Archives par mot-clé : Global Temperature

The Curious Case of the Missing Data

by I. Williams, Nov 09, 2025 in WUWT


I shall end with two unanswered questions. The reason for that lies in a story with eight decimal places of recondite mystery and scarcely believable deductions. One last glimpse of reality: the mean temperature of the world at the moment (early November) is hovering around 14 deg C, which is never used because it does not convey a sufficient element of danger in the global warming message. Fourteen degrees Celsius or fifty-seven Fahrenheit are not messages of imminent doom. Either one is the annual mean temperature of Bordeaux, San Francisco or Canberra.

Therefore the Wise Ones have decided that any global temperature given to the masses must always be shown as a difference from the mean of the half-century 1850-1900, which, they say, is representative of our world in smoke-free pre-industrial times. That period also happens to be towards the end of the Little Ice Age, which, the Met Office says, had ‘particularly cold intervals beginning in about 1650, 1770 and 1850.’ Cold spell beginning in 1850? Interesting.

Thus it was that on 10 January this year the Met Office told us that ‘The global average temperature for 2024 was 1.53±0.08°C above the 1850-1900 global average,’ This  is an extraordinarily accurate figure but the World Meteorological Organisation has much the same: ‘The global average surface temperature [in 2024] was 1.55 °C … ± 0.13 °C … above the 1850-1900 average, according to WMO’s consolidated analysis.’ Ignore the scarcely believable accuracy of those second decimal places, there’s worse to come.

The obvious question is: Why were those fifty years chosen as the fundamental reference period? The answer is easily found: ‘Global-scale observations from the instrumental era began in the mid-19th century for temperature,’ says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their Fifth Assessment Report (Section B, page 4.) An associated IPCC Special Report (FAQ1.2 para 4) explains that ‘The reference period 1850–1900 … is the earliest period with near-global observations and is … used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperature.’ Note the categoric statements that sufficient data is available in that nineteenth century fifty-year period to calculate the global mean temperatures.

In 1850, may I remind you, Dickens was writing David Copperfield, California was admitted to the Union as the 31st state and vast areas of the earth were still unexplored. 1900 brought the Boxer Rebellion (China), the Boer War (South Africa) and the Galveston hurricane (USA). There were still quite large areas awaiting intrepid explorers.

I was curious about how in olden times those global temperatures were actually measured, but after a painstaking search of websites and yet again proving that AI-derived information can be both wrong and misleading, I turned in despair to the Met Office enquiry desk. Their reply was long and very detailed. No actual data, but several clues as to where to search. Very interesting clues.

Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase

by Lindzen et al., June 2024 in CO2Coalition


example, if the United States achieved net zero emissions of carbon dioxide by the year 2050, only a few hundredths of a degree Celsius of warming would be averted. This could barely be detected by our best instruments.  The fundamental reason is that warming by atmospheric carbon dioxide is heavily “saturated,” with each additional ton of atmospheric carbon dioxide producing less warming than the previous ton.

Abstract:

Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ◦C (0.015 ◦F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ◦C (0.13 ◦F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ◦C (0.061 ◦F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ◦C (0.50 ◦F).

Read the entire short paper here:

Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase

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!

Are surface temperature records reliable?

by Sue Bin Park, Aug 22, 2025 in SkepticalScience


Surface temperature records are consistent and have been confirmed by multiple independent analyses.

Measurements come from over 30,000 stations worldwide, with around 7,000 having long, continuous monthly records. Scientists adjust for known local anomalies such as urban heat islands by comparing urban and rural trends and accounting for differences.

Allegations in 2009 that poorly located U.S. stations skewed data were tested by NOAA, which found those sites actually read slightly cooler on average.

The independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study, led by a former climate skeptic, merged global datasets and concluded that the warming trend is unaffected by stations’ local conditions and nearly identical to NASA and NOAA records.

Temperature measurements are corroborated by satellites, ocean data, melting ice, and shifting ecosystems, all showing the same warming trend. No credible analysis has found that site issues or adjustments undermine the global record.

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


This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.


Sources

Skeptical Science Understanding adjustments to temperature data

NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4)

Geoscience Data Journal The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods

Skeptical Science Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heatingon the global trends is nearly negligible”

NOAA On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record

Carbon Brief Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records

The Weather Stations We Never Had

by Dr M. Wielicki, Aug 11, 2025 in Clintel


A central pillar of the climate-crisis narrative is simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker… today is the hottest in human history. That line only works if you accept, without question, that we have reliable, global temperature data before satellites. We do not. What we have is a patchwork of land stations concentrated in a few developed regions, a lot of ocean guesses from ship tracks, and then, later, generous statistical infilling.

Everyone agrees the 1930s were brutally hot across the United States… the Dust Bowl was a humanitarian and ecological disaster. Crops failed, soils blew away, and heat waves killed thousands. NOAA’s own retrospectives still call out 1936 as a benchmark summer, and July 1936 remains a singular month in the U.S. record.

https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36?utm

The global map we never measured

Before 1950, most thermometers were in the United States, Europe, and parts of the British Commonwealth. Large parts of Africa, South America, the Arctic, and the Southern Ocean had little to no routine coverage. Even the NOAA-led overview of GHCN-Daily notes how the core database is a collage of many sources with varying periods of record… that is the raw material modern analyses inherit.

Now the uncomfortable part. When there are no thermometers, you either leave grid boxes blank, or you paint numbers in from far away. HadCRUT historically left many boxes blank, explicitly avoiding interpolation, which means the “global” mean depends on where you have observations. NASA’s GISTEMP goes the other direction and spreads anomalies up to twelve hundred kilometers from a station, filling the gaps with 1200 km smoothing. Those are not trivial choices, they are the ballgame.

If you overlay the 1930s anomaly map with the station density maps, you see something obvious… warm where the thermometers were numerous, cool or neutral where coverage was threadbare. A compilation of historical station distribution between 1921 and 1950 makes the same basic point… the network was sparse and badly unbalanced.

The Warming Of 2023 Was Due To Natural Causes, Not Man-Made

by P. Gosselin, July 25, 2025 in NoTricksZone


We remember: by mid-2023, the data on global temperatures had shown a very marked increase. It had gotten warmer globally quite quickly, by an incredible 0.5°C compared to 2022. This led to a new record for the year being announced in 2024. The German public television Tagesschau (and many other media) did so in great detail.

The whole (climate) world asked about the cause. The Tagesschau correctly concluded that the (rather mediocre) El Nino could only make a very small contribution in the second half of 2023. Looking at the temporal change, the rise in global temperatures occurred simultaneously with the El Nino rise in ocean temperatures in the tropical East Pacific (an area called “Nino 3.4”) and that was already an indication that this could not be where the problem is: The lag is usually 3 months for global temperatures to follow Nino 3,4. Causality would have been violated.

It was already apparent in January 2022 that something was up. A volcano called Honga-Tunga-Honga erupted. It is an underwater volcano and large masses of water were hurled into the stratosphere. Here is a satellite image of it.

It has long been known that stratospheric water vapor causes temperatures on the ground to rise globally. But a volcano like this is a natural event, the warming effect is then added “on top” of the greenhouse gas effect. However, the “bump” itself was not man-made. Unfortunately, the news report did not mention this at all.

Every “impulse” that affects global temperatures (including land volcanoes such as the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991, which had a cooling effect due to many aerosols in the stratosphere) does so with some delay. The climate effect builds up slowly in the atmosphere and the thermal inertia of the Earth system as a whole does the rest.

Consequently, studies such as this one appeared at the beginning of 2023, which predicted a temporary warming of more than the “famous” 1.5°K deviation from pre-industrial values.

According to the Tagesschau, this is exactly what happened: “2024 was also the first calendar year to be 1.6 degrees warmer globally than pre-industrial levels from 1850 to 1900.”

The values are extrapolated to the end of July 2025, this month is estimated using a model, 7 days before its end.

The volcano in question occurred at the end of January 2022. Not much happened until around May 2023. Then, however, the “impulse response” of the climate system probably took place: in September 2023, an additional warming of 0.58 °C was detected compared to the average for 2022. The entire year 2024 saw an increased level of 0.39°C compared to 2022. This can NOT be explained by the gradual increase in forcing by greenhouse gases etc.!

Between 1980 and 2020 there was a warming of 0.018 °C/year, now it should suddenly be a factor of 10 in the years 2022-2024? That was always completely unlikely!

Met Office Fail To Respond To Criticisms

by L. Johnson, July 14, 2025 in WUWT


https://www.gbnews.com/news/climate-alarm-challenged-as-expert-warns-dont-wreck-the-economy-for-half-a-degree

The Met Office were given a right of reply to this GB News story. Instead of actually responding to the specific points raised, they merely regurgitated their Press Release:

However, according to the Met Office, the UK has warmed by 0.25C per decade since the 1980s, with the past three years among the five warmest on record.

Last year saw the warmest spring, the warmest May, and the wettest winter half-year in over 250 years, the report says.

It also states that days with temperatures 10°C above average have quadrupled since the 1960s, and months of double-average rainfall have risen by 50 per cent.

They could, of course, added that the wettest year was in 1872!

Their waffle about higher temperatures is meaningless without the corresponding data on extreme cold days.

Worst of all is the fact that they still make claims of extreme rainfall against a baseline of 1961-90. This is what the Press Release stated:

the number of months where counties are recording monthly rainfall totals of at least twice the 1991-2020 monthly average has increased by over 50% compared to the number in 1961-1990”

They know full well that 1961-90 was a much drier interlude compared with both what preceded it and also what followed it.

They have all the data back into the 19thC, so why don’t they show the long term trends? Is it because it would not tell the story they want to tell?

The long term monthly data for the England & Wales Precipitation Series, for example, shows absolutely no evidence to support the Met Office’s claims:

KNMI Climate Explorer

The KNMI chart only runs to 2021, but since then the wettest month was 177.5mm in October 2023. Nothing, in other words, that alters the trends shown.

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for June, 2025: +0.48 deg. C

by R. Spencer, July 3rd, 2025 in ClimateWarming


The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2025 was +0.48 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down slightly from the May, 2025 anomaly of +0.50 deg. C.

The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through June 2025) now stands at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).

The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 18 months (record highs are in red).

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2024 Jan +0.80 +1.02 +0.58 +1.20 -0.19 +0.40 +1.12
2024 Feb +0.88 +0.95 +0.81 +1.17 +1.31 +0.86 +1.16
2024 Mar +0.88 +0.96 +0.80 +1.26 +0.22 +1.05 +1.34
2024 Apr +0.94 +1.12 +0.76 +1.15 +0.86 +0.88 +0.54
2024 May +0.78 +0.77 +0.78 +1.20 +0.05 +0.20 +0.53
2024 June +0.69 +0.78 +0.60 +0.85 +1.37 +0.64 +0.91
2024 July +0.74 +0.86 +0.61 +0.97 +0.44 +0.56 -0.07
2024 Aug +0.76 +0.82 +0.69 +0.74 +0.40 +0.88 +1.75
2024 Sep +0.81 +1.04 +0.58 +0.82 +1.31 +1.48 +0.98
2024 Oct +0.75 +0.89 +0.60 +0.63 +1.90 +0.81 +1.09
2024 Nov +0.64 +0.87 +0.41 +0.53 +1.12 +0.79 +1.00
2024 Dec +0.62 +0.76 +0.48 +0.52 +1.42 +1.12 +1.54
2025 Jan +0.45 +0.70 +0.21 +0.24 -1.06 +0.74 +0.48
2025 Feb +0.50 +0.55 +0.45 +0.26 +1.04 +2.10 +0.87
2025 Mar +0.57 +0.74 +0.41 +0.40 +1.24 +1.23 +1.20
2025 Apr +0.61 +0.77 +0.46 +0.37 +0.82 +0.85 +1.21
2025 May +0.50 +0.45 +0.55 +0.30 +0.15 +0.75 +0.99
2025 June +0.48 +0.48 +0.47 +0.30 +0.81 +0.05 +0.39

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for June, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.

The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:

A 485-million-year history of bad science

by W.  Essenbach,  June 27, 2025


A few days ago I published another analysis of mine, called pHony Alarmism. Take a moment to read that if you haven’t, because this is a sequel. Both are about a new study in Science Magazine yclept “A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature”, paywalled, of course.

A short digression. One of the ways I truly benefit from publishing the results of my scientific investigations on the web and interacting with the commenters is that my mistakes don’t last long. When I go off the rails, and notice I didn’t say “if” I go, my mistakes rarely last more than a day before they’re pointed out and I can consider and correct them.

But that’s only one of the ways that it’s beneficial to write for the web and then stick around. Perhaps more importantly, it lets people ask me interesting questions and point out overlooked avenues to investigate.

Here’s an example. In a reply to my post yesterday, I got this …

Jeff Alberts, June 25, 2025 4:26 pm

No graph with the co2 and pH together?

To which I answered …

They’re sampled at different times. I could interpolate both ways. Thought about it, then decided that was enough for one post. Hang on … we know pH is proportional in some sense to the log of the CO2. Give me a minute …

In a bit I came back to say:

…well, of course it takes more than a minute but most interesting.

Looks like that will be the subject of my next post. Stay tuned.

w.

This is that next post. End of digression.

One of the reasons that I didn’t look at graphing pH versus CO2 was that I was given to understand that the procedure for calculating the pH was very complex. The paper says (or at least the Supplementary Information (PDF) says, the paper is paywalled:

4.3 Estimating the temporal variability of pHsw [pH of saltwater]

Predictive? Study Finds IPCC Climate Models Overstate Warming Up To 4.5°F

by K. Richard, May 28, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch


A new evidence-based study provides compelling evidence that for decades, the IPCC has been engaged in “advocacy research,” or the “antiscientific practice of undertaking research designed to support a given hypothesis.” [emphasis, links added]

The IPCC favored climate model parameters used to support the narrative that climate change is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels (referred to as the Anthro models in the study).

[It is] so fraught with errors that even a stripped-down benchmark model that merely projects future temperatures will not deviate from the historical average, overwhelmingly outperforming the IPCC’s modeling.

“The IPCC’s models of anthropogenic climate change lack predictive validity. The IPCC models’ forecast errors were greater for most estimation samples – often many times greater – than those from a benchmark model that simply predicts that future years’ temperatures will be the same as the historical median.

The IPCC’s Anthro models, which hypothesize that (primarily) CO2 will foment dangerous global warming over the coming decades, woefully overestimated the warming from 1970-2019 by anywhere from 1.8°C [3.2°F] to 2.5°C [4.5°F].

“The errors of forecasts from the anthropogenic models for the era of concern over man-made global warming, starting in 1970, were 1.8°C (AVL), 1.7°C (AVSL), 2.3°C (AVR), and 2.5°C (AVSR) warmer than the measured temperatures.”

Over the 2000 to 2019 period, the Anthro models’ forecast errors were a staggering 16 times greater than the simple benchmark model’s errors.

“…forecasts for the years 2000 to 2019 from models estimated with 50 observations of historical data (1850 to 1899) have MdAEs [median absolute errors] of around 17°C or 1,600 percent greater than the 1°C MdAE of forecasts from the naïve benchmark model.”

In contrast, the authors found the models that centered on Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) as a climate change factor did indeed have predictive validity, and their error ranges were much smaller.

Considering the magnitude of the error in using CO2 emissions as a basis for climate forecasts, the authors conclude the Anthro models’ unreliability “would appear to void policy relevance.”

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

by J. Robson, March 12, 2025 in ClimateRealistsofBritishColumbia


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

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

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

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

DESPERATELY SEEKING EXPLANATIONS…

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

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

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

Is Arctic Amplification an Averaging Error?

by K. Hansen, Apr 15, 2025 in WUWT


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

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

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

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

Bottom Line:

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

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

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

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.

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.

NOAA’s Homogenized Temperature Records: A Statistical House of Cards?

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:

  • The same temperature records were being adjusted differently on different days—sometimes dramatically.
  • 64% of the breakpoints identified by NOAA’s Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) were highly inconsistent, appearing in less than 25% of NOAA’s dataset runs.
  • Only 16% of the adjustments were consistently applied in more than 75% of cases, meaning the majority of “corrections” are shifting unpredictably.
  • Less than 20% of NOAA’s breakpoints corresponded to actual documented station changes, suggesting that many adjustments were made without supporting metadata.

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?

Jan. 2025 Climate Fact Check: NASA Data Shreds ‘Hottest January Ever’ Claim

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.

EXCLUSIVE: Sensational Findings Point to Hunga Tonga Eruption as Prime Suspect Behind Recent Temperature Spike

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.

Hottest January? Latest BBC Lies!

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.

Scientists don’t know why 2024 was so hot

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.

Reporting certainty

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.

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for December, 2024: +0.62 deg. C

by R. Spencer, Jan 3, 2025 in WUWT


2024 Sets New Record for Warmest Year In Satellite Era (Since 1979)

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2024 was +0.62 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down slightly from the November, 2024 anomaly of +0.64 deg.

The Version 6.1 global area-averaged temperature trend (January 1979 through December 2024) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).

As seen in the following ranking of the years from warmest to coolest, 2024 was by far the warmest in the 46-year satellite record averaging 0.77 deg. C above the 30-year mean, while the 2nd warmest year (2023) was +0.43 deg. C above the 30-year mean. [Note: These yearly average anomalies weight the individual monthly anomalies by the number of days in each month.]

Recent Temperature Falls Likely to Put a Dampener on ‘Hottest Year Evah’ Stories

by C. Morrison, Dec 28, 2024 in TheDailySceptic


Stand by for another bout of ‘Hottest Year Evah’ stories as the mainstream media pursues its campaign to induce mass climate psychosis and prepare the ground for the oncoming Net Zero catastrophe. Alas, enjoy it only a little while longer since this story may have to be retired after putting in such a sterling propaganda shift. Global temperatures are falling like a stone, while the oceans are cooling at a remarkably rapid rate. In the U.K., the year is likely to show a second annual temperature fall since the alleged ‘record’ year in 2022.

Only last May, Matt McGrath and Justin Rowlatt at the BBC were claiming that “fuelled by climate change” the world’s oceans had broken temperature records every single day over the past year. Planet-warming gases were said to be “mostly to blame”. Three days were singled out when the previous highs were beaten by 0.34°C. Inexplicably, the story, a matter it might be thought of some ongoing concern, was not followed up. The graph below, compiled from data supplied by the U.S. weather service NOAA, might help explain why.

Climate Change over the past 4000 Years

by A. May, Dec4, 2024 in WUWT


I last wrote about Climate Change and Civilization for the past 4,000 Years in 2016. Since then, a lot has changed, and I’ve learned a lot more about the subject. First, we learned that various air and sea temperature proxies, such as ice core δ18O or tree rings, are all different. For a discussion of some temperature proxies used and the problems with them, see here. Proxies have different accuracies, they are often sensitive to the temperature of different seasons, and they have different temporal resolutions. Thus, as pointed out by Soon and Baliunas in 2003, they are all local and “cannot be combined into a hemispheric or global quantitative composite.”

The global average surface temperature (GAST) reconstruction relied upon in the IPCC AR6 report was by Kaufman, et al. The authors admit that the average spacing of each temperature (the temporal resolution) is 164 years. Thus, to compare the entire global instrumental temperature record to the proxies in a valid way, one must average all the daily readings since 1860 into one point. That is, the rate of warming since 1860 is irrelevant, the proxy record cannot see a 164-year increase. The problem of comparing daily modern instrumental temperature records to proxies is discussed by Renee Hannon here.

Media Hypes Report That 2024 Will Break 1.5°C Limit, But Data Doesn’t Back It Up

by L. Lueken, Nov 11, 2024 in ClimateChangeDispatch


valencia flood aftermath

Multiple outlets have posted articles covering a report from the European Copernicus Climate Change Service (“Copernicus”) which says that 2024 will be the first to surpass 1.5°C warming since preindustrial times, which the media claims will cause untold weather disasters. [emphasis, links added]

This is mostly false.

Although 2024 will likely have higher average temperatures than in recent decades, it is not the end of the year yet, and there is limited evidence to support the claim that it will represent the highest temperatures humans have ever experienced and no evidence whatsoever that weather disasters have gotten or will get worse.

The BBC and CNN are among the numerous mainstream media outlets reporting on Copernicus’ report.

CNN describes the report as “devastating news for the planet that comes as America chooses a president that has promised to undo its climate progress both at home and abroad.”

The Copernicus group estimates that 2024 will end up 1.55°C hotter than the 1850-1900 average, which is 0.05°C above the warming limit set by the Paris Agreement. This may be true, but there is no evidence that the 1.5℃ threshold is some kind of deadly tipping point for weather disasters.

The same organization sounded the alarm last year that the “limit” was breached for several months in a row while ignoring natural factors like an underwater volcano eruption.

As for the 1.5-degree limit itself, it was not established by professional climate scientists. Only one of the people who were on the panel who came up with the value was even a meteorologist.

Two other points worth noting. The claim is a bit of sleight of hand, cherry-picking the data for comparison. Earth was only just coming out of the Little Ice Age at the onset of the 1850 period, one of the coldest periods during the past millennia.

When you pick an unusually cold period for comparison, modest warming seems more dramatic than it is.

Second, the 1.5℃ is an arbitrary temperature choice. As Climate Realism has discussed repeatedly here, here, and here, it was chosen by politicians for political reasons.

There is no scientific evidence it represents some tipping point for catastrophic climate change. The world has likely warmed more than 2°C since the 1700s, with no apocalypse.

One would think that if warming causes more extreme weather there would be solid data and identifiable consistent trends showing an increase in extreme weather, but there is none.

Three of the weather events CNN cites at the end of their article as proof of a supposed climate emergency, Hurricane Milton, the flooding in Spain, and low snow amounts at Mt. Fuji are not proof of a climate emergency.

Despite Media Panic, There Is No Reason to Think 2024’s Warming Is Disastrous

by L. Lueken, Nov 10, 2024 in WUWT


Multiple outlets have posted articles covering a report from the European Copernicus Climate Change Service (“Copernicus”) which says that 2024 will be the first to surpass 1.5°C warming since pre-industrial times, which the media claims will cause untold weather disasters. This is mostly false. Although it is likely that 2024 will have higher average temperatures than in recent decades, it is not the end of the year yet, and there limited evidence to support the claim that it will represent the highest temperatures humans have ever experienced and no evidence whatsoever that weather disasters have gotten or will get worse.

The BBC and CNN are among the numerous mainstream media outlets reporting on Copernicus’ report.

CNN describes the report as “devastating news for the planet that comes as America chooses a president that has promised to undo its climate progress both at home and abroad.”

The Copernicus group estimates that 2024 will end up 1.55°C hotter than the 1850-1900 average, which is 0.05°C above the warming limit set by the Paris Agreement. This may be true, but there is no evidence that the 1.5℃ threshold is actually some kind of deadly tipping point for weather disasters. The same organization sounded the alarm last year that the “limit” was breached for several months in a row, while ignoring natural factors like an underwater volcano eruption. As for the 1.5 degree limit itself, it was not established by professional climate scientists. Only one of the people who were on the panel that came up with the value was even a meteorologist.

Two other points worth noting. The claim is bit of sleight of hand, cherry picking the data for comparison. Earth was only just coming out of a little ice age at the onset of the 1850 period, one of the coldest periods during the past millennia. When you pick an usually cold period for comparison, a modest warming seems more dramatic than it is.

Second, the 1.5℃ is an arbitrary temperature choice. As Climate Realism has discussed repeatedly, herehere, and here, for example, it was chosen by politicians for political reasons. There is no scientific evidence it represents some tipping point for catastrophic climate change. It is likely that the world has warmed more than 2°C since the 1700s, with no apocalypse.

La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse