Archives de catégorie : climate-debate

climate-debate

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.”

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

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.

better to know...?, climate-debate

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.”

…

climate-debate

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.

climate-debate

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.

climate-debate

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.
…
climate-debate

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”.

…

climate-debate

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.

…

climate-debate

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

climate and geology, climate-debate

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.

climate-debate

Reasons Why Regulating CO2 Emissions Needs to be Reconsidered

by Dr R. Spencer, Feb 26, 2025 in ClimateWarming

Today, the Washington Post is reporting the EPA Administrator is considering recommending to the White House that the EPA’s 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding be rescinded. Let’s look at a few of the reasons why this might be a good thing to consider.

Today, the Washington Post is reporting the EPA Administrator is considering recommending to the White House that the EPA’s 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding be rescinded. Let’s look at a few of the reasons why this might be a good thing to consider.

The Science

The science of human-caused climate change is much more uncertain that you have been led to believe. The globally-averaged surface temperature of Earth seems to have warmed by 1 deg. C or so in the last century. The magnitude of the warming remains uncertain with a 30% range in different thermometer-based datasets, and considerably weaker warming in global “reanalysis” datasets using all available data types. But whatever the level of warming, it might well be mostly human-caused.

But we don’t really know.

As I keep pointing out, the global energy imbalance caused by increasing human-caused CO2 emissions (yes, I believe we are the cause) is smaller than the accuracy with which we know natural energy flows in the climate system. This means recent warming could be mostly natural and we would never know it.

I’m not claiming that is the case, only that there are uncertainties in climate science that are seldom if ever discussed. The climate models that are the basis for future projections of climate change are adjusted (fudged?) so that increasing CO2 is the only cause of warming. The models themselves do not have all of the necessary physics (mostly due to cloud process uncertainties) to determine whether our climate system was in a state of equilibrium before CO2 was increasing. (And, no, I don’t believe the warming caused the oceans to outgas more CO2 — that effect is very small compared to the size of the human source).

As most readers here are aware, for many years I’ve been saying the science of “climate change” has been corrupted by big government science budgets, ideological worldview biases, and group-think. Even my career has depended upon Congress being convinced the issue is worthy of big budgets.

It is almost impossible for new science to be published in the peer-reviewed literature that in any way runs counter to the current narrative which states that humans are causing a “climate crisis” from our CO2 emissions, a natural consequence of fossil fuel burning. That “peer review” is now in the hands of climate scientists whose research careers depend upon continuing government funding. If the “problem” of global warming were to be much less than previously believed, funding for that research could dry up.

The most alarmist science papers are the ones that get all of the press, which then get exaggerated and misrepresented by the news media. As a result, the public has a very skewed perception of what scientists really know.

As Roger Pielke, Jr. has been pointing out for many years, even the IPCC’s official reports do not claim that our greenhouse gas emissions have caused changes in severe weather. Every severe weather event in the news is now dutifully tied in some inferential way to human causation, but with public opinion of mainstream news outlets at an all-time low, fewer and fewer people take those news reports seriously. Severe weather has always existed, and always will. Storm damages have increased only because of increasing infrastructure and everyone wanting to live on the coast.

And about the only, clear, long-term change I’m aware of is a 50% decline in strong to violent tornadoes since the 1950s.

But you would never know of any good climate news if your main source of information is Al Gore’s books, your favorite environmental think tank (that you contribute to so you can get their yearly calendar), or the mainstream media.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

How the “scientific consensus” on climate change was invented

by C. Rotter, Feb 27, 2025 in WUWT

How a “scientific consensus” that “climate change is mostly human-caused” was forced by:
1) Shutting down funding for scientific research into natural causes.
2) Punishing scientists who continued this research anyway.

This is an excerpt from “Climate The Movie” (2024). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU

climate-debate

NOAA’s Homogenized Temperature Records: A Statistical House of Cards?

by C. Rotter, Feb 25, 2025 in WUWT

For years, climate scientists have assured us that NOAA’s homogenized temperature datasets—particularly the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)—are the gold standard for tracking global warming. But what if the “corrections” applied to these datasets are introducing more noise than signal? A recent study published in Atmosphere has uncovered shocking inconsistencies in NOAA’s adjustments, raising serious concerns about the reliability of homogenized temperature records.

The study, conducted by a team of independent climate researchers led by Peter O’Neill, Ronan Connolly, Michael Connolly, and Willie Soon, offers a meticulous examination of NOAA’s homogenization techniques. These researchers, known for their expertise in climate data analysis and critical evaluation of mainstream climate methodologies, gathered an extensive archive of NOAA’s GHCN dataset over more than a decade. Their research involved tracking over 1800 daily updates to analyze how NOAA’s adjustments to historical temperature records changed over time.

Their findings reveal a deeply concerning pattern of inconsistencies and unexplained changes in temperature adjustments, prompting renewed scrutiny of how NOAA processes climate data.

The study analyzed NOAA’s GHCN dataset over a decade and found that:

  • The same temperature records were being adjusted differently on different days—sometimes dramatically.
  • 64% of the breakpoints identified by NOAA’s Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) were highly inconsistent, appearing in less than 25% of NOAA’s dataset runs.
  • Only 16% of the adjustments were consistently applied in more than 75% of cases, meaning the majority of “corrections” are shifting unpredictably.
  • Less than 20% of NOAA’s breakpoints corresponded to actual documented station changes, suggesting that many adjustments were made without supporting metadata.

In layman’s terms: NOAA is repeatedly changing historical temperature records in ways that are inconsistent, poorly documented, and prone to error.

What Is Homogenization Supposed to Do?

Continuer la lecture de NOAA’s Homogenized Temperature Records: A Statistical House of Cards? →

better to know...?, climate-debate

Pay Up, Mr. Mann

by The Editors, Jan 10, 2005 in NationalReview

For more than eight years, the climate scientist Michael Mann harassed National Review through litigation over a blog post — until, eventually, the First Amendment brought an end to his attack. This week, a court in our nation’s capital ordered Mann to pay us $530,820.21 worth of attorney’s fees and costs, and to do so within 30 days. It is time for him to get out his checkbook, and sign on the dotted line.

This restitution is welcome, if incomplete. As was made clear during the discovery process, Mann’s explicitly stated intention was to use a “major lawsuit” as a vehicle with which to “ruin National Review.” Happily, Mann failed in this endeavor. But, while all’s well that ends well, his failure exacted costs nevertheless. Between 2012 and 2019 — with the courts inexplicably refusing to apply legal provisions ostensibly designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits such as Mann’s — we were forced to spend a considerable amount of time and money defending ourselves against his malicious, meritless suit. Between 2019 and now, we have been obliged to expend yet more effort trying to recoup at least some of our costs. This week’s award will not undo all of the damage that Mann has inflicted upon us, and upon journalism more broadly — we had asked for $1 million in fees and costs, and even that was a fraction of what we have spent — but it will, at least, go some way toward making us whole.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Conflicts of Interest in Climate Science: A Systemic Blind Spot

by C. Rotter, Feb 18, 2025 in WUWT

Introduction

The field of climate science has long been presented as an objective, data-driven discipline, immune to the biases and financial conflicts that plague other scientific domains. However, a recent preprint study by Jessica Weinkle et al, Conflicts of Interest, Funding Support, and Author Affiliation in Peer-Reviewed Research on the Relationship between Climate Change and Geophysical Characteristics of Hurricanes, challenges this assumption, shedding light on an alarming lack of conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in climate research, particularly in studies linking hurricanes to climate change​. She also has an excellent write up of the study on her Substack, Conflicted.

The study’s findings reveal a disturbing trend: not a single one of the 331 authors analyzed disclosed any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest​. Moreover, the research found that funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was a significant predictor of studies reporting a positive association between climate change and hurricane behavior​.

…

…

Time to Clean House

The Weinkle et al. study is a wake-up call for anyone who still believes climate science is an objective, bias-free discipline. The overwhelming correlation between NGO funding and climate change-hurricane research outcomes, coupled with the complete absence of COI disclosures, exposes a deeply entrenched problem​.

The fact that not a single author among 331 disclosed a conflict of interest should be viewed as a scientific scandal. If such a pattern were observed in pharmaceutical or medical research, there would be widespread public outcry and immediate reforms. Yet, in climate science, this level of opacity is tolerated—perhaps because it serves the interests of powerful political and financial actors.

At the very least, this study proves that climate science is not above bias. The question is: Will the scientific community acknowledge and correct these issues, or will it continue to operate under a veil of selective transparency?

better to know...?, climate-debate

Earth.com’s Climate Alarmism Crumbles As Cocoa Production Rises

by H.S.  Burnett, Feb 17, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

…

FAO data for those countries show that since 1990:

  • In Cameroon, cocoa bean production has grown by more than 157 percent;
  • In the Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire), cocoa bean production increased by more than 194 percent (nearly doubling, setting a new record in 2023);
  • In Ghana, cocoa bean production expanded by just over 122 percent;
  • And in Nigeria, cocoa bean production grew by almost 17 percent.

Each of these countries experienced multiple years of record-setting production over the past three and a half decades of climate change. (See the figure below).

With these facts in mind, there is no evidence whatsoever that climate change is putting cocoa production under extreme pressure, except perhaps in the imagination of Earth.com’s Ionescu.

Globally carbon dioxide has resulted in a general greening of the Earth with significantly improved crop production. There is good reason to believe that rising carbon dioxide concentrations have significantly contributed to West and Central Africa’s improved cocoa production, as well.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

A fire deficit persists across diverse North American forests despite recent increases in area burned

by S.A. Parks et al., OPEN ACESS, Feb 10, 2025 in Nature

Abstract

Rapid increases in wildfire area burned across North American forests pose novel challenges for managers and society. Increasing area burned raises questions about whether, and to what degree, contemporary fire regimes (1984–2022) are still departed from historical fire regimes (pre-1880). We use the North American tree-ring fire-scar network (NAFSN), a multi-century record comprising >1800 fire-scar sites spanning diverse forest types, and contemporary fire perimeters to ask whether there is a contemporary fire surplus or fire deficit, and whether recent fire years are unprecedented relative to historical fire regimes. Our results indicate, despite increasing area burned in recent decades, that a widespread fire deficit persists across a range of forest types and recent years with exceptionally high area burned are not unprecedented when considering the multi-century perspective offered by fire-scarred trees. For example, ‘record’ contemporary fire years such as 2020 burned 6% of NAFSN sites—the historical average—well below the historical maximum of 29% sites that burned in 1748. Although contemporary fire extent is not unprecedented across many North American forests, there is abundant evidence that unprecedented contemporary fire severity is driving forest loss in many ecosystems and adversely impacting human lives, infrastructure, and water supplies.

…

climate-debate

The LA fires were man-made, but not like they say

by C. Martz, Feb 13, 2025 in WUWT

The political fires that ignited with President Donald Trump’s second inauguration shifted national attention away from the devastating wildfires in California.

Now entirely contained, the Los Angeles County fires should not be allowed to fade into the history books, chalked up to yet another consequence of man-made global warming. Politicians trying to pin the blame for the disaster on climate change are not only attempting to avoid accountability but are just plain wrong.

Fires require three key ingredients: an ignition source, fuel, and oxygen. Wildfires do not spontaneously combust because the planet is 1.2°C warmer now than in 1850. There must first be an ignition source. These can be natural, such as lightning, or man-made, such as fireworks, sparks, or arson. Ninety-seven percent of fires between 1992 and 2012 had a human ignition source, according to a study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Mediterranean California is no exception. While the exact cause of the Los Angeles fires has yet to be determined, lightning has already been ruled out. Whether it was an accident, arson, or broken utility lines remains unknown. If it was a broken power line, Southern California Edison must explain why it didn’t deenergize its transmission lines in the foothills. What is known is that the weather conditions have been ripe for fires to escape containment and spread.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Jan. 2025 Climate Fact Check: NASA Data Shreds ‘Hottest January Ever’ Claim

by S. Millay, Feb 13, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

This summary serves as a fact check on the most egregious false claim about climate change made in the media in January 2025. [emphasis, links added]

Counter-Narrative Reality vs. Counter-Reality Narrative

It was a busy January keeping track of President Trump’s first steps toward dismantling the federal government’s Climate Leviathan. It was also a very cold January and that’s what this edition of Climate Fact Check will cover.

Per the relatively unmanipulated NASA satellite data, January 2025 is estimated to have witnessed a substantial drop of 0.34°C from last January concerning the made-up metric of “average global temperature.”

This is despite that atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from about 422 parts per million (ppm) in January 2024 to 426 parts per million in January 2025.

That 4 ppm increase in carbon dioxide is worth about 78 billion tons of emissions. Therefore, 78 billion more tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted in a January that was 0.34°C cooler than the previous January.

February is typically the coldest average month in the Northern Hemisphere. January 2025 was cooler than February 2016 and about the same as January 2016 and February 1998, hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 and a decade of “warming,” ago.

Faced with the counter-narrative reality of the NASA satellite data, the desperate climate hoax machine produced a counter-reality narrative, claiming that January was the hottest ever as in this Associated Press report.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

New Study: Today’s Climate Models ‘Do Not Agree With Reality’ And Thus Their Usefulness Is ‘Doubtful’

by K. Richard, Feb 11, 2025 in NoTricksZone

Because the current state-of-the-art general circulation models (GCMs) cannot simulate the trends and variances in global precipitation over the last 84 years (1940-2023), their usefulness should be reconsidered.

Hydrological processes – ocean circulation, water vapor, clouds – are key components of climate, easily overshadowing the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions by a factor of 2,100 (Koutsoyiannis, 2021).

The effect that cloud cover variability has on surface temperature is so uncertain, and our cloud-effect measurement capacities are so primitive, even NASA has had to admit that “today’s models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy” to even begin to attribute current or future temperature changes to increases in atmospheric CO2.

…

In that vein, a new paper published by Dr. Koutsoyiannis, a hydrologist, statistically assesses the utility of today’s climate models. He documents the general circulation models’ capacity to simulate trends and variability in global (hemispheric) precipitation since 1940.

The results are not encouraging. The best computer models we have cannot accurately simulate what occurs in the real world.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Most countries miss UN deadline for new climate targets

by P. Homewood, Feb 10, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

BRUSSELS, Feb 10 (Reuters) – Many of the world’s biggest polluter nations have missed a U.N. deadline to set new climate targets as efforts to curb global warming come under pressure following U.S. President Donald Trump’s election.

The nearly 200 countries signed up to the Paris Agreement faced a Monday deadline to submit new national climate plans to the U.N., setting out how they plan to cut emissions by 2035.

As of Monday morning, many of the world’s biggest polluters – including China, India and the European Union – had not done so.

“The public is entitled to expect a strong reaction from their governments to the fact that global warming has now reached 1.5 degrees Celsius for an entire year, but we have seen virtually nothing of real substance,” said Bill Hare, CEO of science and policy institute Climate Analytics.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/most-countries-miss-un-deadline-new-climate-targets-2025-02-10/

As we know, some countries who have submitted new plans, such as Brazil and Mexico have actually reduced their ambitions.

It is yet more evidence that most of the world does not see climate change as a threat.

climate-debate

EXCLUSIVE: Sensational Findings Point to Hunga Tonga Eruption as Prime Suspect Behind Recent Temperature Spike

by C. Morrison, Feb 8,2025 in TheDailySceptic

In January 2022, a massive underwater volcano called Hunga Tonga suddenly erupted and shot so much water into the upper atmosphere that levels in the stratosphere rose suddenly by at least 10%. It was a genuine one in 100, even 200 year event and was reasonably expected to produce temporary weather changes around the globe. Sure enough, subsequent temperatures showed a 0.3-0.4°C upward spike. Needless to say, the Net Zero fanatics claimed the rise as their own and blamed it on humans controlling the climate by increasing the trace gas carbon dioxide. Today the Daily Sceptic can give wider publicity to sensational recent findings that suggest Hunga Tonga was the main culprit in producing the recent spike. The scientists directly link a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere of between 0.5-2°C to Hunga Tonga. It is generally held that there is an anti-correlation between the lower and upper atmosphere and cooling at the top produces warming at the bottom due to a number of complex atmospheric processes.

Hunga Tonga was an unusual volcanic eruption since it produced few dust particulates that usually cool the surface. Two recent land-based eruptions, El Chichon and Pinatubo, caused a temporary downward spike of around 0.5°C. The team of Colorado-based scientists found that the Hunga Tonga cooling was “comparable in magnitude” to the stratospheric warming caused by the two surface volcanoes in 1982 and 1991. The scientists reported “good agreement of observations with chemistry-climate model simulations”. “Cooling is mainly due to Hunga Tonga H2O [water] impacts,” they state.

This is dramatic stuff. It appears to promote Hunga Tonga as the prime cause in explaining the recent spike in temperatures. Indeed it could be concluded that the temperature rise should have been a little higher – and higher even still if the effects of a recent strong El Niño natural oscillation are included. Satellite observations, confirmed by computer analysis, shows stratospheric cooling of 0.5°C to 1°C in the middle and upper stratosphere during 2022 through middle 2023, followed by stronger reductions of 1°C to 2°C in the mesosphere after the middle of 2023, note the scientists. Last year, two distinguished atmospheric scientists observed the anti-correlation between the higher and lower atmosphere and suggested the lower stratosphere cooled by approximately two degrees per degree of warming nearer the surface. Where the troposphere has been anomalously warming, the lower stratosphere has been anomalously cooling “and vice versa”, note the scientists.

In January 2022, a massive underwater volcano called Hunga Tonga suddenly erupted and shot so much water into the upper atmosphere that levels in the stratosphere rose suddenly by at least 10%. It was a genuine one in 100, even 200 year event and was reasonably expected to produce temporary weather changes around the globe. Sure enough, subsequent temperatures showed a 0.3-0.4°C upward spike. Needless to say, the Net Zero fanatics claimed the rise as their own and blamed it on humans controlling the climate by increasing the trace gas carbon dioxide. Today the Daily Sceptic can give wider publicity to sensational recent findings that suggest Hunga Tonga was the main culprit in producing the recent spike. The scientists directly link a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere of between 0.5-2°C to Hunga Tonga. It is generally held that there is an anti-correlation between the lower and upper atmosphere and cooling at the top produces warming at the bottom due to a number of complex atmospheric processes.

Hunga Tonga was an unusual volcanic eruption since it produced few dust particulates that usually cool the surface. Two recent land-based eruptions, El Chichon and Pinatubo, caused a temporary downward spike of around 0.5°C. The team of Colorado-based scientists found that the Hunga Tonga cooling was “comparable in magnitude” to the stratospheric warming caused by the two surface volcanoes in 1982 and 1991. The scientists reported “good agreement of observations with chemistry-climate model simulations”. “Cooling is mainly due to Hunga Tonga H2O [water] impacts,” they state.

This is dramatic stuff. It appears to promote Hunga Tonga as the prime cause in explaining the recent spike in temperatures. Indeed it could be concluded that the temperature rise should have been a little higher – and higher even still if the effects of a recent strong El Niño natural oscillation are included. Satellite observations, confirmed by computer analysis, shows stratospheric cooling of 0.5°C to 1°C in the middle and upper stratosphere during 2022 through middle 2023, followed by stronger reductions of 1°C to 2°C in the mesosphere after the middle of 2023, note the scientists. Last year, two distinguished atmospheric scientists observed the anti-correlation between the higher and lower atmosphere and suggested the lower stratosphere cooled by approximately two degrees per degree of warming nearer the surface. Where the troposphere has been anomalously warming, the lower stratosphere has been anomalously cooling “and vice versa”, note the scientists.

…

climate-debate

The “Collapsing Gulf Stream” Scare is Back—Again

by C. Rotter, Feb 5, 2025 in WUWT

Ah, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) collapse—our old friend. Like a horror movie franchise that refuses to die, the idea that the Gulf Stream is about to shut down and plunge Europe into an icy apocalypse has returned. This time, the BBC is breathlessly warning that “the chance of it happening is growing”​. But before you start knitting survivalist-grade wool socks, let’s take a moment to review how many times we’ve heard this story before—and why it never seems to pan out.

…

A Climate Catastrophe… Someday, Maybe, Possibly

According to the BBC, AMOC is supposedly “getting weaker,” but they immediately admit that direct measurements have only been taken since 2004—meaning we have barely two decades of actual data​. Now, call me old-fashioned, but when you’re talking about an ocean system that has been operating for millions of years, 20 years of data is like trying to predict a person’s entire life based on a single Tuesday morning.

And what’s their big evidence? Ocean floor sediments and a “cold blob” in the Atlantic. That’s right, they’re looking at dirt samples and a patch of water that isn’t warming like the rest of the ocean, and somehow, this is supposed to spell doom for civilization​.

This wouldn’t be so bad if they admitted the uncertainty. Instead, the article plays a game of “it’s probably not happening, but it totally could!” For instance, the IPCC says they have “medium confidence” that AMOC will notcollapse this century. But some other scientists say, well, maybe it could! As one of them warns, we “maybe need to be worried”​.

What kind of science is this? It sounds more like a horoscope than a serious climate analysis.

Fear-Mongering 101: Every Climate Scare is the Last One

…

climate-debate

Australian Heatwave Stories Slammed Some More. Part 2.

by G. Sherrington, Feb 6, 2025 in WUWT

There were 10 significant weather station/city sites explored for their heatwave properties in the first article of this series, 5 days ago.

Australian Heatwave Stories Cop Severe Criticism – Watts Up With That?

That first article shows 160 graphs of hottest heatwave temperatures over the years when records have been kept, for Adelaide, Alice Springs,  Brisbane, Cape Leeuwin, Darwin, Hobart, Longreach, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. This second article deals with some patterns of interest.

I wrote the articles because many Establishment sources make claims like this one from the Climate Council of Australia, 2014:

“Climate change is already increasing the intensity and frequency of heatwaves in Australia. Heatwaves are becoming hotter, lasting longer and occurring more often.”

HEATWAVES: HOTTER, LONGER, MORE OFTEN

An Internet search using “heatwaves longer hotter more often” returns these 6 hits and more.

Climate change study: Australia is in the crucible of slower, longer heatwaves | SBS News

Heatwaves: hotter, longer, more often – Macquarie University

Heatwaves: hotter, longer, more often – Environmental Health Australia (Western Australia) Inc

Australian heatwaves more frequent, hotter and longer: Climate Council report – ABC News

nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/global-warming-makes-heat-waves-hotter-longer-and-more-common

Heatwaves to be hotter, longer and more frequent, climate change report says – ABC News

HOTTER?

Using practically all years of data recorded, I examined each of 4 heatwave durations of 1, 3, 5 and 10 days. The raw data are from the Climate Data Online CDO source by the Bureau of Meteorology.

The first half of the heatwave numbers is compared to the last half. The first half numbers are subtracted from the second half numbers. If there is warming, the difference is positive. If there is cooling, the difference is negative.

This example summarises the method by a graph.

…

La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse