BLOG

    Location of  meteoLCD
 

Moritz Büsing has published a paper "Systematic Error in Global Temperatures due to Weather Station Ageing"

He shows that white paint aging (and station renewal) is often not properly considered in the homogenisation procedures and concludes that the published temperature increase of 1.43C might only be 0.83C.

The conclusion is a bit breathtaking: The Earth Energy Imbalance has been mis-interpreted and the main cause of the warming of the last decades can be explained by changes in Earth's albedo!

Read here the article by Fritz Vahrenholt (in German) which comes roughly to the same conclusion.

Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT, retired) gave the keynote presentation in Brussels in June 2024: "Those who can you make believe absurdities, can you make atrocities".

He says "Virtue signaling elites promised to achieve net zero emissions within a decade or 2 or 3 with no idea of how to achieve this without destroying their society...So here we are, confronted with policies that destroy western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world’s poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march, a march that the energy sector cowardly accepts, being too lazy to exert the modest effort needed to check what is being claimed"
 

 
Read this excellent paper of Prof. Dr.-Ing Markus Löffler from the Westfälisches Energie-Institut " Energiewende und Versorgungssicherheit 2045 - Dunkelflauten erfordern Handeln!"

 He concludes "Aus Sicht des Berichters macht es somit Sinn, steuerbare Kraftwerke für einen Dauerbetrieb zuzüglich steuerbarer Kraftwerke zum Ausgleich von Last- und Versorgungsschwankungen zu installieren bei gleichzeitig erheblicher Reduzierung des weiteren Ausbaus der Erneuerbaren-Kraftwerke...die Energiewende gemäß derzeitigem Entwicklungsentwurf ist unmittelbar zu beenden, neu zu konzipieren bzw. entsprechend umzulenken."

Read also his paper Steckbriefe_zur Energiewende with all numerical data you need concerning the German Energiewende.

This is one of the best books on climate written for the general public (published in 2023) I know of.. Here no obscure math, dubious statistics, politized activism but only crystall clear explanation of observations and theories.

Dr. Willie Soon writes on the back cover: "The unique achievement of Dr. Vinos in this book is his ability to tell the complex scientific stories as simply as possible and no less."

Prof. William Happer (emeritus Princeton University) concludes his foreword with "There is no credible scientific support for the claim that the current warming is, or will be, an existential threat....This book should stiffen the spines of brave policymakers to stand up resist this latest extraordinary popular delusion and madness of the crowds".

Paperback price is ca. 29€ on Amazon.

Scientific Challenges of the Dectection and Attribution of Global Warming

Watch this presentation by Dr. Willie SOON (astrophysicist, Harvard Uni.) given at CLINTEL in June 2024.

"The IPCC is wrong on the temperature bias due to UHI and on the influence of solar activity changes...The scientific community is not yet able to establish if the the global warming since 1850 is mostly natural, both natural and human caused or mostly human caused... the measurements of Earth's Energy Budget...are highly uncertain and mostly unresolved...""

Net-zero will only make you poorer and China richer

Read this article first published in The Telegraph and relinked in Paul Homewood's blog: "..across Europe and North America, single-minded zealots who were born of a world of relative calm of the 1990s continue to push for deindustrialization and immiseration to tackle climate change – including for the world’s emerging economies...Rich countries need to wake up and stop hemorrhaging trillions in self-inflicted climate policies that will be followed by few, laughed at by many, and will mainly make China rich"

Andy MAY (a petrophysicist) and Marcel KROK (from CLINTEL) are publishing a short, but very clear and readable article in the "American Journal of Economics and Sociology" titled "Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are no problems". This is a preprint downloaded from ResearchGate. Their conclusion: "...are we comparing current climate change to some fantasy world where climate never changes?...What we do not know is how much of climate change is human-caused and how much is natural. No drastic changes to our economy are justified until we can figure this out"
 

Sweden has stopped the "HANSA POWER BRIDGE" plan to lay a high power DC connection between Sweden and Germany. The CICERO magazine has a very clear article by Puntus Nyman titled "Wir Schweden wollen nicht mehr für Deutschlands falsche Energiepolitik bezahlen" (link).

He writes "...fürchte ich leider, dass die deutsche Industrie in andere Länder und Kontinente abwandern wird, die eine vernünftigere Energie-, Klima- und Wirtschaftspolitik verfolgen".
 

Watch this interview (40 minutes, English spoken) titled "Global Warming Myths Debunked" with US geologist Gregory Wrightstone, a former IPCC contributor,  on the Dutch blkbxtv channel.

He especially notes that in human history, warmer climates always were periods of well-being and civilization progress, whereas the colder ones saw hunger periods, political unrest and fast civilization collapse.

Read this paper by retired Dutch professors Kees de Lange (Uni Amsterdam) and Guus Berkout (TU Delft): We can still avoid the Net Zero trap :
"The important conclusion from theory and measurements is that there is no man-made climate-crisis"

For a change: here a funny, humoristic contribution by statistician William Briggs (PhD, Cornell University):

How to setup as a Global Warming, now called "Climate Change" Researcher

Read this damning paper in Nature by Roger PIELKE Jr: "Scientific Integrity and U.S. "Billion Dollar Disasters":
"For more than two decades, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has published a count of weather-related disasters in the United States that it estimates have exceeded one billion dollars...NOAA incorrectly claims that for some types of extreme weather, the dataset demonstrates detection and attribution of changes on climate timescales. Similarly flawed are NOAA’s claims that increasing annual counts of billion dollar disasters are in part a consequence of human caused climate change"
 

Ulf Büntgen has a very interesting comment in Nature "The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism". He writes:

"Without self-critique and a diversity of viewpoints, scientists will ultimately harm the credibility of their research...I suggest that an ever-growing commingling of climate science, climate activism, climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions, not only creates confusion among politicians, stakeholders and the wider public, but also diminishes academic credibility
 

Prof. Richard LINDZEN
Prof. William HAPPER
Prof. Steven KOONIN

Expert opinion (27 pages) submitted to the Court of Appeals in The Hague in the case "Shell vs. Milieudefensie et al."

"In our opinion, the District Court of The Hague findings that “dangerous” climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are contradicted by the scientific method and only supported by the unscientific methods of government opinions, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data...There will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the West if fossil fuels and CO2 emissions were reduced to “net zero,” including mass starvation and loss of reliable and inexpensive energy. "

NET ZERO...
a Damaging and
Totally Unnessary Goal
 

Read this interesting blog of Dr. Roy Spencer, who shows that decreasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions by only 1% per year will be enough to bring  atmospheric CO2 levels to fall!
 

Watch this short 5:30 video from Prof. Steve Koonin (former science advisor of the Obama administration) on Climate Emergency, Models and more...: Is there really a climate emergency?
Very clear and sober!

You may also watch "Confessions of an Environmentalist"

Watch "Climate the Movie" by Martin Durkin which stirred up much comments; the interviews are with top world scientists, which are "climate-realists" and are critical thinkers, not blindly following the zeitgeist. You may disagree with one or another item, but this movie gives a much needed view into the nefarious politization of climatology and puts some simple facts into perspective. The movie has a length of 80 minutes.
A version with German subtitles is here.
A comment and short abstract is here.

Vollmer & Eberhardt published in the European Journal of Physics a paper "A simple model for the prediction of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere depending on global CO2 emissions".

They base their simple differential equation on the fact that the absorption of CO2 in the oceans and on land represent a constant percentage of the emissions, a fact verified by observational data since 1960 (and partially ignored by the IPCC climate models and predictions).
They conclude: "...we may-after a transition period of around 100 years-still afford emissions of 20 Gt of carbon annually...We find, that after a transition period of around 100 to 150 years, depending on the used emissions scenario, new equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentrations below current levels of 420 ppm seem possible for reduced but constant emissions of 50% of todays values".

Click here for their Figure 5 (annotated) which shows the huge differences between their model predictions and those of the IPCC.
Is this a new nail into the coffin of Net Zero?

Dr. Ralph Alexandre has written a very interesting paper on extreme weather events: "Weather Extremes in the Historical Context". Contrary to the constant media scare and activist climatologists, these more recent extreme events have not increased, and often pale compared to historic ones.

The lower graph shows the number of yearly warm-spell days in the US from 1901 to 2018: no increase over this whole period!

R. Alexander concludes: "This misconception has been further amplified by attribution studies that claim to be able to assign specific extremes to either natural variability or human causes. However, such studies, while currently fashionable, use highly questionable methodology that has several shortcomings."

Prospects of Nuclear Fusion.

This is an interesting video with 3 specialists, whose conclusions mostly seems those of John Carr, the first presenter: Fusion is difficult, costly and in a more short time-frame can not be the solution to our carbon-free power needs. Watch John Carr who very clearly presents the pro and contras of fusion w.r. to fission; this is by far the most clear exposé I know of fusion reactor problems that are not often discussed in the media. The conclusion is that research into fusion should continue, at about 1/4 of the full financing for nuclear power, the rest going into fission research.

The Open Access Journal "Science of Climate Change" has a very interesting paper by Hans Schröder (Denmark) titled "Understanding the Carbon Cycle".

The author finds a fundamental fault in the IPCC model of the carbon cycle; with his model he calculates that the human caused part in the  increase of atmospheric CO2 levels represent only about 25% of the measured change, the rest of the increase having natural causes.

Website of SCC is here (click on the 3-bars at the top right of the page to access the menu).

You may also read this very clear essay by Eike Roth:
"Climate: Man or Nature?"

Dr. Stefan Kröpelin, a German geologue and specialist of the Sahara desert region, gives an interesting interview (in German)where he puts many fashionable myths right: the Sahara desert is shrinking (not increasing!), there are no climate tipping points and the refugies coming to Europe are not driven out by climate change.

Dr. Roy Spencer (Uni. UAH) has a very readable article on the difference between climate models and observations, titled:
Global Warming. Observations vs. Climate Models

One of his conclusions:
Public policy should be based on climate observations - which are rather unremarkable- rather than climate models which exaggerate climate impacts.
 

Impacts and risks of “realistic” global warming projections for the 21st century
New paper by Nicola Scafetta (University of Napoli Fedrerico II) on realistic estimation of future warming, knowing that IPCC's projection mostly run hot.
One of the conclusions:
Net-zero emission policies are not necessary because SSP2-4.5 is sufficient to limit climate change hazards to manageable levels.

Read also his comment on Climate etc.

Roger PIELKE Jr. ("The Honest Broker THB") has a marvelous comment on the weather and climate extremes during the post 1850 period that the IPCC and politically correct climate Zeitgeist considers as ideal. One big El-Nino event during the 1877's has caused about 50 millions deaths!
Please read this excellent comment "When the climate was perfect" ( and you might join the THB list)
He concludes: A careful look at history tells us that the global average surface temperature is not a control knob that we can set to a preferred value to "avoid suffering"
 

To start this year2024, I suggest to read the very interesting paper by Connolly, Soon et al. concerning the influence of TSI (total solar irradiance) on global temperature increase since 1850. The IPCC practically neglects TSI influence, and reaffirms that the observed warming is mostly anthropogenic. Here the authors show that choosing different TSI reconstructions or observations, you can conclude to the contrary (warming is mostly natural) or everything in-between: "for 4 of the Surface Temperature estimates the best performing TSI series in the "only natural forcings" fit can nominally explain more of the long term warming tha the "only anthropogenic forcings""
So the politically correct quasi exclusive fixation on human emitted GHG (mostly CO2) might be wrong.
 

Read here parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and the last part 5.
 

An absolute ***must view***!