Articles Extreme Weather GSM Volcanic & Seismic Activity 

Another Bogus Climate Report blames Global ‘Cooling’ on Global ‘Warming’

Despite a ban on ozone depleting gases –such as CFC and HCFC refrigerants, and recent reports that the ozone hole is diminishing– a new study from an international team of scientists claims that global warming is leading to greater ozone losses.

The research argues that extremely low winter temperatures high in the atmosphere over the Arctic are becoming more frequent and more extreme because of climate patterns associated with global warming.

In a perfect example of what George Orwell called Doublethink the AGW party is claiming that global ‘warming’ can also mean global ‘cooling’ — i.e. that your CO2 emissions (i.e. your existence) are responsible for ALL things climate; even the stark cooling we’ve witnessed since 2016.

The paper goes on, stating that these extreme low temperatures are said to be causing reactions with the remaining ozone depleting chemicals and leading to greater ozone losses.

The new study by UMD, the Alfred Wegener Institute’s Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, and the Finnish Meteorological Institute has been published in the journal Nature Communications.

Ross Salawitch, professor in the UMD Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, and the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, said: “We’re in a kind of race between the slow and steady decline in CFCs, which take 50 to 100 years to go away, and climate change, which is causing polar vortex temperature extremes to become colder at a rapid pace.

“The increasingly cold temperatures, Salawitch continues, “create conditions that promote ozone depletion by CFCs. So, even though these compounds are slowly going away, Arctic ozone depletion is on the rise as the climate changes.”

New data from the study showed the coldest Arctic polar vortex temperatures and the highest ozone losses on record in 2020, beating the previous records set nine years ago in 2011 (some sort of solar minimum correlation is highly likely here–not that the researches dare touch the possibility that a natural phenomenon could be behind their findings).

According to these scientists, the chlorine is normally non-reactive within the Arctic polar vortex but clouds provide the right conditions for the chlorine to change form and react with bromine and sunlight to destroy ozone.

The story is similar above the Antarctic, too.

The European Union’s Earth observation program announced at the end of 2020 that the ozone hole over Antarctica had swelled to its largest size and deepest level in at least 15 years, to become among the most notable ever recorded.

Clare Nullis, of the warm-mongering WMO, explains that the ozone hole begins to expand every August –at the start of the Antarctic spring– and reaches a peak around October.

“The air has been below minus 78 degrees Celsius, and this is the temperature which you need to form stratospheric clouds — and this is quite a complex process,” said Nullis at a U.N. briefing in October, 2020. “The ice in these clouds triggers a reaction which then can destroy the ozone. So, it’s because of that that we are seeing the big ozone hole this year.”

But these findings contradict the absurd consensus that global warming is causing the global cooling, and again they go against the so-called ‘science’ behind the international accord (the Montreal Protocol) devised to phase out those ozone-depleting substances (OSDs)–such as CFC and HCFC refrigerants .

OSDs have been on the decline since their peak in 2000 (shown below), and the holes growing above the poles a full 2+ decades later shows the correlation between OSDs and ozone isn’t there. It simply doesn’t play that reduced OSDs are all of a sudden having an unprecedented impact on the ozone layer. No, the mechanism here appears to be natural, and likely associated in some way with the historically low solar activity Earth has been receiving over the past decade+.

Past and predicted levels of controlled gases in the Antarctic atmosphere, quoted as equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC) levels, a measure of their contribution to stratospheric ozone depletion.

These findings also confirm what NASA has been saying for years — that the upper atmosphere is cooling:

The formation of stratospheric ozone is initiated by ultraviolet (UV) radiation coming from the Sun.

As a result, an increase in the Sun’s radiation output increases the amount of ozone in Earth’s atmosphere.

The Sun’s radiation output and sunspot number vary over the well-documented 11-year solar cycle. Observations over several solar cycles since the 1960s show that global total ozone levels vary by 1 to 2% between the maximum and minimum of a typical cycle.

However, ‘global’ total ozone levels aren’t necessarily what we’re interested in here. Evidence suggests that ozone depletion during times of low solar activity is far greater above the poles than elsewhere on the planet. This is a phenomenon we’re seeing today, at both the Antarctic and Arctic.

This could well be the true cause of Polar Amplification. 

Climate alarmists of course love to claim that CO2 is disproportionately warming the Arctic, but they have no agreed-upon mechanism as to how this could occur.

It is fantasy.

On the other hand, a positive correlation between decreasing solar activity and ozone depletion above the Arctic fits very well, as does the negative correlation between ozone depletion and rising surface temps.

There is another key forcing to factor into all this, and that is volcanic eruptions.

Explosive volcanic eruptions inject sulfur gases directly into the stratosphere, causing new sulfate particles to be formed. The particles initially form in the stratosphere downwind of the volcano and then spread throughout the hemisphere or globally as air is transported by stratospheric winds.

One method of detecting the presence of volcanic particles in the stratosphere uses observations of the transmission of solar radiation through the atmosphere. When large amounts of new particles are formed in the stratosphere over an extensive region, solar transmission is measurably reduced (as are terrestrial temperatures).

The eruptions of Mt. Agung (1963), El Chichón (1982), and Mt. Pinatubo (1991) are the most recent sizable examples of sulfur injections that temporarily reduced solar transmission. Chile’s Calbuco volcanic eruption (2015) is another– this stratospheric injection played a role in enhancing the size of the ozone hole back in 2015:

Average ozone concentrations over the southern hemisphere during October 1-15, 2015, when the Antarctic ozone hole for that year was near its maximum extent. The red line shows the boundary of the ozone hole.

At its maximum size, the 2015 hole was the fourth-largest ever observed. It was in the top 15% in terms of the total amount of ozone destroyed. Only 2006, 1998, 2001 and 1999 had more ozone destruction, whereas other recent years (2013, 2014 and 2016) ranked near the middle of the observed range.

2020’s hole appears even larger that 2015’s, clear indication that factors other than ODSs are key to ozone depletion above the poles — namely, surprise-surprise, solar and volcanic activity.

Unfortunately, the U.N. and its fraudulent little offshoot –the WMO– remains chained to the Montreal Protocol.

Clare Nullis concludes that despite these expanding holes, experts still believe the ozone layer is slowly recovering after adoption of the accord in 1987, and she urges nations to stick to the measures, citing climate projections that indicate that the ozone layer will return to 1980 levels in 2060.

They must think we’re idiots; but I worry, as a collective, that we are.

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Enjoy your weekend!

BONUS: Record-Breaking “Polar Blast” on course for New Zealand

New Zealand’s chill of winter is set to truly arrive over the next few days, as a “polar blast” invades the nation of the back of weak and wavy meridional jet stream flow.

The big freeze will arrive this weekend with conditions deteriorating further Monday through Wednesday.

Record breaking lows and snows are expected to impact both islands.

“Snow is possible to sea level in parts of Southland, Fiordland and Otago, with heavy snow on the ranges and hilltops,” reads a recent WeatherWatch statement.

“Wind chill may be the main problem for many southern farmers, with livestock exposed to sub-zero daytime temperatures in the wind around Southland and Otago and potentially Canterbury’s high country.”

The snow won’t be restricted to the just South Island, reports, with Waiouru, the Desert Rd, Ohakune, Taihape and National Park also set to receive anomalous accumulations of global warming goodness.

Areas spared from the snow should still brace for potentially record-breaking low temperatures.

“Both islands are impacted by the cold, starting Monday in Southland and peaking in Northland by Wednesday morning,” continues the WeatherWatch forecast, with the mercury in the central North Island predicted to plunge to below -6C (21.2F) Tuesday night — an astonishing feat, particularly given that winter is just getting started.

Stay tuned for updates.

The COLD TIMES are returning, the mid-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with the great conjunction, historically low solar activitycloud-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,” have slapped-on crippling page restrictions, and most recently have actually locked me out of my account (click here to like/follow my newly created page).

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).

Please also consider disabling ad blockers for, if you use one.

And/or become a Patron, by clicking here:

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

Related posts

13 Thoughts to “Another Bogus Climate Report blames Global ‘Cooling’ on Global ‘Warming’”

  1. Art Horton

    This sounds like a breakthrough. The science is not settled. The climate models are obviously wrong. The hockey stick needs to be rotated 180° and no one knows what CO2 will do aside from making the earth greener

  2. Scott

    Is everyone familiar with the ‘CAWSES / CAWSES II’ projects out of curiosity? Just wondering how that plays in relation to this..

  3. Cap wrote this correct statement:
    “In a perfect example of what George Orwell called Doublethink the AGW party is claiming that global ‘warming’ can also mean global ‘cooling’… ”

    The climate clowns just make it up as they go – global warming alarmism is a fifty-year-old scam concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep. It’s been a BIG LIE from the start.

    A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media
    By Allan M.R. MacRae, Published March 2021, UPDATE 1e Published May 8, 2021
    Download the WORD file
    This treatise was originally sent to Canadian and American politicians and the media in March 2021. Most of them won’t understand it, because they have no scientific competence and have been utterly duped – programmed for decades by false climate scares and green energy frauds.
    This update was written in May 2021 to report even more global cooling as measured by satellites and new harsh cold events, particularly in Europe and North America that have severely harmed early crops. Harsh cold events have struck all countries in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.


    We published in 2002 that there was NO catastrophic human-made global warming /climate change crisis, and green energy schemes were NOT green and produced little useful (dispatchable) energy. Dangerous global warming and climate change have NOT HAPPENED and green energy schemes have proved to be COSTLY, UNRELIABLE AND INEFFECTIVE.

    Global warming is NOT a threat, but global cooling IS dangerous to humanity and the environment. In 2002 we predicted that natural global cooling would start circa 2020, based on low solar activity, and that prediction is strongly supported by recent evidence.

    Politicians foolishly believed scary global warming falsehoods and brewed the perfect storm, crippling our energy systems with costly and unreliable green energy schemes that utterly fail due to intermittency, at a time when we need more cheap, reliable, dispatchable energy due to increased energy demand and imminent global cooling. The people of Australia, Britain, Germany, California, Texas and elsewhere have all suffered due to GREEN ENERGY FAILURES THAT WERE PREDICTABLE AND WERE PREDICTED.

    We published in March 2020 that there was no justification for the Covid-19 lockdown, and that it would cause great and needless harm. The Covid-19 lockdown is now estimated to have caused 10-to-100-times the damage of the Covid-19 illness, in terms of increased harm to individuals, families and the economies they depend on.

    The same leftist groups concocted and promoted the global warming fraud and the Covid-19 lockdown scam, for political and financial gain. Then these groups linked the two frauds, stating “to solve Covid-19 we have to solve Climate Change” – utterly false and foolish, not even plausible enough to be specious. Then these same groups proposed their Final Solution, the “Great Reset”, a Chinese Communist Party style dictatorship, a centrally-controlled economy where we live like poor slaves, lorded over by our wealthy political masters.

    The tragic reality is that the twin frauds of Climate-and-Covid have been accepted by most politicians. Some have covertly or overtly embraced extreme-left politics, and others are so simple-minded and gullible that they believe any falsehood that is repeated often enough. We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.


    MORE COLD EVENTS recorded by Cap Allon at

  4. Sweathy Viking

    Now there is unfortunately one less of us:

    R.I.P. Robert

  5. Jonathan

    More BS supported by the gullible media such as the BBC who constantly link every warm weather pattern to “climate change”!

    Of course we know that “climate change” is completely natural and cyclic.

  6. Clyde

    The cooling isn’t just since 2016… yes, we’ve had a cooling of 0.76 C over the past 16 months which has erased all of the warming seen since 1950 and approximately half the warming seen since 1901, and we have had cooling since 2016… but we’ve had cooling since 2002.

    Take a look at the recent NASA / NOAA alarmist report which claimed that the planet is now retaining double the amount of energy than it did in 2005…
    … in one of their graphics (p. 13 of 19, graphic (c)), they show that the surface skin temperature contribution to TOA radiant exitance decreased by 0.56 W m-2 dec-1 from 2002/09 to 2020/03.

    The only way that can happen is if the surface cooled over that 1.75 decades, which not so coincidentally coincides with the end of the Solar Grand Maximum final peak in 2001… subsequent solar cycles have been weak, Solar Cycle 24’s peak was so weak it was dubbed the “Mini-Max”, and Solar Cycle 25 looks to be just as weak.

    The warming occurred due to a long series of stronger-than-normal solar cycles (the now-ended Solar Grand Maximum), the sun has sunk into a quiescent phase which is expected to last until ~2053, the quiescent phase is expected to rival the Dalton Minimum (and may rival the Maunder Minimum) and the cooling continues to accelerate.

    “But it could be that the increase of ‘greenhouse’ gases is blocking radiant exitance from surface emission!”, I’m sure some warmist is going to claim.

    Yeah, no. CO2 is provably a net atmospheric coolant (see below). Besides, the surface radiant exitance is in a waveband centered on 10.076 µm, which is in an Atmospheric Infrared Window which ranges from ~8-14 µm. That radiation has a nearly unfettered path out to space. The tiny bit of 14.98352 µm radiant exitance being thermalized by CO2 will be thermalized regardless of whether CO2 is at 415 ppm or 830 ppm…
    If ‘backradiation’ from CO2 atmospheric emission causes catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, where is this ‘backradiation’ coming from?

    The near-surface extinction depth is ~10.4 m at current atmospheric CO2 concentration. The troposphere is essentially opaque to 13.98352 µm to 15.98352 µm radiation.

    CO2’s absorption of IR in the troposphere thermalizes that radiation, increasing CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection to the upper atmosphere (carrying with it the latent and specific heat of polyatomic molecules… more polyatomic molecules will carry more energy and will more readily emit that energy in the upper atmosphere), which is a cooling process.

    Mean free path length for radiation increases exponentially with altitude and vice versa due to air density changing inversely exponentially with altitude, thus the net vector for radiation in the 13.98352 – 15.98352 µm band is upward, so the majority of ‘backradiation’ which could possibly reach the surface would be from that very thin layer of atmosphere which is within ~10.4 m of the surface, and the great majority of that energy is being thermalized and convected. So where’s this ‘backradiation’ energy coming from that’s going to cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

    At 287.64 K (the latest stated average temperature of Earth) and an emissivity of 0.93643 (calculated from NASA’s ISCCP program, data collected 1983-2004), integrated radiance from 13.98352 µm – 15.98352 µm is 10.8773 W/sr-m^2.

    Thus the maximum that CO2 could absorb in the troposphere would be 10.8773 W/sr-m^2, if all CO2 were in the CO2{v20(0)} vibrational mode quantum state.

    While the Boltzmann Factor calculates that 10.816% of CO2 will be excited in one of its {v2} vibrational mode quantum states at 288 K, the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function shows that ~24.9% will be excited. This is higher than the Boltzmann Factor because faster molecules collide more often, weighting the reaction cross-section more toward the higher end.

    Thus that drops to 8.1688523 W/sr-m^2 able to be absorbed. That’s for all CO2, natural and anthropogenic… anthropogenic CO2 accounts for ~3.63% (per IPCC AR4) of total CO2 flux, thus anthropogenic CO2 can only absorb 0.29652933849 W/sr-m^2.

    CO2 absorbs ~50% within 1 meter, thus anthropogenic CO2 will absorb 0.148264669245 W/m^2 in the first meter, and the remainder 0.148264669245 W/m^2 within the next ~9 meters.

    CO2 will absorb this radiation regardless of any increase in atmospheric concentration… the extinction depth is ~10.4 m at 14.98352 µm wavelength, reducing to ~9.7 m for a doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration. Any tropospheric thermalization which would occur at a higher CO2 atmospheric concentration is already taking place at the current concentration. Thus the net effect of CO2 thermalization is an increase in CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convective transport to the upper atmosphere, which is a cooling process.

    The tropospheric thermalization is saturated. Even a doubling of CO2 doesn’t appreciably reduce extinction depth at the band centered around 14.98352 µm. But the upper-atmospheric radiative shedding of energy to space is not saturated… and more CO2 molecules will cause more upper-atmospheric cooling, increasing buoyancy of lower-atmosphere air and thus increasing convection.

    An increased CO2 atmospheric concentration will emit more radiation in the upper atmosphere (simply because there are more molecules absorbing energy in the lower atmosphere, more molecules convectively transporting energy to the upper atmosphere, and more molecules capable of emitting radiation in the upper atmosphere), thus more radiation will be emitted to space, and that represents a loss of energy to the system known as ‘Earth’, which is a cooling process.
    Zoomed in…
    Note the extreme right-hand edge of that chart… negative and decreasing at an accelerating rate.

    Why do the warmists deny that global cooling is occurring? Climate deniers. LOL

    Spectral Cooling Rates For the Mid-Latitude Summer Atmosphere Including Water Vapor, Carbon Dioxide and Ozone

    Note the CO2-induced spectral cooling rate (positive numbers in the scale at right) extends to the surface of the planet, whereas CO2 shows just a slight bit of warming (negative numbers in the scale at right) only at the tropopause (ie: just above the clouds, where it absorbs a greater percentage of cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

    Polyatomic molecules shift the lapse rate vertically, more of them shifts the lapse rate more vertically (which attempts to decrease temperature differential between different altitudes by transiting more energy from surface to upper atmosphere), while also radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere can convectively warm it… ie: they are coolants.

    You will note that this is borne out empirically by that long-term upper-atmosphere cooling and by the fact that OLR increased by ~7 W/m^2 over ~72 years even as surface temperature showed no statistically significant trend for more than two decades (said increased OLR partly caused by the increasing CO2 concentration making available more molecules capable of efficiently convectively transporting energy to the upper atmosphere, and advectively transporting energy poleward, then radiatively emitting it).“>
    This is because, as the Clough and Iacono graphic above shows, CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant at all altitudes (except for a negligible bit of warming at the tropopause where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from water condensation), as this NASA JPL graphic also shows:
    Anyone may feel free to use any of the data above however they wish without attribution to me. Attribution to external sources (graphics) is still necessary.

    1. Anonymous

      Thank you, Clyde. Impressive. What background do you have?

    2. Marylyn Cedergberg

      This is really interesting, considering that i can’t understand the equations, i am smart enough to understand the terminology used. Im not quite sure i get it but I think this means the atmosphere knows how to handle it’s own issues? Is this correct?

      1. No need to understand any of the “climate talk” because that is just a diversion from the Left’s ultimate goal. It’s not about the climate — it’s all about politics …

  7. Matt Dalby

    If a scientific theory appears to be plausible, based on limited data, and becomes widely believed it will face a major problem if new data emerges that shows the theory isn’t correct. This applies to AGW, since CO2 is known to absorb certain wavelengths of IR radiation it is plausible that an increase in it’s concentration in the atmosphere could produce warming. Obviously there are so many other factors and feedbacks involved that it isn’t the case that an increase in CO2 has to lead to warming. However once a theory is widely believed and contradictory data emerges either the theory has to be abandoned or it becomes ever more convoluted to try and reconcile the new data. Clearly this is what is happening with AGW, the original fairly simply theory becomes far more complex to try and explain what is actually happening. Hence all the self contradicting claims that warming causes cooling, more snow, outbreaks of extreme cold etc.

  8. dafranzl

    Just one idea…
    To produce ozon you need oxygen o2 and uv light! Over the poles uvlight is only during the respective summertime(leaning towards the sun…)in abundance,I mean in winter there is only a small amount by reflection…correct??? O2 is probably not in a high concentration(no o2-production in the area,only by atmospheric movements o2 is spread),especially over antarctis,where a strong circumpolar jet prevents mixture with air from lower latitudes…

    Could that be a factor? Is the o2 densitiy in the air over the poles the same as everywhere??

  9. Serge LEROI

    Very interesting, thanks!

Leave a Comment