billions in a frenzied search for new medicines and vaccines – while imposing economy-crippling lock downs – all to combat the COVID 19 virus .
Meanwhile , a large part of the solution is likely just sitting right there on the supermarket shelf – to be had for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be just the case , believe it or not , according a a recently published study appearing in the British journal FUNCTION titled : “ Potential Role of Oral Rinses Targeting the Viral Lipid Envelope in SARS-CoV-2 Infection “ .
It may be that simply gargling regularly in fact goes a long way in combating the spread of COVID-19 , and letting us do away with the face mask circus we ’ ve been going through lately .
The preliminary results are promising enough to warrant serious further investigation , the authors say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on other enveloped viruses , they conclude that several deserve clinical evaluation .
These studies “ directly support the idea that oral rinsing should be considered as a potential way to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 , ” the authors say .
If this turns out to be so , there are going to be lots of “ experts ” out there looking awfully silly .
But so it is so often when social engineering politics get mixed with science .

Share this...
Expect this new study to be greeted by an angry mob with pitch forks and torches. Results Big Pharma, Bill Gates and social engineering technocrats don’t want to see.
So picture this: tens of thousands of scientists, doctors and health authorities worldwide spending billions and billions in a frenzied search for new medicines and vaccines – while imposing economy-crippling lock downs – all to combat the COVID 19 virus. Meanwhile, a large part of the solution is likely just sitting right there on the supermarket shelf – to be had for just a few bucks!
Use a mouthwash, stupid!
That may be just the case, believe it or not, according a a recently published study appearing in the British journal FUNCTION titled: “Potential Role of Oral Rinses Targeting the Viral Lipid Envelope in SARS-CoV-2 Infection“.
It may be that simply gargling regularly in fact goes a long way in combating the spread of COVID-19, and letting us do away with the face mask circus we’ve been going through lately.
Promising results
A team of scientists led by Valerie B O’Donnell reviewed known mechanisms of viral lipid membrane disruption by widely available dental mouthwash components that include ethanol, chlorhexidine, cetylpyridinium chloride, hydrogen peroxide, and povidone-iodine and assessed their potential ability to disrupt the SARS-CoV-2 lipid envelope, based on their concentrations.
Figure 1: Breaching the viral envelope. Source: O’Donnell et al 2020.
Direct evidence: “Potential way to reduce transmission”
The preliminary results are promising enough to warrant serious further investigation, the authors say. Moreover, citing already published research on other enveloped viruses, they conclude that several deserve clinical evaluation. These studies “directly support the idea that oral rinsing should be considered as a potential way to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” the authors say. Mixing science and politics If this turns out to be so, there are going to be lots of “experts” out there looking awfully silly. But so it is so often when social engineering politics get mixed with science.


notrickszone--2020-07-13--‘Most Of The Globe’ Could Experience ‘No Warming’ For 30 Years Due To Temperature-Driving Internal V

‘Most Of The Globe’ Could Experience ‘No Warming’ For 30 Years Due To Temperature-Driving Internal Variability

A new study documents the dominance of internal variability in decadal-scale global temperature changes and suggests we may experience a @ @ @ @ @ next 15 or even 30 years despite rising greenhouse gases .
Maher et al .
@ @ @ @ @ internal variability in global surface temperature variations is “ a difficult concept to communicate ” @ @ @ @ @ observations of its impact and so we must rely on assumptions about how the climate @ @ @ @ @ who try to explain how internal variability affects global surface temperature often use the “ @ @ @ @ @ they assume that small changes now can lead to larger changes decades from now .

A new study documents the dominance of internal variability in decadal-scale global temperature changes and suggests we may experience a global cooling trend during the next 15 or even 30 years despite rising greenhouse gases.
Maher et al. (2020) acknowledge that internal variability in global surface temperature variations is “a difficult concept to communicate” because we have very few observations of its impact and so we must rely on assumptions about how the climate system might work.
Those who try to explain how internal variability affects global surface temperature often use the “Butterfly Effect” paradigm; they assume that small changes now can lead to larger changes decades from now.


notrickszone--2020-07-14--Climate Models Unable To Show Link Between Arctic Warming And Harsh Mid-Latitude Winters

Researchers can no longer blame inconvenient cold winters on Arctic warming .
No scientific basis , new study shows .
The Arctic is warming faster than the mid-latitudes .
It ’ s the so-called Arctic amplification ( AA ) .
According to a study by Polvani et al .
2020 , half of the Arctic warming is due to ozone-depleting substances – and not CO2 .
This was of course a great surprise , as we have already reported here .
So no wonder that the climate models are going crazy , since they have so far attributed almost the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been hopelessly overbooked , as it now turns out .
In Nature Climate Change , a paper by Cohen et al .
2020 has been published and it shakes another myth .
In the past , researchers were too happy to tell us that strong Arctic warming leads to harsh winters in mid-latitudes .
However , there is a problem : the models are largely unable to reconstruct this presumed relationship : The paper finds : The Arctic has warmed more than twice as fast as the global average since the late twentieth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amplification ( AA ) .
Recently , there have been considerable advances in understanding the physical contributions to AA , and progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms that link it to midlatitude weather variability .
Observational studies overwhelmingly support that AA is contributing to winter continental cooling .
Although some model experiments support the observational evidence , most modelling results show little connection between AA and severe midlatitude weather or suggest the export of excess heating from the Arctic to lower latitudes .
Divergent conclusions between model and observational studies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obfuscate a clear understanding of how AA is influencing midlatitude weather .
”

Share this...
Researchers can no longer blame inconvenient cold winters on Arctic warming. No scientific basis, new study shows .
Image: NASA (public domain)
By Die kalte Sonne
(German text translated by P. Gosselin)
The Arctic is warming faster than the mid-latitudes. It’s the so-called Arctic amplification (AA). According to a study by Polvani et al. 2020, half of the Arctic warming is due to ozone-depleting substances – and not CO2. This was of course a great surprise, as we have already reported here. So no wonder that the climate models are going crazy, since they have so far attributed almost the entire warming to CO2.
CO2 has been hopelessly overbooked, as it now turns out.
In Nature Climate Change, a paper by Cohen et al. 2020 has been published and it shakes another myth. In the past, researchers were too happy to tell us that strong Arctic warming leads to harsh winters in mid-latitudes. However, there is a problem: the models are largely unable to reconstruct this presumed relationship: The paper finds:
Divergent consensuses on Arctic amplification influence on midlatitude severe winter weather The Arctic has warmed more than twice as fast as the global average since the late twentieth century, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification (AA). Recently, there have been considerable advances in understanding the physical contributions to AA, and progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms that link it to midlatitude weather variability. Observational studies overwhelmingly support that AA is contributing to winter continental cooling. Although some model experiments support the observational evidence, most modelling results show little connection between AA and severe midlatitude weather or suggest the export of excess heating from the Arctic to lower latitudes. Divergent conclusions between model and observational studies, and even intramodel studies, continue to obfuscate a clear understanding of how AA is influencing midlatitude weather.”
Donate - choose an amount
5 10 15 20 50 100 250 500 1000


notrickszone--2020-07-16--New Study Shows CO2 Changes Lag Decadal-Scale Warming By ~1000 Years In The Northern Hemisphere

From about 80,000 to 20,000 years ago , Greenland temperatures abruptly warmed by about 10°C in just a few decades on at least 20 occasions .
And then , about 870 to 1,500 years later , CO2 rose .
Li and Born ( 2019 ) document 8-16°C climate warmings ( Dansgaard-Oeschger events ) in Greenland that extended to both hemispheres between about 80 and 20 thousand years ago .
( Though global in scope , temperature changes were less pronounced outside Greenland . )
These abrupt warmings occurred within decades ( or less ) .
It has been suggested the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as they ’ re considered an “ unforced oscillation ” .
A new study ( Shin et al.
, 2020 ) suggests the about 1,000 years after these warming events occurred , CO2 concentrations rose .
Despite the millennial-scale duration of this lag relative to the decadal-scale temperature changes , there are many who believe CO2 changes are a driver of warming .
“ However , the CO2 decrease did not always start at exactly the same time as the onset of the DO warming , and the lag itself varied .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( MIS ) 3 , atmospheric CO2 maxima lagged behind abrupt temperature change in Greenland by 870±90 yrs .
During MIS 5 , the lag of atmospheric CO2 maxima with respect to abrupt temperature warming in the NH was only about 250±190 yrs ( Bereiter et al.
, 2012 ) .
… During MIS 6d which corresponds to CDM 6d.1 and 6d.2 , CO2 concentrations show a much slower increase over a duration of ~3.3 kyr .
Here , CO2 lags behind the onset of the NH abrupt warming by 1,500±280 yrs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yrs on average ) .
”

Share this...
From about 80,000 to 20,000 years ago, Greenland temperatures abruptly warmed by about 10°C in just a few decades on at least 20 occasions. And then, about 870 to 1,500 years later, CO2 rose.
Li and Born (2019) document 8-16°C climate warmings (Dansgaard-Oeschger events) in Greenland that extended to both hemispheres between about 80 and 20 thousand years ago. (Though global in scope, temperature changes were less pronounced outside Greenland.)
These abrupt warmings occurred within decades (or less). It has been suggested the warm-ups may have required no external forcing, as they’re considered an “unforced oscillation”.
A new study (Shin et al., 2020) suggests the about 1,000 years after these warming events occurred, CO2 concentrations rose.
Despite the millennial-scale duration of this lag relative to the decadal-scale temperature changes, there are many who believe CO2 changes are a driver of warming.
“However, the CO2 decrease did not always start at exactly the same time as the onset of the DO warming, and the lag itself varied. For example, during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3, atmospheric CO2 maxima lagged behind abrupt temperature change in Greenland by 870±90 yrs. During MIS 5, the lag of atmospheric CO2 maxima with respect to abrupt temperature warming in the NH was only about 250±190 yrs (Bereiter et al., 2012). … During MIS 6d which corresponds to CDM 6d.1 and 6d.2, CO2 concentrations show a much slower increase over a duration of ~3.3 kyr. Here, CO2 lags behind the onset of the NH abrupt warming by 1,500±280 yrs and 1,300±450 yrs, respectively (1,400± 375 yrs on average).”