Wednesday, 17 July 2019

How many insects are wind turbines killing?

An amateur study published in PLOS ONE "More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas", claims a massive fall in German insect populations. Germany has the highest density of wind turbines in the world.

Wind capacityglobal %MWe / 1000km²
United States:96,665MW16.30%11
United Kingdom:20,970MW3.50%86

Source: Wikipedia 2018

When we add another column showing wind capacity per 1000 km² we see Germany has the highest density of wind turbines per area. Twice UK.

Dr. Franz Trieb of the Institute of Engineering Thermodynamics concludes that a "rough but conservative estimate of the impact of wind farms on flying insects in Germany" is a “loss of about 1.2 trillion insects of different species per year” which “could be relevant for population stability.”

This was all too predictable: build wind-turbines all over the world and expect no affect on flying animal populations. <-- Only activists could be so dim. Now greens are mostly ignoring the study is in Germany, which has the most wind turbines. Greens are blaming it on global warming or environmental destruction due to capitalism. Anything to keep themselves out of the dock.

Note: Most land-based wind-turbines in UK are in Scotland. Most wind-turbines in UK are probably offshore in the North Sea. PS: This sentence is entirely subjective, and an aside; if I think it matters I will calculate it.

Sunday, 14 July 2019

The climate consensus overstate man-made climate change 10 times over

From the paper in print, by J. Kauppinen & P. Malmi. 2019


We prove that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot correctly compute the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. Low clouds mainly control the global temperature.


No Empirical Evidence for Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, 2019


Climate sensitivity has massive uncertainty in scientific literature. From close to near 0 to 9. High climate sensitivities promoted by the establishment (IPCC) all come from models (GCMs). Many non-model studies have much lower climate sensitivities.

Observation shows a 1% increase in low cloud cover decreases temperature by 0.11°C

... The time interval (1983-2008) in Fig 2 is limited to 25 years because of the lack of the low cloud cover data. During this time period the CO2 concentration increased from 343 ppm to 386 ppm and both Figures 1 (IPCC) and 2 show the observed temperature increase of about 0.4°C. The actual global temperature change, when the concentration of CO2 raises from C0 to C, is

where ΔT2 CO2 is the global temperature change, when the CO2 concentration is doubled and Δc is the change of the low cloud cover fraction. The first and second term are the contributions of CO2 [5] and the low clouds, respectively. Using the sensitivity ΔT2 CO2 = 0.24°C derived in the papers [3,2,4] the contribution of greenhouse gases to the temperature is only about 0.04°C according to the first term in the above equation.

It turns out that the changes in the relative humidity and in the low cloud cover depend on each other [4]. So, instead of low cloud cover we can use the changes of the relative humidity in order to derive the natural temperature anomaly. According to the observations 1% increase of the relative humidity decreases the temperature by 0.15°C, and consequently the last term in the above equation can be approximated by -15°C Δφ, where Δφ is the change of the relative humidity at the altitude of the low clouds.

The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry`s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C


More 2019 Evidence of Nature’s Sunscreen, by Ron Clutz

Wednesday, 10 July 2019

Global warming explained.

This satellite measurement shows that the steep warming of the 1980s to 2000s corresponded with over a 6 Watt per square meter reduction in the global average cloud coverage.

Not only does this change represent over a 6 Watt per square meter increase in incoming solar radiation (aka Sunshine), but also there is an associated reduction in down-welling IR radiation from back reflection off of cloud bottoms.

For this reason, Global Warming is rightfully called Global Brightening.

This increase in Sunshine is over 20x larger than the theoretical radiative forcing associated with rising CO2 concentrations.

The questions remains: What caused this cloud-cover decrease?

See: Data: Global Temperatures Rose As Cloud Cover Fell In the 1980s and 90s

"Conclusion: We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature."

Wednesday, 26 June 2019

It was the Sun wot dun it. Probably most important science you'll read in your lifetime ....

Reposted comment from Nature regarding solar research by V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd, E. Popova & S. I. Zharkov

For those who cannot read the paper from the first time, let us repeat again what has been done. By applying the Principal Component Analysis to the solar background magnetic field, we discovered, at least, four pairs of eigen values (or 4 pairs of independent components of magnetic field) in the solar full disk magnetograms for 21-23 cycles with the first pair being the principal components (Zharkova et al, 2012). These two principal components are shown to be caused by a dipole dynamo sources while the other 3 pairs of independent components are shown to be caused by quadruple sources (Popova et al., 2013) as simulated for latitudinal variations of magnetic field dynamo waves.

Hence, in Fig. 3 we presented the summary curve of the two principal components of the solar magnetic field waves caused by the dipole magnetic sources only, to fit the classic dynamo theory by Parker (1955, 1993). And this curve reproduced correctly the activity in the past 800 years: the main solar minima (Dalton and Maunder), produced further minima in the medieval period (which by the way comprises 5-15 century), reproduced the minimum by Wolf (if the curve is extended by another 400 years) and the modern maximum. If the horizontal lines showing schematically where these minima are located are slightly shifted, this does not matter, because the summary curve is there and shows the exact locations of these minima. To build such the complex plot (Fig. 3) in the modern plotting software, one need to trade the visibility of words with their location. And given the fact, that this curve is only produced by the dipole dynamo waves, this fit looks rather remarkable. The first attempt is the most difficult one as Parker (1955) has shown us.

So far we did not have a chance yet to process temporal variations of quadruple components which are shown to have amplitudes comparable but slightly lower than the dipole ones. These other eigen values are shown to affect the magnetic filed wave variations in each hemisphere (Popova et al, 2013). They will definitely modify the summary curve, and this work can be done in the nearest future. However, we do not believe that these modifications will be as dramatics as the authors of the comment show to produce the Sporer minimum derived from the terrestrial data. We believe, this minimum needs to be look at more carefully before one can decide if this minimum can be reproduced by quadruple components of the solar magnetic field, or it is simply the terrestrial feature.

But after we built the curve for 5000 years which I will show in the few upcoming meetings and we publish in another paper, we can confidently say, that this method allowed us to derive a very robust law for the solar activity which fits nicely not only Wold minimum moaned by Dr. Usoskin but also the Roman warm period and many others features. And we are very glad this happened, because we have the tool now to make a spectral analysis for these magnetic waves, similar to a prism affecting the white light and to explore separately each mechanism of the dynamo wave generation, one after another, and not all simultaneously, as many authors do so far.

Does anyone seriously believe that the Sun would have such the stochastic heartbeat as a schizophrenic's brain scan shown by Dr. Usoskin in his comment below, and not a more regular heartbeat with a grand cycle of 300-370 years reported by Clough, 1894, Kinsmill, 1906, by us (Zharkova et al., 2015 above) and by many other authors (N. Scafetta et al, 2015, for example)? These references cited in our paper or in the ADS.

The authors Usoskin and Koval'tsov use only 400 years of the solar data for sunspots available after 17 century and then merge (without any validation) them with the data found from the terrestrial proxies for definition of the solar activity before 17 century. This merge is something one would call 'comparing the apples with oranges'... Because the terrestrial data are strongly affected by many terrestrial events occurred beyond any registration in the past, like local fires, volcanos, asteroids, comets etc., which can block the solar light and disguise the solar activity as result. Of course, in the early medieval years the humankind could not affect the variations of solar irradiance but natural disasters can be a very key issue, which is definitely not considered by the keen authors of the comment.

As soon as we present our curves for 5000 years to the meetings and compete the paper describing the progress, we will make them all available on this website as well. Shall I say 'Watch this space'...

With very warm regards,

Valentina Zharkova,

on behalf of the co-authors

Valentina Zharkova's Statement to Ben Davidson of Suspicious Observers

This person Ben speaking nonsense, I am sorry to hear it. I wonder if he can read in plain English, because he twists everything said in our paper. The science is not a religion, it reports real facts despite anybody’s believes.

This person Ben did not understand that the oscillations of the baseline magnetic field are much smaller than the magnetic field variations during normal solar cycles or during grand solar cycles. These oscillations are related to the view of the Sun from the Earth, and not related to the processes on the Sun which produce solar activity of 11 or 22 years and grand cycles reported by us in the paper Zharkova et al, 2015.

Our current paper exposes that the Earth came though 60 super-grand cycles of 2000 years . The Earth (and other planets) will be warming by up to 3C and cooling every 2000 years. And despite this warming in the past the Earth is still here as usual rotating around the sun and around its axis, so there are natural mechanisms allowing it to survive these processes without any human interaction. Romans grew grapes in Scotland and England during the Roman Empire times and we might come back to these times.

This steady warming caused by the orbital motion of the Sun and Earth is still to be interrupted twice by the grand solar minima when the solar input will be reduced. These grans solar minima (GSM) are to be generated by double solar dynamo waves inside the sun as it was predicted earlier. The GSMs will occur in 2020-2055 and in 2370-2415 and the solar irradiance will decrease during these periods because not much activity will happen on the Sun. Nowhere here in our estimations is CO2 participated as we did not investigate the terrestrial atmosphere besides using the research by Akasofu, 2010. And if you look at his paper, Fig. 9 he exposed the fault in statistical extrapolation of terrestrial temperature by IPCC.

Hence, in our paper we provide the proof that our planet can survive much bigger temperature increases than IPCC people scaremongering the humankind. Furthermore, it raises the attention to the fact that we observe solar activity from a celestial body and thus cannot avoid the effects of orbital motion, like Milankovitch cycles. The solar inertial motion is the additional effect to Milankovitch cycles. I hope, that our paper would advise all these pupils who were brainwashed by the alleged human-made global warming to return to schools and to continue to study better Maths and Astronomy.

This paper also explains that the grand solar minima in the solar activity will be real blessings for the people on Earth allowing them to catch up their breath and to sort out their businesses to embrace the natural chain of events with increasing temperature. Although, they would need to make some arrangements for providing food and heating in these period. But we need to embrace the natural events and adjust our lives to them. May I suggest to read our paper carefully before jumping to any wrong conclusions.

Best regards

V. Zh.

Pseudoscience behind, 'radiative forcing' and greenhouse gas effect

Pseudo-scientific assumptions behind, 'radiative forcing' version of the greenhouse effect, and man-made global warming hoax. Summing up:Man-made climate change is basically all speculation without proof.

Pseudo-scientific assumptionReality
a greenhouse effect makes earth's surface 33K warmer than it would be without its atmosphereThere's no actual evidence for this. It's summized from a 'thought experiment', or speculation.
this greenhouse effect is only due to greenhouse gases (which absorb & emit infrared radiation)Adiabatic warming & cooling explain why surface atmosphere is warmer than rest of troposphere
badly correlated CO2, and temperature rises prove causationIn science, correlation does not prove causation.
CO2 'traps' outbound infrared photon energyCO2 absorbs photons & emits them at about the same energy. It's a relay, not a trap.
effect of H2O vapour, a more powerful and 10 times more numerous greenhouse gas than CO2, can be ignored.Water vapour and clouds are 95% responsible for any greenhouse gas warming. Not CO2
earth's climate should be in equilibrium. Only man is destroying this equilibrium.Climate is not in equilibrium. It is always changing because the sun is always changing
long-term averages of transient, non-equilibrium variables can be analysed as a system in equilibriumPure pseudo-science
upward (infrared) and downward (sunlight) fluxes at an ill-defined, imaginary, boundary in tropopause are equal and equivalent.None of this is proven by experiment, nor rigorous quantitative observation.
change in CO2 concentration perturbs this equilibrium, so that the resultant flux change determines a new surface temperature equilibrium, 10km below.More hocus pocus.
small (1 to 4 W/m²) flux changes in a cold, thin, stratospheric air 'layer' at 217K and 0.22 atm act to warm an already much warmer, denser, surface at 288K and 1 atm, acting through 11km of warmer denser air.Most idiotic pseudoscience in history of idiocy. Once again, as with the hocus pocus (above) it only makes sense to someone ignorant of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and the meaning of the word law in its scientific context.
heat capacity of surface is zero; or can be ignored (when calculating surface temperatures).Surface retains some heat
surface evaporative cooling can be ignoredsurface evaporative cooling is responsible for about half of earth's surface cooling
conversion of IR to other forms of energy can be ignoredEnergy forms convert. e.g. radiation to heat.
2nd Law of thermodynamics does not hold. Energy (heat) can flow from cold to hot.The 2nd Law says what scientists always observe. It is a statement of fact.
the sun is constantly shining - there is no nightEarth spins. So we have nights
everywhere on earth gets equal solar flux, 390W/m², all the timePolar regions get little sun. Equator gets alot
there are no seasonsEarth's surface experiences seasons due to its tilted spin & eliptical orbit


There is too little CO2 in our atmosphere not too much. Atmospheric CO2 has been falling since life on earth began. Life sequesters it away as limestone and fossil fuel. It fell to only 180ppm in the last major glaciation (ice age), when colder oceans sucked so much of it out of the atmosphere. When it falls to 150ppm life on earth is over. Because plants die with CO2 at that meagre level and all animals feed on plants or other animals.

Nor should anyone assume the CO2 currently in our atmosphere will stay there. The atmospheric residence time of CO2 is about 7 years. Not 100 years as the IPCC lie it is.

Humans are not killing the planet. We have been saving the planet for life by putting CO2 into our atmosphere.

Saturday, 22 June 2019

Means end rationality and the climate science framing issue.

I know disrupting the climate consensus on the basis of it's framing issues is a way to go for actual scientists who must keep their jobs, but I still prefer to attack it on its core ideas. Namely (1) the greenhouse gas effect itself, (2) the 100% man-made claim, (3) that solar-driven climate change is climate denial. I think we should stop telling people its anything to do with religion. It's politics: scientists doing what politicians tell them to. If any disbelieve that, please read Bernie Lewin’s book, suggested by Judith. Alarmist/consensus politics are driven by means-ends rationality. Although science seems to be driven by a similar rationality, it isn't quite. Science has principles which almost transcend any specific science. I'm thinking Feynman here. These principles are diametrically opposed to climate alarmism.