Archives de catégorie : climate-debate

climate-debate

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 →

climate-debate

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.”

climate-debate

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.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

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:

…

climate-debate

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.

climate-debate

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-debate

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.

…

climate-debate

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.”

…

climate-debate

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

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

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.
climate-debate

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?

…

climate-debate, Cooling

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.”

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

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.

…

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.

…

La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse