by C. Rotter, Feb 27, 2025 in WUWT
How a “scientific consensus” that “climate change is mostly human-caused” was forced by:
1) Shutting down funding for scientific research into natural causes.
2) Punishing scientists who continued this research anyway.
This is an excerpt from “Climate The Movie” (2024). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU
by C. Rotter, Feb 25, 2025 in WUWT
For years, climate scientists have assured us that NOAA’s homogenized temperature datasets—particularly the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)—are the gold standard for tracking global warming. But what if the “corrections” applied to these datasets are introducing more noise than signal? A recent study published in Atmosphere has uncovered shocking inconsistencies in NOAA’s adjustments, raising serious concerns about the reliability of homogenized temperature records.
The study, conducted by a team of independent climate researchers led by Peter O’Neill, Ronan Connolly, Michael Connolly, and Willie Soon, offers a meticulous examination of NOAA’s homogenization techniques. These researchers, known for their expertise in climate data analysis and critical evaluation of mainstream climate methodologies, gathered an extensive archive of NOAA’s GHCN dataset over more than a decade. Their research involved tracking over 1800 daily updates to analyze how NOAA’s adjustments to historical temperature records changed over time.
Their findings reveal a deeply concerning pattern of inconsistencies and unexplained changes in temperature adjustments, prompting renewed scrutiny of how NOAA processes climate data.
The study analyzed NOAA’s GHCN dataset over a decade and found that:
In layman’s terms: NOAA is repeatedly changing historical temperature records in ways that are inconsistent, poorly documented, and prone to error.
What Is Homogenization Supposed to Do?
Continuer la lecture de NOAA’s Homogenized Temperature Records: A Statistical House of Cards?
by The Editors, Jan 10, 2005 in NationalReview
For more than eight years, the climate scientist Michael Mann harassed National Review through litigation over a blog post — until, eventually, the First Amendment brought an end to his attack. This week, a court in our nation’s capital ordered Mann to pay us $530,820.21 worth of attorney’s fees and costs, and to do so within 30 days. It is time for him to get out his checkbook, and sign on the dotted line.
This restitution is welcome, if incomplete. As was made clear during the discovery process, Mann’s explicitly stated intention was to use a “major lawsuit” as a vehicle with which to “ruin National Review.” Happily, Mann failed in this endeavor. But, while all’s well that ends well, his failure exacted costs nevertheless. Between 2012 and 2019 — with the courts inexplicably refusing to apply legal provisions ostensibly designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits such as Mann’s — we were forced to spend a considerable amount of time and money defending ourselves against his malicious, meritless suit. Between 2019 and now, we have been obliged to expend yet more effort trying to recoup at least some of our costs. This week’s award will not undo all of the damage that Mann has inflicted upon us, and upon journalism more broadly — we had asked for $1 million in fees and costs, and even that was a fraction of what we have spent — but it will, at least, go some way toward making us whole.
…
by C. Rotter, Feb 18, 2025 in WUWT
Introduction
The field of climate science has long been presented as an objective, data-driven discipline, immune to the biases and financial conflicts that plague other scientific domains. However, a recent preprint study by Jessica Weinkle et al, Conflicts of Interest, Funding Support, and Author Affiliation in Peer-Reviewed Research on the Relationship between Climate Change and Geophysical Characteristics of Hurricanes, challenges this assumption, shedding light on an alarming lack of conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in climate research, particularly in studies linking hurricanes to climate change. She also has an excellent write up of the study on her Substack, Conflicted.
The study’s findings reveal a disturbing trend: not a single one of the 331 authors analyzed disclosed any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest. Moreover, the research found that funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was a significant predictor of studies reporting a positive association between climate change and hurricane behavior.
…
…
Time to Clean House
The Weinkle et al. study is a wake-up call for anyone who still believes climate science is an objective, bias-free discipline. The overwhelming correlation between NGO funding and climate change-hurricane research outcomes, coupled with the complete absence of COI disclosures, exposes a deeply entrenched problem.
The fact that not a single author among 331 disclosed a conflict of interest should be viewed as a scientific scandal. If such a pattern were observed in pharmaceutical or medical research, there would be widespread public outcry and immediate reforms. Yet, in climate science, this level of opacity is tolerated—perhaps because it serves the interests of powerful political and financial actors.
At the very least, this study proves that climate science is not above bias. The question is: Will the scientific community acknowledge and correct these issues, or will it continue to operate under a veil of selective transparency?
by H.S. Burnett, Feb 17, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch
…
FAO data for those countries show that since 1990:
Each of these countries experienced multiple years of record-setting production over the past three and a half decades of climate change. (See the figure below).
With these facts in mind, there is no evidence whatsoever that climate change is putting cocoa production under extreme pressure, except perhaps in the imagination of Earth.com’s Ionescu.
Globally carbon dioxide has resulted in a general greening of the Earth with significantly improved crop production. There is good reason to believe that rising carbon dioxide concentrations have significantly contributed to West and Central Africa’s improved cocoa production, as well.
…
by S.A. Parks et al., OPEN ACESS, Feb 10, 2025 in Nature
Rapid increases in wildfire area burned across North American forests pose novel challenges for managers and society. Increasing area burned raises questions about whether, and to what degree, contemporary fire regimes (1984–2022) are still departed from historical fire regimes (pre-1880). We use the North American tree-ring fire-scar network (NAFSN), a multi-century record comprising >1800 fire-scar sites spanning diverse forest types, and contemporary fire perimeters to ask whether there is a contemporary fire surplus or fire deficit, and whether recent fire years are unprecedented relative to historical fire regimes. Our results indicate, despite increasing area burned in recent decades, that a widespread fire deficit persists across a range of forest types and recent years with exceptionally high area burned are not unprecedented when considering the multi-century perspective offered by fire-scarred trees. For example, ‘record’ contemporary fire years such as 2020 burned 6% of NAFSN sites—the historical average—well below the historical maximum of 29% sites that burned in 1748. Although contemporary fire extent is not unprecedented across many North American forests, there is abundant evidence that unprecedented contemporary fire severity is driving forest loss in many ecosystems and adversely impacting human lives, infrastructure, and water supplies.
…
by C. Martz, Feb 13, 2025 in WUWT
The political fires that ignited with President Donald Trump’s second inauguration shifted national attention away from the devastating wildfires in California.
Now entirely contained, the Los Angeles County fires should not be allowed to fade into the history books, chalked up to yet another consequence of man-made global warming. Politicians trying to pin the blame for the disaster on climate change are not only attempting to avoid accountability but are just plain wrong.
Fires require three key ingredients: an ignition source, fuel, and oxygen. Wildfires do not spontaneously combust because the planet is 1.2°C warmer now than in 1850. There must first be an ignition source. These can be natural, such as lightning, or man-made, such as fireworks, sparks, or arson. Ninety-seven percent of fires between 1992 and 2012 had a human ignition source, according to a study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Mediterranean California is no exception. While the exact cause of the Los Angeles fires has yet to be determined, lightning has already been ruled out. Whether it was an accident, arson, or broken utility lines remains unknown. If it was a broken power line, Southern California Edison must explain why it didn’t deenergize its transmission lines in the foothills. What is known is that the weather conditions have been ripe for fires to escape containment and spread.
…
by S. Millay, Feb 13, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch
This summary serves as a fact check on the most egregious false claim about climate change made in the media in January 2025. [emphasis, links added]
Counter-Narrative Reality vs. Counter-Reality Narrative
It was a busy January keeping track of President Trump’s first steps toward dismantling the federal government’s Climate Leviathan. It was also a very cold January and that’s what this edition of Climate Fact Check will cover.
Per the relatively unmanipulated NASA satellite data, January 2025 is estimated to have witnessed a substantial drop of 0.34°C from last January concerning the made-up metric of “average global temperature.”
This is despite that atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from about 422 parts per million (ppm) in January 2024 to 426 parts per million in January 2025.
That 4 ppm increase in carbon dioxide is worth about 78 billion tons of emissions. Therefore, 78 billion more tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted in a January that was 0.34°C cooler than the previous January.
February is typically the coldest average month in the Northern Hemisphere. January 2025 was cooler than February 2016 and about the same as January 2016 and February 1998, hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 and a decade of “warming,” ago.
Faced with the counter-narrative reality of the NASA satellite data, the desperate climate hoax machine produced a counter-reality narrative, claiming that January was the hottest ever as in this Associated Press report.
…
by K. Richard, Feb 11, 2025 in NoTricksZone
Hydrological processes – ocean circulation, water vapor, clouds – are key components of climate, easily overshadowing the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions by a factor of 2,100 (Koutsoyiannis, 2021).
The effect that cloud cover variability has on surface temperature is so uncertain, and our cloud-effect measurement capacities are so primitive, even NASA has had to admit that “today’s models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy” to even begin to attribute current or future temperature changes to increases in atmospheric CO2.
…
In that vein, a new paper published by Dr. Koutsoyiannis, a hydrologist, statistically assesses the utility of today’s climate models. He documents the general circulation models’ capacity to simulate trends and variability in global (hemispheric) precipitation since 1940.
The results are not encouraging. The best computer models we have cannot accurately simulate what occurs in the real world.
…
by P. Homewood, Feb 10, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
BRUSSELS, Feb 10 (Reuters) – Many of the world’s biggest polluter nations have missed a U.N. deadline to set new climate targets as efforts to curb global warming come under pressure following U.S. President Donald Trump’s election.
The nearly 200 countries signed up to the Paris Agreement faced a Monday deadline to submit new national climate plans to the U.N., setting out how they plan to cut emissions by 2035.
As of Monday morning, many of the world’s biggest polluters – including China, India and the European Union – had not done so.
“The public is entitled to expect a strong reaction from their governments to the fact that global warming has now reached 1.5 degrees Celsius for an entire year, but we have seen virtually nothing of real substance,” said Bill Hare, CEO of science and policy institute Climate Analytics.
As we know, some countries who have submitted new plans, such as Brazil and Mexico have actually reduced their ambitions.
It is yet more evidence that most of the world does not see climate change as a threat.
by C. Morrison, Feb 8,2025 in TheDailySceptic
In January 2022, a massive underwater volcano called Hunga Tonga suddenly erupted and shot so much water into the upper atmosphere that levels in the stratosphere rose suddenly by at least 10%. It was a genuine one in 100, even 200 year event and was reasonably expected to produce temporary weather changes around the globe. Sure enough, subsequent temperatures showed a 0.3-0.4°C upward spike. Needless to say, the Net Zero fanatics claimed the rise as their own and blamed it on humans controlling the climate by increasing the trace gas carbon dioxide. Today the Daily Sceptic can give wider publicity to sensational recent findings that suggest Hunga Tonga was the main culprit in producing the recent spike. The scientists directly link a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere of between 0.5-2°C to Hunga Tonga. It is generally held that there is an anti-correlation between the lower and upper atmosphere and cooling at the top produces warming at the bottom due to a number of complex atmospheric processes.
Hunga Tonga was an unusual volcanic eruption since it produced few dust particulates that usually cool the surface. Two recent land-based eruptions, El Chichon and Pinatubo, caused a temporary downward spike of around 0.5°C. The team of Colorado-based scientists found that the Hunga Tonga cooling was “comparable in magnitude” to the stratospheric warming caused by the two surface volcanoes in 1982 and 1991. The scientists reported “good agreement of observations with chemistry-climate model simulations”. “Cooling is mainly due to Hunga Tonga H2O [water] impacts,” they state.
This is dramatic stuff. It appears to promote Hunga Tonga as the prime cause in explaining the recent spike in temperatures. Indeed it could be concluded that the temperature rise should have been a little higher – and higher even still if the effects of a recent strong El Niño natural oscillation are included. Satellite observations, confirmed by computer analysis, shows stratospheric cooling of 0.5°C to 1°C in the middle and upper stratosphere during 2022 through middle 2023, followed by stronger reductions of 1°C to 2°C in the mesosphere after the middle of 2023, note the scientists. Last year, two distinguished atmospheric scientists observed the anti-correlation between the higher and lower atmosphere and suggested the lower stratosphere cooled by approximately two degrees per degree of warming nearer the surface. Where the troposphere has been anomalously warming, the lower stratosphere has been anomalously cooling “and vice versa”, note the scientists.
In January 2022, a massive underwater volcano called Hunga Tonga suddenly erupted and shot so much water into the upper atmosphere that levels in the stratosphere rose suddenly by at least 10%. It was a genuine one in 100, even 200 year event and was reasonably expected to produce temporary weather changes around the globe. Sure enough, subsequent temperatures showed a 0.3-0.4°C upward spike. Needless to say, the Net Zero fanatics claimed the rise as their own and blamed it on humans controlling the climate by increasing the trace gas carbon dioxide. Today the Daily Sceptic can give wider publicity to sensational recent findings that suggest Hunga Tonga was the main culprit in producing the recent spike. The scientists directly link a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere of between 0.5-2°C to Hunga Tonga. It is generally held that there is an anti-correlation between the lower and upper atmosphere and cooling at the top produces warming at the bottom due to a number of complex atmospheric processes.
Hunga Tonga was an unusual volcanic eruption since it produced few dust particulates that usually cool the surface. Two recent land-based eruptions, El Chichon and Pinatubo, caused a temporary downward spike of around 0.5°C. The team of Colorado-based scientists found that the Hunga Tonga cooling was “comparable in magnitude” to the stratospheric warming caused by the two surface volcanoes in 1982 and 1991. The scientists reported “good agreement of observations with chemistry-climate model simulations”. “Cooling is mainly due to Hunga Tonga H2O [water] impacts,” they state.
This is dramatic stuff. It appears to promote Hunga Tonga as the prime cause in explaining the recent spike in temperatures. Indeed it could be concluded that the temperature rise should have been a little higher – and higher even still if the effects of a recent strong El Niño natural oscillation are included. Satellite observations, confirmed by computer analysis, shows stratospheric cooling of 0.5°C to 1°C in the middle and upper stratosphere during 2022 through middle 2023, followed by stronger reductions of 1°C to 2°C in the mesosphere after the middle of 2023, note the scientists. Last year, two distinguished atmospheric scientists observed the anti-correlation between the higher and lower atmosphere and suggested the lower stratosphere cooled by approximately two degrees per degree of warming nearer the surface. Where the troposphere has been anomalously warming, the lower stratosphere has been anomalously cooling “and vice versa”, note the scientists.
…
by C. Rotter, Feb 5, 2025 in WUWT
Ah, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) collapse—our old friend. Like a horror movie franchise that refuses to die, the idea that the Gulf Stream is about to shut down and plunge Europe into an icy apocalypse has returned. This time, the BBC is breathlessly warning that “the chance of it happening is growing”. But before you start knitting survivalist-grade wool socks, let’s take a moment to review how many times we’ve heard this story before—and why it never seems to pan out.
…
According to the BBC, AMOC is supposedly “getting weaker,” but they immediately admit that direct measurements have only been taken since 2004—meaning we have barely two decades of actual data. Now, call me old-fashioned, but when you’re talking about an ocean system that has been operating for millions of years, 20 years of data is like trying to predict a person’s entire life based on a single Tuesday morning.
And what’s their big evidence? Ocean floor sediments and a “cold blob” in the Atlantic. That’s right, they’re looking at dirt samples and a patch of water that isn’t warming like the rest of the ocean, and somehow, this is supposed to spell doom for civilization.
This wouldn’t be so bad if they admitted the uncertainty. Instead, the article plays a game of “it’s probably not happening, but it totally could!” For instance, the IPCC says they have “medium confidence” that AMOC will notcollapse this century. But some other scientists say, well, maybe it could! As one of them warns, we “maybe need to be worried”.
What kind of science is this? It sounds more like a horoscope than a serious climate analysis.
…
by G. Sherrington, Feb 6, 2025 in WUWT
There were 10 significant weather station/city sites explored for their heatwave properties in the first article of this series, 5 days ago.
Australian Heatwave Stories Cop Severe Criticism – Watts Up With That?
That first article shows 160 graphs of hottest heatwave temperatures over the years when records have been kept, for Adelaide, Alice Springs, Brisbane, Cape Leeuwin, Darwin, Hobart, Longreach, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. This second article deals with some patterns of interest.
I wrote the articles because many Establishment sources make claims like this one from the Climate Council of Australia, 2014:
“Climate change is already increasing the intensity and frequency of heatwaves in Australia. Heatwaves are becoming hotter, lasting longer and occurring more often.”
HEATWAVES: HOTTER, LONGER, MORE OFTEN
An Internet search using “heatwaves longer hotter more often” returns these 6 hits and more.
Climate change study: Australia is in the crucible of slower, longer heatwaves | SBS News
Heatwaves: hotter, longer, more often – Macquarie University
Heatwaves: hotter, longer, more often – Environmental Health Australia (Western Australia) Inc
Australian heatwaves more frequent, hotter and longer: Climate Council report – ABC News
nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/global-warming-makes-heat-waves-hotter-longer-and-more-common
Heatwaves to be hotter, longer and more frequent, climate change report says – ABC News
HOTTER?
Using practically all years of data recorded, I examined each of 4 heatwave durations of 1, 3, 5 and 10 days. The raw data are from the Climate Data Online CDO source by the Bureau of Meteorology.
The first half of the heatwave numbers is compared to the last half. The first half numbers are subtracted from the second half numbers. If there is warming, the difference is positive. If there is cooling, the difference is negative.
This example summarises the method by a graph.
…
by P. Homewood, Feb 6, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
Last month was the world’s warmest January on record raising further questions about the pace of climate change, scientists say.
January 2025 had been expected to be slightly cooler than January 2024 because of a shift away from a natural weather pattern in the Pacific known as El Niño.
But instead, last month broke the January 2024 record by nearly 0.1C, according to the European Copernicus climate service.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyjk92w9k1o
The reality is somewhat different, as satellites show that global temperatures have been in freefall in recent months. Since September 2024, they have fallen by a full half a degree celsius.
Last month was not even the hottest January, as January 2024 was 0.4C hotter
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Scientists have now said that much of the recent spike in temperatures has been caused by reduced sulfate emissions from shipping, thanks to new clean air regulations.
Wildfires
The BBC lead their article with a photo of the LA wildfires. The impression, which they clearly want to create, is that these fires are connected to global temperatures.
It proves that their whole article cannot be taken seriously.
by Niigata University, Feb 5, 2025 in ScienceDaily
by P. Gosselin, Feb 2, 2025 in NoTricksZone
(Translated from the original at Klimanachrichten)
We have kept you, dear readers, very promptly informed about AMOC conjectures.
Recently, we also informed you about a new study that found a stable Atlantic overturning circulation since the 1960s. It is not the only one in the recent past.
However, Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is a great advocate of the “The Day after Tomorrow” scenario of a collapsing oceanic current. As recently as June, 2024, he noted on X (formerly Twitter) that the AMOC mitigation saga “is even more dramatic than it ever was”.
He himself had been responsible for a whole series of papers as author or co-author, which also contributed to the scenario, and he initiated an “open letter” in the fall of 2024 that dramatically addressed politicians. We also reported on this.
Of course, the new findings could not couldn’t pass him by without comment. Under the headline “The AMOC is slowing down, is stable, yes, no, no, yes…” he commented on it on the blog “Real Climate”, which is run by scientists, including himself, Gavin Schmidt from NASA, and others.
What he has to say there can be stated in a nutshell: He defends his approaches and lists the problems of the more recent studies. That was to be expected. For example, he emphasizes that the new climate models (CMIP 6) hardly show any connection between “his fingerprint”, the sea surface temperatures of the “warming hole” in the North Atlantic (see the article here from 17 January 2025) and the actual current, but that the approximately 4 years older ones called CMIP5 do. He also questions whether the new ones are really more reliable in this respect than the older ones. However, the effort for the former was considerable.
He summarized:
I don’t believe that the newer methods are more reliable than the old ones (his, the author). … However, since we don’t have measurements going back far enough, there is still some uncertainty in this respect…“
…
by W. Eschenbach, Fab 3, 2025 in WUWT
Encouraged by the reception of my previous post “Eight Ten-Thousandths Of A Degree Per Gigaton“, which ranged from warm acceptance through amused contempt to outright hostility, I’ve expanded my research to analyze the CO2 emissions of the late great State of California.
In my post linked above, I found that IF the IPCC is correct (which is a big “IF”), for each gigaton (Gt) of avoided CO2 emissions, there is an avoided global warming of 0.0008°C. Please read that post for the detailed calculations.
And utilizing that relationship, here are the past and projected future California CO2 emissions.
…
WOW! For all of our sacrifices here in California, for all the money we’ve spent and are projected to spend, we MIGHT cool the world twenty years from now by 0.006°C … be still, my beating heart …
Now, as to how much that has cost and will cost, the numbers are hard to come by. Here are some major costs:
• The California solar mandate is estimated to increase the cost of newly constructed single-family homes by approximately $8,400 each. There are ~ 60,000 new single-family homes built each year in California. That’s about half a billion dollars per year for the next 20 years until 2045, or $10 billion total.
• The “Renewable Mandates” and rooftop solar subsidies have made current California electricity about $0.15 per kWh more expensive than its neighbors. Average since 2004 is about $0.10 per kWh more expensive. California’s annual electricity consumption in 2023 was approximately 287,220,000,000 kWh. That’s a cost of $35 billion per year times 20 years (2025-2045) equals $700 billion, plus $29 billion times 20 years (2004-2024) gives a total of $1.3 TRILLION. And that’s with the totally unrealistic assumption of no increase in either consumption or electricity costs.
…
by A. Préat, Jan 31, 2025 in ScienceClimatEnergie
The Green Deal, an extension of the Paris Agreement (COP21, 2015), concerns three simultaneous transitions: ecological, energy and digital. Its aim is to develop a totally carbon-free economy in Europe by 2050, i.e. to achieve the Net Zero objective set by the European Commission. How will this be achieved? By developing an electricity grid, a car fleet made up of 100% electric vehicles equipped with batteries (NMC) and an energy mix that is more than 80% (from 2030) supplied by wind turbines and photovoltaic panels. Intermittent renewable energies will be used for the most part. This also means replacing the fossil fuels used for transport and heat (‘flames’) with electricity from renewable sources.
To achieve this goal, which will require gigantic quantities of critical metals, the European Commission has no other solution than to revive mining activity by re-exploiting old mines, opening new ones and extending or deepening existing mines. The required quantities of critical metals are enormous and Europe, our continent, doesn’t have them. For lack of a favorable geological context, Europe is a ‘mining dwarf’ on a global scale. We account for 6% of the world’s population, we consume 25 to 30% of the worldwide production and produce only 5% to meet our needs. Since the 1990s, we have been at the bottom of the list in terms of exploration efforts, with just 3%. We are far behind the Anglo-Saxon and Asian companies, which dominate not only exploration but also the production of minerals. Our reserves are small in relation to what is at stake. Only 2% of the metals we need for the energy transition are available on the European continent (CDS, 2023).
So, how can we achieve the energy transition if we don’t have the materials to do it? The Commission has laid down 4 rules to remedy our shortcomings: (i) to product 10% of our annual consumption (in other words, we will always be 90% dependent on the outside world!); (ii) to process at least 40% of our annual consumption on site; (iii) to recycle at least 15% of metals for our annual consumption; and (iv) not to depend on any one country for more than 65% of our annual consumption in order to avoid excessive criticality. To date, none of these recommendations has been met. Europe also favors the development of a circular economy at a rate of 75%, which currently stands at just under 12% and has fallen in recent years.
EU is faced with a challenge. Has it considered the short-term agenda it has set itself for Net Zero? This agenda must include the long-term dimension of mining: exploration and prospecting are long phases. It takes an average of 17 years and very large budgets to open a new mine, in the hope that it will fully meet expectations. What’s more, because of the tense global economic and geopolitical situation, exploration efforts in non-ferrous metals have recently fallen by a few percent… According to the UN (2024), there is a shortfall of 225 billion dollars in investment in projects to extract essential minerals. What’s more, unlike in the past, to open a mine you will have to face determined opposition from environmental NGOs and citizens, who will lodge numerous legal appeals, which will delay the opening for a long time.
Ultimately, this transition will replace dependence on fossil fuels with dependence on metals. This was the case with forests: wood had been the exclusive fuel for metallurgy for several centuries and was replaced by coal in the 19th century to preserve the forests. Coal was then replaced by oil and gas (less polluting) and today fossil fuels will be replaced by metals to achieve decarbonation, as requested by the European Commission.
Programs to identify our mining potential have already been launched in 2018. They tell us, for example, that we have limited potential in rare earths, which are ultra-dominated by China and are a central pillar of so-called ‘high-tech’ technologies. We have no rare earth mines. However, a deposit of rare earths was discovered in January 2023 in Lapland (Sweden). It is thought to contain 1% of the world’s reserves, and production is planned within 10 to 15 years. Yes, mine time is a long time…
Doesn’t this decarbonation seem like a forced march? Many think so… others go further and question it…
…
by R. Caiazza, Feb 2, 2025 in WUWT
The difference between weather and climate is constantly mistaken by climate change advocates Recently Southern California wildfires have been blamed on climate change. Patrick Brown addressed the question how much did “Climate Whiplash” impact the Los Angeles fires. His excellent analysis raises concerns that I want to highlight.
Weather vs. Climate
Every time there is an extreme weather event proponents for eliminating fossil fuels confuse weather and climatewhen they claim the effects of GHG emissions on global warming are obvious today. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service “Weather reflects short-term conditions of the atmosphere while climate is the average daily weather for an extended period of time at a certain location.” It goes on to explain “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.”
Hydroclimate Volatility
Patrick Brown described the Swain et al. (2025): Hydroclimate Volatility on a Warming Earth Nature review paper. He quoted the first line of the UCLA Press Release for the paper: “Los Angeles is burning, and accelerating hydroclimate whiplash is the key climate connection” and remarked: “Thanks in no small part to the huge journalistic audience that lead author Dr. Daniel Swain commands, the “climate whiplash” vernacular was immediately adopted in international headlines covering the recent Los Angeles fires.” This is a classic example of an extreme weather event that is linked to climate change by organizations and individuals that have a vested interest in advancing the threat of climate change.
Climate Whiplash
I have never heard of the concept of climate whiplash before this story broke. Brown explains:
Dangerous, intense wildfires require dry vegetation. The idea behind the climate whiplash connection to the Los Angeles fires is that very wet winters in Southern California in 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 enabled a great deal of vegetation growth but that the very dry beginning of the 2024-2025 winter allowed that vegetation to dry out, resulting in a landscape primed for uncontrollable wildfires. Swain explains the mechanism in interviews with Adam Conover and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
In order for this to be a climate change problem, we need to know whether these events are increasing. Brown noted that:
The idea being conveyed is that these climate whiplash events are dramatically increasing not just in Southern California, but globally. “Every fraction of a degree of warming speeds the growing destructive power of the transitions” Swain said.
Brown described background for this concept:
…
…
Conclusion
Patrick Brown does an excellent job eviscerating the climate whiplash headlined stories based on Swain et al. (2025)’s recent paper. It is frustrating that biased analyses that confirm pre-conceived get so much attention. It will require many evaluations like Brown’s to address the misinformation.
by D. Whitehouse, Jan 29, 2025 in NetZeroWatch
2024 broke many records.
There’s no doubt that 2024 was the hottest year of the instrumental period. But why it was so warm is not exactly clear, even with the backdrop of increasing global temperatures.
Over the years we have heard a lot about consensus when it comes to climate science. Sometimes it has been manufactured, for example the suggestion that 97% of all scientists believe global warming is real, but in many cases it does represent what is at least a snapshot of what scientists think is happening.
So it was on December 10th at the American Geophysical Union meeting in Washington. A show of hands was requested in answer to the question as to whether we understand why 2023 and 2024 was so hot. Very few hands were raised. Asked a slightly different question, the majority of the audience raised their hands to the proposition that we can’t explain it.
The spike in, already elevated, global temperatures of 2023 and 2024 is beyond what can be explained by more CO2 in the atmosphere. It can’t be explained with El Niño, volcanic emissions or the decline in ship fuel pollution letting more sunlight reach the ocean. Something else is going on.
One team of researchers have suggested it’s due to a decrease in low cloud, which tends to cool our planet. If this is so, then it is important to see if it is a blip or a trend.
Such scientific niceties haven’t bothered most reporters dealing with the record-breaking warmth of 2024, which broke the 1.5°C Paris Agreement boundary.
Given that the increase is unexplained, is it wise to present it as evidence of a dangerous new phase in our broken clime, as New Scientist did? Despite the uncertainties, they say that Earth’s climate systems are no longer behaving as they should. It points to the wavering Jet Stream and the recent Californian wildfires as proof, even though it’s technically possible to explain these effects without climate change, catastrophic or not.
New Scientist says the one thing we can now expect ‘with certainty’ is that we ‘should’ expect extreme weather events to become more frequent. What is it? Is it certain, or just something that should happen?
The uncertainty extends into 2025. It was expected that El Niño, which boosted 2023 and 2024 temperatures, would have declined by mid-year, but it didn’t. It has hung on and is expected to linger for most of this year, to be followed by a weak and brief cooling La Niña.
I wonder if there will be another show of hands by puzzled scientists at the end of 2025.
by G. Sherrigton, Jan 29, 2025 in WUWT
The daily temperature observations from many Australian weather stations have now been routinely updated by the Bureau of Meteorology, BOM, to the end of year 2024.
Year 2024 has been publicized GLOBALLY as the “hottest year evah!” so it is time to examine how Australia fared. Here, heatwaves are the medium used.
The frequent, accepted chant is that globally, heatwaves are becoming “hotter, longer and more frequent”. This chant is not supported by the following heatwave analysis which examines 10 Australian weather stations with lengthy historic observations. This study has generated 160 graphs that are linked by weather station/city that is the main part of this article for readers to examine.
Here is a snapshot of Adelaide, using only 3-day heatwave examples, 4 graphs out of a possible 16 for Adelaide.
…
…
Some essential points:
by S. Kent, Jan 29, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch
Washington notified the United Nations on Tuesday to confirm it is delivering on a key campaign pledge of President Donald Trump and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement to put U.S. energy and job growth first. [emphasis, links added]
On his first day back in the White House, Trump announced America would leave the accord, which is managed by the U.N. climate change body.
“In recent years, the United States has purported to join international agreements and initiatives that do not reflect our country’s values or our contributions to the pursuit of economic and environmental objectives,” Trump’s executive order reads.
“Moreover, these agreements steer American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require, or merit, financial assistance in the interests of the American people.”
Now that moment has moved a step closer, AFP reports.
“I can confirm to you that the United States has notified the secretary-general, in his capacity as a depository, of its withdrawal on January 27 of this year from the Paris agreement,” said Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for U.N. chief Antonio Guterres.
“According to Article 28, paragraph two, of the Paris Agreement, the withdrawal of the United States will take effect on January 27, 2026.”
Trump previously withdrew the United States from the Paris Accord during his first term, as Breitbart News reported.
…
See also : Time To Purge The Climate Scam From Federal Websites
by P. Homewood, Jan 14, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
Another important paper taking issue with the ‘settled’ climate narrative has been cancelled following a report in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent reposts that went viral across social media. The paper discussed the atmospheric ‘saturation’ of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and argued that higher levels will not cause temperatures to rise. The work was led by the widely-published Polish scientist Dr. Jan Kubicki and appeared on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website in December 2023. The paper has been widely discussed on social media since April 2024 when the Daily Sceptic reported on the findings. Interest is growing in the saturation hypothesis not least because it provides a coherent explanation for why life and the biosphere grew and often thrived for 600 million years despite much higher atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Alas for control freaks, it also destroys the science backing for the Net Zero fantasy.
Read the full story here.
…
by K. Richard, Jan 13, 2025 in NoTricksZone
A new 1606 to 2016 Central China winter (minimum) temperature reconstruction (Jiang et al., 2024) reveals cold periods only occurred in 9 years of the 1600s (1663-1672), but there were 71 years of cold periods during the 20th century (1900-1942, 1959-1979, 1985-1994).
Notably, CO2 hovered around 278 ppm during the 1600s and 1700s, but it rose from 290 ppm to 370 ppm during the 1900s.
From 1650-1750 the winter temperatures in Central China were 0.44°C warmer than they were during the 20th century. The authors were surprised by this temperature result, as 1650-1750 falls within the timing of the Little Ice Age.
“Surprisingly, during 1650–1750, the lowest winter temperature within the research area was about 0.44 °C higher than that in the 20th century, which differs significantly from the concept of the ‘cooler’ Little Ice Age during this period. This result is validated by the temperature results reconstructed from other tree-ring data from nearby areas, confirming the credibility of the reconstruction.”
Finally, it should be noted that the year 1719 was 1.4°C warmer (-3.17°C) than the 1961-2016 average (-4.57°C).
…
A new 1803-2020 Central Europe precipitation reconstruction (Nagavciuc et al., 2025) determines droughts were more prolonged and pronounced during the 1800s than in the 1900s, as the 1900s were relatively wet. Only one recent period (2007-2020) endured extreme drought, but it did not exceed the severity of the 1818–1835, 1845–1854, 1882–1890 drought years.
…
by P. Homewood, Jan 7, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
hris Morrison has the latest on how the Met Office, in league with the green blob, are trying to shut down debate on the junk weather station scandal:
After a year of damaging revelations about the state of the Met Office’s temperature measuring network, the Green Blob-funded ‘fact-checker’ Science Feedback has sprung to the defence of the state-funded U.K. weather service. It has published a long ‘fact check’ seeking to exonerate practices that have recently come to light including the locating of stations with huge heat corrupted ‘uncertainties’ and the publication of invented data from 103 non-existent sites. Inept is a word that springs to mind. At one point, Science Feedback justifies the estimation of data at the non-existent stations by referring to the hastily changed Met Office explanation for station/location long-term averages. The original and now deleted Met Office webpage referenced station names and provided single location coordinates including one improbable siting next to the sea on Dover beach. This would appear to be a new low in the world of so-called fact-checking – designating copy as ‘misleading’ based on an explanation changed after the article was published.
Full story here.
…
