Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt holds a doctorate in chemistry.
He began his professional career at the Federal Environmental Agency in Berlin before joining the Hessian Ministry of the Environment. From 1984 until 1990 he served as state secretary for environment, from 1991 till 1997 as minister for energy and environment in the state of Hamburg. He is also the author of several environmental books; the bestseller “Seveso ist überall” (“Seveso is everywhere”) was one of the most influential books for the green environmental movement in Germany.
In 2012, Vahrenholt together with geologist Sebastian Lüning published Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet (The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Crisis Isn’t Happening), a book asserting that climate change is driven by variations in solar activity. The pair predict the Earth is entering a cooling phase due to periodic solar cycles. Other contributors to the book include Nir Shaviv, Werner Weber, Henrik Svensmark and Nicola Scafetta.
Prof. Vahrenholt provides a monthly summary of the climate on his website kaltesonne.de. Below are a few exerts and paraphrasings from May 2021’s edition:
The deviation of the global mean temperature of the satellite-based measurements from the average for the years 1991-2020 decreased further to -0.05 degrees Celsius in April 2021:
The recent La Nina is still having a cooling impact. NOAA says there is an 80% chance that La Nina will end between May and July; however, the agency is expecting a new one to start again in the fall.
Latest real-world observations (one dataset shown below) reveal that the climate models –on which the recommendations of the IPCC are based– are coming out twice as warm as the reality, on average:
This blatant deviation from the real temperature development is politically significant because the prognoses of the models are used as the basis for far-reaching decisions, such as constitutional court judgments.
A recent German court hearing found on the fundamentals of climate change:
“ There is an approximately linear relationship between the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted and the increase in mean surface temperature ” (Section 19). ” Without additional measures to combat climate change, a global temperature increase of more than 3 ° C by the year 2100 is currently considered likely “.
But here, continues Vahrenholt, the court ignores the considerable uncertainties about feedback effects, such as clouds. In describing the “actual principles of climate change” and the “actual principles of climate protection,” the court refers to just four sources, with the IPCC being the main one.
“ So-called tipping point processes in the climate system are seen as a particular danger to ecological stability, because they can have far-reaching environmental effects. Tilting elements are parts of the earth system that are of particular importance for the global climate and that change abruptly and often irreversibly as the load increases. Examples are the permafrost soils in Siberia and North America, the ice masses in the polar zones, the Amazon rainforest and significant air and ocean current systems.“
The judges had obviously not read the FAZ interview with Jochem Marotzke from the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg: When asked by FAZ, “Which tipping point worries you most?” Marotske replied, “None.”
And then, when it came to ‘extreme weather events,’ the court again failed to deal in facts, claiming:
“The increase in drought and drought observed in Germany is considered a particular challenge. The associated drying out of the soil is particularly important for agriculture…”
Even the German Meteorological Service had declared in 2018 –as the IPCC did in 2013– that it was difficult to statistically prove an increase in extreme weather events — this also applies to worldwide droughts, heavy rain events, hurricanes and tornadoes.
To refute the court’s claim, Vahrenholt provides a graphic depicting summer rainfall in Germany:
The summer rain in Germany is subject to strong fluctuations, but there is no long-term trend. The amount of precipitation in summer has not changed statistically significantly over the past 135 years (source).
And while the summer data comfortably refutes the court’s assumptions, the winter rainfall data tears it apart:
Overall, annual precipitation in Germany has increased by 10 percent over the past 135 years (source).
Yet, here we have paragraph 28 of the court’s resolution, stating:
“Climate change is also an important cause of flight and migration. People also leave their homes as a result of natural disasters and due to long-term environmental changes such as increased droughts and the rise in sea levels.”
But as Benjamin Schraven, of the German Development Institute writes:
“There are many indications that the still widespread assumption of an automatism between climate change and migration must be strongly questioned. Such a general ecodeterminism is empirically untenable.”
The court’s following insufficient understanding of sources had huge consequences on its verdict:
“ It is assumed that there is an approximately linear relationship between the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions accumulated over time and the global temperature increase. Only small parts of the anthropogenic emissions are absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere “.
This is objectively wrong, stresses Vahrenholt.
But the court’s baseless assumptions went on:
“ Most of the rest of anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere over the long term, add up, contribute to increasing the CO2 concentration and thus have an effect on the temperature of the earth. In contrast to other greenhouse gases, CO2 no longer leaves the earth’s atmosphere naturally in a period of time that is relevant to humanity. Every additional amount of CO2 that enters the earth’s atmosphere and is not artificially removed from it (below marginal 33) thus permanently increases the CO2 concentration and leads accordingly to a further rise in temperature. This rise in temperature will persist even if the greenhouse gas concentration does not increase any further.“
But even the IPCC would contradict this: It is stated that about 4.7 ppm are currently being added to the atmosphere annually by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but more than half of the increase is taken up by the oceans and plants (where the court says, “only small parts”!?). Since the uptake of plants and oceans is proportional to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, a significant reduction in emissions –such as halving– would clearly have a reduction in the concentration in the atmosphere in the future.
But this court hearing in Germany, as is the case with many others around the world, isn’t about scientific inquiry, meaning it is futile trying to combat it as such. “Results” are being funded, not the scientific endeavor. Today, science is being used as a front, a tool in order to achieve whatever measures the ‘global system’ deems fit. As an indication of this, with its recent finding, the court was now able to create the prerequisites for the CO2 budget approach:
“Therefore, it is possible to approximate the maximum amount of further CO2 that is allowed to enter the earth’s atmosphere permanently so that this target earth temperature is not exceeded … This amount is referred to as the “CO2 budget” in the climate policy and climate science discussion.”
And this is what it’s all about.
The court then begins to calculate the budget:
“If one takes 6.7 gigatons as a concrete national remaining CO2 budget from 2020, as determined by the Council of Economic Experts for the goal of limiting the increase in the mean earth temperature to 1.75 ° C with a probability of 67%, this would mean the remaining budget has already been largely consumed by the CO2 quantities permitted by 2030.“
Indeed, Germany’s Climate Protection Act stipulates a reduction in CO2 emissions from 0.813 GT in 2020 to 0.543 GT in 2030 for all sectors of Germany from energy to industry, buildings, transport and agriculture.
The court adds up the limited emissions, and comes to the result:
” After 2030, less than 1 gigaton of the remaining CO2 budget of 6.7 gigatons determined by the Advisory Council would remain. In order to maintain the budget limits, climate neutrality would have to be achieved soon after 2030.”
The court itself admits itself that this as a big ask:
“In order to strictly maintain the emissions framework specified by Art. 20a of the Basic Law, reduction efforts would then be necessary from today’s point of view to an unreasonable extent, especially since the general way of life is likely to be characterized by high CO2 intensity in 2031 … the constitutional climate protection requirement … (would) require the acceptance of considerable restrictions on freedom.”
Basically, unless Germany shuts down soon after 2030, the limited emissions plan will fail and, in the court’s eyes at least, heat and extreme drought will be left unchecked, and catastrophe will strike. Here, the court is arriving at the same extreme view of a plaintiff, Prof. Quaschnin, who had called for zero CO2 emissions by 2035.
The court provides for an average remaining budget of just 0.05 GT per year for 2030 to 2050, which is as much as the building materials industry alone currently emits — again, judges have taken the current state of discussion of the climate debate, which is fraught with high uncertainty, as an opportunity to set the CO2 budget in Germany to zero.
A bewildered Vahrenholt concludes: If the Climate Protection Act was already capable of causing considerable loss of prosperity and jobs in 2030, the tightening that is now to be expected will lead to deep distortions.
Wind and solar will not provide the necessary energy. And in any case, this is about the shutdown of gas and oil heating, the ban on gasoline and diesel cars, the shutdown of truck traffic, air traffic, and refineries. Late, very late, it will be recognized that the electrification of the heating, transport and industry sectors without gas, without the CO2 capture that is prohibited in Germany, without the nuclear energy that is prohibited in Germany, cannot be achieved.
The green program — that will fail grandly.
However, Vahrenholt remains confident in his predictions of a cooling planet, and sees this upcoming solar-induced reduction in terrestrial temperatures as our only hope against such poverty-inducing policies.
But, of course, global cooling will deliver immense suffering all of its own.
‘Rock and a hard place’ comes to mind.
A total economic collapse is looming, one way or another — prepare now.
The COLD TIMES are returning, the mid-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with the great conjunction, historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow (among other forcings).
Both NOAA and NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with NOAA saying we’re entering a ‘full-blown’ Grand Solar Minimum in the late-2020s, and NASA seeing this upcoming solar cycle (25) as “the weakest of the past 200 years”, with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.
Furthermore, we can’t ignore the slew of new scientific papers stating the immense impact The Beaufort Gyre could have on the Gulf Stream, and therefore the climate overall.
Prepare accordingly— learn the facts, relocate if need be, and grow your own.
Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach: Twitter are purging followers while Facebook are labeling posts as “false” and have slapped-on crippling page restrictions. EV has also been blacklisted by ad networks, meaning the site is no longer allowed to run advertising.
So, be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).
And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse.
The site receives ZERO funding, and never has. So any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.
Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift