Archives de catégorie : climate-debate

better to know...?, climate-debate

U.S Surface Temperature

by WUWT, Oct 2025

August ’25 | 0.54°F (0.30°C)

US Climate Reference Network (Updated when Gov shutdown ends)

Click for description of the data/larger graph

The US Climate Reference Network record from 2005 shows no obvious warming during this period. The graph above is created monthly by NOAA.

The graph shows the Average Surface Temperature Anomaly for the contiguous United States since 2005. The data comes from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) which is a properly sited (away from human influences and infrastructure) and state-of-the-art weather network consisting of 114 stations in the USA.

These station locations were chosen to avoid warm biases from Urban Heat Islands (UHI) effects as well as microsite effects as documented in the 2022 report Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed. Unfortunately, NOAA never reports this data in their monthly or yearly “state of the climate report.” And, mainstream media either is entirely unaware of the existence of this data set or has chosen not to report on this U.S. temperature record.

The national USCRN data, updated monthly as shown in the above graph can be viewed here and clicking on ClimDiv to remove that data display in the graph: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0

24-hour precipitation and temperature data for individual stations can be viewed with graphs, by clicking ‘PLOT’ on the Current Observations page: ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/current-observations

climate-debate

New Study Contradicts The Alarmist Narrative That Says The AMOC Is Catastrophically Collapsing

by K. Richard,  Oct 16, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

Alarmists claim that, due to anthropogenic climate change (AGW), the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is weakening to the point that it’s on the verge of collapsing. It’s claimed this will lead to abrupt cooling and extreme weather in the North Atlantic region.

But the author of a new study points out that changes in sea level trends are a useful proxy for detecting AMOC variability over time.

Interestingly, from one side of the Atlantic to the other, or, specifically, from the coasts of New York to the coasts of France, mean sea level rise has been stable, not accelerating, since 1960.

This affirms the stability of the AMOC and contradicts the narrative that the AMOC is on the cusp of collapse.

“…a negligible difference in absolute sea level rise between these locations [The Battery, New York, and Brest, France] reinforces the stability of the AMOC within the period 1960 to 2024. These findings challenge claims of AMOC weakening.”

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

We Need to Talk About Climate (To Each Other)

by N. Komar, Oct 1, 2025 in WUWT

Among professionals who work on the climate issue (the “Climate Community”), there is a long-standing reluctance to engage in conversation with people who don’t consider that the climate is in crisis.

Due to this reluctance, there are exceedingly few recorded debates between members of the Community and those from the outside with an appropriate level of expertise to make for a lively and educational dialogue (but there are some, and below, I’ve listed all of the debates that I have been able to find).

I find the lack of debate to be frustrating.  In my case, I am skeptical of the idea that the earth’s climate is in crisis.  To me, the skeptical arguments seem to be more likely to be correct than the alarmist arguments.  Two important reasons for my skepticism: 1) The few actual debates I have had the pleasure to witness have been won by the skeptic(s). 2) The skeptics I speak to appear confident in their views and are eager to debate people from the Community; members of the Community, conversely, display what seems like a tribal attitude and either are hesitant, or in many cases, just unwilling to debate.

I am willing to be proven wrong regarding my skepticism.  But I can’t be bullied into changing my view.  It would take a reasoned argument, juxtaposed against arguments from the skeptic side of the debate.  And I’ve been following this issue for over 25 years.  For the average person curious about climate, but new to the issue, I would guess that it is quite hard to find arguments on both sides in order to make an informed decision for themselves.  While the question of how climate works is a question of Science, the culture that has developed around the issue is a culture of Politics.  Consequently, a search on the internet for articles on climate will return a politically curated batch.

I’ve been working on a project for the last 2-½ years to transform the situation described above.  It’s called Climate Verso.  Currently the project consists of a podcast, with only a few episodes published to date.  It can be found on any podcast platform: https://theclimateversopodcast.buzzsprout.com/

More episodes will be dropping over the next few months, and I’m totally open to help from anyone interested in getting involved.  The format of the podcast is a dialogue between two climate professionals with differing perspectives.  I am the moderator of the discussions.  Please listen to either or both of the episodes published so far. The first is Matthew Wielicki and Peter Fiekowsky debating the efficacy and risks of Ocean Fertilization.  The 2nd is a wide ranging conversation between Judith Curry and Andrew Revkin about how the climate issue became polarized over the last 40 years.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

New ‘Climate at a Glance’ Book Challenges ‘Climate Crisis’ Narrative with Hard Data

by A. Watts, Oct 08, 2025 in WUWT

Second edition of Climate at a Glance, published by The Heartland Institute, provides public with Facts on 40 Climate Topics
First edition in 2022 was a #1 Amazon Best-seller in the categories of ‘Science for Kids, ‘Climatology,’ and ‘Environmental Science’

 

…

“For too long, climate discourse has been dominated by slogans and fear, while real science and sound policy have taken a back seat, but the data tell a far more complicated story. This book is not about denying that the climate changes—it always has and always will—but about questioning whether today’s costly, disruptive policies are grounded in evidence or in politics. By examining the data, the models, and the history of our ever-changing climate, this book cuts through the noise to show that climate change is not a one-way catastrophe but part of Earth’s natural variability. Instead of rushing into policies that wreck economies and livelihoods, we need honest science, open debate, and the courage to question a narrative that too often puts politics before facts.”

Anthony Watts
Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate
The Heartland Institute

climate-debate

COP30’s Carbon Circus: Elites Show Everything That’s Wrong With Climate Alarmism

by D. Blackmon, Oct 0, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Sky-high costs, private jets, and rainforest destruction make a mockery of the very climate agenda activists claim to champion.

 

Massive Amazon deforestation for COP30 road
In case you’ve missed it amid the Trump White House’s decision to ban U.S. participation, this year’s U.N.-sponsored COP30 conference is being hosted by Belem, the capital city of the Brazilian state of Pará. [emphasis, links added]

Suffice it to say that, as is always the case with these annual gatherings of globalist elites, preparations for this year’s event have been filled with a series of pitfalls, emergencies, and the usual stories of rank hypocrisy.

A great example came on Tuesday, when Bloomberg ran a story with the alarming headline, “Nations Rethink Plans for Brazil Climate Summit as Costs Soar.” Sounds scary, doesn’t it? Yeah, that’s probably the point.

It turns out that prices for hotel rooms and other accommodations are soaring (unexpectedly!) in advance of the conference, which should actually surprise no one, given that these events are regularly attended by tens of thousands of conferees armed with virtually unlimited expense accounts.

The profit motive remains alive and well in the midst of the Amazon jungle despite the best efforts of Brazil’s socialist government to kill it off. Go figure.

Bloomberg’s writers first imply that the high costs of attendance are falling mainly on the shoulders of developing nations, saying, “representatives of developing and at-risk countries say they’re considering scaling back their presence at this year’s event, which would reduce their visibility and negotiating power.”

Countries must have a big delegation present to ensure they get their entitled slices of every one of the myriad climate alarm initiatives, schemes, and scams that will be rolled out at this year’s conference, you know.

The piece singles out Tanzania’s Richard Muyungi, who chairs the African Group of Negotiators, as claiming that “African national delegations typically range from about 60 to 100 people.”

After all, it’s a two-week event, so countries feel the need to sub in backups for exhausted participants like an NFL defensive coordinator rotates tackles and linebackers.

Later in the story, though, Bloomberg admits that some developed countries are also scaling back their planned delegations from previous years.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Sea Level Rise Hoax Exposed: The Disappearing Islands That Refuse To Disappear

by P. Gosselin, Oct 4, 2025 in NoTricksZone

Germany’s Klimanachrichten here publishes an article titled “The Disappearing Islands (That Don’t Want to Disappear)” summarizes findings suggesting that the widespread assumption about low-lying islands inevitably sinking due to rising sea levels is too simplistic and detached from reality.

Earlier, the media often tried to scoff at and discredit findings from inconvenient sea level experts, like Axel Mörner:

Undeniable science: Mörner et all, 2011

But today, climate alarmist media are forced to concede things are not as dire as they once believed.

74 of 101 islands are growing

…

climate-debate

The Guardian Is Wrong: Cities Are Hotter Because of the UHI Effect, Not Increased CO₂

by A. Watts, Oct 6, 2025 in WUWT

In The Guardian’s op-ed, “World’s major cities hit by 25% leap in extremely hot days since the 1990s,”asserts that global warming has caused a sharp rise in the number of extremely hot days in cities worldwide, citing an International Institute for Environment and Development analysis that claims urban residents from London to Tokyo now experience 25 percent more hot days each year than they did in the 1990s. The claims are highly misleading if not outright false. While cities worldwide have in fact gotten warmer, carbon dioxide increases from the burning fossil fuels are not to blame, rather data strongly suggests that the significant rise in measured temperatures in and around major cities is Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect in response to population growth and development.

The article quotes scientists as saying, “Global heating caused by fossil fuel burning is making every heatwave more intense and more likely. Extreme heat is likely to have caused the early death of millions of people over the past three decades, with elderly and poor people in fast-growing cities most deeply affected.”

One telling moment comes in The Guardian article itself, where researchers concede that “failing to adapt will condemn millions of city dwellers to increasingly uncomfortable and even dangerous conditions because of the urban heat island effect.” Precisely. It is the UHI effect, not CO₂, that drives the city heat trends.

The Guardian’s narrative collapses under scrutiny, because it ignores the UHI effect. Cities are not thermometers for the planet. They are microclimates dominated by concrete, asphalt, and glass which trap heat and bias local temperature readings upward. Peer-reviewed research by John Christy, Ph.D. and Roy Spencer, Ph.D., published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology shows that urbanization is a major driver of observed warming at city weather stations. Their research found that UHI contributed to 22 percent of the raw observed warming trend on average, and up to 65 percent at suburban and urban stations. When examining rural stations, the effect nearly vanishes. This demonstrates that much of the increase in urban temperatures is the UHI, not global climate change. This is vividly illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 below.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Mid-Holocene South China Sea Level 2-3 Meters Higher Than Today Due To 1-2°C Warmer Temps

by K. Richard, Sep 30, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

The mechanisms driving the meters-higher sea levels a few thousand years ago do not support claims that CO2 is a driver.

A comprehensive analysis (Zhang et al., 2025) of the South China Sea region indicates warmer sea water was fundamentally responsible for sea levels that were, on average, 2-3 meters higher (and in some regions as much as 5-7 meters higher) than today from approximately 7000 to 4000 years ago.

“Understanding Holocene high sea levels in the South China Sea (SCS) is critical for understanding climate change and assessing future sea-level rise risks. We provide a comprehensive review of the Holocene highstand in the SCS, focusing on its age, height, and mechanisms. Records reveal a wide range for this highstand: ages span 3480–7500 cal yr BP, while elevations range from −7.40 to 7.53 m relative to the present. Positive elevations dominate (80.5% of records), with the most frequent range being 2–3 m.”

“…the Holocene high sea level in this region occurred between 7200 and 5000 yr BP…at least 2.9-3.8 m higher than today.”

…

climate-debate

New Study Attributes Arctic Sea Ice Decline – And ‘Slowdown’ Since 2012 -To Internal Variability

by K. Richard, Oct 2, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

“Observations show no significant decline in Arctic sea ice concentration (SIC) since 2012…revealing a negligible trend of -0.4% per decade…” – Wang et al., 2025

Scientists are now acknowledging the sharply declining trend in Arctic sea ice from the mid-1990s to 2010s (-11.3% per decade), as well as the “negligible” or flat trend since 2012 (-0.4% per decade) are both “closely coupled” with natural decadal-scale variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscilliation, and “enhanced summertime radiation balance associated with an anticyclonic atmospheric circulation pattern.”

In other words, instead of a linear decline in Arctic sea ice coupled with rising greenhouse gas emissions, it is claimed that “approximately half” of the observed Arctic sea ice decline in the modern era can be attributed to internal variability.

The authors of this new study published in Nature Communications further suggest the flattened trend or “slowdown” in sea ice decline will likely persist for the next 10 to 15 years. Consequently, alarmist predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic in the coming decades will have to be put on hold until after the 2030s.

better to know...?, climate-debate

The Amazon’s “CO₂ Problem”? Turns Out the Trees Love It – So Does the Media

by A. Watts, Oct 1, 2025 in WUWT

For decades, we’ve been warned that the Amazon rainforest—the so-called “lungs of the planet”—was on the verge of collapse. Headlines screamed about tipping points, mass die-offs of giant trees, and irreversible climate catastrophe. Yet, buried in the data, something rather inconvenient has been happening: the Amazon is getting bigger, fatter, and taller.

A new Nature Plants study, covering 30 years of field data from 188 permanent forest plots across Amazonia, shows that the average size of Amazon trees has increased by more than 3% per decade . In plain English: the forest isn’t shrinking in stature, it’s bulking up.

The researchers found:

  • Mean tree size up 3.3% per decade
  • Largest trees (>40 cm diameter) increased 6.6% per decade
  • Biomass increasingly concentrated in the biggest trees
  • No evidence of large-scale die-off from climate stress

In their words:

“We find that tree size has been increasing across all size classes… The observed patterns match the expectations from increased resource availability, particularly from rising atmospheric CO₂.”

So much for the “large trees are doomed” hypothesis.

…

…

My Final Thoughts

The real takeaway is this:

  • Rising CO₂ is not just a “pollutant”—it is also a powerful plant fertilizer.
  • Amazonian forests are currently benefitting, not suffering, from this change.
  • Predictions of imminent collapse have once again run headlong into inconvenient data.

When climate modelers assure us that “the science is settled,” it’s worth recalling just how often field data overturns the narrative. The Amazon was supposed to be collapsing. Instead, its trees are thriving.

That doesn’t sell headlines or funding proposals, but it’s what the evidence shows.

So, next time someone calls CO₂ “pollution,” remind them: without it, plants—and by extension, we—wouldn’t exist. And with a bit more of it, the world’s largest rainforest seems to be doing just fine.

climate-debate

New Study: Modern Warmth Is Merely Part Of A Natural Cycle

by K. Richard, Sep 22, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

Throughout the last 10,000 years there have globally been much warmer and more extensive iceless periods than observed in the modern era.

“There is reliable geological evidence that the temperature of most warming phases in the Holocene were globally higher or similar to that of the current warming period, Arctic sea ice was less extensive, and most mountain glaciers in the northern hemisphere either disappeared or were smaller.”

Cold periods – like warm periods – are driven by natural solar forcing mechanisms. The last of which was manifested in the 19th century.

“A solar forcing mechanism has steered Holocene climate change, expressed by 9 cooling phases known as Bond events.”

The recent warming is part of a natural cycle, not a consequence of human activity.

“The modern warming is part of a climatic cycle with a progressive warming after the Little Ice Age, the last cold episode of which occurred at the beginning of the 19th century.”

There is thus nothing unprecedented or even unusual about the modern climate state. Any claims to the contrary are “not supported by the geological data.”

 

Ses Marks, 2025

climate-debate

“But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”

by Gavin, Sep é&, 2025 in RealClimate

Almost two decades ago, some scientists predicted that Arctic summer sea ice would ‘soon’ disappear. These predictions were mentioned by Al Gore and got a lot of press. However, they did not gain wide acceptance in the scientific community, and were swiftly disproven. Unsurprisingly, this still comes up a lot. Time for a deeper dive into what happened and why…

It is unsurprising that climate contrarians bring up past ‘failed predictions’ to bolster their case that nothing need be done about climate change. [It is equally unsurprising that they don’t bother to mention the predictions that were skillful, but let’s not dwell on that!]. For a long time, their favorite supposed ‘failed prediction’ was that there was a consensus about the imminence of a new ice age in the 1970s (a topic we have covered many times), but more recently it has turned to the supposed prediction of Al Gore that “Arctic summer sea ice would disappear” in a short number of years. This has everything – the ‘But Al Gore!’ knee-jerk, a conflation of Al Gore with the scientific community, it’s sounds suitably apocalyptic and, of course, Arctic summer sea ice has not disappeared (it’s only down 40% or so):

Arctic summer sea ice extent anomalies from NSIDC, with the exceptional years of 2007 and 2012 highlighted (data through July 2025).

What did Al Gore actually say?

If we go back to Dec 2007, in the immediate aftermath of the shocking decrease in sea ice that summer, Gore gave his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize he’d received jointly with the IPCC. In it he said:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

What was he reporting on?

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Lomborg: Environmental Doomsday Predictions Collapse As World Becomes Richer And Greener

by B. Lomborg, Sep 16, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Fearmongering climate change forecasts keep falling apart.

Climate protest
Over the past half-century, environmentalists have predicted countless calamities. Their extreme predictions were typically wrong, their draconian countermeasures turned out to be mostly misguided, and we should be grateful we didn’t follow their harmful advice. [emphasis, links added]

We need to keep this history in mind as we are inundated with stories of climate Armageddon.

This summer, headlines about the Great Barrier Reef painted a dire picture of climate-driven devastation, with environmental journalists claiming the reef was on the brink of collapse.

In reality, data shows the reef has its fourth-highest coral cover since records began in 1986, revealing these alarmist narratives to be vastly misleading.

Truth and Scares

Sensible, life-improving environmental policies over recent decades were rarely sold with fearmongering. Rich countries have dramatically reduced air and water pollution through technological advances and then through regulation.

Poorer countries are starting to do the same thing, as they emerge from poverty and can afford to be more environmentally concerned. Forests have expanded globally, with this growth clear in rich countries and increasingly across the world.

This isn’t the scary future environmentalists promised us.

A recent peer-reviewed study counts almost a hundred environmental doomsday predictions that environmentalists have made over the past half-century.

Two-thirds of them predicted doom before August 2025, and all of these have turned out to be false.

…

climate-debate

Koonin: DOE Climate Report Finally Brings Clarity, Challenges Alarmist Narrative

by S.E. Koonin, Sept 09, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Empirical data shows CO2 boosts growth, extreme weather events are overblown, and policy costs outweigh any benefits.

Protest on a dead planet
A recent Energy Department report challenged the widespread belief that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a serious threat to the nation. It likely soothed Americans irked by forced energy transitions, but you would be wrong to assume it reassured many alarmed by hypothetical climate catastrophes. [emphasis, links added]

There is a disconnect between public perceptions of climate change and climate science—and between past government reports and the science itself.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright understands this. It’s why he commissioned an independent assessment by a team of five senior scientists, including me, to provide clearer insights into what’s known and not about the changing climate.

Collectively, our team brought to the task more than 200 years of research experience, almost all directly relevant to climate studies.

The resulting peer-reviewed report is entirely our work, free from political influence—a departure from previous assessments.

It draws from United Nations and U.S. climate reports, peer-reviewed research, and primary observations to focus on important aspects of climate science that have been misrepresented to nonexperts.

Among the report’s key findings:

■ Elevated carbon dioxide levels enhance plant growth, contributing to global greening and increased agricultural productivity.

■ Complex climate models provide limited guidance on the climate’s response to rising carbon dioxide levels. Overly sensitive models, often using extreme scenarios, have exaggerated future warming projections and consequences.

■ Data aggregated over the continental U.S. show no significant long-term trends in most extreme weather events. Claims of more frequent or intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and dryness in America aren’t supported by historical records.

■ While global sea levels have risen about eight inches since 1900, aggregate U.S. tide-gauge data don’t show the long-term acceleration expected from a warming globe.

■ Natural climate variability, data limitations, and model deficiencies complicate efforts to attribute specific climate changes or extreme events to human CO2 emissions.

■ The use of the words “existential,” “crisis,” and “emergency” to describe the projected effects of human-caused warming on the U.S. economy finds scant support in the data.

■ Overly aggressive policies aimed at reducing emissions could do more harm than good by hiking the cost of energy and degrading its reliability. Even the most ambitious reductions in U.S. emissions would have little direct effect on global emissions and an even smaller effect on climate trends.

Our report is the first from Washington in years that deviates from the narrative of a climate headed for catastrophe. That these findings surprised many speaks to a governmental failure to communicate climate science accurately to the public.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

UK Poll Shows Rising Climate Skepticism, Opposition to Net-Zero Policies

by O. Wright et al., Sept 12, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

New research finds a sharp rise in climate change skepticism as Brits reject net-zero policies

Ed Miliband's wind farm fantasy
The number of Britons who think the dangers of global warming have been exaggerated has jumped by more than 50 percent in the past four years, new research for The Times reveals today. [emphasis, links added]

One in four voters now believes that concerns over climate change are not as real as scientists have said, amid growing public concern about the cost of the government’s net-zero policies.

Less than a third of the public (30 percent) are in favor of banning new petrol and diesel cars — down from 51 percent in 2021.


Only 16 percent of voters said they would be prepared to pay higher gas bills to encourage the switch to electricity.

Experts said the findings showed that growing climate skepticism within mainstream politics in both Britain and the US was cutting through with voters, as the broad consensus on climate action breaks down.

“Climate change is being politicised [in the UK] in the same way that has been done in the United States,” said Professor Wouter Poortinga, an environmental psychologist at the University of Cardiff.

…

climate-debate

New Study: ‘CO2 Does Not Precede Temperature, Nor Does It Control Temperature’

by K. Richard, Sept 5, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

More evidence is unleashed undermining the CO2-drives-climate narrative.

A comprehensive correlation analysis (Grabyan, 2025) utilizing the last 2000 years of temperature and CO2 data affirms CO2 changes lag temperature changes by ~150 years throughout the 1 to 1850 C.E. era.

This Common Era (C.E.) lead-lag sequencing – with temperature changes leading and CO2 changes lagging by centuries to millennia – is wholly consistent with the paleo CO2 and temperature proxy (ice core, stomata, borehole, etc.) record spanning the last 20,000 years (Demezhko and Gornostaeva, 2014), 400,000 years (Fischer et al., 1999, Mudelsee et al., 2001, Monnin et al., 2001, Uemura et al., 2018), 66 million years (Frank, 2024), and 420 million years (Koutsoyiannis, 2024).

It is notable that the CO2 changes can be shown to be driven by temperature changes over not only the long-term (centuries), but over short-term periods (months, years) as well (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023, Humlum et al., 2013).

…

climate-debate

Graph of the Week – Temperature of ocean air-sheltered stations

by A. Watts, Aug 26, 2025 in WUWT

I somehow missed this, but I find it very interesting. From the 2018 paper: “Temperature trends with reduced impact of ocean air temperature” by Frank Lansner*, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen

Abstract

Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds.

Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean air-sheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean.

We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.

…

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Another New Study Suggests Most – 80% – Of The Modern CO2 Increase Has Been Natural

by K. Richard, Aug 29, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

An independent researcher (Robbins, 2025) has reviewed recent research that suggests at least “80% or more of the [modern CO2] increase is of natural origin.”

This is because “changes in atmospheric temperature are an ‘effect’ of changes in SSTs and not a ’cause’ as some might advocate.”

…

…

Similar conclusions are found in a paper published in the same peer-reviewed journal last year (Ato, 2024).

“SST [sea surface temperature] has been the determinant of the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and […] anthropogenic emissions have been irrelevant in this process…”

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Media Falsely Claim Antarctica On Brink Of Climate Doom, Ignore Contrary Data

by A. Watts, Aug 29, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Why abrupt Antarctic ‘climate shifts’ aren’t new or necessarily catastrophic.

 

Emperor Penguins
A recent CBS News article, “Abrupt Antarctic climate shifts could lead to ‘catastrophic consequences for generations,’ experts warn,” claims that Antarctica is on the brink of irreversible collapse due to climate change, warning that sea levels could rise by meters and that “catastrophic consequences for generations” are looming. [emphasis, links added]

This is false or, at best, deeply misleading.

The actual data and history of Antarctic ice show that “abrupt changes” are neither unprecedented nor a reason to panic. Natural variability and cyclical shifts are being ignored in favor of sensational headlines pushing the increasingly untenable climate crisis narrative.

CBS was not alone in pushing the Antarctic climate crisis narrative.

On August 21, 2025, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) joined the chorus of media outlets with alarming headlines warning of a pending ice collapse, publishing a report claiming Antarctica is undergoing “rapid, self-perpetuating changes” that are “potentially irreversible.”

Each of the reports cited a new Nature review led by Professor Nerilie Abram as the source of the information for their alarming articles.

ABC’s article presents Antarctica as being in a state of runaway decline, with imminent threats to emperor penguins and global sea levels, parroting language from the Abram paper as if it were an observed fact, rather than the speculative synthesis of research papers that the Nature study cites.

CBS, ABC, and other media outlets are covering this story as if a tipping point is upon us—but a closer look at the evidence reveals otherwise.

…

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

NYT Falsely Blames Climate Change For Hurricane Erin Despite No Evidence

by L. Lueken, Aug 28, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Rapid intensification of Hurricane Erin isn’t unusual, and attribution studies don’t prove climate change caused it.

The New York Times (NYT) published an article titled “How Climate Change Affects Hurricanes Like Erin,” in which they rely on rapid attribution analysis to claim that climate change is making rapidly intensifying hurricanes more likely, implying that the storm was worsened by global warming. This is false. [emphasis, links added]

Attribution studies are generally not based on solid scientific evidence and, therefore, not provable. Plus, there is a lack of evidence to support the notion that rapid intensification is becoming more common.

At the outset, the NYT claimed that hurricane Erin’s effects, such as they are, “are made worse by global warming,” even though the storm stayed offshore. The storm intensified quickly from a Category 1 to a Category 5 hurricane, and NYT claims that “[a]s the planet warms, scientists say that rapidly intensifying hurricanes are becoming ever more likely.”

First, it is important to note that just because a storm is among the most rapidly intensifying on record, it does not mean that there were not similar storms that went unrecorded.

As mentioned in a previous Climate Realism post about hurricane Erin, hurricane measurement technology is far advanced today than it was even a few decades ago.

Before the widespread use of Hurricane Hunter flights starting in the 70s where offshore storms were first closely monitored and directly measured throughout their lifespan, other rapidly intensifying storms would not have made the record.

So there is uncertainty about the record there.

Beyond that, attribution researchers and the NYT would like to blame hurricane intensification all on warm sea surface temperatures, but rapid intensification occurs in response to a variety of factors lining up just right.

Similar claims were made two years ago concerning Hurricane Otis. That storm also intensified rapidly over a single day, turning into a Category 5 before hitting the west coast of Mexico.

Otis did not intensify under expected conditions; thunderstorm bursts that forecasters were unable to predict are now believed to have been responsible for its rapid intensification.

Just as some scientists say more intense storms are more likely with warming, other scientists say that they will become less likely to form or less likely to strike land.

The NYT neglected to mention these perspectives, focusing its story on the scarier opinions that support the narrative that climate change is responsible for worsening extreme weather events.

In fact, as Climate at A Glance: Hurricanes details, there is no data suggesting hurricanes are becoming more frequent or more intense.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Study Finds Extreme Weather Database Exaggerates Global Disaster Trends

by Climate Discussion Nexus, Aug 28, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Disasters don’t count if you don’t count them.

City flood aftermath
According to its publishers, a dataset called EM-DAT, which stands for Emergency Events Database, so it’s not even an acronym, lists “data on the occurrence and impacts of over 26,000 mass disasters worldwide from 1900 to the present day.” [emphasis, links added]

Which makes it perfect for studying long-term trends. And what’s even better, for the climate change crowd anyway, is that, as the authors of a 2024 study noted, “There are very strong upward trends in the number of reported disasters.”

But as the same authors noted in the very next sentence, “However, we show that these trends are strongly biased by progressively improving reporting.” Simply put, before 2000, reporting of small disasters that caused fewer than 100 deaths was hit-and-miss.

So, historically, the record of giant disasters that killed hundreds or more persons is reasonably complete, but not the record of small ones.

And the authors of the recent study argue that once they adjust for the effect of underreporting, the trends in disaster-related mortality go away.

The paper, “Incompleteness of natural disaster data and its implications on the interpretation of trends,” by a group of scientists in Sweden, began by noting that they are not the first to point out the problem.

The weird thing is that many authors who have pointed out this massive flaw have then gone ahead and used the data anyway, as though it did not exist, or at least they had not noticed it:

“Various authors (Field et al., 2012; Gall et al., 2009; Hoeppe, 2016; Pielke, 2021) have noted that there are reporting deficiencies in the EM-DAT data that may affect trends then proceeded to present trend analyses based on it without correction. Even the EM-DAT operators themselves discourage using EM-DAT data from before 2000 for trend analysis (Guha-Sapir (2023)). Yet recently, Jones et al. (2022) investigated the 20 most cited empirical studies utilising EM-DAT as the primary or secondary data source, and found that with only one exception the mention of data incompleteness was limited to a couple of sentences, if mentioned at all.”

Having made that point, their study then digs into the records and shows that in the post-2000 period, there is a steady pattern relating the frequency of events to the number of fatalities (F) per event.

It follows something that statisticians call “power-law behaviour” in which the more extreme an outcome, the rarer it is, not in a straight line but in an inverse exponential relationship, where extreme things, [like] large numbers of fatalities in a disaster, are a lot rarer than small numbers on a logarithmic curve. (For instance, in boating accidents, there are tens of thousands of individuals falling out and drowning for every Titanic.)

Hydrological, meteorological, and geophysical disasters all follow power-law behaviour in recent decades. But in earlier decades, the relationship doesn’t appear to hold because of a deficiency of low-fatality disasters in the data, rather than because it wasn’t still true then..

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report

by T. Gallaudet, Aug 26, 2025 in TheEpochTimes

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

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

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

Abstract

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

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Trump Unsettles Supposedly Settled Climate Science

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

…

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

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

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

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

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

better to know...?, climate-debate

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

by Clintel Foundation, Aug 24, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…