Tous les articles par Alain Préat

Full-time professor at the Free University of Brussels, Belgium apreat@gmail.com apreat@ulb.ac.be • Department of Earth Sciences and Environment Res. Grp. - Biogeochemistry & Modeling of the Earth System Sedimentology & Basin Analysis • Alumnus, Collège des Alumni, Académie Royale de Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux Arts de Belgique (mars 2013). http://www.academieroyale.be/cgi?usr=2a8crwkksq&lg=fr&pag=858&rec=0&frm=0&par=aybabtu&id=4471&flux=8365323 • Prof. Invited, Université de Mons-Hainaut (2010-present-day) • Prof. Coordinator and invited to the Royal Academy of Sciences of Belgium (Belgian College) (2009- present day) • Prof. partim to the DEA (third cycle) led by the University of Lille (9 universities from 1999 to 2004) - Prof. partim at the University of Paris-Sud/Orsay, European-Socrates Agreement (1995-1998) • Prof. partim at the University of Louvain, Convention ULB-UCL (1993-2000) • Since 2015 : Member of Comité éditorial de la Revue Géologie de la France http://geolfrance.brgm.fr • Since 2014 : Regular author of texts for ‘la Revue Science et Pseudosciences’ http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/ • Many field works (several weeks to 2 months) (Meso- and Paleozoic carbonates, Paleo- to Neoproterozoic carbonates) in Europe, USA (Nevada), Papouasia (Holocene), North Africa (Algeria, Morrocco, Tunisia), West Africa (Gabon, DRC, Congo-Brazzaville, South Africa, Angola), Iraq... Recently : field works (3 to 5 weeks) Congo- Brazzaville 2012, 2015, 2016 (carbonate Neoproterozoic). Degree in geological sciences at the Free University of Brussels (ULB) in 1974, I went to Algeria for two years teaching mining geology at the University of Constantine. Back in Belgium I worked for two years as an expert for the EEC (European Commission), first on the prospecting of Pb and Zn in carbonate environments, then the uranium exploration in Belgium. Then Assistant at ULB, Department of Geology I got the degree of Doctor of Sciences (Geology) in 1985. My thesis, devoted to the study of the Devonian carbonate sedimentology of northern France and southern Belgium, comprised a significant portion of field work whose interpretation and synthesis conducted to the establishment of model of carbonate platforms and ramps with reefal constructions. I then worked for Petrofina SA and shared a little more than two years in Angola as Director of the Research Laboratory of this oil company. The lab included 22 people (micropaleontology, sedimentology, petrophysics). My main activity was to interpret facies reservoirs from drillings in the Cretaceous, sometimes in the Tertiary. I carried out many studies for oil companies operating in this country. I returned to the ULB in 1988 as First Assistant and was appointed Professor in 1990. I carried out various missions for mining companies in Belgium and oil companies abroad and continued research, particularly through projects of the Scientific Research National Funds (FNRS). My research still concerns sedimentology, geochemistry and diagenesis of carbonate rocks which leads me to travel many countries in Europe or outside Europe, North Africa, Papua New Guinea and the USA, to conduct field missions. Since the late 90's, I expanded my field of research in addressing the problem of mass extinctions of organisms from the Upper Devonian series across Euramerica (from North America to Poland) and I also specialized in microbiological and geochemical analyses of ancient carbonate series developing a sustained collaboration with biologists of my university. We are at the origin of a paleoecological model based on the presence of iron-bacterial microfossils, which led me to travel many countries in Europe and North Africa. This model accounts for the red pigmentation of many marble and ornamental stones used in the world. This research also has implications on the emergence of Life from the earliest stages of formation of Earth, as well as in the field of exobiology or extraterrestrial life ... More recently I invested in the study from the Precambrian series of Gabon and Congo. These works with colleagues from BRGM (Orléans) are as much about the academic side (consequences of the appearance of oxygen in the Paleoproterozoic and study of Neoproterozoic glaciations) that the potential applications in reservoir rocks and source rocks of oil (in collaboration with oil companies). Finally I recently established a close collaboration with the Royal Institute of Natural Sciences of Belgium to study the susceptibility magnetic signal from various European Paleozoic series. All these works allowed me to gain a thorough understanding of carbonate rocks (petrology, micropaleontology, geobiology, geochemistry, sequence stratigraphy, diagenesis) as well in Precambrian (2.2 Ga and 0.6 Ga), Paleozoic (from Silurian to Carboniferous) and Mesozoic (Jurassic and Cretaceous) rocks. Recently (2010) I have established a collaboration with Iraqi Kurdistan as part of a government program to boost scientific research in this country. My research led me to publish about 180 papers in international and national journals and presented more than 170 conference papers. I am a holder of eight courses at the ULB (5 mandatory and 3 optional), excursions and field stages, I taught at the third cycle in several French universities and led or co-managed a score of 20 Doctoral (PhD) and Post-doctoral theses and has been the promotor of more than 50 Masters theses.
better to know...?, climate-debate

Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report

by T. Gallaudet, Aug 26, 2025 in TheEpochTimes

The recent report released by Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. has caused quite a stir in the climate science arena. “Outrage,” “pushback,” and “criticized” are the words used in many of the headlines about it.
To better gauge the overall opinion of the report, two journalists from the Associated Press asked members of the climate science committee if they believed that it accurately portrayed the current “mainstream view of climate science.”
…
…
better to know...?

The Medieval Warm Period: A Global Phenomenon?

by M. Wielicki, Mar 06, 2025 in IrrationalFear

The debate over the characteristics and impact of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), roughly dated from 950 to 1250 AD, lies at the heart of discussions on historical climate variability and its implications for understanding current climate change.

Following the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Third Assessment Report in 2001, the MWP was essentially erased from the paleoclimatological record in favor of the ‘hockey stick’ graph. This disappearance remains a point of contention that has been particularly prominent in public and scientific debate.

The ‘hockey stick’ graph, first published by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes in 1999, depicted temperature anomalies over the past millennium. It showed relatively minor temperature fluctuations for most of the last millennium (the “shaft” of the hockey stick) and a sharp rise in temperatures in the 20th century (the “blade” of the hockey stick). This presentation suggested that the modern warming period has been unprecedented over the last millennium. This finding has been at the core of calls for robust measures aimed at addressing climate change.

climate-debate

A warming pulse in the Antarctic continent changed the landscape during the Middle Ages

by E. Forte et al., Apr 11, 2025 in Nature (OPEN ACCESS)

Abstract

The Antarctic landscape is one of the most stable environments on the Earth, at least since approximately 14 million years ago when most glaciers in continental Antarctica changed from temperate to cold-based, and previous extensive fluvial activity disappeared. Here, we detected a large landscape change on a coastal glacier in continental Antarctica (Boulder Clay Glacier) that occurred in the Medieval Warm Period. Such change consists in a glacial unconformity marked by a continuous sediment layer and an erosion channel on the past glacier surface. This channel, more than 4 kilometers long, represents a local deepening of a glacial unconformity that cuts the underlying glacial strata and was clearly imaged and mapped by Ground Penetrating Radar data. Four boreholes were allowed to calibrate the sediment layer so identified because it was observed in all boreholes at depths between 1.85 and 3.07 m. Moreover, the occurrence at a depth of 11.11 meters of mosses suitable for the dating through radiocarbon dating provided the age of 1050 calibrated years before the present, implying that the erosion event occurred during the Medieval Warm Period between 900 and 989 before the present.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Trump Unsettles Supposedly Settled Climate Science

by H.S. Burnett, Aug 26, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

DOE climate report shows rising CO2 has limited impact on temperatures and isn’t catastrophic as alarmists claim.

 

Donald Trump’s presidency has seemingly unsettled the supposedly settled science of climate change, disrupting 40 years of “climate change is killing us” dogma in seven short months. [emphasis, links added]

For nearly four decades, scientists with a reputational and financial stake in the game, and compliant, uninquisitive mainstream media, have told the public one thing consistently concerning climate change: there is a consensus, there is no debate, human greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous climate change. The end, roll credits, The Science is settled.

The Consensus Climate Cabal (CCC) of scientists, activists, and politicians attempted to enforce the settled climate science orthodoxy because they profited from it in one way or another, in part by shutting down continued debate and discussion about the causes and consequences of climate change.

For example, the Climategate emails showed scientists suppressing or lying about inconvenient data, undermining climate concerns, having open-minded journal editors removed from their positions or reined in by journal publishers (nefarious activity that continues to this day, unfortunately).

In Climategate’s aftermath, climate skeptics were increasingly shut out of the peer review process, and papers openly skeptical of the anthropogenic climate disaster narrative were nearly impossible to get published in top journals.

The mainstream media then piled on. It began to shut dissenting voices out of climate change stories.

The media concluded that since “the science was settled,” the debate was over, and publishing the views of climate skeptics/climate realists was tantamount to allowing Holocaust deniers a voice in stories about Nazi death camps.

Those not in the consensus group were labeled as climate deniers and disenfranchised in polite company.

…

…

A recent article in Nature acknowledged that the DOE’s report has at least a modicum of validity.

“Predictions of global warming are uncertain,” writes Tim Plamer, D.Phil., in a recent article in Nature. “That’s why we need to keep finding out how the climate system works.”

Palmer admits, for example, that climate change is not catastrophic, and “its authors are correct in one respect: the most important uncertainty in our ability to predict how much global temperatures will increase as carbon emissions continue is related to how cloud coverage will change over time.”

The response of global temperatures to rising CO2 is the most critical question in the climate debate. If that question is unsettled, then we can’t really know how the climate will respond to rising temperatures and whether it endangers humans or the environment. Score one for the DOE report.

The science is not “settled,” after all. It never was!

better to know...?, climate-debate

INTERVIEW. Dr. Judith Curry on Global Warming: Where Is the Danger?

by Clintel Foundation, Aug 24, 2025

“People used to call the warm periods the optimums, the climate optimums, because ecosystems and people thrived in these warmer climate optimums,” says Dr. Judith Curry, professor emeritus at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “We talk about two degrees of warming, things like that, but the part that they don’t tell you is that the baseline is the period between 1850 and 1900. Since that period, we’ve already seen 1.3 degrees of warming,” she says. And each of us can see for ourselves if human life on planet Earth has gotten better or worse during that time, while the population has been increasing along with agricultural productivity. “The lives lost per 100,000 people from weather and climate extremes have dropped by two orders of magnitude. So, you know, we’ve managed to do quite well during the first 1.3 degrees of warming. So if we were to see another 1.3 degrees of warming, which is the current best estimate from the UN climate negotiators by 2100, is there any reason to think that would be any worse than the first 1.3 degrees of warming?” Curry asks a simple question.

Many widely held beliefs, such as the notion that a climate crisis or global warming is causing more extreme weather, are simply false. The sea level rise is insignificant. “So where is the danger?” Curry asks.

Curry also points out that until we better understand natural climate variability, we can’t be very confident about stating how much of the warming is human-caused. According to her we don’t have a good enough understanding of a number of issues, e.g. how big is the Sun’s influence on climate, or what is the effect of ocean circulations etc. Therefore the widely used narrative of 97% of scientists agreeing that we are facing a man-made climate crisis is, according to Curry, simply a joke. “Scientists do not agree on the most consequential issues,” she explains.

There is a popular claim. It is still alive, pretty much. I think that there is a scientific consensus that 97% of scientists agree that human-caused climate change exists. Many interpret this to mean there’s no room for any discussion. But where does this claim actually come from?

Well, where it comes from is that there was an activist scientist who had a blog, and he had some of his blogger buddies do a search of scientific abstracts, and they classified the abstracts as either for or against human-caused global warming. Most of them didn’t directly confront the issue. And they counted papers that included cook stove technology being used in India, for example. And they counted that as in favor of the global warming narrative. So, it’s actually a big joke.

What climate scientists actually agree on is very little. Everyone agrees that it’s been warming since about the middle 19th century. Everyone agrees that we’re adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. And everyone agrees that carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectra that, all other things being equal, acts to warm the planet.

But scientists do not agree on the most consequential issues, such as how much of the recent warming has been caused by humans. How much warming can we expect for the remainder of the 21st century? Is warming dangerous? Will humanity and human welfare overall be improved by a rapid transition away from fossil fuels? There’s a huge debate, scientific and political debate on these issues, and pretending that we shouldn’t have this debate and pretending that there’s some sort of agreement by all scientists on these issues where there’s a lot of disagreement is not only bad for science, but it misleads policymakers. So it’s not good for anybody other than for the activist scientists who want attention, fame, fortune, whatever – who knows what drives them.

In your book Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response (2023), you write that in 2017, you resigned from your faculty position at the Georgia Institute of Technology because academia increasingly felt like “wrong trousers” due to climate consensus enforcement and free speech issues. Could you please elaborate on this? What did you mean?

…

better to know...?

Germany’s Green Economy Collapse… Q2 Economy Shrinks 0.3% …AI Stalls

by P. Gosselin, Aug 24, 2025 in NoTricksZone

Germany is not just falling behind – it risks collapsing. 

Germany’s energy woes, brought on by its failed attempt at transitioning to green energies, continue to mount. Blackout News here reports on how the expansion of AI data centers is facing a significant slowdown due to a global lack of sufficient power supply.

In Frankfurt, Germany, industry experts report a critical shortage of grid capacity, leading to stalled projects. The massive energy needs of AI are outpacing the development of power grids and severely hindering growth. In the second quarter of 2025, the German economy shrank 0.3%, worse than expectations.

In contrast, China appears to have a competitive advantage due to its long-term, strategic energy planning and decades of extensive investment in all sectors of power supply. This centralized control has created massive energy reserves, positioning the country favorably for AI expansion. However, this advantage is not rooted in sustainable practices.

China’s energy mix still heavily relies on coal, with renewables making up a much smaller percentage.

German industry continues eroding

Blackout News also reports, “DAX companies are cutting jobs on a massive scale – 30,000 lost within a year”, thus confirming the country’s industrial decline.

“DAX companies are under enormous pressure. Within a year, the largest listed companies lost around 30,000 jobs,” writes Blackout News. “This corresponds to a decrease of 0.9 percent. ‘The demand for employees is likely to continue to decline,’ industry experts emphasize.”

better to know...?, climate-debate

Pielke Jr. –A Takeover of the IPCC

by C. Rotter, Aug 24, 2025 in WUWT

Roger Pielke Jr.’s “A Takeover of the IPCC” offers a timely post-mortem on what’s left of scientific rigor in the world’s most influential climate assessment body, of which Pielke Jr. has long been a supporter. The article chronicles not just a change in personnel at the IPCC, but a seismic shift in methodology and purpose—a transformation best described as a hostile takeover by advocates of “Extreme Event Attribution” (EEA). The implications for public policy, scientific integrity, and even the basic credibility of climate science are staggering, and long overdue for public scrutiny.

…

…

Pielke’s article, in short, is a wakeup call. The so-called “settled science” is more unsettled than ever, and the very structures meant to provide honest assessment are being repurposed for advocacy. The cost, inevitably, will be paid in public trust, misallocated resources, and a continued failure to address the real drivers of disaster risk.

There’s an old saying in science: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The new IPCC, sadly, seems content to settle for extraordinary press releases. The public deserves better. It’s time to ask, loudly, whose interests are really being served by this shift—and to demand a return to genuine scientific skepticism before the last shreds of credibility are gone for good.

better to know...?

Michael Mann’s Social Media Rants Turn Anger Into Alienation

by R. Bradley Jr.,  Aug 23, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Michael “ClimateGate” Mann cannot get out of his own way.

His arrogant, condescending social tweets speak for themselves—just as the words, sentences, and paragraphs of the East Anglia emails did. [some emphasis, links added]

“And yes, there is empirical, peer-reviewed support for the conclusion that climate deniers, in general, are truly awful human beings.” (–Michael Mann, via X)

He is not the kind of person you would want in just about any endeavor, much less as a climate scientist trying to present a case.

This post traces Mann’s angst on X and then at BlueSky, his successor to X:

…

…

Final Comment

This is enough to keep a psychologist busy. Mann stepped into his own manhole, and he kept digging down.

Like Al Gore, he hurts his cause more than he helps it, as 97 percent of his colleagues (just an estimate) are more rational and quieter than he is on the same subject.

better to know...?, climate-debate

Another Study Affirms Anthropogenic CO2 Does Not Drive Climate Change

by K. Richard, Aug 22, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

Utilizing AI’s evidence-streamlining capabilities, a new study (with “Grok” literally positioned as the lead author) summarizes a few of the key counterpoints undermining the CO2-drives-climate narrative.

For example, consider that humans contribute just 10 GtC per year to the carbon cycle, whereas nature’s sources (ocean outgassing and soil respiration, primarily) contribute 220 GtC annually. The combined total (230 GtC/year) does not distinguish between sources, and thus natural sinks that remove carbon from the atmosphere proportionately absorb human as well as natural emissions, with the human percentage (4%) insignificant and the natural predominant (96%).

But even if the last century of rising CO2 was 100% anthropogenic, the empirical data indicate the residence time for atmospheric CO2 is just 3-7 years. This necessarily precludes the possibility for anthropogenic CO2 in particular to be the driver of presumed radiation imbalances, or radiative forcing. This is because the tiny anthropogenic component is too quickly removed from the cycle to have more than a negligible impact. Nearly 90% of CO2 derived from human emissions sources since 1750 has already been removed, absolving humans of the alleged responsibility for (allegedly CO2-induced) climate change.

The atmospheric CO2 residence time would need to last centuries for the presumed effects of anthropogenic CO2 to have the dominant impact the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims it has. So what has the IPCC decided to do? Of course, the IPCC (and those hoping to blame humans for climate change) rely on modeled assumptions that the atmospheric CO2 residence time is, yes, over 100 years. There is no empirical basis validating these assumptions. To put it crudely, the IPCC’s 100-year CO2 residence time model is made up. Fake.

The study also addresses the causality problem that the CO2-drives-temperature narrative has, as there are many studies affirming CO2 changes follow, rather than lead, temperature changes. This T→CO2 directionality is not only observed in the short-term (months), but in paleoclimate studies (an 800-year CO2 lag) as well.

In sum, there is ample evidence available to support the conclusion anthropogenic CO2 does not drive climate change.

…

energy and fields

Chart: What Powered the World in 2024?

by D. Neufeld, Aug 22, 2025 in VisualCapitalist

The Global Energy Mix in 2024

This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

 

Key Takeaways

  • Global energy demand increased 2% to reach an all-time high of 592 exajoules (EJ) in 2024.
  • Non-fossil fuels grew 7% year-over-year, bringing their share of the global energy mix to 13.5%.

Global energy use rose to 592 EJ in 2024, marking a new record in demand.

While cleaner technologies continue to expand, traditional energy sources still form the backbone of the global energy system. At the same time, the Asia Pacific region drove 68% of demand growth, reflecting the region’s rapid economic momentum and industrialization.

This chart shows the global energy mix in 2024, based on data from the Energy Institute.

Fossil Fuels Underpin the Global Energy Mix

Last year, oil, coal, and natural gas together supplied 86.7% of global energy needs.

Oil remained the dominant energy source, accounting for 199 EJ, or 33.6% of global supply. In 2024, average oil prices declined by 3%, though they were still 27% higher than in 2019. The U.S. held its position as the world’s largest producer, contributing roughly one-fifth of total output.

Coal followed at 27.9%, supported by increased consumption in emerging economies. Natural gas, though cleaner than coal, supplied 25.2%, rounding out the fossil fuel trio.

Energy Source 2024 Total Energy Supply (EJ) Share
Oil 199 33.6%
Coal 165 27.9%
Natural gas 149 25.2%
Nuclear energy 31 5.2%
Hydroelectricity 16 2.7%
Other renewables 33 5.6%
Total 592

It’s also worth noting that low-carbon energy sources are growing at a meaningful pace.

In 2024, their combined share rose to 13.5%, supported by a 7% annual increase. Wind and solar stood out in particular, growing by 16% to remain the fastest-rising energy sources worldwide.

Moreover, nuclear energy accounted for 5.2% of supply, with France and Japan responsible for nearly two-thirds of its growth as long-idled plants were brought back online.

…

energy and fields

Trump DOE Gives Coal Plant Lifeline Despite Seething Enviro Rage

by A. Streb, Aug 22, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Activists warn the move will raise costs and pollute while officials cite grid reliability and energy security.

Campbell coal plant
The Department of Energy (DOE) on Thursday issued an emergency order that will keep a Michigan coal plant [pictured above] running to reduce the risk of blackouts while summer heat strains the power grid and despite environmental protests fighting to shutter the plant. [emphasis, links added]

DOE’s order directs the major grid operator for the central U.S. — the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) — to continue running a coal-fired plant in Michigan to stave off power shortages, which has sparked ire from some environmental activists who claim the plant will pollute the area.

The order follows a similar May emergency directive to keep the same Michigan J.H. Campbell plant running, which was soon followed by a major blackout in New Orleans, an event that DOE Secretary Chris Wright hailed as proof of why the Trump administration prioritizes energy abundance.

“The United States continues to face an energy emergency, with some regions experiencing more capacity constraints than others. With electricity demand increasing, we must put an end to the dangerous energy-subtraction policies embraced by politicians for too long,” Wright said Thursday.

“This order will help ensure millions of Americans can continue to access affordable, reliable, and secure baseload power regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.”

DOE noted that the May order to keep the coal plant open has allowed it to function as a critical power generator on the grid during periods of high energy demand.

The J.H. Campbell plant was set to close on May 31, a full 15 years before reaching the end of its design life, the agency said.

…

climate-debate

Dramatic slowdown in melting of Arctic sea ice surprises scientists

by D. Carrington, Aug 20, 2025 in TheGuardian

unclassified

The surprising reason timber plantations explode into megafires

by University of Utah, Aug 21, 2025 in ScienceDaily

The odds of high-severity wildfire are nearly one-and-a-half times higher on industrial private land than in publicly owned forests. Reducing tree density mitigates megafire risk, even in extreme weather conditions.

The odds of high-severity wildfire were nearly one-and-a-half times higher on industrial private land than on publicly owned forests, a new study found. Forests managed by timber companies were more likely to exhibit the conditions that megafires love — dense stands of regularly spaced trees with continuous vegetation connecting the understory to the canopy.

…

climate-debate

Are surface temperature records reliable?

by Sue Bin Park, Aug 22, 2025 in SkepticalScience

Surface temperature records are consistent and have been confirmed by multiple independent analyses.

Measurements come from over 30,000 stations worldwide, with around 7,000 having long, continuous monthly records. Scientists adjust for known local anomalies such as urban heat islands by comparing urban and rural trends and accounting for differences.

Allegations in 2009 that poorly located U.S. stations skewed data were tested by NOAA, which found those sites actually read slightly cooler on average.

The independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study, led by a former climate skeptic, merged global datasets and concluded that the warming trend is unaffected by stations’ local conditions and nearly identical to NASA and NOAA records.

Temperature measurements are corroborated by satellites, ocean data, melting ice, and shifting ecosystems, all showing the same warming trend. No credible analysis has found that site issues or adjustments undermine the global record.

Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact

This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.

Sources

Skeptical Science Understanding adjustments to temperature data

NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4)

Geoscience Data Journal The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods

Skeptical Science Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heatingon the global trends is nearly negligible”

NOAA On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record

Carbon Brief Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records

…

climate-debate

New Study: Corals Thrived In Warmer-Than-Today Temps And When Sea Levels Were Meters Higher

by K. Richard, Aug 19, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

hen the ocean was warmer than today, coral reef growth was rapid, averaging ~6 mm per year.

Sea levels rose rapidly from the Early to Mid Holocene in this region, as they were up to 2 m higher than today 6000 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 m higher than present,” this “allowed reefs to accrete uninhibited.”

better to know...?, renewable energy

UN: Renewables are So Cheap They Need Lots of Subsidies

by E. Worrall, Aug 21, 2025 in WUWT

Inflexion Point: Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels

PRABIR PURKAYASTHA

The tipping point between renewable energy and fossil fuels has been reached, says a new United Nations (UN) report. The UN Secretary-General Antônio Guterres said that we are entering a renewable era and leaving the era of fossil fuels. According to the report, ‘In 2024, renewables made up 92.5% of all new electricity capacity additions and 74% of electricity generation growth’. While almost the entire world has increasingly switched to renewables, the United States stands out as the sole ‘dissident’, with the Trump administration denying climate change and still backing fossil fuels.

…

The long-talked-about renewable transition is finally here! The question is, do we have the political will to do what is not only necessary in climate terms but also economically a better option for all of us? Or will the old fossil lobby, particularly in the US, sabotage humanity’s transition to a low-carbon future?

…

Not surprisingly, an analysis—Li, M., Trencher, G., & Asuka, J., Feb 16, 2022, PLOS ONE —of their business activities shows, ‘a continuing business model dependence on fossil fuels…We thus conclude that the transition to clean energy business models is not occurring, since the magnitude of investments and actions does not match discourse’. In other words, oil companies are continuing with their business as usual under the cloak of carbon capture, grey hydrogen, etc., along with a lot of hot air. Incidentally, these four companies alone are responsible for 10% of all global warming in the world since 1965.

…

The only country acting as the spoiler is the United States, which, though it is no longer competitive in manufacturing, believes that it can extract ‘rent’ from others. This is the new G1’s ‘Trump-based world order’, instead of the G7’s so-called ‘rule-based world order’.

Read more: https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/08/20/inflexion-point-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels/

What about that cited UN report?

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

The New York Times Publishes False Energy and Climate Information and Refuses to Correct Its Errors

by H. Greuenspecht, Aug 22, 2025 in WUWT

les addressing energy and climate topics in The New York Times (NYT) increasingly include Inaccurate data and false information. The problem is compounded by the paper’s failure to follow its own corrections policy when errors are called to its attention.

Readers look to the NYT to deliver well-reasoned and fact-checked information and analysis in areas where they are not themselves experts. However, based on my professional focus on data and analysis of energy and related environmental issues over the past 45 years, which includes White House and Department of Energy senior positions in the Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump 45 administrations as well as work at leading universities and think tanks, NYT coverage of these subjects too often fails to live up to its own standards for accuracy and journalistic integrity.

As a lifetime reader of the NYT, the frequency of errors and a refusal to fix them raises doubts regarding the accuracy of information presented on other topics. Whether or not the problem extends beyond energy and climate, the NYT readership clearly deserves better.

Three recent NYT articles illustrate the problem: a July 22 article by Max Bearak, ostensibly reporting on remarks by UN Secretary-General Guterres’ on renewable energy; a May 26 article by Ivan Penn on competition between electric vehicles (EVs) and vehicles powered by internal combustion engine (ICEVs); and an April 23 column by David Wallace-Wells on the loss of cultural and political momentum for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These are considered in turn below, followed by some summary conclusions.

  1. Max Bearak’s July 22 2025 article “U.S. Is Missing the Century’s ‘Greatest Economic Opportunity,’ U.N. Chief Says” (July 23 print edition).
  2. …
unclassified

Charted: Global Crude Oil Trade Flows in 2024

by D. Neufeld, Aug 20, 2025 in VisualCapitalist

Global Crude Oil Trade Flows in 2024

This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

Key Takeaways

  • China imported 11.1 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2024, with Russia standing as its largest supplier of oil.
  • Meanwhile, the U.S. imported 6.6 million barrels per day (mb/d), with Canada accounting for 62% of the total.

In 2024, global oil trade patterns continued to evolve, shaped by geopolitics and changing regional demand.

From Asia to the Middle East and the Americas, oil remains a cornerstone of the global economy. The vast scale of daily trade underscores not only the world’s reliance on energy but also intricate, global alliances.

This infographic shows the largest crude oil importers and exporters by daily volume, based on data from the Energy Institute.

China Leads in Global Oil Imports

Below, we show daily oil import and export volumes for major global players:

climate-debate

“Wake-Up Call” For Europe… German Professor, Fritz Vahrenholt, On U.S. Climate Report

by F. Vahrenholt, Aug 20, 2025 in NoTricksZone

A recent report from the U.S. Department of Energy, commissioned by the Trump administration and authored by five scientists, is making waves.

German energy expert Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt has weighed in, suggesting its findings could be a crucial “wake-up call” for Europe, especially Germany, to rethink its current climate policies.

The report, titled “A Critical Review on Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate” challenges a core assumption of mainstream climate science. It argues that the negative impacts of CO2 have been exaggerated, while its benefits are often overlooked.

According to Vahrenholt, the report highlights that CO2 isn’t just a pollutant; it’s essential for life and photosynthesis. It’s a key ingredient for a “greener earth” and has contributed to a reported 15% increase in global crop yields for staples like rice and wheat. This perspective directly contradicts the idea of CO2 as solely a harmful substance.

Another major point raised by Vahrenholt is the report’s finding that climate models “run too hot.”

The report suggests these models primarily focus on CO2 as the sole driver of warming, neglecting other significant natural factors. Vahrenholt points to measurements that show a substantial portion of recent warming can be attributed to cloud thinning and increased solar radiation, a topic he and Nobel laureate John Clauser have researched.

…

better to know...?

The Battery Storage Delusion.. what 35 million tons of industrial effort buys you

by Dr L. Schernikau, Aug 21, 2025 in WUWT

Details inc Blog at www.unpopular-truth.com

As someone who has spent most my professional life in the global energy and commodities space both as an economist and as a trader, I have grown increasingly concerned about the way grid-scale battery storage is portrayed in public discourse. If you have paid any attention to the headlines, you would have heard that battery technology is “on the verge of solving” the intermittency problem of wind and solar energy. According to this narrative, all we need to do is build more battery storage, and the path to “net zero” will unfold automatically… magically.

If only it were that simple…

In my latest blog post “Pros and Cons of Utility-Scale Battery Storage” I unpack the many assumptions behind this belief. The facts I present may be unpopular, but they are grounded in physics, not politics.

Here a couple of key points that I feel might spark some interest.

35 million tons of raw materials for a couple of hours…

To build a 50 GWh utility-scale lithium-ion battery system (approx. annual output of a Gigafactory), which has the ability to store electricity, for a city like New York, for only a few hours, you need ~ 35 million tons of raw materials (~ 700,000 t per GWh). That roughly covers the mining, upgrading, transport, and processing of ores like lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, iron ore, bauxite, and others.

Think about it like this…a 1-ton utility-scale battery has a storage capacity of around 100 kWh and requires ~ 70 tons of mined, processed, and manufactured raw materials to be manufactured. This is the energy equivalent of about ~40 kg of coal or ~20 litres of oil.

Let that sink in: 70 tons of mining and industrial processing to store what coal already provides in a (40kg) bag, small enough to be carried by hand.

…

climate-debate

Media Championed Study Overstating Climate Damages, Went Radio Silent As Major Flaws Emerged

by K. Killough, Aug 20, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Typhoon flooding aftermath
When a study published last year in the peer-reviewed journal Nature found that climate change would cost the globe $38 trillion per year by 2050 — ultimately reducing GDP by 19% over the next 24 years — many media outlets were quick to jump on it. [emphasis, links added]

“Climate change will make you poorer,” CNN warned. The Guardian reported on the study under the headline, “Climate crisis: average world incomes to diminish by nearly a fifth by 2050.”

Reuters and Forbes also carried articles on the study, and the Associated Press reported that “New study calculates climate change’s economic bite will hit about $38 trillion a year by 2049.”

According to the activist publication Carbon Brief, only one other study received more mentions in the media in 2024.

However, the study — referred to as “the Potsdam study” — has since been found to have serious flaws.

When these are corrected, according to the researchers who uncovered the problems, it reduces the study’s estimate of climate “damages” through 2100 by two-thirds. This means the estimates aren’t statistically different from zero.

The study has been cited by organizations influencing policy across the globe, including the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., cited the study last yearand again in July — both times entering the study into the Congressional Record.

While The Washington Post reported on the errors, none of the other outlets have so far revisited the story.

Flaws called “devastating” to the paper’s conclusions

…

 

better to know...?, climate-debate

The DOE climate report: a scientific milestone that Europe does not want to see

by Clintel Foundation, Aug 13, 2025

In July, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a groundbreaking document: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate. At the request of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, five leading scientists provided a clear and well-founded overview of climate science, finally paying explicit attention to uncertainties, alternative insights, and factual observations. The authors are not bloggers or activists, but internationally recognized researchers with decades of expertise in climate science, meteorology, economics, and physics. [See the box at the bottom of this article for their credentials].

Sober, well-founded, and without alarmism

Energy Secretary Chris Wright gave the researchers complete freedom in writing this report: “I exerted no control over their conclusions.” The report stands out for its clarity, objectivity, and scientific integrity.

Some key points of the report are:

  • CO₂ should no longer be seen as ‘pollution’: the report advocates a scientific review of this US position (since 2009), including recognition of the positive effect of CO₂ on crop growth.
  • Global greening: satellite images show greening of the Earth due to higher CO₂ levels.
  • Models vs. observations: the discrepancies between model results and actual observations are shown. There is also more emphasis on natural climate variability.
  • Weather extremes: there is no alarming increase in extreme weather conditions in the US.
  • Economic consequences: interventions on CO₂ emissions have little climate impact in the short term, but can entail high economic costs.

Reactions from Europe

The report has certainly been noticed within the US. Among others, researcher Roger Pielke Jr. devoted a widely read article to it on his Substack channels. Pielke describes the DOE report as a serious scientific text that has carefully processed sources.

This report should also have shaken Europe awake, but what happened? Complete silence. No news bulletins, no parliamentary questions, no editorial commentary. While alarmist reports are spreading like wildfire across Europe, this report is being ignored. This is not only remarkable, it is downright shocking. It casts a shadow over the intellectual honesty of the European climate debate.

Two articles on the Dutch blog Klimaatgek.nl endorse this. On August 8, DoE report and media silence (in the Netherlands) was published, noting that the report was widely discussed in US circles, but remained unseen in the Netherlands, despite its importance for the automotive, energy, and agricultural sectors, among others. Earlier, on July 30, Klimaatgek headlined: Breakthrough: revision of CO₂ vision in the US. The report is called a potential turning point in the American climate vision, something that Europe cannot ignore.

Why this is so essential for Europe

Europe is guided by a single narrative: the climate crisis is urgent and catastrophic. Those who think differently are ignored or denounced. This report does the opposite: it acknowledges human influence, puts it in context, highlights uncertainties, identifies the benefits of CO2, and advocates for balanced policy considerations. As mentioned, the European silence is distressing. It is not only journalistically inappropriate; it is a democratic and scientific shortcoming. The consequences are:

  • A limited public debate – the public only hears one side.
  • Democratic deficit – policy-making based on incomplete information.
  • Scientific impoverishment – essential uncertainties and alternatives disappear from view.

Time to wake up

The DOE report deserves open debate, not silence. Europe should be proud of space for scientific diversity. Anyone who truly trusts science cannot ignore this report. Clintel remains committed to increasing the visibility of this and similar contributions – not to prove itself right, but to make the conversation complete. Only with all the facts, uncertainties, and perspectives can sensible choices be made.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

The Weather Stations We Never Had

by Dr M. Wielicki, Aug 11, 2025 in Clintel

A central pillar of the climate-crisis narrative is simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker… today is the hottest in human history. That line only works if you accept, without question, that we have reliable, global temperature data before satellites. We do not. What we have is a patchwork of land stations concentrated in a few developed regions, a lot of ocean guesses from ship tracks, and then, later, generous statistical infilling.

Everyone agrees the 1930s were brutally hot across the United States… the Dust Bowl was a humanitarian and ecological disaster. Crops failed, soils blew away, and heat waves killed thousands. NOAA’s own retrospectives still call out 1936 as a benchmark summer, and July 1936 remains a singular month in the U.S. record.

https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36?utm

…

The global map we never measured

Before 1950, most thermometers were in the United States, Europe, and parts of the British Commonwealth. Large parts of Africa, South America, the Arctic, and the Southern Ocean had little to no routine coverage. Even the NOAA-led overview of GHCN-Daily notes how the core database is a collage of many sources with varying periods of record… that is the raw material modern analyses inherit.

Now the uncomfortable part. When there are no thermometers, you either leave grid boxes blank, or you paint numbers in from far away. HadCRUT historically left many boxes blank, explicitly avoiding interpolation, which means the “global” mean depends on where you have observations. NASA’s GISTEMP goes the other direction and spreads anomalies up to twelve hundred kilometers from a station, filling the gaps with 1200 km smoothing. Those are not trivial choices, they are the ballgame.

If you overlay the 1930s anomaly map with the station density maps, you see something obvious… warm where the thermometers were numerous, cool or neutral where coverage was threadbare. A compilation of historical station distribution between 1921 and 1950 makes the same basic point… the network was sparse and badly unbalanced.

…

climate-debate

Meteorologist Debunks False Stories On Climate Change Fueling Western Washington Megafires

by C. Mass, Aug 14, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

NY Times and Seattle Times falsely claim Western Washington megafires are rising; history shows only one since 1902.

Western Washington State fire
[Last week], The New York Times ran a blatantly false story, with The Seattle Times featuring it as well. [some emphasis, links added]

The claim: that Western Washington will experience more “megafires” due to human-caused global warming (climate change).

Unfortunately, the writer of this story (a Washington State stringer for the NY Times) failed to examine the historical record or the best science, getting the essential facts wrong.

How do I know the writer got it wrong?

Because for the past two years, I have researched this very issue and just published a paper on this topic in the peer-reviewed literature (here). I have read every paper and report on this issue.

So exactly what did the NY Times (and the Seattle Times) get wrong?

The article defines megafires as ones that involve hundreds of thousands of acres.

How many such fires have occurred since 1900 in western Washington?

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Die Welt’ Journalist Axel Bojanowski: Apocalypticism Is “A Code Of Belonging” Among Journalists

by P. Gosselin, Aug 13, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

The world is better than what the media think.

‘Die Welt’ science journalist Axel Bojanowski was recently interviewed by the online “BauerWilli” (BW) and discussed his recently released book

“33 Amazing Glimmers of Hope – Why the world is better than we think,”

 

Bojanowski argues there is an overly negative and apocalyptic style of reporting in the media, particularly concerning climate and environmental issues.

Cult-like behavior

According to Bojanowski, predicting the end of the world has become a sign of belonging among journalists. He sees this as a counter-movement to the post-war prosperity.

…