Fritz Vahrenholt, the the grandfather of global warming who after he changed his position was shunned, or rather:- The believer who never was.

Fritz Vahrenholt (born May 8, 1949 in Gelsenkirchen-Buer) is a German politician (SPD), industrialist and environmentalist.[1]Biography

Varenholt had studied Chemistry in Münster and started his professional career at the federal Umweltbundesamt (environmental protection agency) in Berlin and the Ministry for Environment of Hesse. From 1984 till 1990 he was in a leading role in Hamburg, first as Staatsrat for environment, 1990 to 1991 for the administral Senatskanzlei, and the Umweltsenator (senator for the environment) in Hamburg from 1991 to 1997.In 1998 he entered the energy industry and until 2001 was on the Board of Deutsche Shell AG, a Shell subsidiary. In 2001 he moved to post of CEO of the wind turbine company REpower Systems AG and remained there until 2007. From February 2008 he was CEO of electric power company RWE subsidiary RWE Innogy, a post he will step down from in mid-2012. Prof. Dr. Varenholt has a doctorate in Chemistry. In 1999 he was made an Honorary Professor of chemistry at the University of Hamburg.[2][1][3]Global Warming Skepticism

Vahrenholt is skeptical of human-induced global warming. In 2012 Vahrenholt together with geologist Sebastian Lüning published Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet[4] (The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Crisis Isn’t Happening), a book asserting that climate change is driven by variations in solar activity. They predict the Earth is entering a cooling phase due to periodic solar cycles, and will cool by 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C by 2035.[3] Other contributors are Nir Shaviv, Werner Weber, Henrik Svensmark and Nicola Scafetta.Vahrenholt’s claims have been met with criticism from Global Warming experts who have argued his arguments contain errors. He has also been criticized for misrepresenting the IPCC, and the evidence for Global Warming. [5] [6] [7]

The claim Vahrenholt was a believer and now sceptic is from notrickszone denial blog quoting the German media : SPIEGEL features a story on environment expert Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, author of the new book Die kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun). Vahrenholt’s underlying message is “It’s also the sun, stupid!”


With heretical claims, RWE ma­na­ger Fritz Vah­ren­holt is causing a commotion: ‘The climate catastrophe is not taking place’, the environment expert claims. The sun is being underestimated as a natural climate factor. ‘The sun has been weak since 2005′, Vahrenholt said in a DER SPIEGEL interview. ‘We can only expect cooling from it for the time being.’”

Article in English.

Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, has been a rebel throughout his life. “Perhaps it’s just part of my generation,” he says.

He is typical of someone who came of age during the student protest movement of the late 1960s, and who fought against the chemical industry’s toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s. His party, Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname “Feuerfritze” (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. “I’m going to make enemies in all camps,” he says.

………I don’t claim that I know precisely whether the sun is responsible for a 40, 50 or 60 percent share of global warming. But it’s nonsense for the IPCC to claim that the sun has nothing to do with it.

In the same interview Vahrenholt reveals himself to be more lukewarm rather than sceptical

SPIEGEL: If we take your book to its logical conclusion, it will be unnecessary to reduce CO2 emissions at all.

Vahrenholt: No. Even a temperature increase of only one degree would be a noticeable change. But I am indeed saying that climate change is manageable because the cooling effects of the sun and the ocean currents give us enough time to prepare. In any case, it will be easy for us in Germany to adjust.

Vahranholt admits he is doing no original research. His environmental qualifications are also suspect as the quote demonstrates as well as his association with Shell. As for the believer who became a sceptic:- this seems to have derived from his book launch where he is described as being the founder of the German Green movement, a statement that is not true, he was an SPD politician who had the office of environment minster whilst the SPD and Greens were in coalition government. Spoke at the GWPF 2012 conference and reiterated his ‘green’ credentials.


Duncan Wingham is sometimes wrongly claimed to be a AGW sceptic.

Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica. By studying satellite data from 1992 to 2003 that surveyed 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet (72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass), they discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year (plus or minus 1 mm per year). That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will “lower [authors’ italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm” per year. [from a 2007 ‘Denier’ site]

From Wikipedia

In the 1990s, Wingham was involved in a four-year satellite study of the Antarctic ice sheet. His conclusion then, and from later research, is that the Antarctic has contributed little to observed rising sea levels in the 20thC. Paradoxically Wingham stated It is possible that the consequences of global warming on sea level rise have been underestimated. He expanded Other sources of rise must be underestimated. In particular it is possible that the effect of global warming on thermal expansion [on the oceans] is larger than we thought.[2]

In a 2005 interview Wingham stated Antarctic is to some extent insulated from global warming because to its north are zonal flows in the atmosphere and ocean, unimpeded by other landmasses…I am not denying global warming[3]

From the article quoted in Wikipedia

“I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland’s ice cap – Greeland is quite far south – is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer. But Antarctica is different. Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning.

“Sparse data from subs in some parts of the Arctic do seem to show a thinning trend, but our preliminary observations using satellite data point to large growth and decay from year to year and place to place, by as much a meter in just a few years. Here too natural variability is considerable. No one doubts that the ultimate fate of Arctic ice looks a grim one, but I believe we have too few data to be confident of how fast it will meet its fate.”

The article dates from 2005- a 2012 report that includes Duncan Wingham is less sceptical of alarmist claims of diminishing Arctic Ice.

Nir Joseph Shaviv (Hebrew: ניר יוסף שביב‎, born July 6, 1972) is an IsraeliAmericanphysics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is currently an associate professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[1] He is also the head of the national coordinating council of faculty unions in Israel.

He is most well known for his solar and cosmic rays hypothesis of climate change.

From his Wikipedia entry

From an online article:

Dr. Shariv’s digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change– the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming — is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC’s own findings, man’s role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man’s effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is “incriminating circumstantial evidence,” which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding “evidence of fingerprints.” Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, “without other ‘suspects.’ ” However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible “other suspects,” he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century’s warming.

“Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming,” he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.”

The sun’s strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can’t have much of an influence on the climate — that C02 et al. don’t dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, “will not dramatically increase the global temperature,” Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.”

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% –sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth’s climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today’s climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth’s temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 — instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

“I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue.” His conclusion: “I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go.”

How do cosmic rays alter the climate?

According to WUWT and GWPF – “Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures”.

Jasper Kirkby of CERN and his 62 co-authors, from 17 institutes in Europe and the USA, announce big effects of pions from an accelerator, which simulate the cosmic rays and ionize the air in the experimental chamber. The pions strongly promote the formation of clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules – aerosols of the kind that may grow into cloud condensation nuclei on which cloud droplets form. What’s more, there’s a very important clarification of the chemistry involved. [Aug 2011]

Nature who published the research balanced the findings.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory: ‘cosmic rays’ from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet’s atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.

The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.

Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.

Outside of the denial-sphere the cosmic-ray effect is considered tiny when compared to CO2. More detail on why cosmic rays are poor at seeding clouds can be found here.




Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology.Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. A profile can be found at Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science- although see Willis Eschenbach comment [at the bottom].

[I’m a] Heretic. I am neither an anthopogenic global warming (AGW) supporter nor a skeptic, I believe the entire current climate paradigm is incorrect. from WUWT

Willis speaking at Heartland conference.

Islands float! From WUWT

Willis explains how Floating Islands work, and he should know, he spent a lot of time working on one. He also explains why CO2 isn’t an issue. He writes:

Does increased CO2 cause increased sea level rise?

Short answer, data to date says no. There has been no acceleration the rate of sea level rise. Sea level has been rising for centuries. But the rate of the rise has not changed a whole lot. Both tidal stations and satellites show no increase in the historic rate of sea level rise, in either the short or long term.

A summary of his views can be found at WUWT from 2010 although Willis is complex, he believes that there has been an increase in temperature in the last century yet sets about proving that Australia is cooling. Take any one of his views on climate change and it is easily adapted into something slightly different in his numerous blogs.

A comment on Judith Currie’ blog revealing deeper insight into Willis’ attitude to mainstream climate change science-

This comparison, of people objecting to bogus science and the kind of trickery exposed by Climategate on the one hand, to tobacco companies on the other hand, is a pile of reeking crap that has no place on a scientific website.

Judith, your guest posts were just getting ridiculous. Now they are getting downright insulting. Trying to peddle this “skeptics = tobacco companies” claim is not only anti-scientific. It is a slap in the face to honest scientists and interested researchers like myself.

This is the lowest you’ve gone, trying to disguise this shameless attack as science. This is scraping the bottom, not of the pool, but of the septic tank.

This congenital idiot truly thinks climate alarmists have standing to accuse skeptics of misusing the science? After the alarmists have indulged in turning off the air conditioning to convince Senators that it’s warming, after their cherry picking and the obstruction and packing peer-review panels and trying to intimidate editors and the publication of meaningless papers and the subversion of the IPCC process by the Jesus paper and everything else the alarmists have done, this unpleasant fool compares me and the other skeptic to the tobacco companies, and not Jones, Mann, and company?


Nic Lewis- who? IPCC expert reviewer no less.

Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change

Nic Lewis’ academic background is mathematics, with a minor in physics, at Cambridge University (UK). His career has been outside academia. Two or three years ago, he returned to his original scientific and mathematical interests and, being interested in the controversy surrounding AGW, started to learn about climate science.   He is co-author of the paper that rebutted Steig et al.  Antarctic temperature reconstruction (Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon, 2011, Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction, Journal of Climate – print version at J.Climate or preprint here).

Quotes are from a Matt Ridley article in the Wall St Journal and his own bio in Judith Curries blog   – So Nic Lewis has a math degree from Cambridge and after a career in finance he retired to take up climate change scepticism. Nic Lewis is not in complete climate change denial- from a comment from Judith Curries blog

  1. I fully accept that, as a result of basic radiative transfer physics, CO2 warms the planet, However, my present view is that the observational evidence for climate sensitivity being 2–4 times its base level, as a result of net feedbacks, is fairly weak. I also think that the politicized and dogmatic nature of the AGW debate has led to bias in the scientific process and to some extent compromised its integrity. I would particularly like to see, as a matter of routine, climate research papers make easily available all data and methods information in the detail required to replicate studies. I also think that the peer review and publication process is biased against papers that challenge mainstream views, and should be reformed.
Nic Lewis’ main contribution to the ‘debate’ is his co-authorship with Ryan O’Donnell [computer science] Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon paper criticising Eric Steig’ study in Nature 2009 his rebuttal is found here .
Nic Lewis main contention is that CO2 physics is correct and will result in 1.5c temperature increase with a doubling in CO2 [so any deniers using the CO2 is not a GHG should best avoid his arguments] but Climate Science evidence that positive feedback will amplify GHG to cause higher temperatures is wrong.
Nic Lewis’ other criticisms include Forrest 2006 paper on Antarctic and the leaked IPCC draft report to be published in 2013
Mr. Lewis tells me [Matt Ridley]that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.
However because being an expert reviewer forbids citing the draft document publicly Nic Lewis is unable to quote any paper included in the report and why it is wrong.
March 2014 – Nic Lewis co authors a Global Warming Policy Foundation report that takes the most optimistic paper on predicted warming from doubling of CO2 [from pre industrial levels] and without feedback.

Oversensitive: How The IPCC Hid The Good News On Global Warming

A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate models are estimating. ……

For over thirty years climate scientists have presented a range for climate sensitivity (ECS) that has hardly changed. It was 1.5-4.5°C in 1979 and this range is still the same today in AR5. The new report suggests that the inclusion of recent evidence, reflected in AR5, justifies a lower observationally-based temperature range of 1.25–3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75, for a doubling of CO2. By contrast, the climate models used for projections in AR5 indicate a range of 2-4.5°C, with an average of 3.2°C.

Nic Lewis has taken the lowest range from the research papers used by the IPCC and then taken the lowest range in that- i.e. 1.75°C

The author of the paper selected by Nic Lewis to herald the good news is not optimistic – from the Guardian.

I asked Professor Forster for his views on the GWPF paper. Perhaps Lewis and Crok should have done the same?  A baldly honest Professor Forster told me:

Lewis and Crok use methods developed by Jonathan Gregory and myself to infer a lower climate sensitivity than that quoted in IPCC AR5. Whilst our techniques are powerful they have uncertainties and do not necessarily produce more robust estimates of climate sensitivity than other methods, as they make crude assumptions and suffer from data quality issues. Climate sensitivity remains an uncertain quantity. Nevertheless, even employing the lowest estimates suggested by Lewis and Crok, we expect continued and significant warming out to 2100 of around 3C above preindustrial if we continue to emit CO2 at current levels.

Nic Lewis’ latest paper is something of an achievement – not so much in conclusions which follow on from previous papers- i.e. sensitivity is likely to be low- the real achievement is having Judith Curry as a co-author who has finally slain her uncertainty monster.

Dr Norman Page

Dr Norman Page-  an oil consultant with a  PhD, in Geology at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. [so many geologists are turning up a new category has been added just for them]. Why are fossil fuel geologists so sceptical?

Has guest post with WUWT

Cooling will kick in by

The peak is broad with only a little cooling to date but this will likely accelerate from 2015 or 2016 on reflecting the beginning of the increase  in the cosmic ray count already seen   from 2004  – 2009 in Fig 6. The cooling will last until 2030- 2040. Often the signal for a climate direction change is a see saw effect between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. The Arctic is still reflecting the peak in the warming  trend with low summer ice values.
The first indication of a cooling event is however the increase in Antarctic sea ice which has already occurred.

The article is round up of – the ice-age is coming- the Sun is less active [but was really active in the 90s]- cosmic rays- blah blah. And this despite another Geologist saying much the same thing just 3 months earlier on WUWT when David Archibald asks the question- When will it get cooler?

Norman’s predictions of impending cold are also mentioned at Climate Depot [June 2010] advising-

There is no threat from the burning of fossil fuels for the forseeable future, indeed an increase in CO2 would positively help in feeding the burgeoning population.

For the next 20 years climate science should be devoted to improving and enlarging the entire climate data base in particular with regard to solar data of all kinds. No climate model runs should be made until 2025 by which time the inputs will hopefully be more relevant to the real world.

The quick answer why it is not cooling can be found here.

If you want more cooling go to Norman’s blog

Norman Page is pretty low down with only  2 articles, but this page will be here in 3- 4 -5 years time just to see those predictions come true.

Dr. Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Oslo. PhD in Glacial Geomorphology [a combination of geography/geology] [Uni Copenhagen]

Ole Humlum has become the deniers expert for – CO2 increases are natural, and increased temperatures are just natural variations. Deniers may also cite that the last inter-glacial period was warmer, and that we are following a similar trend [which will ultimately lead to another ice age]. The message is don’t worry, it’s natural, the increased CO2 comes from the oceans, and humanity can carry on burning fossil fuels.

A full argument of Ole Humlum’s views can be found here at The Hockeyshtick blog.

Dr. Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Oslo, has published a summary and reply to comments on his groundbreaking paper demonstrating why man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming. Dr. Humlum summarizes the main findings of his paper at a Norwegian website for geologists:
1. [Observations show] The temperature rise begins at sea level and spreads gradually to the land and atmosphere several months later. This is contrary to the IPCC CO2 hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 controls land and ocean temperature.
2. The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn’t start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere.  Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.
Dr. Humlum notes that existing climate models are based on the improper assumption that CO2 controls temperature and have not provided skillful predictions so far. He concludes,

“One should therefore consider moving the focus of climate research from CO2 to the nature and significance of natural variation, both related to the sun and other [natural causes]. It is most likely where we will find the main reason for the present (and future) climate change.”

An English translation of his paper is here.

The signature graph frequently reposted is below.

Skeptical Science questions some of the honesty of the graphs here.  And here they correct the graphs.

making it look like this [the Greenland temperature is 2c greater]

and with a correction to the CO2 levels looking like this

Ole Humlum runs the blog Climate4you which mixes climate data from a number of sources with his own graphs.

As for CO2 increases being natural – information is available here. Text from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.

 How do we know that humans are responsible?

The evidence for a dominating human role in the CO2 increase is extremely strong. The 38% increase (in 2009) in atmospheric CO2 observed since pre-industrial times cannot be explained by natural causes. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have varied naturally throughout Earth’s history. However, CO2 levels are now higher than any seen in the past 800,000 years. When we add the observed CO2 increase in the atmosphere to the observed increase in the oceans, the sum is approximately equal to all of the coal, oil, and natural gas burned since the 19th century. Furthermore, the observed progressive depletion in carbon-13 (see the question below about isotopes) shows that the source of the CO2 is either fossil fuels or deforestation because both produce CO2 depleted in carbon-13. The atmospheric CO2 increase cannot have come from the oceans because that would not have caused any depletion of carbon-13. In fact, carbon in the oceans has itself become gradually depleted in carbon-13, with the greatest depletion at the surface. That implies that the signal is imposed from the atmosphere. The next piece of evidence is that we also observe a depletion of radioactive carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans, with the strongest signal in the atmosphere suggesting it is the place where the depletion originates. Fossil fuels contain no carbon-14, and their combustion produces CO2 without carbon-14. Deforestation does not cause a change in atmospheric carbon-14. Finally, the annual mean CO2 abundance in the northern hemisphere is higher than in the southern hemisphere, and more so in recent years compared to the early years of atmospheric CO2 measurements. This suggests a growing source of CO2 in the northern hemisphere, which is in fact where most of the fossil fuel burning takes place.

Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfield [this denier cut&paste spells his name wrongly] (Climate Scientist), Contributing Author to the UN IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado.

“Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

“Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain.”

Dr Oliver Frauenfeld is a real climate scientist and currently assistant professor at Texas A&M University his work and interests include

My research activities entail a broad range of topics in climate variability and climate change. I focus primarily on surface-atmosphere interactions, over both the land and the oceans. One of these research areas investigates changes in high-latitude and high-altitude environments; specifically, the interactions between frozen ground (permafrost and seasonally frozen areas) and other cryospheric variables in the high latitudes of Eurasia, with the overlying atmosphere. Some of my other research studies the effects of land cover and land use change on climate across the Tibetan Plateau.

I also continue to explore ocean-atmosphere interactions in both the tropics and midlatitudes, such as interactions between the Pacific Ocean and synoptic-scale atmospheric circulation variability of the Northern Hemisphere. Additionally, I am evaluating climate patterns and atmospheric teleconnections, in terms of both their general variability and climate change.

Seasons of Change in the Arctic EnvironmentInteractions Between Frozen Ground in the Russian Arctic and Atmospheric CirculationThe Contribution of Land-Surface Processes to Climate Change on the Tibetan PlateauChanges in Permafrost Dynamics over the Russian Arctic Drainage BasinPermafrost Humor

Oliver Frauenfeld has had an illustrious career and was a contributing author for the 2007, IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 4: Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice, and Frozen Ground . [firefox has issues with security but it is safe] and has worked on several papers with T Zhang concerning permafrost and climate change.

One of his contributions to the paper and co-work with Zhang reads- Seasonally Frozen Ground in Non-Permafrost Areas

The thickness of seasonally frozen ground has decreased by more than 0.34 m from 1956 through 1990 in Russia (Figure 4.20), primarily controlled by the increase in winter air temperature and snow depth (Frauenfeld et al., 2004). Over the Tibetan Plateau, the thickness of seasonally frozen ground has decreased by 0.05 to 0.22 m from 1967 through 1997 (Zhao et al., 2004). The driving force for the decrease in thickness of the seasonally frozen ground is the signifi cant warming in cold seasons, while changes in snow depth play a minor role. The duration of seasonally frozen ground decreased by more than 20 days from 1967 through 1997 over the Tibetan Plateau, mainly due to the earlier onset of thaw in spring (Zhao et al.,2004). The estimated maximum extent of seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the NH from 1901 to 2002, with a decrease in spring of up to 15% (Figure 4.22; Zhang et al., 2003). There was little change in the areal extent of seasonally frozen ground during the early and midwinters.

Deniers like to cite Oliver Frauenfeld’s scepticism because having a real sceptic who not only knows his stuff but is also critical boosts their argument. However just using the number game chapter 4 of the 2007 IPCC report had over 50 scientists contributing to it.

Oliver Frauenfeld scepticism occurs in the Senate Minority report [which is mined frequently for sceptic quotes]

Climate scientist Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, a co-author of the 2005 book Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming and a research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado, questions the accuracy of climate models. “Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it. Before we can accurately understand the midlatitudes’ response to tropical forcing, the tropical forcings themselves must be identified and understood,” Frauenfeld wrotein “Shattered Consensus.” Frauenfeld, a Contributing Author to the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, added, “Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain.”

Frauenfeld was a contributor to Shattered Consensus, producing one of the nine chapters by the usual climate deniers Patrick J. Michaels (Editor), Dr. Sallie L. Baliunas ), Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr  Dr. Randall S. Cerveny , Dr. John Christy , Dr. Robert E. Davis , Dr. Ross McKitrick, Dr. Patrick J. Michaels , Dr. Eric S. Posmentier , Dr. Willie Soon and a book published in 2005 by the Marshall Institute.

The George C. Marshall Institute was established in 1984 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation to conduct technical assessments of scientific issues with an impact on public policy.

In every area of public policy, from national defense, to the environment, to the economy, decisions are shaped by developments in and arguments about science and technology. The need for accurate and impartial technical assessments has never been greater. However, even purely scientific appraisals are often politicized and misused by interest groups.

The Marshall Institute seeks to counter this trend by providing policymakers with rigorous, clearly written and unbiased technical analyses on a range of public policy issues. Through briefings to the press, publication programs, speaking tours and public forums, the Institute seeks to preserve the integrity of science and promote scientific literacy.

We publish reports, host roundtables, workshops and collaborate with institutions that share our interest in basing public policy on scientific facts.

The Marshall Inst is a right wing thinktank and lobby group. Like most thinktanks their funders have an interest in CO2 reduction policy and the oil industry. According to the Marshall Institute Oliver Frauenfeld is still retained as a speaker.
What does Oliver Frauenfeld believe? Evidently by associating with the Marshall Institute his political leanings maybe to the right or he may need to pay off his mortgage. A Discovery Channel interview on melting permafrost gives an idea of his professional opinion.

Jan. 22, 2007 — Some of the perennially frozen ground high in the Himalayas has been shrinking, say Japanese scientists.

The year-round frozen “permafrost” ground was found to start at 17,000 to 17,400 feet above sea level (ASL) on the south-facing slopes of Nepal’s Khumbu Himal in 1973, but is now at 17,700 to 18,000 feet (ASL), report Kotaro Fukui and his colleagues in the February issue of the journal Global and Planetary Change. Oddly enough, another measurement of the permafrost there in 1991 showed the same lower limit as 2004.

“Thus, it is possible that the permafrost lower limit has risen 300 to 1,000 feet (100 to 300 meters) between 1973 and 1991, followed by a stable limit of 17,700 to 18,000 feet (5400 to 5500 meters) over the last decade,” the researchers report.

The likely cause of the thaw is global warming, which appears to be affecting the south-facing Khumbu Himal more quickly than on the nearby Tibetan Plateau, explains Fukui, a researcher at Japan’s National Institute of Polar Research. Unfortunately, because the researchers have only three permafrost snapshots to judge by — 1973, 1991 and 2004 — there’s just not enough data available to say much more about what’s going on.

“That’s the problem with any climate study: too little data,” said climatologist Oliver Frauenfeld of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Many places that are likely to see the greatest changes from global warming are in remote mountains or polar regions which are hard to monitor closely.

Besides just indicating climate changes, thawing permafrost poses special problems in mountainous regions. Thawed mountainsides that contain water are more likely to slide than permanently frozen ground, in which water is just another solid mineral, Frauenfeld explained.

On flat permafrost regions of the Arctic or Tibet, for example, thawing can cause roads and railroad tracks to buckle and building foundations to sink or collapse.

The good news, says Frauenfeld, is that even with the worse-case climate warming scenario, most permafrost in the world today would still be permafrost. In places like the Russian Arctic, for instance, a rise of -40 degrees to -30 degrees is a lot — but it’s still frozen.

Compared to the total area of frozen ground on Earth, said Frauenfeld, “The changes we’re seeing in the permafrost regions are not that big.”

The places most affected are those that are now hovering just under freezing in summer, which are at the fringes of the world’s permafrost zones, Frauenfeld said.

What does Fraunenfeld think now? A recent paper indicates that he is still sceptical, with a study that has seen little permafrost reduction in the high Eurasian plateau.


Express headline 2010

GLOBAL warming is set to become global cooling this century, a leading analyst claimed yesterday.

Professor Michael Beenstock said theories of climate change are wrong. He warned climatologists have misused statistics, leading them to the mistaken conclusion global warming is ­evidence of the greenhouse effect.

He told London’s Cass Business School that the link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures is “spurious”, adding: “The greenhouse effect is an illusion.” The economics professor from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that just because greenhouse gases and temperatures have risen together does not mean they are linked.

He claims that the real cause of ­rising temperatures is the sun, which he says is at its hottest for over 1,000 years but is “beginning to stabilise”. Professor Beenstock said: “If the sun’s heat continues to remain stable, and if carbon emissions continue to grow with the rate of growth of the world economy, global temperatures will fall by about 0.5C by 2050.” Citing predictions by climatologists in the 1970s of a new Ice Age, Professor Beenstock said: “I predict that ­climatologists will look equally foolish in the years to come. Indeed, it may be already happening.”

The Met Office said the first ­decade of this century is the warmest since records began 160 years ago, and 2009 the fifth warmest year.  It maintains that rising carbon dioxide levels increase temperatures. Since the Industrial Revolution CO2 levels have risen 37 per cent.

Michael Beanstock is currently Professor of Economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Research Interests: Research interests: spatial econometrics, econometric evaluation, time series econometrics,
economic geography, drug addiction

Teaching Interests: Macroeconomics (2nd year), Project Appraisal and Evaluation (3rd year), Econometric Analysis of Time Series (MA) ,Financial Econometrics (MA).

Public Activities: Pinchas Sapir Chair of Economics

Professional Affiliations: Honorary Fellow, Institute for Economic Affairs, London

His paper that debunks the AGW scam can be found here

His lecture tour included Cardiff University where this article comes from.

Academics Fall Out Over Climate Change

Geraint Talfan Davies reports on another blast at climatologists delivered in Cardiff last night by economist Michael Beenstock .February 3rd, 2010

The current row over the alleged weaknesses in the some of the arguments advanced by the International Panel on Climate Change had an echo in Cardiff last night when Professor Michael Beenstock mounted a wholesale attack on climatologists while delivering the annual lecture of Cardiff University’s Julian Hodge Institute of Applied Macro-economics.

In a talk that was a mixture of statistical argument and political polemic, Beenstock, a former UK Treasury official who is now Professor of Economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, attacked climatologists, and the International Panel on Climate Change in particular, for not being statisticians. This, he said, is what has led them to them making a ‘spurious correlation’ between greenhouse gases and global temperatures.

There is nothing like a row between different disciplines in the academic world, and there was certainly an edge to Beenstock’s lecture, entitled Global Warming: the Greenhouse Gas Illusion.

According to Beenstock climatologists are naïve data analysts and more volatile than the climate. “They don’t understand statistics,” he said. Global warming was “a fluke”. The panic about global warming was the result of a “doomwatch psychology” initiated by the Club of Rome 40 years ago. IPCC predictions are “unfounded” he declared, adding that there was “no need for carbon abatement”. The Stern report was “much ado about nothing”. It was “fortunate that Copenhagen had failed”. European carbon policy was a “white elephant”.

His argument was that data from the 20th Century does not support the greenhouse theory, but that when carbon emissions accelerate, global temperature increases temporarily, but not permanently. “Global warmers have made the simple error of confusing a temporary effect with a permanent one”.

He was asked why no-one else had spotted this fundamental statistical error. In response he referred to the “tendentious” nature of climatology, and claimed that he was “99.8 per cent” sure of his conclusions – always a dangerous contention. He said he had been attacked for his views “as a simple economist who had strayed out of his area”.

This was an altogether a more no-holds-barred, and political, performance, than Colin Robinson of Surrey University delivered at the same event in 2008, although even he spoke of the climate change lobby as a religious movement that regarded sceptics as heretics. Robinson even quoted the same 1975 Newsweek article that Beenstock cited, worrying about prevalent fears of a new ice age. Both espouse a benign view of the capacity of markets to deal with issues.

The Hodge lectures have often provided a valuable contrast to economic orthodoxy, especially valuable in social democratic Wales. But do I detect a trend in these lectures, and perhaps an orthodoxy of view within the Institute of Applied Macro-economics? Discuss.

Geraint Talfan Davies is Chair of the IWA.


Criticism of the paper was fairly limited at the time and a search produced this from RealClimate [Response: Somebody else who thinks that statistics triumphs over physics. Or in other words, someone who thinks that the planet has to respond in some neat statistical way to a forcing. It doesn’t. Since this appears to be a working paper, I would advise that they do some more work – for instance with the AR4 archive to demonstrate that their methodology is able to distinguish causes in much simpler (though realistic) cases. – Gavin

Dr Charles Wax past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. Currently professor of Geography and Climatology at Mississippi State University and has written peer reviewed papers.

“First off, there isn’t a consensus among scientists. Don’t let anybody tell you there is.”

Watch this video – ‘climate change is a good thing from the standpoint of us’

Global climate change may have little or nothing to do with mankind’s burning of fossil fuels and a lot to do with sunspot cycles and other natural phenomena that aren’t affected by greenhouse gases

[Wax] says variations in climate — often in only a few years — represent “much more of a threat than global warming of the magnitude we’re seeing.” For example, he notes, in 2007 Mississippi rainfall totaled only 34 inches for the entire year, and farmers faced severe drought conditions. “Yet, two years later in 2009, rainfall totaled 86.11 inches — two very different scenarios within just a very brief time span. A two-degree variation in average annual temperature by 2029, which some computer models are forecasting, isn’t that critical to our farmers, but a 50-inch variation in rainfall is.  []

Despite Charles Wax’s qualifications he should read up on why the sun isn’t anything to do with current warming, why 2c is a serious increase in global temperature and why climate change is likely to increase extremes.

« Previous PageNext Page »