Tech Giants quietly drop renewables and sign pledge to triple Nuclear Power

by Jo Nova, Mar 14, 2025


Renewables are so over

Just like that — the renewables bubble went phht.

After twenty years of hailing wind and solar, suddenly the world’s tech giants are cheering for nuclear power. Worse —  they don’t even mention the words carbon, low emissions or CO2. The new buzzwords are “safe, clean and firm“. They talk about needing energy “round the clock”, and they talk about “energy resilience” — but they don’t saynuclear is “low emissions”. It’s like they want everyone to forget their activism. Did someone say something about climate change?

Meta, Amazon, and Google have flipped like a school of barracuda. Five minutes ago, life on Earth depended on achieving Net-Zero with fleets of wind farms in the sunset, now, they just want energy and lots of it. The big tech fish and their friends have signed a Large Energy Users Pledge admitting that the demand for energy is rising rapidly, that nuclear should triple by 2050 and that large energy users depend on the availability of abundant cheap energy (Small energy users too,  Mr Bezos-Zuckerburg-Pichai.) The closest they come to hinting at the ghost of renewables is when they say they want energy that’s not dependent on “the weather, the season, or the geographical location”.

There’s no “Sorry we got it wrong”. There’s no apology for hectoring us, censoring us, or wasting billions of dollars. It’s just Mr Don’t-Look-Over-Here telling us what most engineers knew for 30 years. This is the billionaire club asking the taxpayers to build them more nuclear plants.

Signatories include Siemens Energy, which suffered a 36% share price fall 18 months ago when it admitted it was losing billions trying to maintain wind turbines.


 

New Study Identifies A Millennial-Scale ‘Striking’ Link Between Solar Forcing And Climate Patterns

by K. Richard, Mar 13, 2025 in NoTricksZone 


“Until now, the origin of the climate dynamics of the Central Andes during the last millennium has been speculative. On the basis of statistical evidence, we have identified solar variability as its origin.” – Schittek et al., 2025

In a new study, scientists have determined:

1) The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a global-scale cold event.

2) Southern Hemisphere (Peruvian Andes) climate (precipitation) variations are robustly linked to variations in solar activity over the last 1,000 years.

3) The modern (1900s-2000s) and Medieval Climate Anomaly climate warmth are associated with reduced rainfall, and the LIA colder temperatures are associated with more precipitation.

“…the LIA was a global event, marked by advance of glaciers worldwide.”

“Solar irradiation is the primary driver for all climate circulation processes on Earth. Evidence for a direct solar influence on the Earth’s climate has been growing.”

“Our study reveals evidence that precipitation changes in the south-eastern Peruvian Andes are linked to variations in solar activity during the LIA [Little Ice Age].”

“Several studies attribute climate cooling during the LIA to solar forcing, particularly during the Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton Minima.”

“The position of the ITCZ [Intertropical Convergence Zone] is robustly dependent on the interhemispheric temperature gradient triggered by solar forcing.”

Open peer review: State of the Climate 2024

by O. Humlum, Mar 14, 2025 in GWPF


We are keen to receive review comments for our new draft paper which is now available for open peer review here.

Ole Humlum: State of the Climate 2024

This report on the state of the climate in 2024 has its focus on observations, and not on output from numerical models. The observed data series presented here reveals a vast number of natural variations. The existence of such natural climatic variations is not always fully acknowledged, and therefore often not considered in contemporary climate conversations.

Global average surface air temperature for 2024 was the highest on record for all databases considered in this report. The years 2023 and 2024 were both affected by a warm El Niño episode. Towards the end of 2024 the most recent El Niño episode declined. 

Submitted comments and contributions will be subject to a moderation process and will be published, provided they are substantive and not abusive.

Review comments should be emailed to: harry.wilkinson@thegwpf.org.

The deadline for review comments is 4 April 2025.

CERAWEEK IEA chief sees need for investments in existing oil, gas fields

by T. Gardner, Mar 10, 2025 in Reuters

HOUSTON, March 10 (Reuters) – Fatih Birol, the director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, said on Monday there is a need for investment in oil and gas fields to support global energy security.
The comment puts the energy watchdog for industrialized nations more in line with President Donald Trump’s pro-drilling agenda, after it came under pressure from fossil fuel advocates years ago for proposing an end to new oil and gas projects.
“I want to make it clear … there would be a need for investment, especially to address the decline in the existing fields,” he said at the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston. “There is a need for oil and gas upstream investments, full stop,” he said.
Birol has been under pressure from Trump’s administration and from the president’s fellow Republicans in Congress for the IEA’s shift in recent years toward a focus on clean energy policy.
In 2021, the IEA said companies should not invest, opens new tab in new coal, oil and gas projects if the international community wants to reach net zero emissions by mid-century to fight climate change. Countering global warming was a key priority for the administration of former President Joe Biden.

Climate Crusader SLAPPed: Michael Mann Sanctioned For ‘Extraordinary’ Misconduct

by R. Bryce, Mar 13,2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 


My, oh my, how the worm has turned.

Thirteen months ago, in the op-ed pages of the New York Times, University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann and his lawyer, Peter J. Fontaine, were crowing about their victory in federal court a few days earlier. [emphasis, links added]

They were thrilled that a jury in Washington, DC, had decided that the defendants in the case, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, had defamed Mann.

The jury awarded the combative academic one dollar in compensatory damages from Simberg and Steyn. It also awarded Mann punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn.

Mann claimed the jury’s decision was “a victory for science and it’s a victory for scientists.

In their February 15, 2024, op-ed, Mann and Fontaine said, “We hope this sends a broader message that defamatory attacks on scientists go beyond the bounds of protected speech and have consequences… However, we lament the time lost to this battle. This case is part of a larger culture war in which research is distorted and the truth about the climate threat is dissembled.”

Yes, well.

As reported here on Substack by Roger Pielke Jr., a federal court in Washington, DC, ruled yesterday that Mann and his lawyers acted in “bad faith” and “made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding.”

Temperature rising

by Nature Geoscience, Mar 12, 2025


A record-breaking start to 2025 extends the recent period of exceptional warmth and raises questions over the rate of ongoing climate change.

This January saw global mean surface temperature reach 1.75 °C above the preindustrial climate1. The unprecedented heat continues a period of warmth beginning in 2023 that has seen records repeatedly broken. The surge in temperature back in 2023 was in part expected due to the combination of human driven climate change and the onset of El Niño — which is characterized by higher global temperatures. However, the magnitude of the jump was surprising2 and many climate scientists expected temperatures to fall somewhat as El Niño came to an end in the second half of 2024. The continued record temperatures are puzzling and raise questions as to whether it is natural variability or an acceleration in anthropogenic warming. Quantifying the causes and impacts of the recent warmth could reveal important insights into our future.

A third, potentially more concerning explanation for the drop in cloud cover is an emerging low-cloud feedback, whereby low cloud cover decreases with rising temperature, which further intensifies warming5. How clouds respond to warming remains one of the biggest uncertainties in understanding the climate response to carbon dioxide emissions. A strong low-cloud feedback could lead to more future warming than currently anticipated.

Pinning down the contributing factors to the recent exceptional warmth could prove invaluable for constraining our future trajectory. In particular, we need to clarify what has driven the observed changes in cloud cover. As records continue to fall, now more than ever, it is essential we understand the complex interplay between greenhouse gas driven warming and short-term climate variability.

Guardian Falsely Claims Climate Change is Intensifying Cyclones

by E. Worall, Mar 13, 2025 in WUWT


Are climate modellers putting the effect before the cause when it comes to long term cyclone frequency and intensity vs surface temperature? Because there is a very simple possible explanation for why atmospheric and ocean surface temperature is rising but cyclone frequency and intensity are decreasing – cyclone frequency and intensity likely have an inverse relationship with ocean surface and atmospheric heat content. Cyclones are powerful dissipators of surface heat, an uptick in cyclones would cause an immediate and sustained drop in surface temperature.

Bonus points for anyone who has a good theory for what causes more cyclones – I mean a theory which doesn’t contradict observations.

Daily carbon dioxide crosses 430 ppm

by Arctic News, Mar 8, 2025


The above image illustrates the threat of a huge temperature rise. The red trendline warns that the temperature could increase at a terrifying speed soon.

The global surface air temperature was 13.87°C on March 8, 2025, the highest temperature on record for this day. This is the more remarkable since this record high temperature was reached during a La Niña.

The shading in the image highlights the difference between El Niño conditions (pink shading) and La Niña conditions (blue shading). An El Niño pushes up temperatures, whereas La Niña suppresses temperatures. We’re currently in a La Niña, so temperatures are suppressed, but this is predicted to end soon. NOAA predicts a transition away from La Niña to occur next month.

The transition from La Niña to El Niño is only one out of ten mechanisms that could jointly cause the temperature rise to accelerate dramatically in a matter of months, as described in a previous post. Another one of these mechanisms is the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Antarctica Ice Growing Across Large Areas for at Least 85 Years, Aerial Photos Show

by C. Morrison, Mar 12, 2025 in WUWT


Sensational new discoveries arising from long-forgotten early aerial photographs indicate that ice has remained stable and even grown slightly since the 1930s over a 2,000 km stretch of East Antarctica. In a recent paper published in Nature Communications, researchers from the University of Copenhagen came to their conclusions by tracking glacial movement in an area with as much ice as the Greenland ice sheet. The findings are unlikely to feature in narrative-driven mainstream media. The silence will probably replicate the response to another recent paper that found the ice shelves surrounding Antarctica grew in overall size from 2009-2019.

The Copenhagen scientists examined hundreds of old aerial photographs taken for mapping work in 1937. The images were supplemented with a number of photographs taken in the 1950s and 1974 of the same area and a 3D computer reconstruction was produced. This allowed the researchers to examine the evolution of glaciers over a significant time period. In order to determine if recent trends exceed the scale of natural variability, long-term observations are said to be vital.

“Compared to modern data, the ice flow speeds are unchanged. While some glaciers have thinned over shorter intermediate periods of 10-20 years, they have remained stable or grown slightly in the long term, indicating a system in balance,” it was noted.

Actual long-term scientific observations will always beat media-friendly computer-modelled pseudoscientific opinions and alarm drummed up by short-term outliers. The authors note that using data from historical sources such as early photographs provides extensive coverage across large areas with detailed temporal and three-dimensional information. Geological evidence covers longer time scales with temporal uncertainties of thousands of years, while estimates from ice cores are generally very local and spatially confined. In Antarctica, it is pointed out, the scarcity of historical climate data makes climate reanalysis estimates before 1970 “largely uncertain”, while “observed trends cannot clearly be distinguished from natural variability”. Not that this stops mainstream activists such as Clive Cookson at the Financial Times who reacted to a recent two-year downward spike in Antarctica sea ice with the suggestion that the area faced a “catastrophic cascade of extreme environmental events… that will affect the climate around the world”.

Of course a “system in balance” is the last thing a Net Zero-obsessed mainstream wants to hear about. The Antarctica Circumpolar Current is the strongest flow of water on the planet and on March 4th the BBC brought news that it was “at risk of failing”. New research is said to suggest that the current will be 20% slower within 25 years “as the world warms, with far reaching consequences for life on Earth”.

Medieval Warm Period Undeniable, Pronounced In Antarctica And Poland, 2 New Studies Show

by P. Gosselin, Mar 9, 2025 in NoTricksZone 


Natural cycles drive our climate

The latest video by the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) looks at CO2 and the troublesome Medieval Warm Period, which has long been a thorn for climate alarmists.

Hat-tip: Klimanachrichten

The Medieval Warm Period, the natural warm phase between 700 and 1300 AD, cannot be reproduced climate models because the simulations react primarily to CO2. Back then CO2 was not a factor because its concentration level in the atmosphere was pretty much constant. That’s why people would rather keep the Medieval Warm Period quiet.

But the facts speak for themselves. Two studies now add further pieces to our knowledge of the medieval climate.

Antarctica

In October 2023, a paper by a team of researchers led by Zhangqin Zheng from the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei was published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews. It deals with historical changes in the Adélie penguin population in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica and their climatic influences.

These natural processes are still taking place today and have by no means ended with the start of the CO2 increase.

Poland

The other study comes from Poland. The research group led by Rajmund Przybylak from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland, published their work in the journal “Climate of the Past” in November 2023. The article presents current findings on climate change in Poland for the period from 1000 to 1500 AD. This period also includes the Medieval Warm Period. The scientists first studied all available quantitative climate reconstructions that have been produced for Poland in the last two decades. They also produced four new reconstructions using three dendrochronological series and an extensive database of historical source data on weather conditions. The growth of conifers in the lowlands and mountains of Poland depends on the temperatures in the cold season, especially in February and March. All available reconstructions based on dendrochronological data refer to this time of the year. Summer temperatures were reconstructed using biological proxies and documentary evidence. However, the latter are limited to the 15th century. The winter temperature was used as a proxy for the annual temperature proxies, instead of the usual use of the summer temperature.

The Medieval Warm Period probably occurred in Poland from the late 12th century to the first half of the 14th or 15th century. All analyzed quantitative reconstructions indicate that the Medieval Warm Period in Poland was comparable or even warmer than the average temperature in the period 1951-2000.

Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Wind And Solar Are Far Costlier Than Coal, Natural Gas

by J. Taylor, Mar 4, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Renewable power advocates often claim wind and solar are less expensive energy sources than coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. [emphasis, links added]

Such a claim begs the question of why the heavily subsidized Ivanpah solar power facility is going out of business, following a long line of other renewable energy project bankruptcies.

Also, why would most of the world continue to build coal power plants if it is more expensive than wind and solar? The answer is wind and solar are expensive, financial losers. A recent peer-reviewed analysis proves that point.

A recent study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy, reports on the full-system levelized cost of electricity generation. The term “full system” is key.

Many entities have assessed what it costs utilities to purchase or produce electricity from existing sources and deliver it to customers.

These cost assessments, however, ignore the intermittency of wind and solar and how intermittency adds substantial costs to the entire electric grid.

The cost assessments also fail to account for how wind and solar projects cannot be built just anywhere and often require new, long, expensive, and inefficient transformation lines to deliver power from the generation locations to consumers. This also adds substantial costs to the overall electric grid.

The peer-reviewed Energy study analyzes these factors and presents an apples-to-apples cost comparison of the full-system cost of wind, solar, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.

The verdict is devastating to wind and solar power and explains why most of the world prefers to build coal and natural gas power plants.

Climate Doomsday Predictions That Flopped Spectacularly

by A. Stiles, Mar 7, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch


10 catastrophic climate forecasts that failed.

It’s been almost six years since the delinquent child activist Greta Thunberg promoted a so-called scientist’s warning that “climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels” by 2023. [emphasis, links added]

The scientist in question, Harvard University professor James Anderson, also predicted “there will be no floating ice remaining” in the Arctic Ocean by 2022 absent a “Marshall Plan-style endeavor in which all of the world takes extreme measures to to transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years.”

That didn’t happen, but climate activists are still warning that the Arctic could be ice-free at some point between 2035 and 2067.

Not surprisingly, there is a long history—dating back to the 1970s—of so-called climate scientists and government bureaucrats making catastrophic predictions about the environment that never materialized.

Here are 10 of the most egregious examples. Enjoy!

1) In 1970, S. Dillon Ripley, a wildlife conservationist who served as secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, warned that 75 percent to 80 percent of species would be extinct by 1995.Wrong.

2) In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist and professor at the University of California, Davis, warned that “there won’t be any more crude oil,” that “none of our land will be usable” for agriculture, and the world would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. False.

3) In 1970, biologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University warned that by the end of the decade up to 200 million people would die each year from starvation due to overpopulation, life expectancy would plummet to 42 years, and all ocean life would perish. Extremely false.

4) In 1970, Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, predicted that “world population will outrun food supplies” and “the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine” by the year 2000. Didn’t happen.

5) In 1971, Dr. S. I. Rasool, an atmospheric scientist at NASA, predicted the coming of a “new ice age” within 50 years. Incorrect.

6) In 1975, Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, warned that 90 percent of tropical rainforests and 50 percent of species would disappear within 30 years. Erroneous. 

7) In 1988, Hussein Shihab, environmental affairs director of the Maldives, warned that his island nation would be completely underwater within 30 years, which wouldn’t even matter because experts also predicted the Maldives would run out of drinking water by 1992. False.

8) In 2004, a Pentagon analysis warned of global anarchy due to climate change. Major European cities would be underwater by 2020, at which point Britain would suffer from a “Siberian” climate. Extremely false.

9) In 2008, Bob Woodruff of ABC News hosted a two-hour climate change special warning that New York City could be underwater by 2015, among other apocalyptic predictions. Didn’t happen.

10) In 2009, former vice president and climate activist Al Gore predicted the Arctic Ocean would have no ice by 2014, which is the same thing Greta Thunberg said would happen by 2022. Nope

Global Weirding, which one?/Le dérèglement climatique lequel?

par A. Préat, March 8, 2025 in ScienceClimatEnergie


Scotese et al. (2021) have published a remarkable study of the evolution of terrestrial temperatures over the last 540 million years (Ma), i.e. the whole of Phanerozoic time (the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary was set in August 2023 at 538.8 Ma (± 0.2 Ma) based on international chronostratigraphic rules).

It is not possible to discuss this very complete and richly illustrated 127-page article. This article, which is little known outside the sphere of geologists, deserves the attention of a wide audience, because it shows what we have already reported here at SCE (e.g. SCE, 2021), namely that temperature has always fluctuated on Earth (SCE, 2023), that the notion of a ‘regulated or deregulated’ climate is meaningless, and that on the contrary, temperature fluctuations are the rule, often with very large amplitudes (much larger than the current ones), as was the case during the Pleistocene (SCE, 2020). Finally, it is important to note that the current temperature is one of the lowest in the Earth’s Phanerozoic history.

As mentioned above, there is no question of discussing this dense article. Interested readers can read it and see for themselves the methodology, the arguments for interpretation and the conclusions.

I will give here the summary of this article with the three most important synthetic graphs (Figures 1, 2 and 3) showing the evolution of temperature during the Phanerozoic. I then merged the three graphs to present a global view from the Cambrian to the present day (Figure 4). I have also considered a fourth figure (= Figure 5 here) by the authors, which highlights the major geological periods affected by these fluctuations.

Nor is there any question here of discussing the notion of global average temperature, which is even more delicate when it comes to ancient times. This notion has been discussed several times in SCE articles (here, here and here).

In conclusion, yes, temperature varies on different timescales, even short ones, as shown by the Pleistocene. For most periods, variations are also the rule, and future research will clarify the frequencies as temporal precision improves. Let’s not forget that geologists have to ‘fight’ with time scales that are constantly being improved, as temporal resolution becomes increasingly poor or unsatisfactory with the age of the series: today, one year is quickly identified in recent fluctuations, then tens or hundreds of years in the Pleistocene, then tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of years for the oldest series, for which short cycles are difficult to identify, although they certainly existed. As the saying goes: ‘short-term cyclicity is drowned out by background noise’…. and many proxies have been ‘erased’, i.e. lost.  However, thanks to the many new proxies now available and the use of appropriate mathematical processes (Fourier series, etc.), the situation is improving significantly.

Scotese et al (2021) discuss the origin of temperature fluctuations on different scales (long term >50 Ma, medium term 10-20 Ma, short term <10 Ma) and identify 24 chrono-periods (or ‘warm and cold intervals’). Among the (very) many parameters involved, the authors give priority to atmospheric CO2 content in certain intervals (particularly for the current period) as the major factor driving temperature. As is often mentioned in SCE, this factor, if it comes into play, can only be negligible. Once again, the aim here is to present curves that show that a regulated climate is meaningless, rather than a specific discussion of CO2. It should be noted that other authors, as highlighted in the article by Scotese et al (2021), report greater amplitudes of temperature variation (especially based on oxygen isotopes), but the general pattern remains the same.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion is simple:
There is no climate ‘change’dsiruption’, fluctuation is the rule. Geology is explicit on this point… However, despite this obvious fact, not a day goes by when the media, a politician or even a scientist talks to us about climate change.
Let’s remain objective and honest and not spread nonsense.
There’s no need for alarmism, as we’re a long way from any hot episode the Earth has ever experienced. Based on IPCC data, the authors estimate that the Earth’s global mean temperature will be between 16.5°C and 19.5°C after the current warming, meaning that the Earth will never be as warm as it was during the very warm periods it experienced. The ‘cold’ (geological scale) Late Eocene – Miocene interval is the one that seems to correspond best to the future situation.

La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse