Archives de catégorie : climate-debate

The Medieval Warm Period In Germany: Inconvenient And very Real

by P. Gosselin, Apr 25, 2025 in NoTricksZone 


Grok AI generated image.

Hans-Joachim Dammschneider has written a book about the climate history of the southern Harz region. In the historical weather data, he discovered climatic fluctuations that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), should not exist.

Long before industrial CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere, there were already alternating warm and cold phases.

Here is the book description:

The so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been the subject of scientific debate for years. It is not so much a question of whether this warm period actually took place in Europe, but rather how it took place. Was it a local phenomenon that was limited in time and predominantly restricted to Europe, or was it a period of intense climatic change that also had a global impact?

One thing is certain: from around 950 AD, there was a rise in temperature in Germany lasting at least 300 years, which resulted in a marked warm phase favorable to agriculture and life. However, from the beginning of the 14th century at the latest, this period was replaced by a relatively rapid drop in temperature and climatic turbulence in the direction of the so-called Little Ice Age.

In the early reports, the IPCC (1990, AR1) still devoted relatively much attention to the MWP. Over the years, however, this focus diminished, and in the most recent assessment (2021, AR6) little space was given to the Medieval Warm Period. Studies often even question whether it was a global phenomenon. However, a mapping of the available scientific publications (as of 2022) initiated by S. Lüning shows that the Warm Period certainly left evidence across continents.

State Of The Great Barrier Reef 2024

by P. Homewood, Mar 14, 2024 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat 


The Australian Environment foundation (AEF), which is a farmer friendly conservation group, has issued a new report entitled “State of the Great Barrier Reef 2024.”

Peter Ridd, the Chairman of the AEF, said the report shows that the reef is in excellent condition with record amounts of coral. “Despite all the catastrophism about hot water bleaching events in the last decade, the species most susceptible to bleaching, (the plate and staghorn corals), have exploded in number. Sadly, the impact of bleaching is routinely exaggerated by the media and some science organisations.”

“The impact of farm pollution in the Reef is negligible and all 3000 individual reefs have excellent coral. No other Australian ecosystem has shown such little change in modern times” Ridd said.

Peter Ridd added, “Australia spends roughly $500 million each year to “save the reef” but this money could be much better spent on genuine environmental problems such as control of invasive weeds and feral animals, or restoring indigenous fire practices into forests and rangeland”.

He concluded, “The public is being deceived about the reef. How this occurred is a serious issue for the reef-science community which has embraced emotion, ideology, and raw self-interest to maintain funding”.

“This new report distils a great deal of data about the reef” said Ridd “it is time that the reef

science institutions confront this data rather than ignoring it and hoping nobody will notice. I challenge them to a public science duel – any time any place.”

The Great Barrier Reef is the largest reef system in the world, and scientists have been warning of its imminent demise since the 1960s.

The report is here.

Why are Patagonian glaciers rapidly losing mass?

by University of Liège , Apr 23, 2025 in ScienceDaily


Over the past two decades, satellite-based planetary observations have recorded rapid mass loss of Patagonian glaciers, contributing approximately 0.07 mm per year to global sea-level rise. A study published in Nature Communications links this mass loss to a poleward shift of subtropical high-pressure systems. This large-scale atmospheric circulation change brings more warm air to Patagonia, thereby accelerating glacier melt.

Located in the southern Andes between Chile and Argentina, Patagonia hosts the largest and wettest glaciated region in the Southern Hemisphere outside Antarctica. “The Southern Andes act as a natural barrier, blocking moisture-laden westerly winds from the Pacific Ocean,” explains Brice Noël, climatologist at the University of Liège. “As a result, glaciers locally receive over fifteen metres of snowfall annually, particularly on the western flank of the Andes.”

German Droughts Were Much More Common Back In The Old Days, Before 1980!

by P. Gosselin, Apr 23, 2025 in NoTricksZone 


Central Europe has been experiencing a bout of dry weather since February. Germany’s DWD national weather service reported in a recent press release that just 19 liters per square meter (l/m²) fell in March compared to the approx. 60 liters that normally fall in the month. This made last March one of the driest since measurements began in 1881.

“The pronounced drought, which had already lasted in some regions since the beginning or middle of February, was caused by high-pressure areas that repeatedly settled over Central Europe or in the surrounding area,” reports the DWD.

Not surprisingly, the media are making alarmist claims of unprecedented drought, and all hinting it’s due to climate sins by mankind.

Driest years overwhelmingly before 1980

So is drought in rainy Germany something new that we have only begun to experience, like the media and pols suggest?

The historical data show that the answer is clearly NO.

Four of the 5 driest years on record in Germany occurred before 1960. Eight of the top 9 occurred before man-made climate change was ever an issue (before 1980).

Climate Change Myths Part 2: Wildfires, Drought, Rising Sea Level, and Coral Reefs

by J. Stossel, Ar 23, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

stossel climate myths part2
More climate change myths need debunking.

There’s so much the alarmists get wrong!

Linnea Lueken of the Heartland Institute helps us reveal the data that disproves claims of worsening droughts, worsening wildfires, catastrophic sea level rise, and a dying Great Barrier Reef.

You might be surprised by what’s true and what’s not.

If you missed Part 1, you can watch it here.

via YouTube

WPR Blames Climate Change For ‘Record Start’ Of Wildfire Season. Data Burns That Claim

by H. Sterling Burnett, Ar 23, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch


wisconsin forest fire
Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR) ran a story blaming the unusual number of wildfires in the state in January and February on climate change. This is wrong. One year’s early start to the wildfire season can’t be blamed on climate change. [emphasis, links added]

Only a long-term trend of increasing or increasingly early wildfires would suggest climate change as a factor in this year’s fires, but no such trend exists.

A buildup of vegetation due to improved rainfall conditions in previous years, human populations expanding into the urban/forest interface, and more human-sparked fires from carelessness and arson, is the cause unusual number of wildfires starting off the year in 2025.

The WPR story, “Wisconsin sees record start to the fire season as climate change drives more blazes,” which is long on speculation but short on hard data and evidence, says:

“Wisconsin saw a record number of fires in January and February this year due to a lack of snow as climate change has set the stage for more wildfires,” says Danielle Kaeding, WPR’s environment and energy reporter for Northern Wisconsin. “Wisconsin averages 864 wildfires that burn around 1,800 acres each year, according to the state Department of Natural Resources.

“The state had already seen more than 470 fires as of Monday, double the average for this time of year. More than 1,900 acres have already been set ablaze,” Kaeding continues.

Kaeding interviewed Jim Bernier, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) forest fire section manager, about the fires, which he blamed on two years of drought caused by climate change.

“With these droughty conditions that we’re experiencing, we’re seeing these fire-staffing needs occurring more and more all year round,” Bernier said. “We’ve never had this many fires in January and February ever in the state of Wisconsin,”

Bernier’s claim is belied by the fact that Wisconsin is not in drought, and especially not an unusually severe drought.

Data from the U.S. National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) shows that in January through March of 2025, precipitation was nearly an inch above normal, with 2025 being the 35th wettest year [since] 1895. At present, no counties in Wisconsin are designated as being under Drought Disaster conditions.

Long-term drought data for Wisconsin show that over the past 30 years, drought conditions have been less severe than historically common, with the last decade being particularly wet in general. (See the graph from NIDIS, below.)

The fact that Wisconsin has not suffered unusual degrees of drought or extremely hot temperatures in recent years is confirmed in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Wisconsin State Climate Summary, which reports that the number of very hot days in Wisconsin has declined sharply over the past century, while the amount of winter and summer precipitation has either slightly increased or remained about the same.

Plus ça change, plus ç’est la même chose

by C. Monckton of Brenchley, Apr 23, 2025 in WUWT


Here in England this spring, there was dry, sunny weather through most of March, followed by gentle showers in April. And here is the opening couplet of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Tales of Caunterbury, written more than six centuries ago in 1387:

From the medieval climate optimum to the modern climate optimum, the weather in these islands has changed scarcely at all. The drought of March, the sweet April showers, the birdsong day and night, the bursting forth of primroses, bluebells, daffodils and other spring flowers, all are today just as Chaucer described them in the Middle Ages.

The wine-dark sea

One can even go back to Homer, in the 8th Century BC, who talked of the Mediterranean as “the wine-dark sea”. And here am I, almost three millennia later, recently recovered from a long illness caused by defective medication with no active ingredient in it, having climbed to the 1230ft summit of the Akamas peninsula in Cyprus, doing a Canute and challenging the wine-dark sea not to rise. The sea was wine-dark in Homer’s time. It is still wine-dark today.

Where, then, are the drastic changes in climate and consequent catastrophes and cataclysms so luridly predicted by the climate Communists? Where are the mass extinctions? Why is the climate much as it was in the Middle Ages? Why are ten times as many dying of cold as of heat? Why are crop yields at record highs? Why is the planet greening so fast? Continuer la lecture de Plus ça change, plus ç’est la même chose

New Study Finds The Anthropogenic ‘Pressure’ On Climate Is Too Small To Play A ‘Dominant Role’

by Dr. W. Stankowski, Apr 14, 2025 in NoTricksZone 


Even if the entirety of the modern CO2 concentration increase is due to human activity, the impact (pressure) on global temperatures amounts to no more than 15-18%.

In a new study, geology professor Dr. Wojciech Stankowski  has summarized some of the reasons why the prevailing narrative that says humans can drive climate change by burning more or less fossil fuels cannot be supported by the evidence.

Past natural climate changes such as Greenland’s “temperature increases of up to 10°C within just 50 years” 14,700 and 11,700 years ago confirm that the modern climate change rate (just 0.05°C per decade since 1860) falls well within the range of natural variability.

Further, a CO2 concentration change from 0.03% to 0.04% (300 ppm to 400 ppm) is not significant enough to impact temperature change in the global ocean, which covers 71% of the Earth’s surface.

“If carbon dioxide were the main driver of temperature fluctuations, its concentration variations would have to be enormous.”

“Currently, CO2 levels are around ~400 ppm. If this entire difference [the ~100 ppm CO2 increase since the early 20th century] is attributed to human activity, anthropogenic pressure accounts for no more than 15-18%.”

Natural factors such as tectonics, changes in galactic phenomena, and the Sun’s magnetic fluctuations continue to modulate changes in climate. Human activity can only play a non-dominant modifying role at most.

“The overall trends in climate change rhythms will continue to be determined by the complex nature of galactic phenomena, the energy-magnetic fluctuations of the Sun, and their interactions with Earth’s magnetic field.”

“The ever-increasing intensity of anthropo-pressure does not hold a dominant role in climate change.”

New Study: Plant Remains Embedded In A Modern Glacier Evidence A Warmer Antarctica 1000 Years Ago

by  K. Richard, Apr 21, 2025 in NoTricksZone

Leafy moss dated to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been found embedded in Antarctic glacier ice that today is “permanently snow-covered” with “no evidence of meltwater.” This affirms a warmer MWP and that “the summer melt during the MWP was greater than today.”

According to a new study, moss samples with intact leaves and stems 10 to 13 mm long have been discovered embedded in glacier ice – the Boulder Clay Glacier (BCG) – in Antarctica’s Victoria Land.

The surface of this glacier is currently not undergoing melt. It is instead permanently snow-covered.

“It is also noteworthy that under current climate conditions…there is no evidence of meltwater on the BCG, and the surface of the glacier is permanently snow-covered.”

The leafy moss samples have been dated to about 1,000 years ago, which is consistent with the timing of the Medieval Warm Period.

“…an unprecedented palaeo-erosion event occurred on the surface of an Anarctic glacier (northern Victoria Land, continental Antarctica) during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) between 900 and 989 cal BP.”

“The period between 831 and 1140 cal BP is characterized by reduced sea ice in northern Victoria Land, which is consistent with the occurrence of a brief event of warmer conditions around 1000 cal BP…”

The presence of thousand-year-old plant remains in a modern glacier strongly suggest the climate was warmer (and thus there was less glacier ice) during the Medieval Warm Period.

In alarmist imaginations, January 2025 was ‘hottest on record’; in reality, it was darned cold

by J. Robson, March 12, 2025 in ClimateRealistsofBritishColumbia


We continue to be baffled by alarmist claims that the long, cold winter of 2024-25 did not happen, is not happening, and must not happen.

Sometimes things occur that surprise us and run contrary to our general understanding of the world, but when they do we notice them and admit them. (Under which heading file that thus far in 2025 Arctic sea ice extent is at its lowest in a decade, the opposite of 2024.)

But what are we to make of “The Science Behind the Hottest January on Record: What It Means for the Future” or “The Impact of Record-Breaking January Temperatures on Global Climate Trends”?

In fact, as we reported recently, the best available satellite data shows a sharp drop in temperature in January. And we recently learned that Ottawa “just had its coldest February since February 2015.” In which it is far from alone, with harsh conditions from here to Central Asia. And we’re not out of the snowy woods yet. But who are you going to believe, data, headlines or your own eyes and frosty toes?

DESPERATELY SEEKING EXPLANATIONS…

If they do admit that it’s happening, and they look a bit silly trying not to, they produce an explanation-like object that lacks a certain rigour. For instance a piece on the topic in the Hindustan Times (oh what a globalized world we live in as MSN delivers us the Delhi take on cold in Timmins) explains that:

“After last month’s polar vortex collapse, a second one is expected to unleash freezing conditions across North America. With the winter weather phenomenon predictions eyeing a mid-March comeback, parts of Canada and the United States could be submerged in deep freezes, possibly even impacting travel as was seen in the previous cycle. The UK and Europe may also end up facing the brunt of the extreme winter weather.”

OK, so what’s with the dreaded warming? Well, the piece goes on for a while about how weird stuff is happening weirdly:

Is Arctic Amplification an Averaging Error?

by K. Hansen, Apr 15, 2025 in WUWT


Looking over one of my earlier essays, I found a note pointing to a very interesting journal paper whose findings raised an important question.  The paper is not new, it is almost a  decade old:  “Spatiotemporal Divergence of the Warming Hiatus over Land Based on Different Definitions of Mean Temperature”; Zhou & Wang (2016) [ pdf here ].

The paper was looking into this issue, as stated in the introduction:

“Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1983. This cooling trend is referred to as the global ‘warming hiatus’.”

We can see what they were concerned about with in this graph:

Bottom Line:

1.  Methods and definitions matter and can change our understanding of claimed rates of change of Global Mean Temperature. As covered in my series “The Laws of Averages”, not all averages give the same result or the same meaning.  Some averages obscure the physical facts.

2.  “…the use of T2 may bias the temperature trend over globe and regions” and “the sharp faster warming in the highest northern latitudes is greatly reduced” by using T24  to calculate warming trends.

3.  Zhou and Wang recommend using the Integrated Surface Database-Hourly (ISD-H, [T24])available from NOAA.

Is the sun responsible for global warming?

by S.B. Park, Apr 12, 2025 in SkepticalScience


Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.

Is the sun responsible for global warming?

NoGreenhouse gas emissions from human activities, not solar variability, is responsible for the global warming observed since the Industrial Revolution.

Cyclical variations in Earth’s orbit and changes in the amount of energy released by the sun have caused gradual climatic changes over tens of thousands of years. However, total solar activity has been decreasing since the 1980s.

Meanwhile, global average temperatures have been rising at an accelerating rate. The ten hottest years on record were the most recent ten while 2024 was the hottest on record. The last time Earth experienced a cooler-than-average year was 1976.

In 2021, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that solar fluctuations accounted for around 1% of the 1.1°C (2°F) of total global warming since 1850. The panel identified heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use and other human activities as the primary driver.

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


This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as the one highlighted here.


Sources

Skeptical Science Solar vs Temperature

NASA What Is the Sun’s Role in Climate Change?

NOAA Couldn’t the Sun be the cause of global warming?

NOAA Climate Change: Incoming Sunlight

NOAA 2024 was the world’s warmest year on record

NASA The Causes of Climate Change

IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers

About fact briefs published on Gigafact

Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer “yes/no” answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.

Climate Change Myths Part 1: Polar Bears, Arctic Ice, And Food Shortages

by J. Stossel, Apr 16, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 


stossel climate myths
Climate zealots tell us the end is near. It’s the era of “global BOILING!” says the UN secretary-general.

Climate alarmists say the Arctic will soon be ice-free and cities underwater!

But what do the facts say?

The facts say that the climate change fanatics’ catastrophic claims are wrong.

In this video and the next, we’ll debunk 7 myths about climate change.

New Study Finds The Anthropogenic ‘Pressure’ On Climate Is Too Small To Play A ‘Dominant Role’

by K. Richard, Apr 14, 2025 in NoTricksZone


Even if the entirety of the modern CO2 concentration increase is due to human activity, the impact (pressure) on global temperatures amounts to no more than 15-18%.

In a new study, geology professor Dr. Wojciech Stankowski  has summarized some of the reasons why the prevailing narrative that says humans can drive climate change by burning more or less fossil fuels cannot be supported by the evidence.

Past natural climate changes such as Greenland’s “temperature increases of up to 10°C within just 50 years” 14,700 and 11,700 years ago confirm that the modern climate change rate (just o.05°C per decade since 1860) falls well within the range of natural variability.

Further, a CO2 concentration change from 0.03% to 0.04% (300 ppm to 400 ppm) is not significant enough to impact temperature change in the global ocean, which covers 71% of the Earth’s surface.

“If carbon dioxide were the main driver of temperature fluctuations, its concentration variations would have to be enormous.”

“Currently, CO2 levels are around ~400 ppm. If this entire difference [the ~100 ppm CO2 increase since the early 20th century] is attributed to human activity, anthropogenic pressure accounts for no more than 15-18%.”

Natural factors such as tectonics, changes in galactic phenomena, and the Sun’s magnetic fluctuations continue to modulate changes in climate. Human activity can only play a non-dominant modifying role at most.

“The overall trends in climate change rhythms will continue to be determined by the complex nature of galactic phenomena, the energy-magnetic fluctuations of the Sun, and their interactions with Earth’s magnetic field.”

“The ever-increasing intensity of anthropo-pressure does not hold a dominant role in climate change.”

Ocean CO2 Outgassing With Temperature

by W. Eschenbach, Apr 13, 2025 in WUWT


Over at Dr. Jennifer Marohasy’s always interesting blog, she makes an interesting claim about ocean outgassing of CO2.

Picture this: it’s a hot day, and you grab a soda can that’s been in the sun. You crack it open—psssht—and CO₂ fizzes out, tickling your nose, maybe spraying your shirt if you’re slow. It’s a tiny chaos, a burst you can’t control. Now imagine that fizz across the ocean’s sun-warmed surface, covering 71% of Earth, bubbling CO₂ into the air we breathe. Wild, right? A bit mad. I reckon it’s a missing piece of the climate puzzle.

Now, it’s undeniable that warmer ocean water contains less CO2 than colder water. As the temperature rises, the CO2 outgasses from the ocean. But that wasn’t my question. After reading her post, my question was, “How much?”.

How much increase in CO2 do we get from a 1° increase in ocean temperature?

My first step was to look at the Vostok ice core data. It shows that as the globe rose by ~ 5°C, the CO2 level rose by ~ 100 ppmv. This gives us a CO2 outgassing trend of ~20 ppmv per 1°C temperature rise.

However, it’s not quite that simple. More of the ocean was covered by sea ice during the glaciation, reducing the outgassing ocean area. How much? Estimates are on the order of 30 million km^2, which is about 8.2% of the current ice-free ocean. So that would drop the value to ~ 18 ppmv/°C.

Next, I went to my go-to AI, perplexity, which gave me the following:

To estimate the increase in atmospheric CO₂ from a 1°C rise in ocean temperatures, Henry’s law and equilibrium dynamics between the ocean and atmosphere are key. Here’s a synthesis of insights from relevant studies:

• Henry’s Law and Temperature Dependence

Henry’s law states that the concentration of dissolved CO₂ in seawater (C) is proportional to its partial pressure in the atmosphere (p):  C = k_H * p, where(k_H) is Henry’s constant, which decreases with rising temperature (reducing CO₂ solubility). For example, a 1°C increase reduces(k_H) by ~4%[1][6]. This shifts the equilibrium, releasing CO₂ from the ocean to the atmosphere.

• Model Estimates

1. Simplified Ocean Layer Model:  

 Using a 100m-deep surface layer exchanging CO₂ with the atmosphere, a 1°C rise increases atmospheric CO₂ by ~6 ppm[1]. However, this assumes limited vertical mixing and may underestimate the full ocean response.  

   – For deeper layers (e.g., 3800m), the same temperature rise could yield ~20 ppm[1], aligning with glacial-interglacial transitions where a 5°C warming corresponded to ~90 ppm CO₂ rise (~18 ppm/°C) [1][7].

2. Modern Context:  

Recent studies highlight complexities like the ocean’s thermal skin layer and vertical mixing. Correcting for temperature gradients between the ocean surface and sampling depth increases estimated CO₂ uptake by 0.8–0.9 PgC/yr[2], but this focuses on current anthropogenic fluxes rather than equilibrium responses.  

• Key Variables

– Mixed-Layer Depth: Shallow layers (e.g., 100m) show smaller CO₂ releases than deeper layers[1].

– Buffering by Carbonate Chemistry: CO₂ dissolution forms carbonic acid, which dissociates into ions, adding complexity beyond Henry’s law[5][6]. This buffers pH changes but does not prevent long-term CO₂ release as temperatures rise.  

• Synthesis

The estimated increase ranges from 6–20 ppm/°C, depending on assumptions about ocean mixing depth and timescales. The higher end (~18 ppm/°C) aligns with paleoclimate evidence[1][7], while modern models suggest lower values due to ongoing oceanic uptake[2][3]. These estimates exclude feedbacks like biological responses or changes in ocean circulation.

  • Citations

Over 30 items here: Evidence that the climate scam is collapsin

by T. Neslon,  Apr 10, 2025 in WUWT


The climate scam is imploding right now. Of course there are still plenty of remaining pockets of climate cultism, but the whole movement is crumbling.

It’s the most massive scientific fraud in human history, and it will take significant time to completely die, but make no mistake: It IS dying.

In no particular order, here are some updates on the climate scam implosion. Please keep scrolling.

  1. “Huge: A powerful climate alliance of the World Economic Forum, major companies, the UN, and banks is “at an end“.
  2. “Bill Gates is giving up on climate change…Breakthrough Energy, a joint venture between Bill Gates and a handful of other billionaires… is slashing much of its policy staff.”
  3. NASA GISS funding “terminated”?: “New NASA Chief Will Wind Down Climate Alarm Shop“.
  4. Delicious straight talk from U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin: “we are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion“.
  5. Wonderful straight talk from U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright: “ 2050 “; he suggests climate change alarmism is “a quasi-cult religion”.
  6. The Tories have ditched Net Zero by 2050.
  7. Remarkably, Just Stop Oil just announced “the end of soup on Van Goghs, cornstarch on Stonehenge and slow marching in the streets“.
  8. Shellenberger/Pielke Jr: “Climate change is going to fade from view like overpopulation did…Lack of protests over Trump’s action on energy shows how little anyone every really cared about global warming“.
  9. One of the longest running climate cases, Juliana v. United States, just ended in rejection at the Supreme Court.
  10. A climate startup that boasted a roster of celebrity backers and arranged carbon credits for Meta, Microsoft and other large companies just filed bankruptcy.
  11. Blackrock chief Larry Fink mentioned “climate” a total of 29 times in his 2020 letter to CEOs, then ZERO times in his 2025 letter!
  12. Michael Mann is now losing in court to Mark Steyn.
  13. SEC Votes to End Defense of Climate Disclosure Rules.
  14. New Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard failed to even mention “climate change” as a national security threat.
  15. The warmist International Energy Agency just remembered that we need hydrocarbon fuels.
  16. Greenpeace was just hit with a $667 million judgement.
  17. Britain’s banks are quietly distancing themselves from Net Zero commitments.
  18. Warmist Sabine Hossenfelder laments that “Everyone is Giving Up On Climate Goals…global businesses are done pretending they care about carbon neutrality.”
  19. New Jersey’s massive lawsuit accusing the oil industry of causing climate change was dismissed with prejudice.
  20. Google Is No Longer Claiming to Be Carbon Neutral.
  21. The left “went from wanting EV mandates to now burning those same EV’s in the blink of a cultural eye”.
  22. Indonesia casts doubt on Paris climate accord after Donald Trump’s exit.
  23. Australian pension funds are backing away from climate pledges too.
  24. Davos speaker specifically lists *climate* first as a cause that is “simply being gradually kind of marginalised“!
  25. EU exploring weaker 2040 climate goal.
  26. Bloomberg: “Years of Climate Action Demolished in Days“.
  27. After lots of episodes guffawing at climate realists, The Climate Denier’s Playbook podcast went dark without explanation in Oct. 2024.
  28. Facing increasing pushback, many warmist scientists have fled from X. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt is one example.
  29. In recent months, lots of companies have been abandoning climate goals. Air New Zealand is one example.
  30. Greta Thunberg’s last X “school strike” post was in Oct. 2024. This Fridays for Future social media feed hasn’t been updated for almost three years.
  31. Last year Climate Nexus, a warmist organization which pushed climate hysteria for over a decade and had tens of employees, suddenly threw in the towel.
  32. Just over a year ago, The Daily Kos ClimateDenierRoundup page, which spewed climate scam propaganda incessantly (2,200 posts!) for many years, abruptly stopped posting.
  33. Joe Rogan, with his huge audience, was a full-on warmist in 2018 but now routinely scoffs at the climate scam.

More Evidence on Vapor Pressure Deficit, Cloud Reduction, and Climate Change

by C. Blaisdell, Apr 6, 2025 in WUWT


Abstract

In addition to WUWT, more and more web sites are mentioning cloud reduction as a source of climate change, but offer no source of the cloud reduction.  WUWT was the first to published this author’s theory: Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW, (1).  A critical part of CRGW theory is the relationship between Vapor Pressure Deficet, VPD, and Cloud Fraction.  The relationship is logical: as the atmosphere’s water vapor concentration approaches the due point the probability of cloud formation should increase.

Previous papers by this author have shown that Vapor Pressure Deficit and cloud fraction are loosely correlated (low R^2).  The measurement of cloud fraction seems to be the main uncertainty.  This essay will show that downwelling Short Wave, SW, radiation to the earth’s surface along with atmospheric enthalpy, En, correlate to Cloud Fraction, CF, thus increasing confidence in VPD as a predictor of cloud fraction.  VPD and En are necessary variables in the Cloud Reduction Global Warming , CRGW, model which models current climate change using Clausius–Clapeyron related equations.

Slicing the earth’s data reveals the change in atmospheric VPD and En vs latitude correlate to cloud fraction.  The earth’s slices suggestion that lower land cover in a slice may be related to cloud cover in addition to the expected sun angle.

But,  CO2 and VPD are confounded.  Which one is guilty of climate change?

Study: Greenland’s Melting Ice Unlikely To Trigger Atlantic Current’s Collapse

P. Gosselin, Apr, 10, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 


Day after Tomorrow
We hear it again and again: the melting ice in Greenland due to global warming will soon lead to a collapse of the Gulf Stream system, with the result that it would be difficult to restart. [emphasis, links added]

Then we would see great disasters like those depicted in Roland Emmerich’s dramatic climate movie “The Day after Tomorrow”.

The seawater salinity in the north is critical because the salt-rich tropical water cools and sinks due to the higher salt content.

This acts as the pump that makes circulation possible in the first place. It serves to transport very large amounts of heat into the North Atlantic, keeping Europe on the mild side in the wintertime.

Scenarios have been published recently that calculate a drastic cooling of the large area (especially Europe) around it if the Gulf Stream system got “switched off”.

But those scenarios are proving to be overdramatic and alarmist.

Yuxin Zhou, a postdoctoral researcher in UC Santa Barbara’s Department of Earth Science, recently went back in history to study when the AMOC was severely weakened, from 68,000 to 16,000 years ago, when the Laurentide Ice Sheet existed and thick ice covered northern North America and even New York City.

Today, that massive ice shelf no longer exists and thus there is no longer the potential of an ice melt and iceberg release of that scale.

Very different, less dramatic circumstances today

By analyzing sea sediment deposited by floating icebergs in the North Atlantic, Zhou found that the AMOC heat-transferring oceanic current had already been moderately weakened before all the icebergs floated over the North Atlantic.

Comparing the situation to today, Zhou says, “In contrast, the circulation is very vigorous right now,” which suggests the melting of Greenland is not likely to plunge the North Atlantic into another deep freeze of the sort the alarmists fret about all the time.

Moreover, Technology Networks here adds (emphasis added):

Not all melting has the same effect on the Atlantic circulation. Freshwater released as icebergs has a much larger impact on the AMOC than runoff, which is released after melting on land. Icebergs can cool the surrounding seawater, causing it to freeze into sea ice. Ironically, this ice layer acts as a blanket, keeping the ocean surface warm and preventing it from plunging down to the depths and driving the Atlantic circulation. What’s more, icebergs travel much farther out to sea than runoff, delivering freshwater to the regions where this deepwater formation occurs.”

Role of Climate Change in LA Wildfires “Not Statistically Significant”, Says Report Author

by C. Morrison, Apr 4, 2025 in WUWT


Climate change was a major factor behind the recent Los Angeles wildfires, reported Matt McGrath of the BBC last January. According to a ‘scientific study’ instantly produced by World Weather Attribution (WWA), the prevailing weather conditions were made about 35% more likely due to humans using hydrocarbons. The WWA study, according to the trusting McGrath, is said to confirm this somewhat precise attribution of blame. Possibly the BBC and most of the mainstream that also parroted the WWA line might consider some corrective copy in the light of a devasting critique of the claims from the theoretical physicist, science writer and prominent youtuber Dr Sabine Hossenfelder. In a YouTube video broadcast here that has gone viral on social media, she elicited an astonishing admission from one of the report’s authors that, “as you can see from the numbers, the changes in intensity and likelihood are unsurprisingly not statistically significant”.

Not statistically significant is exactly what Hossenfelder found since she noted that the figures supplied by the WWA were within a 95% statistical probability level. Her broadcast goes into detail about the numbers falling within the 95% level meaning that an alternative explanation is that climate change had no part to play in the LA fires.

But the laughter has a touch of gallows humour since Hossenfelder is concerned about matters of public policy arising from such widespread fearmongering. Wildfires affect the lives of millions of people and the claims of the WWA broadcast worldwide by unquestioning activists are policy relevant numbers, she observes. People in LA need to consider their response to the recent tragedy and judge whether it will happen more frequently in the future, she says, observing: “This research matters for people’s lives.” Of course similar observations can be made about all the other mainstream pseudoscience babble designed to deliberately induce mass climate psychosis and promote the collectivist Net Zero fantasy.

Lost in all the mainstream narrative-driven madness was any report about the recent sensational scientific finding that wildfires across the United States and Canada were occurring at a rate of only 23% of that expected from a review of the tree ring fire scar record going back to the 17th century. The findings published in Nature Communications effectively blew the politicised wildfire climate change scam out of the water. It was noted that a current ”widespread fire deficit” persisted across a range of forest types, and the areas burned in the recent past “are not unprecedented”.

Such was the alarm created by these inconvenient findings that one pre-publication reviewer noted: “I see this paper as potentially being used by deniers of climate change impacts.” Advice was given to rephrase “to put even more emphasis on impact rather than burned area”. In other words, concentrate on emotion rather than facts to help produce the Ultra Processed Message that is slowly but surely destroying faith in both climate science and the useful idiot media.

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

by K. Richard, Mar 13, 2025 in NoTricksZone 


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

In a new study, scientists have determined:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open peer review: State of the Climate 2024

by O. Humlum, Mar 14, 2025 in GWPF


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

Ole Humlum: State of the Climate 2024

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

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

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

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

The deadline for review comments is 4 April 2025.

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

by R. Bryce, Mar 13,2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 


My, oh my, how the worm has turned.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, well.

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

Temperature rising

by Nature Geoscience, Mar 12, 2025


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

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

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

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

Guardian Falsely Claims Climate Change is Intensifying Cyclones

by E. Worall, Mar 13, 2025 in WUWT


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

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

Daily carbon dioxide crosses 430 ppm

by Arctic News, Mar 8, 2025


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

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

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

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

La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse