climate-debate

Scientists Warn About Scientists’ Warnings

by W. Eschenbach, Aug 19 2025, in WUWT

Only a journalist truly committed to the ancient art of panic-clickbait could squeeze all the world’s existential dread into a headline like, “A Giant, Destructive Volcanic Eruption Is Set to Shake the World in the Coming Months, Bringing About the End of Mankind, Scientists Warn.” They’ve accompanied it with the following graphic, in case you weren’t adequately terrified.

…

…

The dead giveaway? “Scientists Warn.” Whenever you see those two words sandwiched together above the fold, you know you’re about to step into a wonderland of wild extrapolation, qualified maybes, and models run so far into the future they boomerang back with “robots take over” as the y-axis.

They start out as follows:

climate-debate

Study: Corals Thrived 6,000–10,000 Years Ago Amid Much Higher Seas And Warmer Temps

by K. Richard, Aug 19, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

coral reef
New research from Indonesia indicates that from about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, when the ocean was warmer than today, coral reef growth was rapid, averaging ~6 mm per year. [emphasis, links added]

Sea levels rose rapidly from the Early to Mid-Holocene in this region, as they were up to two meters higher than today 6,000 years ago. The higher sea levels meant there was more room for coral reef growth.

As the ocean cooled and sea levels fell ~2 meters from the Mid-Holocene highstand, coral growth slowed to ~2-3 mm per year.

Today, corals are only growing at rates of ~1 mm per year, as the water depths are too low to accommodate reef expansion.

In fact, coral coverage “has declined on the flats over the last few decades,” as the “accommodation space is less than a meter at points.”

…

Research from the Great Barrier Reef region (e.g., Leonard et al., 2020) also indicates coral growth experienced “turn-off” periods during cold centuries (such as the Little Ice Age) with falling sea levels.

When the ocean was “~1-2°C warmer than present” and sea levels were “~1.0 meter higher than present,” this “allowed reefs to accrete uninhibited.”

Cooling

Study: Ocean sediments support theory that comet impact triggered Younger Dryas cool-off

by A. Watts, Aug 13, 2025 in WUWT

Northern Hemisphere cooling 12,800 years ago generally thought to be caused by glacial meltwater; new geochemical evidence might support comet impact.

Analysis of ocean sediments has surfaced geochemical clues in line with the possibility that an encounter with a disintegrating comet 12,800 years ago in the Northern Hemisphere triggered rapid cooling of Earth’s air and ocean. Christopher Moore of the University of South Carolina, U.S., and colleagues present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS One on August 6, 2025.

During the abrupt cool-off—the Younger Dryas event—temperatures dropped about 10 degrees Celsius in a year or less, with cooler temperatures lasting about 1,200 years. Many researchers believe that no comet was involved, and that glacial meltwater caused freshening of the Atlantic Ocean, significantly weakening currents that transport warm, tropical water northward. In contrast, the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis posits that Earth passed through debris from a disintegrating comet, with numerous impacts and shockwaves destabilizing ice sheets and causing massive meltwater flooding that shut down key ocean currents.

However, the impact hypothesis has been less well supported, lacking any evidence from ocean sediments. To address that gap, Moore and colleagues analyzed the geochemistry of four seafloor cores from Baffin Bay, near Greenland. Radiocarbon dating suggests the cores include sediments deposited when the Younger Dryas event began. To study them, the researchers used several techniques, including scanning electron microscopy, single-particle inductively coupled plasma time-of-flight mass spectrometry, energy dispersive spectroscopy, and laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

New Study: No Decline In Arctic Sea Ice Extent – ‘No Long-Term Trend’ – Since 2007

by K. Richard, Aug 11, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

In 2007 Al Gore won a Nobel Peace prize for predicting summer (September) Arctic sea ice would “vanish” in the next 5 to 7 years, or by 2014.

Since 2007 Arctic sea ice extent (SIE) losses have ceased. Instead, the SIE trend has been stable for nearly two decades (Stern, 2025).

“Before 2007, September SIE was declining approximately linearly. In September 2007, SIE had its largest year‐to‐year drop in the entire 46‐year satellite record (1979–2024). Since 2007, September SIE has fluctuated but exhibits no long‐term trend.”

 

…

climate-debate

New Study Thoroughly Disassembles The CO2-Drives-Climate Assumption In One Fell Swoop

by K. Richard, Aug 15, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

Not only does CO2 have no discernible effect on climate, but any alleged anthropogenic role within the hypothetical greenhouse effect is not detectable either.

In recent decades there has been a concerted effort to assert it is “settled” science to characterize variability in the atmospheric CO2 concentration – assumed to be modulated by human activity – as the predominant factor in both climate change and the so-called greenhouse effect.

Science, however, is never truly settled.

A new Frontiers study succinctly unsettles this prevailing paradigm with surgeon-like precision. In under 20 pages the authors deliver a cogent critique of the CO2-drives-climate presumption. A few of the key points include:

• CO2 only contributes about 4-5% to the greenhouse effect, whereas water vapor and clouds contribute 95%.

• Of that 4-5% greenhouse effect contribution from CO2, just 4% of that can be attributed to human activities (i.e., fossil fuel emissions). Thus, about 96% of the 4% contribution from CO2 can be attributed to natural processes.

“WV [water vapor] and clouds (for which WV is responsible) dominate the ARE [atmospheric radiative effect], while CO2 contributes only 4-5% to it. Also, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only 4% of the total, with the vast majority (96%) being natural. Additionally, evidence suggests that changes in temperature precede those in CO2 concentration, thus challenging the assumption that CO2 drives temperature.”

• As Fig. 10 in the study indicates, observed changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot be demonstrated to have exerted any effect in altering longwave radiation measurements, much less the surface temperature. A hypothetical doubling the CO2 concentration [NC-RAGs, or non-condensing radiatively active gases] “results in a temperature increase of zero”.

“[W]hile the role of CO2 in photosynthesis is important in biochemical terms, it becomes negligible in terms of its contribution to the surface energy balance.”

“[T]he observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 [from 300 ppm to 420 ppm] has not altered the ARE [atmospheric radiative effect or greenhouse effect] in any discernible way.”

…

 

climate-debate

New Study: Heatwave-Related Deaths Have Been Declining In Recent Decades

by K. Richard, Aug 4, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

Human ingenuity outpaces modern warming. 

A comprehensive new data analysis (Walkowiak et al., 2025) involving European countries finds it takes less than 18 years for humans to adapt to a 1°C increase in mean annual temperature. Consequently, exposure to excessive heat has become less and less deadly.

Supporting this conclusion, a 2018 study involving 305 locations across 10 countries (1985-2012) affirmed “a decrease in heat-mortality impacts over the past decades,” as “heat-related mortality [fractions, AFs] decreased in all countries.”

…

climate-debate

DOE Climate Report Authors Challenge Climate Consensus, Trigger Fierce Media Backlash

by K. Killough, Aug 4, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

he Department of Energy has released a climate assessment report that incorporates the conclusions of climate scientists who have long been labeled by Democrats, the media, and climate activists as “climate deniers.” [emphasis, links added]

In a statement announcing the release Tuesday of the report, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said it was part of the EPA’s proposed rule repealing the 2009 endangerment finding, which cites the report.

Wright notes in the report’s foreword that the modern world is one of unprecedented prosperity in human history, but the public is being told that “the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat.”

He said he commissioned the report to “encourage a more thoughtful and science-based conversation” that scrutinizes the view that fossil fuels are threatening humanity’s well-being.

The report’s coauthor, Dr. Judith Curry, president of the Climate Forecast Applications Networkand author of “Climate Uncertainty and Risk,” says on her blog that there wasn’t complete agreement among the authors, and she welcomes a robust discussion on the report’s conclusion.

However, she wrote, she didn’t expect the same kind of openness from the alarmists who have long been the primary source of science informing climate policy for the past couple of decades.

“The Michael Mann wing of the climate debate will hate this report because: the CWG [Climate Working Group] authors are reputable scientists outside of their ‘tribe.’ The Report demonstrates that Mann et al. are losing control of the climate narrative in the U.S., and because of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Curry wrote, adding that their usual ad hominem attacks won’t be effective against the report.

…

climate-debate

More On DOE’s Report Challenging EPA Climate Claims And CO2 Alarmism

by F. Menton, Aug 4, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

earth space

On July 29 — the same day that EPA initiated the process of revoking the absurd “endangerment finding” that demonizes CO2 emissions from energy production (covered at Manhattan Contrarian here) — there was another equally momentous development on the energy front at the federal government. [emphasis, links added]

On that day, the Department of Energy released a lengthy Report with the title “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” (Although the Report bears a date of July 23, the 29th appears to be the date when it was signed by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and officially released.)

The Report is attributed to something called the “Climate Working Group,” consisting of five prominent members of the climate skeptic community: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer. Full disclosure: I know four of the five (Judith Curry is the exception), and consider two of them friends.

These are all highly competent and accomplished people, which is a dramatic contrast to the lightweights and grifters who constitute essentially all of the “mainstream” climate science community.

Most important about these five is that they are all willing to acknowledge the limitations of the knowledge possessed by the scientific community about the world’s climate.

The Report overall comes off as a fair and balanced assessment of risks and trade-offs, rather than what normally comes from climate academics and journalists, which are cheap attempts to use speculation and fake projections to scare you out of your wits.

…

climate-debate

Climate Oscillations 11: Oceanic Niño Index (ONI)

by A. May, 4 August, 2025 in WUWT

The Oceanic Niño Index or ONI is NOAA’s primarily indicator for monitoring the sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly in the critical Niño 3.4 region. It is a 3-month running mean of ERSST.v5 SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region, defined as 5°N-5°S and 120°W-170°W. Figure 1 shows the ONI as computed from the NOAA ERSST dataset. ERSST is a two-degree gridded dataset, so the region averaged for figure 1 is 6°N-6°S and 120°W-170°W.

Figure 1. A plot of the ONI from 1850 – 2023. The ONI 3-month smoothed anomaly must be above +0.5 for 5 months for an El Niño and below -0.5 for 5 months to be a La Niña. In between the ENSO state is neutral, as it is today.
Per convention a three-month moving average has been applied to the raw ONI data in figure 1. Sometimes you will see the ONI detrended, but the curve in figure 1 is not detrended and has an upward slope of one-half degree per century. The 3-month moving average has to exceed 0.5°C for five consecutive months to define an El Niño, so the chart is colored red above 0.5°C. The same is true for La Niña, but in reverse. The white area between -0.5 and +0.5 is ENSO neutral.

The current ENSO state, as of July 2025, is ENSO neutral, with an average ONI of about zero. NOAA prefers to use a base period for their ONI anomalies of 1991-2020, but we use 1961-1990 to be consistent with the other posts in this series and with HadCRUT5. There is a visual trend over the past 175 years, Niños are more common now and stronger than in previous years. Climate models have a very hard time duplicating ENSO over both short and long periods of time (IPCC, 2021, p. 115). The Niño 3.4 region is shown in figure 2 in red.

…

energy and fields, minerals and ores

The battle for Ukraine’s geological wealth

by R. Stone, July 31, 2025 in Science

In late June, Russian forces advanced in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine, seizing another few square kilometers of ground—and a significant deposit of lithium. The loss adds to a growing tally of Ukraine’s geological riches that have fallen into enemy hands. It is also one more blow to a landmark agreement that the United States and Ukraine had signed weeks earlier, enabling U.S. firms to gain access to the nation’s mineral wealth.

Under the 30 April deal, the U.S. and Ukraine pledged to establish an investment fund to rebuild Ukraine with revenues from mineral, oil, and natural gas projects. Ukraine will maintain ownership of its natural resources, while future U.S. military aid would be deemed a contribution to the fund matched by revenue from Ukraine’s mineral wealth. But with war raging, implementation largely must wait, says Anatolii Bulat, director of the M.S. Poliakov Institute of Geotechnical Mechanics (IGTM), which is tracking the fate of the country’s mineral deposits. Without lasting peace in Ukraine or a U.S. pledge to help defend Ukraine’s mineral assets, the security situation in the country will be too unstable for a long-term investment in a mine and its supporting infrastructure, the Center for Strategic and International Studies argued in a recent briefing. It noted that such projects take an average of 18 years to complete and can cost $1 billion.

…

unclassified

Flawed Attribution Study Falsely Blames South Africa’s Floods On Climate Change

by L. Lueken, July 31, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatc

Durban, South Africa flood
A recent post at Phys.org claims that a recent attribution study shows that climate change made April 2022’s flooding in South Africa “significantly” worse. [emphasis, links added]

This is an unfalsifiable (not able to be proven or disproven experimentally or observationally) claim that ignores the complexities of weather and relies on distinctly unreliable computer modeling.

The article, titled “Climate change significantly worsened deadly 2022 Durban floods, study shows,” goes over an attribution study that focused on flooding in Durban, South Africa, three years ago.

Phys.org claims the study “shows that rainfall during the storm of 11–12 April 2022 was between 40 percent and 107 percent heavier than it would have been in a cooler, preindustrial climate.”

How do they know this? They don’t; rather, they claim it based on computer model outputs.

Unlike most coverage of attribution science, Phys.org vaguely hints at the fact that the modeling is less than bulletproof, explaining that the models “simulated the storm in both today’s warmed climate and a counterfactual world without human-induced global warming.”

Climate Realism has explained at length why attribution modeling is not evidence, but it may be helpful to point out that Phys.org is only half right here.

They indeed used a counterfactual world with no warming, but the warmed model is also counterfactual. A number of assumptions, some more robustly backed by available data and evidence than others, go into modeling the “current world.”

Statistician Dr. William Briggs has what I consider the best simple summary of how attribution modeling works:

…

climate-debate

Are direct water vapor emissions endangering anyone?

by Real Climate, July 31, 2025

In the EPA EF reconsideration document there is a section on p62 where they attempt to make the argument that the CO2 endangerment finding would also apply to direct water vapor emissions to the atmosphere, which is (according to them) obviously absurd. But both claims are bogus.

First off, the definition of pollutant in the Clean Air Act (CAA) clearly does include CO2 as well as water vapor. This was the point litigated in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007:

An air pollutant is defined as any substance, or combination of substances, including physical, chemical, biological, or radioactive matter, that is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air and may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to air pollution.

A Hazardous Substance is further defined as one “that can cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse health or environmental effects“.

So there are two factors to assess. First, is the substance emitted into the air? (Yes, for both CO2 and water vapor). Second, might it be reasonably anticipated to cause adverse effects? (This is precisely the point of the Endangerment Finding process!). Thus it is not self-evidently absurd that water vapor emissions might be regulatable under the CAA, but the issue is whether there is any evidence that these emissions might plausibly have adverse effects.

It’s worth listing some pertinent comparisons between CO2, water vapor and a criteria pollutant like SO2 (which oxidises to SO4), to see the differences:

Substance CO2 SO4/SO2 Water Vapor (H2O)
Perturbation timescale(s) > 1,000 years ~ 2 weeks ~ 10 days
Increase over background since 19th Century (%) > 50% ~350% (Greenland, 1980) ~ 4% (since 1979)
~ 9% (estimate since 1900)
Anthropogenic direct emissions ~ 36 GtCO2/yr ~ 130 MtSO2/yr (1980) ~ 21 GtH2O/yr
Anthropogenic sources Fossil fuel combustion, deforestation Sulfur in coal, biomass burning Irrigation, combustion
Attribution of anthropogenic direct sources to atmospheric increase ~ 90% 100% ~4%
Impact of climate feedbacks ~ 10% (ocean/soils etc.) 0 % ~ 96% (impact of T on saturation vapor pressure)
Adverse effects of increase Increased heat waves, sea level rise, etc. Acid rain, public health, agricultural yield More intense rainfall, enhanced global warming

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

The German “Summer From Hell” That Never Came…Earlier Wild Forecasts Backfire

by P. Gosselin, July 29, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

Already as early as May 2025 predictions of a hellish record-breaking hot summer with possibly thousands of heat deaths were forecast – much of it based on the unusually dry and warm spring that had gripped much of Central Europe at the time. 

Hat-tip: Frank Bosse at Klimanachrichten

The online Frankfurter Rundschau printed a weather column by meteorologist Dominick Jung just over 2 weeks ago, on July 13, warning of a “looming, huge heat dome” for the rest of the summer over Central Europe.

German TWC meteorologist Jan Schenk had already made a prediction in Focus magazine on June 10, 2025: “According to this, we can expect extreme heat and drought in Germany, especially in July and August.”

Then came reality.

Just recently, even the climate-alarmism purveyor Der Spiegel had to concede that “it feels more like autumn.”

Plenty of rain has been falling, along with snow high in the Alps.

So what was behind all the ridiculous hellish-summer forecasts? Veteran Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann in an interview with the online Bild called all the constant exaggerations and distortion: “Symbols of an education problem with us.”

At the end of June, 2025, after having made ridiculous made predictions a year earlier in 2024, biologist Mark Benecke lectured again on climate and weather to an auditorium, showing such weather model maps:

…

…

climate-debate

Natural Disasters in 2024 – A Quarter Century Without Change

by L. Budyn, Aug 1, 2025 in SciClimEnergie

On this specific topic of natural disasters, the managers of the database we will be using here consider it reliable from the year 2000 onward.

We are therefore approaching the 30-year period that the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) defines as the minimum required to establish “climate normals”[1], used to define and analyze climate evolution. These reference periods allow current data to be compared with past averages and to identify long-term climate trends and changes.

In this case, the diagnosis seems inescapable : if the stability — or even the decline — in the frequency of natural disasters is confirmed, then the potential link between global warming and natural disasters would become a purely academic hypothesis. Interesting from a theoretical standpoint, but lacking any observable factual basis.

Yet this stands in stark contrast to what various international agencies — and their media spokespersons — have been claiming repeatedly over the past 25 years. They have not hesitated to speak of a “doubling”[2] or even a “fivefold increase”[3] in the number of natural disasters over this period, all of which, of course, is attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

How, then, will they reconcile the stability observed in the real world with the alarmism so often relayed in the media ?

We therefore await, with some curiosity, the ad hoc explanation that will justify, in this particular case, abandoning the 30-year reference period. Climate alarmists will need to explain why this criterion — endorsed by the WMO itself — would no longer reflect long-term climate trends, as it is intended to do.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

A case for ‘Climate Humility’: Analyzing the DOE’s ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate’

by A. Watts, July 31, 2025 in WUWT

Honestly, I never thought I’d see the day. To quote Mr. FOIA from ClimateGate, “A miracle has occurred.”

Yesterday’s release of the DOE’s A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate is a watershed moment in the ongoing debate over climate policy in America. Why? Because for the first time, a major U.S. government agency—on official letterhead and with a blue-ribbon cast of authors (John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer)—has published an open challenge to the central claims, data handling, and even the motivations behind mainstream climate science and policy.

This isn’t just another technical report. It is a systematic rebuke of accepted climate “wisdom,” and it does so with unusual clarity, scientific rigor, and (at times) a sense of humor often absent in climate documents. Most importantly, it directly confronts the exaggerated and politicized rhetoric that has dominated headlines for decades.

The Executive Summary from the DOE web page:

This report:

  • Reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other GHGs have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and metrics of societal well-being.
  • Assesses the near-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including enhanced plant growth and reduced ocean alkalinity.
  • Evaluates data and projections regarding long-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including estimates of future warming.
  • Finds that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.
  • Asserts that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.
  • Finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.

What Makes This Report Unique?

…

climate-debate

Judith Curry’s Take: New Climate Assessment Report from US DOE

by J. Curry, July 31, 2025 in WUWT

Climate science is baaaack

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has commissioned a new climate assessment report:

A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate 

From the Secretary’s Foreword:

What I’ve found is that media coverage often distorts the science. Many people—even well-meaning ones—walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete. To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States.

To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate. That’s why I’m inviting public comment on this report. Honest scrutiny and scientific transparency should be at the heart of our policymaking.

Climate Working Group (CWG)

These reports were authored by the DOE Climate Working Group (CWG).  Members of the Climate Working Group are: [link to biosketches ]

  • John Christy
  • Judith Curry
  • Steve Koonin
  • Ross McKitrick
  • Roy Spencer

The origins of the Group and rationale for selecting us are described in Secretary Wright’s Foreword:

To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States. I didn’t select these authors because we always agree—far from it. In fact, they may not always agree with each other. But I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I exerted no control over their conclusions. What you’ll read are their words, drawn from the best available data and scientific assessments.

—— Disclaimer:  the remainder of the text in this blog post reflects JC’s personal impressions/analysis and not that of the CWG.

…

climate-debate

Skeptics Win, Endangerment Finding Axed – Truth Finally Prevails in The Climate Wars

by A. Watts, July 29, 2025 in WUWT

Today is a monumental win for climate skeptics

Today’s decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding represents a pivotal shift in America’s approach to climate policy—one rooted in evidence, not ideology. For years, this “finding” has served as the legal justification for an array of costly, far-reaching regulations targeting everything from our nation’s power plants to the cars we drive and the energy bills we pay. Its removal is a direct response to mounting evidence that the basis for this rule was always more about speculative modeling and political maneuvering than sound science. Watch the announcement here:

…

…

…

climate-debate

The Warming Of 2023 Was Due To Natural Causes, Not Man-Made

by P. Gosselin, July 25, 2025 in NoTricksZone

We remember: by mid-2023, the data on global temperatures had shown a very marked increase. It had gotten warmer globally quite quickly, by an incredible 0.5°C compared to 2022. This led to a new record for the year being announced in 2024. The German public television Tagesschau (and many other media) did so in great detail.

The whole (climate) world asked about the cause. The Tagesschau correctly concluded that the (rather mediocre) El Nino could only make a very small contribution in the second half of 2023. Looking at the temporal change, the rise in global temperatures occurred simultaneously with the El Nino rise in ocean temperatures in the tropical East Pacific (an area called “Nino 3.4”) and that was already an indication that this could not be where the problem is: The lag is usually 3 months for global temperatures to follow Nino 3,4. Causality would have been violated.

It was already apparent in January 2022 that something was up. A volcano called Honga-Tunga-Honga erupted. It is an underwater volcano and large masses of water were hurled into the stratosphere. Here is a satellite image of it.

It has long been known that stratospheric water vapor causes temperatures on the ground to rise globally. But a volcano like this is a natural event, the warming effect is then added “on top” of the greenhouse gas effect. However, the “bump” itself was not man-made. Unfortunately, the news report did not mention this at all.

Every “impulse” that affects global temperatures (including land volcanoes such as the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991, which had a cooling effect due to many aerosols in the stratosphere) does so with some delay. The climate effect builds up slowly in the atmosphere and the thermal inertia of the Earth system as a whole does the rest.

Consequently, studies such as this one appeared at the beginning of 2023, which predicted a temporary warming of more than the “famous” 1.5°K deviation from pre-industrial values.

According to the Tagesschau, this is exactly what happened: “2024 was also the first calendar year to be 1.6 degrees warmer globally than pre-industrial levels from 1850 to 1900.”

…

The values are extrapolated to the end of July 2025, this month is estimated using a model, 7 days before its end.

The volcano in question occurred at the end of January 2022. Not much happened until around May 2023. Then, however, the “impulse response” of the climate system probably took place: in September 2023, an additional warming of 0.58 °C was detected compared to the average for 2022. The entire year 2024 saw an increased level of 0.39°C compared to 2022. This can NOT be explained by the gradual increase in forcing by greenhouse gases etc.!

Between 1980 and 2020 there was a warming of 0.018 °C/year, now it should suddenly be a factor of 10 in the years 2022-2024? That was always completely unlikely!

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Old carbon routed from land to the atmosphere by global river systems

by J.F. Dean et al., June 4, 2025 in Nature

Abstract

Rivers and streams are an important pathway in the global carbon cycle, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from their water surfaces to the atmosphere1,2. Until now, CO2 and CH4 emitted from rivers were thought to be predominantly derived from recent (sub-decadal) biomass production and, thus, part of ecosystem respiration3,4,5,6. Here we combine new and published measurements to create a global database of the radiocarbon content of river dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), CO2 and CH4. Isotopic mass balance of our database suggests that 59 ± 17% of global river CO2 emissions are derived from old carbon (millennial or older), the release of which is linked to river catchment lithology and biome. This previously unrecognized release of old, pre-industrial-aged carbon to the atmosphere from long-term soil, sediment and geologic carbon stores through lateral hydrological routing equates to 1.2 ± 0.3 Pg C year−1, similar in magnitude to terrestrial net ecosystem exchange. A consequence of this flux is a greater than expected net loss of carbon from aged organic matter stores on land. This requires a reassessment of the fate of anthropogenic carbon in terrestrial systems and in global carbon cycle budgets and models.

…

better to know...?

Study finds Southern Ocean’s surface is becoming saltier and losing sea ice, not experiencing an ‘ocean current reversal’

by ScienceFeedback, July, 2025

KEY TAKEAWAY

Recent articles and social media posts inaccurately summarized findings from a June 2025 PNAS paper by claiming that a ‘major current in the Southern Ocean has reversed’. In reality, the PNAS paper does not mention any ‘ocean current reversal’. Instead, the paper mentions a ‘reversal’ of a decades-long trend: the Southern Ocean’s surface is now becoming saltier, instead of ‘fresher’. A saltier ocean surface can speed up the melting of Antarctic sea ice – floating ice which surrounds Antarctica – by drawing heat in the ocean upward toward the ice. This trend surprised scientists in the study, given that prior observations show the Southern Ocean’s surface becoming fresher (less salty) since the 1980s.

…

…

Figure 1 – Plot showing that sea ice began retreating around 2015 when the Southern Ocean’s surface became saltier, as shown by the red line representing sea surface salinity (SSS) anomalies obtained via satellite. Source: Silvano et al. (2025)[1]

…

climate-debate

Climate Oscillations 9: Arctic & North Atlantic Oscillations

by A. May, July 18, 2025 in WUWT

ow) but they are not the same. The NAO is usually measured using the SLP (sea level air pressure) difference between the Azores or the Iberian Peninsula and Iceland and is a North Atlantic regional phenomenon, whereas the Arctic Oscillation is the SLP difference between the northern mid-latitudes and the Arctic, and is evident in all longitudes (Thompson & Wallace, 2001). The AO accounts for more of the variance in Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature than the NAO and is tightly connected to the stratospheric polar vortex (Higgins, et al., 2000) and (Thompson & Wallace, 1998). We will discuss these oscillations together in this post.

The Arctic Oscillation

…

pollution-contamination

25 years, 1 coastline report card: The shocking wins and misses

by University of Plymouth, July 16, 2025

Summary

Twenty-five years after first warning that oil spills would wane while invasive species and climate impacts would surge, an international team revisits its coastal forecasts and finds many bull’s-eyes, alongside surprising misses. Plastic pollution, ocean acidification, and sensory pollution have risen faster than imagined, even as strong treaties curbed chemicals like TBT. The scientists argue that shorelines remain “sentinels” for the global ocean and urge a blend of local action and sweeping accords such as a Global Plastics Treaty to keep future surprises in check.
…

At the dawn of the millennium, a group of eminent scientists began compiling a list of the threats they felt were most likely to impact the world’s rocky shorelines over the coming quarter of a century.

Published in 2002, it included forecasts that – among other things – pollution from oil spills would decrease, the number of invasive species across the world would rise, genetically-modified organisms would have harmful effects on the ocean, and the impacts of global climate change would be felt more intensely.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Most Americans Still Aren’t Buying Climate Hysteria

by D. Harsanyl, July 16, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Climate alarmism hasn’t worked. Here’s why the public tuned it out.

The public awareness campaign to convince Americans that climate change is an existential threat has been an epic failure. [emphasis, links added]

In a recent segment, “Are Americans Afraid of Climate Change?” CNN’s Harry Enten incredulously noted that despite all “the bad weather” we’ve been seeing, only “40% of Americans are greatly worried about climate change. The same as in 2000!”

Why are climate activists losing?

Sooner or later, fearmongering becomes noise. Reality crashes against predictions.

Public schools, institutions of higher learning, governments, international organizations, the whole culture, and scientific institutions have spent billions and untold hours trying to normalize the idea that modernity and capitalistic gluttony have driven temperatures to dangerous extremes.

When I was growing up, it was cooling. Now, it’s warming. And with each surge of alarmism, the message depreciates.

…

La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse