Archives mensuelles : octobre 2025

better to know...?, climate-debate

Sea Level Rise Hoax Exposed: The Disappearing Islands That Refuse To Disappear

by P. Gosselin, Oct 4, 2025 in NoTricksZone

Germany’s Klimanachrichten here publishes an article titled “The Disappearing Islands (That Don’t Want to Disappear)” summarizes findings suggesting that the widespread assumption about low-lying islands inevitably sinking due to rising sea levels is too simplistic and detached from reality.

Earlier, the media often tried to scoff at and discredit findings from inconvenient sea level experts, like Axel Mörner:

Undeniable science: Mörner et all, 2011

But today, climate alarmist media are forced to concede things are not as dire as they once believed.

74 of 101 islands are growing

…

climate-debate

The Guardian Is Wrong: Cities Are Hotter Because of the UHI Effect, Not Increased CO₂

by A. Watts, Oct 6, 2025 in WUWT

In The Guardian’s op-ed, “World’s major cities hit by 25% leap in extremely hot days since the 1990s,”asserts that global warming has caused a sharp rise in the number of extremely hot days in cities worldwide, citing an International Institute for Environment and Development analysis that claims urban residents from London to Tokyo now experience 25 percent more hot days each year than they did in the 1990s. The claims are highly misleading if not outright false. While cities worldwide have in fact gotten warmer, carbon dioxide increases from the burning fossil fuels are not to blame, rather data strongly suggests that the significant rise in measured temperatures in and around major cities is Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect in response to population growth and development.

The article quotes scientists as saying, “Global heating caused by fossil fuel burning is making every heatwave more intense and more likely. Extreme heat is likely to have caused the early death of millions of people over the past three decades, with elderly and poor people in fast-growing cities most deeply affected.”

One telling moment comes in The Guardian article itself, where researchers concede that “failing to adapt will condemn millions of city dwellers to increasingly uncomfortable and even dangerous conditions because of the urban heat island effect.” Precisely. It is the UHI effect, not CO₂, that drives the city heat trends.

The Guardian’s narrative collapses under scrutiny, because it ignores the UHI effect. Cities are not thermometers for the planet. They are microclimates dominated by concrete, asphalt, and glass which trap heat and bias local temperature readings upward. Peer-reviewed research by John Christy, Ph.D. and Roy Spencer, Ph.D., published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology shows that urbanization is a major driver of observed warming at city weather stations. Their research found that UHI contributed to 22 percent of the raw observed warming trend on average, and up to 65 percent at suburban and urban stations. When examining rural stations, the effect nearly vanishes. This demonstrates that much of the increase in urban temperatures is the UHI, not global climate change. This is vividly illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 below.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Mid-Holocene South China Sea Level 2-3 Meters Higher Than Today Due To 1-2°C Warmer Temps

by K. Richard, Sep 30, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

The mechanisms driving the meters-higher sea levels a few thousand years ago do not support claims that CO2 is a driver.

A comprehensive analysis (Zhang et al., 2025) of the South China Sea region indicates warmer sea water was fundamentally responsible for sea levels that were, on average, 2-3 meters higher (and in some regions as much as 5-7 meters higher) than today from approximately 7000 to 4000 years ago.

“Understanding Holocene high sea levels in the South China Sea (SCS) is critical for understanding climate change and assessing future sea-level rise risks. We provide a comprehensive review of the Holocene highstand in the SCS, focusing on its age, height, and mechanisms. Records reveal a wide range for this highstand: ages span 3480–7500 cal yr BP, while elevations range from −7.40 to 7.53 m relative to the present. Positive elevations dominate (80.5% of records), with the most frequent range being 2–3 m.”

“…the Holocene high sea level in this region occurred between 7200 and 5000 yr BP…at least 2.9-3.8 m higher than today.”

…

climate-debate

New Study Attributes Arctic Sea Ice Decline – And ‘Slowdown’ Since 2012 -To Internal Variability

by K. Richard, Oct 2, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

“Observations show no significant decline in Arctic sea ice concentration (SIC) since 2012…revealing a negligible trend of -0.4% per decade…” – Wang et al., 2025

Scientists are now acknowledging the sharply declining trend in Arctic sea ice from the mid-1990s to 2010s (-11.3% per decade), as well as the “negligible” or flat trend since 2012 (-0.4% per decade) are both “closely coupled” with natural decadal-scale variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscilliation, and “enhanced summertime radiation balance associated with an anticyclonic atmospheric circulation pattern.”

In other words, instead of a linear decline in Arctic sea ice coupled with rising greenhouse gas emissions, it is claimed that “approximately half” of the observed Arctic sea ice decline in the modern era can be attributed to internal variability.

The authors of this new study published in Nature Communications further suggest the flattened trend or “slowdown” in sea ice decline will likely persist for the next 10 to 15 years. Consequently, alarmist predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic in the coming decades will have to be put on hold until after the 2030s.

energy and fields

Place Your Bet on the Future of Energy: U.S. Or China

by F. Menton, Oct 1, 2025 in WUWT

The first eight months of the second Trump administration have seen a sea change in energy policy. Previously, under Biden, the federal government had undertaken a blowout of hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies and incentives for so-called “renewable” energy sources, while simultaneously implementing dozens of regulations and restrictions to suppress the production and use of fossil fuels. President Trump has now reversed all of that.

However, please take note of an important distinction: although Trump and Congress have zeroed out nearly all subsidies and tax credits for wind and solar generation and for grid-scale batteries, they have not enacted comparable subsidies and incentives for fossil fuels. Instead, all sources of energy production now must stand or fall without subsidies, based on their ability to fulfill customer demand and to generate profit. All sources of energy are now on equal footing, and without subsidies.

Meanwhile, over in China, billions of dollars in subsidies have flowed for many years into developing the ability to produce the infrastructure for a wind/solar/storage energy system — things like polysilicon, solar panels, solar cells, wind turbine blades, wind turbine nacelles, and battery cells. As a result, China has become completely dominant in the world in manufacturing these and many related items.

So who is making the better energy bet?

For one possible answer to that question, here is a Wall Street Journal piece from September 21(probably behind pay wall). You get a clear idea where they are going from the headline, “The U.S. Is Forfeiting the Clean-Energy Race to China.”

In the vision of the authors of the piece (David Uberti, Ed Ballard, and Brian Spengele), there is an international race under way for dominance in “clean energy,” and the United States is in the process of losing it. The problem is that the U.S. is failing to put up the necessary government subsidies for “clean energy” to vie for the lead. Excerpt:

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

The Amazon’s “CO₂ Problem”? Turns Out the Trees Love It – So Does the Media

by A. Watts, Oct 1, 2025 in WUWT

For decades, we’ve been warned that the Amazon rainforest—the so-called “lungs of the planet”—was on the verge of collapse. Headlines screamed about tipping points, mass die-offs of giant trees, and irreversible climate catastrophe. Yet, buried in the data, something rather inconvenient has been happening: the Amazon is getting bigger, fatter, and taller.

A new Nature Plants study, covering 30 years of field data from 188 permanent forest plots across Amazonia, shows that the average size of Amazon trees has increased by more than 3% per decade . In plain English: the forest isn’t shrinking in stature, it’s bulking up.

The researchers found:

  • Mean tree size up 3.3% per decade
  • Largest trees (>40 cm diameter) increased 6.6% per decade
  • Biomass increasingly concentrated in the biggest trees
  • No evidence of large-scale die-off from climate stress

In their words:

“We find that tree size has been increasing across all size classes… The observed patterns match the expectations from increased resource availability, particularly from rising atmospheric CO₂.”

So much for the “large trees are doomed” hypothesis.

…

…

My Final Thoughts

The real takeaway is this:

  • Rising CO₂ is not just a “pollutant”—it is also a powerful plant fertilizer.
  • Amazonian forests are currently benefitting, not suffering, from this change.
  • Predictions of imminent collapse have once again run headlong into inconvenient data.

When climate modelers assure us that “the science is settled,” it’s worth recalling just how often field data overturns the narrative. The Amazon was supposed to be collapsing. Instead, its trees are thriving.

That doesn’t sell headlines or funding proposals, but it’s what the evidence shows.

So, next time someone calls CO₂ “pollution,” remind them: without it, plants—and by extension, we—wouldn’t exist. And with a bit more of it, the world’s largest rainforest seems to be doing just fine.