Archives de catégorie : climate-debate

climate-debate

2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’

by K. Richard, Aug 25, 2026 in NoTricksZone 

…data on CO2 cannot be explained by the model of the greenhouse effect as the driver for temperature”

Today’s climate models assume there is a perpetual positive feedback as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere; CO2-induced warming produces more and more warming.

But Dr. Peter Stallinga uses empirical evidence-based data in his 2025 paper to determine the actual feedback sign is negative – and by a factor of two. This destroys the catastrophic runaway warming narrative.

“…feedback [from added CO2] is empirically found to be negative [by a factor of 2]”

The research emphasizes the statistical connection between CO2 and temperature is not consistent, shifting across different time periods or theoretical frameworks. For example, the paleoclimate relationship between CO2 and temperature may be 2000 ppm per K, whereas it is assumed to be 100 ppm per K over the last 60 years.

These wildly divergent relationships suggest that complex, varied physical processes influence the climate system rather than a single, dominant factor (i.e., rising CO2 emissions).

Ultimately, the study concludes that the greenhouse effect alone cannot adequately explain all observed atmospheric data.

“On a contemporary timescale, it is clear why the temperature has risen so little compared to the GHE model; CO2 simply does not have a large enough effect on temperature.”

better to know...?, climate-debate

Wrong, Deutsche Welle, There Is No Such Thing as a “Super El Niño,” Nor is it on Team Climate

by A. Watts, Aug 25, 2026 in WUWT

Deutsche Welle (DW) claims in “How climate change is teaming up with ‘Super El Nino” that a developing “Super El Niño,” combined with climate change, could make 2026 one of the hottest years on record while increasing the risks of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and marine heat waves around the world. This is highly misleading. El Niño are long-recognized naturally recurring ocean-atmosphere cycles that have operated for thousands of years and strong El Niño events have occurred periodically throughout history, long before industrial greenhouse gas emission began to increase.

That alone should make readers skeptical.

The first red flag appears in the headline itself. There is no official meteorological definition of a “Super El Niño.”

El Niño is not a new phenomenon, nor is it evidence of climate change. Long before automobiles, coal-fired power plants, or industrial emissions existed, El Niño events periodically warmed the tropical Pacific Ocean, temporarily altering normal weather patterns around the globe. Paleoclimate records from corals, lake sediments, and other shell middens, and other proxy data show that El Niño events have repeatedly occurred for thousands of years.

Nothing about its existence is evidence of a climate crisis. DW also suggests that climate change is “teaming up” with El Niño to produce record warmth.

That statement reverses cause and effect.

El Niño transfers enormous amounts of stored ocean heat into the atmosphere. That is precisely why global temperatures often spike during strong El Niño years and then decline as La Niña conditions return. This pattern has repeated for centuries.

The strong 1997-98 El Niño produced record global temperatures.

The powerful 2015-16 El Niño did the same.

More recently, the 2023-24 El Niño contributed to another jump in global temperatures before they began moderating as the event weakened. There is nothing unprecedented about this sequence, which is made clear in the Figure below

Neither the World Meteorological Organization, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center, nor the American Meteorological Society recognizes “Super El Niño” as a formal scientific classification. Meteorologists describe El Niño events by measuring sea surface temperature anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region of the tropical Pacific. They may characterize an event as weak, moderate, strong, or very strong, but “Super El Niño” is largely a media invention designed to make a naturally occurring climate pattern sound unprecedented.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Scientists discover a natural Arctic cloud factory missing from climate models

by  University of Birmingham, Aug 18, 2026 in ScienceDaily

A newly discovered Arctic process can dramatically boost the number of particles that help form clouds. Near melting sea ice, sunlight reacts with chemicals released by the ocean, algae, and ice, causing cloud-seeding particles to multiply by as much as 50 times in a day. Because the active ice-edge region is growing as sea ice retreats, the effect could become increasingly important. Scientists now want to add the process to climate models to see how much it could reshape Arctic warming.
The findings, published August 5 in Nature Geoscience, come from an international team led by the University of Birmingham with collaborators in China and Spain. The researchers provide the first real-world evidence that a powerful particle-forming process occurs where Arctic sea ice meets open ocean. In this zone, marine life and sunlight help produce a chemical mixture that can seed the atmosphere with particles capable of influencing clouds.
…
better to know...?, climate-debate

Comparison Of Two German Weather Forecasts: From 25 Years Ago And From Today

by P. Gosselin, Aug 20, 2026 in NoTricksZone 

Escalating climate language: 25 years ago, 28°C was “pleasant”…today it is called “extremely dangerous”.

The following video link compares two different forecasts for warm summer weather but are allegedly from a couple of decades apart. I can’t be sure of their authenticity, but the language tone differences between back then and today are definitely accurate! Today, the media make summertime in Germany appear as extremely dangerous!

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1YzSiSCk3x/

25 years ago…

The first forecast by the German weather lady is from a couple of decades ago. Here’s what she reported:

Tomorrow we’ll be getting wonderful summer weather! Temperatures will rise to a pleasant 28 to 30 degrees Celsius [82 to 86°F]. Everywhere across the country, there will be plenty of sunshine and only a few fair-weather clouds. Perfect weather for heading to the lake or having an ice cream in the beer garden. Enjoy the summer!”

Versus today

The second made recently by a German weatherman forecasts almost exactly the same weather conditions, but with alarmist tones:

Tomorrow we are facing an extremely dangerous heatwave! Temperatures will climb to a hazardous 28 to 30 degrees Celsius [82 to 86°F]. UV radiation will be extremely high, with an increased risk of high ozone levels and heatstroke. Avoid direct sunlight where possible, stay hydrated, and look out for the elderly and young children.”

climate-debate

Canicules : ce que l’on sait… et surtout ce que l’on ignore encore : une canicule … ou des canicules ?

par G. Granereau, 21 août 2026 in Science, Climat, Energie 

par Granereau Gilles,
Ancien météorologiste, puis chef de projets environnement, aménagements forestiers et tourisme à l’ONF. Spécialisé dans la gestion du littoral (fixation des dunes, gestion de l’érosion marine, etc.), dans les aménagements forestiers à caractère « extensif », dans les aménagements touristiques en milieux sensibles, botaniste. Chargé de mission Natura 2000 pour les dunes d’Arcachon (La Teste) à Tarnos, et pour le grand site militaire du Camp du Poteau (9500 hectares), où j’ai pu travailler entre autres dans la stratégie et la typologie des pare-feu.

Depuis plusieurs semaines, impossible d’y échapper : journaux, radios et chaînes d’information ont fait des épisodes caniculaires de juin et du début juillet 2026 leur sujet favori. Les températures exceptionnellement élevées enregistrées en France ont naturellement suscité de nombreuses interrogations et, très souvent, une même explication est avancée : le « dérèglement climatique ».
Le terme est désormais entré dans le langage courant. Pourtant, derrière cette expression se cache une réalité infiniment plus complexe que ne le laissent parfois entendre les débats médiatiques et politiques. Avant d’attribuer un phénomène météorologique à une cause unique, il est toujours prudent de se poser une question simple : savons-nous réellement pourquoi cette canicule s’est produite ?
Car il existe une différence essentielle entre décrire un phénomène et en expliquer les causes. La première démarche relève de l’observation ; la seconde exige une compréhension approfondie des mécanismes en jeu. En science, ces deux étapes ne coïncident pas toujours. Les chercheurs en savent quelque chose : la nature a cette fâcheuse habitude de ne pas toujours répondre aux questions dans l’ordre où nous les posons.

Image réalisée avec ChatGPT (IA), à partir d’instructions de l’auteur, 2026.

….

better to know...?, climate-debate

Wave Goodbye to the Butterfly Effect …

by M. Jonas, Aug 18, 2026 in WUWT

… and wave as hard as you like. There’s no need to worry about disrupting Earth’s climate.

It has been a long time coming, but I have had another paper on Climate Modelling published – Chaos Theory is Void. It addresses the well-known and generally-accepted Butterfly Effect, aka Chaos Theory. I and others have felt for a long time that the Butterfly Effect exists only in models, and that Earth’s self-correcting weather/climate is too stable for the Butterfly Effect to exist to any meaningful extent in the real world. But how to prove that?

Two years ago, in GCMs Cannot Predict Climate, I described how GCMs (General Circulation Models) cannot predict climate because their iterative mechanism fails after a few weeks. Clearly the iterative mechanism itself is the problem. But how to prove that?

It all stayed on the back-burner for a while, but then I came across a paper that criticised an AI-based model for not being able to replicate the Butterfly Effect. In my previous paper I had argued that the structure of GCMs was upside-down: instead of working bottom-up from weather to climate, a climate model should work top-down with climate. Now, here was AI doing exactly what I argued for and being criticised for not having the same problem as GCMs!

…

climate-debate

Incendies de forêt : au-delà du débat climatique, les enseignements de Fontainebleau et de l’Aquitaine

par G. Granereau, 7 août 2026 in Science, Climat, Energie 

Cet article a initialement été rédigé à l’issue des feux de Fontainebleau. Puis sont survenus les incendies en Gironde, et dans les Landes. Passer outre ces feux « hors normes » eut été un manquement à l’objectivité de la problématique.

Un incendie est un phénomène multifactoriel. Chercher une cause unique, quelle qu’elle soit, conduit presque toujours à une mauvaise compréhension du phénomène.

L’objectif de cet article n’est pas d’alimenter une polémique. Il est de rappeler qu’un incendie majeur résulte toujours d’une combinaison de facteurs et que réduire son explication au seul réchauffement climatique conduit à négliger d’autres causes sur lesquelles il est possible d’agir.

La photographie jointe est de 2011, elle illustre les « brûlages dirigés » organisés au Camp du Poteau (terrain militaire à cheval Landes/Gironde), où j’étais chargé de mission Natura 2000 et avais pour mission dans ce cas d’expertiser la technique et d’évaluer son intérêt écologique et stratégique. Le pompiers (militaires et SDIS) pratiquaient dans ce cadre leur formation aux feux tactiques

…

climate-debate

TWO KEY POINTS THAT NEED TO BE STRESSED IN A DISCUSSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE

by Climate Science, Aug 18, 2026

The first is that climate is not the same thing as weather. It is quite wrong to say that the climate has changed because we have had two or three hot dry summers. Those are simply weather. Climate change requires there to be an increase in the number of hot dry summers over a thirty year period, when compared to a previous thirty year period.

The second is that even if there has been a change as described above, we cannot simply say that the whole of that change is due to an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is good evidence that warming may also be caused by a change in cloud cover. Or changes in the circulation of the ocean currents. There is still a lot of argument about what proportion of warming can be attributed to each component.

To argue these points is not unreasonable. It is unreasonable not to accept them. You cannot be a climate change denier if you accept that climate can and does change. The evidence must be based on sound statistics.

better to know...?, climate-debate

Just as Hot in 1911

by P. Homewood, Aug 116, 2026 in NotaLotOfPeopleKnowThat

Hottest day of the year in the urban heat ravaged London, where temperatures are generally around three degrees higher than elsewhere:

…

Back in 1911 temperatures in London hit 37.8C (100F):

image

image

In those days, London was known as “The Smoke” for good reason. Coal power stations, gas works, steam trains and pretty much all industry filled the atmosphere with fumes, blocking out much of the sun’s energy.

There is nothing unprecedented about the weather in the past week.

Just as significant are the temperatures in more rural areas – 98F (36.7C) at Canterbury, Epsom and Raunds in 1911.

This week, the highest temperature at a Class 1 site was 35.5 at Rothamsted, in the Hertfordshire countryside just outside the London urban heat bubble.

The heatwave in 1911 was also long lasting, extending from July well into September. It was also exceptionally dry.

I’ll do a full analysis when summer is over. But the summer of 1911 disproves the notion that we did not used to have heatwaves like this year’s in the past.

climate-debate

CO2 is Winning (Mitigation fail)

by R. Bratley Jr., Aug 15, 2026 in WUWT

“The future of rational climate policy is adaptation, not mitigation that works against adaptation. Social justice demands that climate policy not increase energy prices and restrict consumer sovereignty.”

Want to prosper in the energy/climate arena? Avoid wasteful, futile climate ‘mitigation’ policy. Want to ruin your economy for no effect on climate? Rush ahead with wind, solar, batteries, EVs, and forced conservation. The UK/EU experience speaks for itself.

Examine the graph below, and ask yourself which economies are prospering and which are retrogressing. The jumps between 2014 and 2024 would be magnified today.

 …
…

The future of rational climate policy is adaptation, not mitigation that works against adaptation. Social justice demands that climate policy not increase energy prices and restrict consumer sovereignty.

Appendix: Prior Adaptation Articles

Adaptation Momentum, Mitigation Fatigue (August 5, 2026)

Global Air Conditioning: Adaptation in Action (July 21, 2026)

Adaptation: Think about It (July 2, 2026)

The Argument for Adaptation and Resilience (Part I: Theory) July 14, 2025

Examples of Adaptation and Resilience (Part II: Examples) July 15, 2025

Climate Adaptation vs. Mitigation Fail (June 12, 2025)

“Resilience and Adaptation”: Mitigation Demotion Ahead? (October 9, 2024)

Adaptation to Heat: Then and Now (May 3, 2024)

On the Climate Train to Destruction? Another View (adaptation, not futile mitigation) August 2, 2023

Adaptation: The Hidden Climate Strategy (May 3, 2021)

Taming Climate Change: Capitalism at Work (market adaptation, not government mitigation) January 5, 2021

Taming Climate Change: Capitalism at Work (market adaptation, not government mitigation) January 5, 2021

better to know...?, climate-debate

Henrik Svensmark fired by his university

by K.I. Dahl-Madsen,  July 21 ,2026 in Clintel.org

 Something unusual and encouraging has happened in Danish climate journalism. Berlingske, one of Denmark’s leading national daily newspapers, has published an excellent and genuinely inquisitive article about the dismissal of physicist Henrik Svensmark from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), where he has been working since the late nineties. The headline leaves no room for doubt: “Controversial Danish climate and space researcher has received the pink slip from DTU: It is ‘a death blow’ to my research”.

Here is how the article starts:

He is one of Denmark’s most internationally recognized researchers – and at the same time one of the most controversial. But now space and climate researcher Henrik Svensmark has, in his own words, been “good old-fashioned fired” by his employer, the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) in Lyngby. He does not rule out that “political considerations” – as he puts it – were involved in the years-long process that led to his final dismissal. At the same time, Henrik Svensmark does not hesitate to call it “a death blow” to a branch of research that he has largely developed single-handedly and that climate researchers around the world, including the UN’s climate panel (IPCC), have had to relate to – often reluctantly. This is mainly because Svensmark’s research points to what he sees as an overlooked natural factor behind a large part of the climate changes Earth has undergone. He finally does not rule out that the dismissal may be linked to the fact that he is perceived as a controversial researcher in wide circles: “There is nothing controversial about the research itself. But it is true that many perceive my research as controversial, even though it shouldn’t be.” DTU has no comments on the actual dismissal of Svensmark and refers to it as a personnel matter. However, the director of DTU Space, Henning Skriver, confirms that Svensmark’s overarching research area, atmospheric physics, will now “be significantly down-prioritized.”

Science journalist Lars Henrik Aagaard deserves credit for the whole article. Rather than dismissing Svensmark as merely ‘controversial’, he asks the essential question: is DTU retiring an ageing employee, or is it terminating an internationally recognized but scientifically inconvenient research program?

…

climate-debate

Methane Emissions From Wildfires: Trends and Anomalies

by Zhu. et al., Aug 8, 2026 in JGRAtmospheres 

Abstract

Wildfires emit smoke particles and trace gases including greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, impacting the environment and leading to detrimental impacts on human health and economy. The estimation of spatially and temporally resolved methane emissions from biomass burning (BB) provides critical information in developing measurement-informed methane inventories. The use of satellite active fire products (fire radiative power) is an effective pathway to investigate wildfire emissions around the world. In this study, the Global BB Emissions Product-eXtended algorithm is employed to estimate long-term temporal variation and geographic distribution of methane emissions from BB using satellite observations from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer and the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite. Globally, on average about 19 Megatonnes of BB methane are released to the atmosphere every year, nearly half of it originating from Africa, where BB represents a significant proportion of the total methane emissions. Our findings show that methane emissions from wildfires are substantial and can exceed other source sectors during extreme wildfire events, negating gains from years of emission reductions from anthropogenic sources. The contribution of fires to the methane budget is significant for regions with intense fire activities. Effective wildfire prevention and management could be beneficial to rapidly reduce methane emissions from BB.

better to know...?, climate-debate

New Study Details Massive Recent Sea Ice Expansion And Cooling In The Greenland Sea

by K. Richard, Aug 13, 2026 in NoTricksZone 

Scientists (Yilgan and Jónsdóttir, 2026) report annual mean sea ice extent in the Greenland Sea was 8.4 times greater in 2023 (2,403.6 km²) than in 2019 (287.6 km²).

In the month of January, the sea ice extent was 6.4 times larger in 2024 (20,308 km²) than in 2017 (312 km²).

Hand-in-hand with the recent sea ice expansion, the region has experienced a short-term 1°C cooling from 2016 to 2024.

…

The recent trend for the Greenland Sea appears to be consistent with the trajectory enveloping much of the Arctic since the mid-2000s as reported by England et al., 2025.

“Over the past two decades, Arctic sea ice loss has slowed considerably, with no statistically significant decline in September sea ice area since 2005.”

…

Australia, better to know...?, climate-debate

Soon corals may invade all those useless bare patches of sand…

by Jo Nova, Aug 11, 2026 in JoNovaBLog 

The Fact is, after forty years of man made global warming and 1,100 billion tons of CO2 there is better coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef than there was in 1985.

VIDEO in the text, 14min

The ABC hasn’t reported this, so I feel compelled to share the news as a public service. We know if it were “another record low” it would have been the lead story on the 7pm news.

So here we are, yet again — Humans have dumped 1.1 Trillion tons of CO2 into our atmosphere since these comprehensive surveys started and who can tell? That’s over sixty percent of all human CO2 emissions ever, that have been recklessly released since 1985 and there is nothing to show for it in the largest and longest surveys we have of the biggest reef in the world.

“Lucky” the UN didn’t slap an endangerment warning on it isn’t it? Lucky for them.

…

…

Misinformation is a government funded industry

Ten years after the corals hit a record low, the Australian Environment Foundation survey showed that half the country didn’t realize the reef has recovered. Only 3% knew the corals were at a record high, and nearly half the Green voters were as wrong as they possibly could be — they thought coral cover was at a record low.

This mass ignorance is not an accident. The ABC cultivates it. But AIMS, the CSIRO and most of our academics stayed silent when they could have spoken up. All around the world right wing governments are being created that are taking an axe to corrupt programs. Will these self-serving institutions wise up and raise their game in time, or will they sink with the Big Bloated Government Team that they nakedly campaign for?

better to know...?, climate-debate

The UN Green Climate Fund is a wasteful fraud

by D. Wojick, Aug 12, 2026

The UN Green Climate Fund (GCF) is neither Green nor about climate. They are mostly just doing normal foreign aid that the donor countries would be better off doing themselves. They have received and spent over $20 billion to date, with more billions coming.

For example, they fund a lot of water supply systems in dry countries. They call it “climate change adaptation,” but it is not adaptation to climate change. It is addressing a condition that has always existed. It is fraud to call this “climate funding.” The same is true for flood protection in flood-prone areas or improving existing farms, which they also do a lot of.

Moreover, much of this so-called adaptation funding actually increases CO2 emissions, so it is not even green.

A fine example is their biggest funding to date, which is part of the huge Jordan Desalination Project. The GCF says that Jordan is among the world’s driest countries, so it certainly needs water. But Jordan has been this dry throughout its history, so the project has nothing to do with climate change.

Then too, desalination uses lots of electricity, and Jordan’s electric power production is around 70% fossil-fueled, mostly with natural gas. The project includes a token solar facility, but it only covers a small fraction of the 24/7 energy required for desalination and pumping the water up to the users, most of whom are around 1,000 meters higher than the plant.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Cherry-Picking Met Office Drops Declining Wind Speed Chapter From Its Latest Annual Climate Report

by C. Morrison, Aug 12, 2026 in WUWT

Lower UK wind speeds and less powerful storms have always been a bit of a disappointment to activists whipping up a climate crisis frenzy to back the Net Zero fantasy. Going back over 50 years, the data is clear on a declining trend. Of course, despite its lamentable inability to step up to the Net Zero plate, wind is one of the UK’s “essential climate variables”, to quote the Met Office’s own words. Since it first started publishing its annual state of the UK climate report, the climatic performance of wind and storms have had their own dedicated chapter. Alas, no more. The 2025 report, published last month, has abolished the chapter – wind it seems is now little more than a footnote. Should do better, some might comment.

However hard one tries to regard the Met Office as a sound independent science body, its obvious Net Zero promotion constantly gets in the way. “Embarrassingly duped by activists” was Matt Ridley’s recent verdict and it is difficult to disagree. How it can justify abolishing wind is almost beyond comprehension. It doesn’t take a particularly cynical nature to suggest the ever-expanding chapter on temperatures is unlikely to disappear in future editions.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Les catastrophes naturelles, notamment climatiques, sont moins nombreuses

by Ph. Delsol, 11 août 2026 in Contrepoint.org

Nous avions déjà noté qu’après une baisse de 8 % en 2025, les tarifs de la réassurance avaient chuté de plus de 14 % lors des renouvellements du mois de janvier 2026, notamment du fait de sinistres climatiques moins importants. Le premier semestre 2026 confirme la baisse significative de la sinistralité climatique. Les principaux acteurs mondiaux de la réassurance, particulièrement Munich Re et Swiss Re, enregistrent de ce fait des résultats en forte hausse. Et lors des renouvellements des contrats en juillet 2026, les prix de la réassurance ont encore reculé de 5,5% (cf. Les Echos du 10 août 2026).

Néanmoins la gauche qui a fait son fonds de commerce de l’écologie punitive continue d’alimenter un discours catastrophiste. « Les sinistres se multiplient, les coûts explosent » entend-on sur France Culture le 29 juillet. Sur RMC, ce 6 août, Jean-Philippe Dogneton, directeur général de la Macif, considère que nous vivons une « époque qui s’aggrave sur le plan climatique ». Certes, les incendies sont cette année d’une ampleur inédite. Mais il faut moins en accuser le dérèglement climatique que l’impéritie de l’Etat qui, faute de moyens et de volonté, laisse prospérer la criminalité, à laquelle semble-t-il tant de feux sont dus, et s’est révélé incapable de mieux anticiper et notamment d’équiper les corps de pompiers de suffisamment de Canadair, ou équivalents.

Plutôt que de vouloir changer le climat, peut-être faudrait-il apprendre à s’y adapter et à vivre avec la chaleur comme beaucoup de pays le font depuis longtemps.

climate-debate

Another New Study Links Modern And Past Global Warming To Natural Changes In Cloud Clover, Not CO2

by K. Richard, Aug 12, 2026  in NoTricksZone

Cloud cover changes are a “top-down dynamical driver” of Earth’s climate.

A July 2026 Environmental Research Letters paper authored by Bellocchi et al.attributes ~80% of the rise in Earth’s absorbed solar radiation since 2000 to declining high-reflectivity cloud cover, primarily from circulation-driven contraction of storm-cloud zones.

The study highlights the climate’s “albedo governance,” suggesting a 1% shift in Earth’s albedo corresponds to a 1°C surface temperature change.

With more cloud cover, more solar radiation is reflected and the surface cools. With declining cloud albedo, which has been observed since 1980, less solar radiation is reflected and the surface warms.

Cloud cover changes are driven by natural atmospheric circulation modes and internal variability. This is supported by reconstruction data showing cloud cover decline has for centuries occurred independently from “greenhouse-gas forcing.”

…

climate-debate

No, ScienceDaily, Data Show No ‘Sharp Acceleration’ in Warming

by A. Watts, 7 aug, 2026 in WUWT

ScienceDaily’s article, “Scientists detect a sharp acceleration in global warming,” promotes a new Geophysical Research Letters paper claiming that global warming has entered “a faster gear” since about 2015. This is false.  The authors argue that after statistically removing the effects of El Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability from five global surface temperature datasets, they detect a statistically significant acceleration in warming of about 0.35°C per decade over the past 10 years. But historical temperature data show a much different picture.

There is no convincing evidence that Earth’s warming has suddenly accelerated. Instead, this appears to be an exercise in statistical manipulation built upon climate modeling assumptions, presented as though it were an observational discovery.

And there’s advocacy behind the paper too, as evidenced by this quote from the paper’s co-author, climate science blogger Stefan Rahmstorf:

If the warming rate of the past 10 years continues, it would lead to a long-term exceedance of the 1.5°C limit of the Paris Agreement before 2030. How quickly the Earth continues to warm ultimately depends on how rapidly we reduce global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to zero.

Science and advocacy are not a convincing combination.

The paper does not report the discovery of a new measurement. It takes existing surface temperature records, applies a statistical procedure designed to subtract what the authors consider “noise” from El Niño, volcanic aerosols, and solar variability, and then analyzes the adjusted temperatures for an acceleration signal.

In other words, the claimed acceleration appears only after the authors modify the observations. ScienceDaily presents this as though scientists have discovered a new physical phenomenon. They haven’t. They have created a new statistical product.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible” – Meaning Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially Junk

by C. Morrison, May 6, 2026 in WUWT

Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed politicians are in shock following an official admission from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”. The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant development in climate research in decades”.

Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.

Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.

He goes on to note that tens of thousands of research papers have been and continue to be published using these scenarios. In addition, a similar number of media headlines have “amplified their findings”, while governments and international organisations have built these implausible scenarios into policy and regulation.

…

climate-debate

New Study: U.S. Heatwaves And Temperature Extremes Have Been Declining Since 1899

by K. Richard,  Apr 27, 20236 in ClimateChangeDispatch

weather temp station
The contiguous United States (CONUS) has the most reliable and comprehensive long-term daily maximum and minimum temperature records, with over 1,200 stations recording these data since the late 19th century. [some emphasis, links added]

It is often reported that extremes in hot and cold temperatures – and especially heatwaves – have been increasing in both frequency and intensity in the last few decades as a consequence of rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

“The results indicate that extremes in heat-related metrics for daily T [Max] in the summer have not increased and in fact often show modest declines since 1899, due mostly to the early heat events during 1925-1954.”  – Christy, 2026

However, reliable data from temperature stations across the CONUS indicate extreme heat, extreme cold, and heatwave duration and intensity have been declining since 1899, mostly due to the much higher extremes recorded during the 1925-1954 period.

Conveniently, most alarmist claims about accelerating maximum and minimum temperature extremes start their analysis in the 1950s or later.

In recent decades, CONUS’s extreme heat (and cold) records fall well within the range of natural variability.

“The metrics for extreme summer heat, e.g., hottest values, number of heatwave days, etc., show modest negative trends since 1899. Extreme cold temperature metrics also indicate a decline in their occurrences, especially since the 1990s. In sum, instances of both hot and cold extreme metrics have declined since 1899.” …

“[T]he heat extremes occurring in the CONUS today are well within the range that natural variability already provides.” …

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Govt Cover Up Inconvenient Winter Excess Deaths Data

by P. Homewood, Apr 24, 2026 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

It has long been known that many more people in the UK die in winter months than at other times of year. It has never been a secret.

Year after year, the ONS, Office for National Statistics, published the data to prove it.

…

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2021to2022provisionaland2020to2021final

That is until 2022, when the annual publications abruptly ended, without any official explanation as far as I am aware. It took a Freedom of Information request to winkle out the real story – this is the ONS response in February 2026 to that FOI:

…

climate-debate

Earth Energy Imbalance: The Sun versus CO2

by A. May, Apr 25, 2026 in WUWT

This is the text of a talk I gave on a Tom Nelson podcast. To listen to the talk and see Tom’s interview of me go here.

Some believe that CO2 and other greenhouse gas infrared emissions are as effective at increasing ocean heat content (or OHC) as solar radiation. Some even think greenhouse gas (abbreviated “GHG”) radiation is more effective than solar. There are many generally agreed points that dispute this conjecture:

  1. The average photon energy in GHG IR (greenhouse gas infrared) is less than the photon energy in solar radiation because energy goes up as frequency increases (Planck-Einstein relation).
  2. Greenhouse gas-induced infrared radiation is absorbed almost entirely in the ocean’s top micrometers to one millimeter. This is the upper part of the thermal skin layer or “TSL,” and called the electromagnetic skin layer. Incoming solar radiation—particularly blue-green visible wavelengths—penetrate much deeper, typically over 10 meters (and up to 100+ meters in very clear waters), before being absorbed and heating the water column (Wong & Minnett, 2018).
  3. The atmosphere, on average, is cooler than the bulk ocean which is the essence of the “cool skin effect” (Fairall et al., 2026). Heat flow is normally from the ocean to the atmosphere.
  4. The infrared energy from greenhouse gases absorbed in the thermal skin layer cannot be conducted downward into the bulk ocean since the net heat flux is upward. Instead, it adjusts the ocean’s thermal skin layer temperature profile, reducing upward conduction from the bulk ocean (Wong & Minnett, 2018).

Solar radiation warms the ocean directly; greenhouse‑gas IR warms it indirectly by reducing upward heat loss. These mechanisms are not equivalent, and the relative magnitudes are uncertain. These points are discussed in more detail in three earlier blog posts (here, here and here). The posts generated more than 500 interesting comments on my website and on Wattsupwiththat. In this talk I’d like to summarize the comments to illuminate this complex issue.

The Ocean Skin Layer

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Continuing Slump in Global Media Climate Agitprop Bodes Ill for Future Net Zero Support

by C. Morrison,  Apr 13, 2026 in TheDailySceptic

Decades of careful grooming of incurious journalists designed to whip up a non-existent climate emergency have failed to halt a dramatic continuing collapse in mainstream media stories backing the Net Zero fantasy. Last year saw a 14% global slump in climate-related stories compared to 2024, which was already 38% down on peak Greta hysteria in 2021. Perhaps there is only so long that once trusting consumers are prepared to read, let alone pay for identical, narrative-driven drivel that is often so one-sided that it is an insult to the intelligence. Exhibit 1: the BBC’s October 2023 classic – Climate change could make beer taste worse.

The greatest declines over 2025 were found in Africa, the Middle East and North America. Interestingly, the failed Amazon COP30 meeting in November 2025 was followed the month after by coverage falling off a cliff in Latin America (-61%), Oceania (-52%) and the European Union (-41%). A period of private grief seems to have given  the long-suffering public a merciful break from the relentless cacophony of climate catastrophising.

News of the continuing falls in climate change and global warming coverage are contained in the latest annual report from the Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO) at the University of Colorado Boulder. To produce its latest findings, MeCCO tracked the volume of newspaper, wire services, radio and TV climate stories across 59 countries and seven regions. The work is said to have used a consistent methodology since 2004.The graph below shows clearly the spikes in the Greta hysteria around the start of the current decade, and the earlier Gore grift that followed the release of his ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ film.

…