New Study: Plant Remains Embedded In A Modern Glacier Evidence A Warmer Antarctica 1000 Years Ago

by  K. Richard, Apr 21, 2025 in NoTricksZone

Leafy moss dated to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been found embedded in Antarctic glacier ice that today is “permanently snow-covered” with “no evidence of meltwater.” This affirms a warmer MWP and that “the summer melt during the MWP was greater than today.”

According to a new study, moss samples with intact leaves and stems 10 to 13 mm long have been discovered embedded in glacier ice – the Boulder Clay Glacier (BCG) – in Antarctica’s Victoria Land.

The surface of this glacier is currently not undergoing melt. It is instead permanently snow-covered.

“It is also noteworthy that under current climate conditions…there is no evidence of meltwater on the BCG, and the surface of the glacier is permanently snow-covered.”

The leafy moss samples have been dated to about 1,000 years ago, which is consistent with the timing of the Medieval Warm Period.

“…an unprecedented palaeo-erosion event occurred on the surface of an Anarctic glacier (northern Victoria Land, continental Antarctica) during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) between 900 and 989 cal BP.”

“The period between 831 and 1140 cal BP is characterized by reduced sea ice in northern Victoria Land, which is consistent with the occurrence of a brief event of warmer conditions around 1000 cal BP…”

The presence of thousand-year-old plant remains in a modern glacier strongly suggest the climate was warmer (and thus there was less glacier ice) during the Medieval Warm Period.

Wake Physics: Large Wind Farms Are Making Downstream Turbines Unprofitable

by P. Gosselin, Apr 20, 2025 in NoTricksZone 


A virtual wake-up call for the wind power industry. Two companies are sounding the alarm as they risk losing a lot of money.

Although they are not making losses yet, they are earning less. It’s about the the wake effect on wind farms by other wind farms.

Windmesse.de

The expansion of offshore wind energy in the North Sea is a central component of the European energy transition. However, two of the biggest players in the industry are now warning of negative effects: Ørsted and Equinor have jointly calculated that the planned 1.5 gigawatt wind farm ‘Outer Dowsing’ could cause significant so-called wake losses. These are yield losses that occur when the wind is weakened by upstream wind farms, causing downstream turbines to produce less electricity.

The two companies estimate that their existing wind farm projects in the British part of the North Sea could lose up to 361 million pounds – the equivalent of around 422 million euros – in the long term as a result of the new wind farm. The wind farms already in operation, which are dependent on constant wind conditions in order to achieve their planned output and ensure profitability, will be particularly affected.”

The phenomenon is called the wake effect and it is by no means new, as you can see in the Sciencemediacenter, an article from 2012:

The existence of wind turbine wakes has been known for decades. For smaller wind turbines and onshore wind farms, it for a long time was not considered to be so important. With the increasing size of individual wind turbines (multi-MW turbines) and larger wind farms in recent years, the size and length of the wakes are increasing and becoming increasingly relevant. I pointed this out back in 2010 and developed a simple model that can be used to estimate the length of wind farm wakes. This model shows the dependence of the length of wakes on subsurface roughness and thermal stratification of the air. Wakes of tens of kilometers in length can be predicted for offshore wind farms with stable stratification. Ms. Lundquist’s working group already presented simulation results with the WRF flow model in 2012, some of which show even longer wakes.“

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.

EU Commission Gave NGOs Taxpayer Billions To Lobby Politicians For Leftist Causes

by K. Zindulka, Apr 28, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 


eu parliament building
Corruption concerns have been raised amid an investigation into the billions handed out from the EU to NGOs, allegedly in exchange for lobbying efforts on behalf of the European Commission to advance left-wing causes such as the green agenda. [emphasis, links added]

The European Court of Auditors has found that between 2021 and 2023, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) received a total of €7.4 billion ($8.4B) from the EU, including 4.8 billion euros from the governing Commission and another 2.6 billion euros from member states.

Thousands of NGOs were funded with taxpayer cash to promote so-called EU values and advance left-wing causes on immigration, environmentalism, and even lobbying for the ban on combustion engine cars, Germany’s Focus magazine reported.

The Court of Auditors report, which found that there was “no reliable overview of EU funding granted to NGOs”, raised concerns that some such organizations were disguising themselves as NGOs to lobby politicians on behalf of their economic interests while claiming to be nonprofits, or by government actors using the groups to advance their endsclandestinely.

An unnamed research facility in the textile and cosmetics industry, which claimed to be an NGO to receive EU funding, was identified by the Court of Auditors as having pursued the “business interests of its predominantly for-profit members” while maintaining a nonprofit status.

“Solar Madness In Germany”: Gigawatt-Hours Of Subsidized Electricity Gets Dumped Abroad For Free”

by  P. Gosselin, Apr 16, 2025 in NoTricksZone


Blackout News here reports on how Germany’s uncontrolled solar production without appropriate storage and consumption models is putting a huge burden on the domestic market and consumers.

At the same time, neighboring countries are benefiting from all the free electricity Germany uncontrollably overproduces and consumers just don’t need!

Image generated by Grok AI

Experts are warning of the collapse of an over-regulated energy system that is increasingly moving away from reality. Germany has significantly expanded its solar PV capacity in recent years. According to the Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur), the total installed solar PV capacity in Germany reached 99.3 GW at the end of December 2024.

Is the sun responsible for global warming?

by S.B. Park, Apr 12, 2025 in SkepticalScience


Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.

Is the sun responsible for global warming?

NoGreenhouse gas emissions from human activities, not solar variability, is responsible for the global warming observed since the Industrial Revolution.

Cyclical variations in Earth’s orbit and changes in the amount of energy released by the sun have caused gradual climatic changes over tens of thousands of years. However, total solar activity has been decreasing since the 1980s.

Meanwhile, global average temperatures have been rising at an accelerating rate. The ten hottest years on record were the most recent ten while 2024 was the hottest on record. The last time Earth experienced a cooler-than-average year was 1976.

In 2021, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that solar fluctuations accounted for around 1% of the 1.1°C (2°F) of total global warming since 1850. The panel identified heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use and other human activities as the primary driver.

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


This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as the one highlighted here.


Sources

Skeptical Science Solar vs Temperature

NASA What Is the Sun’s Role in Climate Change?

NOAA Couldn’t the Sun be the cause of global warming?

NOAA Climate Change: Incoming Sunlight

NOAA 2024 was the world’s warmest year on record

NASA The Causes of Climate Change

IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers

About fact briefs published on Gigafact

Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer “yes/no” answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.

Climate Change Myths Part 1: Polar Bears, Arctic Ice, And Food Shortages

by J. Stossel, Apr 16, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 


stossel climate myths
Climate zealots tell us the end is near. It’s the era of “global BOILING!” says the UN secretary-general.

Climate alarmists say the Arctic will soon be ice-free and cities underwater!

But what do the facts say?

The facts say that the climate change fanatics’ catastrophic claims are wrong.

In this video and the next, we’ll debunk 7 myths about climate change.

New Study Finds The Anthropogenic ‘Pressure’ On Climate Is Too Small To Play A ‘Dominant Role’

by K. Richard, Apr 14, 2025 in NoTricksZone


Even if the entirety of the modern CO2 concentration increase is due to human activity, the impact (pressure) on global temperatures amounts to no more than 15-18%.

In a new study, geology professor Dr. Wojciech Stankowski  has summarized some of the reasons why the prevailing narrative that says humans can drive climate change by burning more or less fossil fuels cannot be supported by the evidence.

Past natural climate changes such as Greenland’s “temperature increases of up to 10°C within just 50 years” 14,700 and 11,700 years ago confirm that the modern climate change rate (just o.05°C per decade since 1860) falls well within the range of natural variability.

Further, a CO2 concentration change from 0.03% to 0.04% (300 ppm to 400 ppm) is not significant enough to impact temperature change in the global ocean, which covers 71% of the Earth’s surface.

“If carbon dioxide were the main driver of temperature fluctuations, its concentration variations would have to be enormous.”

“Currently, CO2 levels are around ~400 ppm. If this entire difference [the ~100 ppm CO2 increase since the early 20th century] is attributed to human activity, anthropogenic pressure accounts for no more than 15-18%.”

Natural factors such as tectonics, changes in galactic phenomena, and the Sun’s magnetic fluctuations continue to modulate changes in climate. Human activity can only play a non-dominant modifying role at most.

“The overall trends in climate change rhythms will continue to be determined by the complex nature of galactic phenomena, the energy-magnetic fluctuations of the Sun, and their interactions with Earth’s magnetic field.”

“The ever-increasing intensity of anthropo-pressure does not hold a dominant role in climate change.”

Colossal squid filmed in its natural habitat for the first time (SEE VIDEO)

by E. Stokstad, Apr 15, 2025 in Science


For a century, scientists have searched for a titan lurking in the oceans’ depths: a squid that can weigh up to half a ton. Now, a team of researchers has revealed the first video ever taken of this enormous predator, the colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni), in its natural deep-water habitat—and managed to spot the animal in its youth.

“We get to introduce the live colossal squid to the world as this beautiful, little, delicate animal,” Kat Bolstad, an Auckland University of Technology biologist who helped confirm the squid’s identity, said during a 15 April press conference. She adds that the find “highlights the magnificence of a lot of deep-sea creatures without some of that monster hype.”

The minuteslong footage of the elusive species, the largest known invertebrate, comes from a team of biologists who filmed it on 9 March in the South Atlantic Ocean as part of an expedition to survey marine life aboard the Schmidt Ocean Institute’s R/V Falkor (too). During the vessel’s stop near the South Sandwich Islands, the researchers deployed a remotely operated vehicle to a depth of 600 meters and livestreamed its video feed.

Ocean CO2 Outgassing With Temperature

by W. Eschenbach, Apr 13, 2025 in WUWT


Over at Dr. Jennifer Marohasy’s always interesting blog, she makes an interesting claim about ocean outgassing of CO2.

Picture this: it’s a hot day, and you grab a soda can that’s been in the sun. You crack it open—psssht—and CO₂ fizzes out, tickling your nose, maybe spraying your shirt if you’re slow. It’s a tiny chaos, a burst you can’t control. Now imagine that fizz across the ocean’s sun-warmed surface, covering 71% of Earth, bubbling CO₂ into the air we breathe. Wild, right? A bit mad. I reckon it’s a missing piece of the climate puzzle.

Now, it’s undeniable that warmer ocean water contains less CO2 than colder water. As the temperature rises, the CO2 outgasses from the ocean. But that wasn’t my question. After reading her post, my question was, “How much?”.

How much increase in CO2 do we get from a 1° increase in ocean temperature?

My first step was to look at the Vostok ice core data. It shows that as the globe rose by ~ 5°C, the CO2 level rose by ~ 100 ppmv. This gives us a CO2 outgassing trend of ~20 ppmv per 1°C temperature rise.

However, it’s not quite that simple. More of the ocean was covered by sea ice during the glaciation, reducing the outgassing ocean area. How much? Estimates are on the order of 30 million km^2, which is about 8.2% of the current ice-free ocean. So that would drop the value to ~ 18 ppmv/°C.

Next, I went to my go-to AI, perplexity, which gave me the following:

To estimate the increase in atmospheric CO₂ from a 1°C rise in ocean temperatures, Henry’s law and equilibrium dynamics between the ocean and atmosphere are key. Here’s a synthesis of insights from relevant studies:

• Henry’s Law and Temperature Dependence

Henry’s law states that the concentration of dissolved CO₂ in seawater (C) is proportional to its partial pressure in the atmosphere (p):  C = k_H * p, where(k_H) is Henry’s constant, which decreases with rising temperature (reducing CO₂ solubility). For example, a 1°C increase reduces(k_H) by ~4%[1][6]. This shifts the equilibrium, releasing CO₂ from the ocean to the atmosphere.

• Model Estimates

1. Simplified Ocean Layer Model:  

 Using a 100m-deep surface layer exchanging CO₂ with the atmosphere, a 1°C rise increases atmospheric CO₂ by ~6 ppm[1]. However, this assumes limited vertical mixing and may underestimate the full ocean response.  

   – For deeper layers (e.g., 3800m), the same temperature rise could yield ~20 ppm[1], aligning with glacial-interglacial transitions where a 5°C warming corresponded to ~90 ppm CO₂ rise (~18 ppm/°C) [1][7].

2. Modern Context:  

Recent studies highlight complexities like the ocean’s thermal skin layer and vertical mixing. Correcting for temperature gradients between the ocean surface and sampling depth increases estimated CO₂ uptake by 0.8–0.9 PgC/yr[2], but this focuses on current anthropogenic fluxes rather than equilibrium responses.  

• Key Variables

– Mixed-Layer Depth: Shallow layers (e.g., 100m) show smaller CO₂ releases than deeper layers[1].

– Buffering by Carbonate Chemistry: CO₂ dissolution forms carbonic acid, which dissociates into ions, adding complexity beyond Henry’s law[5][6]. This buffers pH changes but does not prevent long-term CO₂ release as temperatures rise.  

• Synthesis

The estimated increase ranges from 6–20 ppm/°C, depending on assumptions about ocean mixing depth and timescales. The higher end (~18 ppm/°C) aligns with paleoclimate evidence[1][7], while modern models suggest lower values due to ongoing oceanic uptake[2][3]. These estimates exclude feedbacks like biological responses or changes in ocean circulation.

  • Citations

Geothermal electricity generation

by C. Morris, Apr 12, 2025 in WUWT


Geothermal power stations are mature technology with proven performance, reliable operation and ideal for baseload generation. The units are synchronous, so they support the grid.  The production from them is considered by most to be renewable. They do not use fossil fuels to provide the heat. It is not “carbon free”, but no generation truly is. It has a relatively small footprint, environment harm is low, and it can coexist with farming or industrial development. Most developments have a cheaper energy cost than onshore wind, using published accounts for analysis. For countries or areas where the resource is there, geothermal generation is very viable.

The resource

Geothermal power stations are very much a niche generation source (only about 15GW worldwide,  from 673 units at 198 fields according to Google), totally dependent on locality. They are mainly associated with plate boundaries, particularly the Pacific Ring of Fire. Compare the plate boundaries and volcanic activity in Figure 1 with station locations in Figure  2

Associated with the plate boundaries and other weak points in the earth’s crust, the deep underlying heat in the mantle can find its way to the surface easier. “Bubbles” of magma can push up to relatively shallow depths. These may force their way to the actual surface as volcanoes with their lava. With the distortion and earth movement from this activity, the crust’s rock formations are deformed and cracked – earthquakes.  Groundwater can enter all the fault cracking in the rocks. This will be heated up by the hot magma, even if that has solidified.

Geothermal resources exploited for power production are the plumes of hot water formed from the heating of this deep groundwater. In geologic terms, such convection systems are short lived – generally lasting between 200 and 450 thousand years. They end because the heat source has gone or the cracking has been filled by precipitated minerals from the circulating water as it cools. The world is full of solidified magma (granite) and prehistoric geothermal systems. Many of the latter are now mined for gold and other precious materials.

The Top Ten Environmentalist Myths

by E. Ring, Apr 11, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 


Here are ten issues where environmentalism has been misused and even caused harm.

earth wind crops
The first Earth Day was organized in 1970 in response to growing public concern for the environment. Many of these concerns were entirely justified. [emphasis, links added]

In 1969, for example, an oil slick along an industrialized stretch of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire, generating national awareness of the need to reduce water pollution.

Similarly, in coastal cities in California, most notably in Los Angeles, the exhaust from unleaded gasoline created air pollution so dense you couldn’t see the hills a few miles away.

We’ve come a long way in 51 years.

This month, as Americans celebrate Earth Day on April 22, we are challenged to differentiate between legitimate environmental priorities and those priorities chosen for us by special interests with ulterior motives for whom environmentalism is a sentiment to be manipulated.

Here are ten issues where environmentalism has been misused, with consequences that have either been of no benefit whatsoever to the environment or have even caused harm.

(1) We are in a climate crisis

We may as well begin with the most controversial environmentalist claim, that our planet is at imminent risk of catastrophic climate change. The problem with this claim is two-fold.

First, there remains vigorous—if suppressed—debate over whether the data actually supports this claim. There is ample evidence that average global temperatures are not rapidly increasing, if they are even increasing at all.

There is also strong evidence that extreme weather events are not increasing but rather that our ability to detect them has improved and that population increases have led more people to live in places that are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather.

Second, even if there is some truth to the claims of climate catastrophists, it is not possible to precipitously transform our entire energy infrastructure. The technology isn’t ready, the funding isn’t available, and most nations will not participate.

Adaptation is our only rational course of action.

(2) There are too many people

(10) …

Over 30 items here: Evidence that the climate scam is collapsin

by T. Neslon,  Apr 10, 2025 in WUWT


The climate scam is imploding right now. Of course there are still plenty of remaining pockets of climate cultism, but the whole movement is crumbling.

It’s the most massive scientific fraud in human history, and it will take significant time to completely die, but make no mistake: It IS dying.

In no particular order, here are some updates on the climate scam implosion. Please keep scrolling.

  1. “Huge: A powerful climate alliance of the World Economic Forum, major companies, the UN, and banks is “at an end“.
  2. “Bill Gates is giving up on climate change…Breakthrough Energy, a joint venture between Bill Gates and a handful of other billionaires… is slashing much of its policy staff.”
  3. NASA GISS funding “terminated”?: “New NASA Chief Will Wind Down Climate Alarm Shop“.
  4. Delicious straight talk from U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin: “we are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion“.
  5. Wonderful straight talk from U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright: “ 2050 “; he suggests climate change alarmism is “a quasi-cult religion”.
  6. The Tories have ditched Net Zero by 2050.
  7. Remarkably, Just Stop Oil just announced “the end of soup on Van Goghs, cornstarch on Stonehenge and slow marching in the streets“.
  8. Shellenberger/Pielke Jr: “Climate change is going to fade from view like overpopulation did…Lack of protests over Trump’s action on energy shows how little anyone every really cared about global warming“.
  9. One of the longest running climate cases, Juliana v. United States, just ended in rejection at the Supreme Court.
  10. A climate startup that boasted a roster of celebrity backers and arranged carbon credits for Meta, Microsoft and other large companies just filed bankruptcy.
  11. Blackrock chief Larry Fink mentioned “climate” a total of 29 times in his 2020 letter to CEOs, then ZERO times in his 2025 letter!
  12. Michael Mann is now losing in court to Mark Steyn.
  13. SEC Votes to End Defense of Climate Disclosure Rules.
  14. New Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard failed to even mention “climate change” as a national security threat.
  15. The warmist International Energy Agency just remembered that we need hydrocarbon fuels.
  16. Greenpeace was just hit with a $667 million judgement.
  17. Britain’s banks are quietly distancing themselves from Net Zero commitments.
  18. Warmist Sabine Hossenfelder laments that “Everyone is Giving Up On Climate Goals…global businesses are done pretending they care about carbon neutrality.”
  19. New Jersey’s massive lawsuit accusing the oil industry of causing climate change was dismissed with prejudice.
  20. Google Is No Longer Claiming to Be Carbon Neutral.
  21. The left “went from wanting EV mandates to now burning those same EV’s in the blink of a cultural eye”.
  22. Indonesia casts doubt on Paris climate accord after Donald Trump’s exit.
  23. Australian pension funds are backing away from climate pledges too.
  24. Davos speaker specifically lists *climate* first as a cause that is “simply being gradually kind of marginalised“!
  25. EU exploring weaker 2040 climate goal.
  26. Bloomberg: “Years of Climate Action Demolished in Days“.
  27. After lots of episodes guffawing at climate realists, The Climate Denier’s Playbook podcast went dark without explanation in Oct. 2024.
  28. Facing increasing pushback, many warmist scientists have fled from X. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt is one example.
  29. In recent months, lots of companies have been abandoning climate goals. Air New Zealand is one example.
  30. Greta Thunberg’s last X “school strike” post was in Oct. 2024. This Fridays for Future social media feed hasn’t been updated for almost three years.
  31. Last year Climate Nexus, a warmist organization which pushed climate hysteria for over a decade and had tens of employees, suddenly threw in the towel.
  32. Just over a year ago, The Daily Kos ClimateDenierRoundup page, which spewed climate scam propaganda incessantly (2,200 posts!) for many years, abruptly stopped posting.
  33. Joe Rogan, with his huge audience, was a full-on warmist in 2018 but now routinely scoffs at the climate scam.

More Evidence on Vapor Pressure Deficit, Cloud Reduction, and Climate Change

by C. Blaisdell, Apr 6, 2025 in WUWT


Abstract

In addition to WUWT, more and more web sites are mentioning cloud reduction as a source of climate change, but offer no source of the cloud reduction.  WUWT was the first to published this author’s theory: Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW, (1).  A critical part of CRGW theory is the relationship between Vapor Pressure Deficet, VPD, and Cloud Fraction.  The relationship is logical: as the atmosphere’s water vapor concentration approaches the due point the probability of cloud formation should increase.

Previous papers by this author have shown that Vapor Pressure Deficit and cloud fraction are loosely correlated (low R^2).  The measurement of cloud fraction seems to be the main uncertainty.  This essay will show that downwelling Short Wave, SW, radiation to the earth’s surface along with atmospheric enthalpy, En, correlate to Cloud Fraction, CF, thus increasing confidence in VPD as a predictor of cloud fraction.  VPD and En are necessary variables in the Cloud Reduction Global Warming , CRGW, model which models current climate change using Clausius–Clapeyron related equations.

Slicing the earth’s data reveals the change in atmospheric VPD and En vs latitude correlate to cloud fraction.  The earth’s slices suggestion that lower land cover in a slice may be related to cloud cover in addition to the expected sun angle.

But,  CO2 and VPD are confounded.  Which one is guilty of climate change?

Study: Greenland’s Melting Ice Unlikely To Trigger Atlantic Current’s Collapse

P. Gosselin, Apr, 10, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 


Day after Tomorrow
We hear it again and again: the melting ice in Greenland due to global warming will soon lead to a collapse of the Gulf Stream system, with the result that it would be difficult to restart. [emphasis, links added]

Then we would see great disasters like those depicted in Roland Emmerich’s dramatic climate movie “The Day after Tomorrow”.

The seawater salinity in the north is critical because the salt-rich tropical water cools and sinks due to the higher salt content.

This acts as the pump that makes circulation possible in the first place. It serves to transport very large amounts of heat into the North Atlantic, keeping Europe on the mild side in the wintertime.

Scenarios have been published recently that calculate a drastic cooling of the large area (especially Europe) around it if the Gulf Stream system got “switched off”.

But those scenarios are proving to be overdramatic and alarmist.

Yuxin Zhou, a postdoctoral researcher in UC Santa Barbara’s Department of Earth Science, recently went back in history to study when the AMOC was severely weakened, from 68,000 to 16,000 years ago, when the Laurentide Ice Sheet existed and thick ice covered northern North America and even New York City.

Today, that massive ice shelf no longer exists and thus there is no longer the potential of an ice melt and iceberg release of that scale.

Very different, less dramatic circumstances today

By analyzing sea sediment deposited by floating icebergs in the North Atlantic, Zhou found that the AMOC heat-transferring oceanic current had already been moderately weakened before all the icebergs floated over the North Atlantic.

Comparing the situation to today, Zhou says, “In contrast, the circulation is very vigorous right now,” which suggests the melting of Greenland is not likely to plunge the North Atlantic into another deep freeze of the sort the alarmists fret about all the time.

Moreover, Technology Networks here adds (emphasis added):

Not all melting has the same effect on the Atlantic circulation. Freshwater released as icebergs has a much larger impact on the AMOC than runoff, which is released after melting on land. Icebergs can cool the surrounding seawater, causing it to freeze into sea ice. Ironically, this ice layer acts as a blanket, keeping the ocean surface warm and preventing it from plunging down to the depths and driving the Atlantic circulation. What’s more, icebergs travel much farther out to sea than runoff, delivering freshwater to the regions where this deepwater formation occurs.”

Role of Climate Change in LA Wildfires “Not Statistically Significant”, Says Report Author

by C. Morrison, Apr 4, 2025 in WUWT


Climate change was a major factor behind the recent Los Angeles wildfires, reported Matt McGrath of the BBC last January. According to a ‘scientific study’ instantly produced by World Weather Attribution (WWA), the prevailing weather conditions were made about 35% more likely due to humans using hydrocarbons. The WWA study, according to the trusting McGrath, is said to confirm this somewhat precise attribution of blame. Possibly the BBC and most of the mainstream that also parroted the WWA line might consider some corrective copy in the light of a devasting critique of the claims from the theoretical physicist, science writer and prominent youtuber Dr Sabine Hossenfelder. In a YouTube video broadcast here that has gone viral on social media, she elicited an astonishing admission from one of the report’s authors that, “as you can see from the numbers, the changes in intensity and likelihood are unsurprisingly not statistically significant”.

Not statistically significant is exactly what Hossenfelder found since she noted that the figures supplied by the WWA were within a 95% statistical probability level. Her broadcast goes into detail about the numbers falling within the 95% level meaning that an alternative explanation is that climate change had no part to play in the LA fires.

But the laughter has a touch of gallows humour since Hossenfelder is concerned about matters of public policy arising from such widespread fearmongering. Wildfires affect the lives of millions of people and the claims of the WWA broadcast worldwide by unquestioning activists are policy relevant numbers, she observes. People in LA need to consider their response to the recent tragedy and judge whether it will happen more frequently in the future, she says, observing: “This research matters for people’s lives.” Of course similar observations can be made about all the other mainstream pseudoscience babble designed to deliberately induce mass climate psychosis and promote the collectivist Net Zero fantasy.

Lost in all the mainstream narrative-driven madness was any report about the recent sensational scientific finding that wildfires across the United States and Canada were occurring at a rate of only 23% of that expected from a review of the tree ring fire scar record going back to the 17th century. The findings published in Nature Communications effectively blew the politicised wildfire climate change scam out of the water. It was noted that a current ”widespread fire deficit” persisted across a range of forest types, and the areas burned in the recent past “are not unprecedented”.

Such was the alarm created by these inconvenient findings that one pre-publication reviewer noted: “I see this paper as potentially being used by deniers of climate change impacts.” Advice was given to rephrase “to put even more emphasis on impact rather than burned area”. In other words, concentrate on emotion rather than facts to help produce the Ultra Processed Message that is slowly but surely destroying faith in both climate science and the useful idiot media.

Is Coal Dead? Surging Demand, Trump’s Recent Push, and China’s Dominance Say Otherwise

by T. Doshi, Mar 31, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch


coal freight china
The death of coal, held to be the eldest and ugliest of the three fossil fuel siblings, has long been exaggerated Mark Twain-style. [emphasis, links added]

While oil and natural gas needed to be tolerated for some time in the “energy transition”, dirty coal — responsible for soot, smog, and respiratory disease — was already beyond the pale for many decades in most Western developed countries.

The latest twist in this tale of a death exaggerated starts with a Guardian story on Monday last week. In his trip to China — the world’s largest coal consumer by far, and with no letup in sight — the UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Ed Miliband “is hoping to shape a new global axis in favour of climate action along with China and developing countries, to counter Donald Trump’s abandonment of green policies in the US.”

Then, on Saturday, the Daily Mail reported that Miliband “admits his solar panels bought for English schools and hospitals are Chinese and may be made using coal.”

The hubris and the irony leap out.

The birthplace of coal and the industrial revolution and which once “ruled the waves” of 70% of the globe, Great Britain closed its last coal plant last year. It is number 22 on the list of the world’s largest CO2 emitters, accounting for a puny 0.8% of global emissions.

This pales in comparison to China at number one, spewing out 34% of the world’s emissions, and to the US, the next largest emitter, at 12%.

Apparently, “Mad Ed”, with his folly of climate leadership, still believes that the sheer illustrative example of a net-zero ‘green’ UK will lead the world into ditching fossil fuels.

As my colleague Ben Pile said pithily of Mr. Miliband’s China visit, “Don’t make me laugh.” In an oft-cited statistic, China builds an average of two coal power plants a week.

Tech Giants quietly drop renewables and sign pledge to triple Nuclear Power

by Jo Nova, Mar 14, 2025


Renewables are so over

Just like that — the renewables bubble went phht.

After twenty years of hailing wind and solar, suddenly the world’s tech giants are cheering for nuclear power. Worse —  they don’t even mention the words carbon, low emissions or CO2. The new buzzwords are “safe, clean and firm“. They talk about needing energy “round the clock”, and they talk about “energy resilience” — but they don’t saynuclear is “low emissions”. It’s like they want everyone to forget their activism. Did someone say something about climate change?

Meta, Amazon, and Google have flipped like a school of barracuda. Five minutes ago, life on Earth depended on achieving Net-Zero with fleets of wind farms in the sunset, now, they just want energy and lots of it. The big tech fish and their friends have signed a Large Energy Users Pledge admitting that the demand for energy is rising rapidly, that nuclear should triple by 2050 and that large energy users depend on the availability of abundant cheap energy (Small energy users too,  Mr Bezos-Zuckerburg-Pichai.) The closest they come to hinting at the ghost of renewables is when they say they want energy that’s not dependent on “the weather, the season, or the geographical location”.

There’s no “Sorry we got it wrong”. There’s no apology for hectoring us, censoring us, or wasting billions of dollars. It’s just Mr Don’t-Look-Over-Here telling us what most engineers knew for 30 years. This is the billionaire club asking the taxpayers to build them more nuclear plants.

Signatories include Siemens Energy, which suffered a 36% share price fall 18 months ago when it admitted it was losing billions trying to maintain wind turbines.


 

New Study Identifies A Millennial-Scale ‘Striking’ Link Between Solar Forcing And Climate Patterns

by K. Richard, Mar 13, 2025 in NoTricksZone 


“Until now, the origin of the climate dynamics of the Central Andes during the last millennium has been speculative. On the basis of statistical evidence, we have identified solar variability as its origin.” – Schittek et al., 2025

In a new study, scientists have determined:

1) The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a global-scale cold event.

2) Southern Hemisphere (Peruvian Andes) climate (precipitation) variations are robustly linked to variations in solar activity over the last 1,000 years.

3) The modern (1900s-2000s) and Medieval Climate Anomaly climate warmth are associated with reduced rainfall, and the LIA colder temperatures are associated with more precipitation.

“…the LIA was a global event, marked by advance of glaciers worldwide.”

“Solar irradiation is the primary driver for all climate circulation processes on Earth. Evidence for a direct solar influence on the Earth’s climate has been growing.”

“Our study reveals evidence that precipitation changes in the south-eastern Peruvian Andes are linked to variations in solar activity during the LIA [Little Ice Age].”

“Several studies attribute climate cooling during the LIA to solar forcing, particularly during the Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton Minima.”

“The position of the ITCZ [Intertropical Convergence Zone] is robustly dependent on the interhemispheric temperature gradient triggered by solar forcing.”

Open peer review: State of the Climate 2024

by O. Humlum, Mar 14, 2025 in GWPF


We are keen to receive review comments for our new draft paper which is now available for open peer review here.

Ole Humlum: State of the Climate 2024

This report on the state of the climate in 2024 has its focus on observations, and not on output from numerical models. The observed data series presented here reveals a vast number of natural variations. The existence of such natural climatic variations is not always fully acknowledged, and therefore often not considered in contemporary climate conversations.

Global average surface air temperature for 2024 was the highest on record for all databases considered in this report. The years 2023 and 2024 were both affected by a warm El Niño episode. Towards the end of 2024 the most recent El Niño episode declined. 

Submitted comments and contributions will be subject to a moderation process and will be published, provided they are substantive and not abusive.

Review comments should be emailed to: harry.wilkinson@thegwpf.org.

The deadline for review comments is 4 April 2025.

CERAWEEK IEA chief sees need for investments in existing oil, gas fields

by T. Gardner, Mar 10, 2025 in Reuters

HOUSTON, March 10 (Reuters) – Fatih Birol, the director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, said on Monday there is a need for investment in oil and gas fields to support global energy security.
The comment puts the energy watchdog for industrialized nations more in line with President Donald Trump’s pro-drilling agenda, after it came under pressure from fossil fuel advocates years ago for proposing an end to new oil and gas projects.
“I want to make it clear … there would be a need for investment, especially to address the decline in the existing fields,” he said at the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston. “There is a need for oil and gas upstream investments, full stop,” he said.
Birol has been under pressure from Trump’s administration and from the president’s fellow Republicans in Congress for the IEA’s shift in recent years toward a focus on clean energy policy.
In 2021, the IEA said companies should not invest, opens new tab in new coal, oil and gas projects if the international community wants to reach net zero emissions by mid-century to fight climate change. Countering global warming was a key priority for the administration of former President Joe Biden.

Climate Crusader SLAPPed: Michael Mann Sanctioned For ‘Extraordinary’ Misconduct

by R. Bryce, Mar 13,2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 


My, oh my, how the worm has turned.

Thirteen months ago, in the op-ed pages of the New York Times, University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann and his lawyer, Peter J. Fontaine, were crowing about their victory in federal court a few days earlier. [emphasis, links added]

They were thrilled that a jury in Washington, DC, had decided that the defendants in the case, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, had defamed Mann.

The jury awarded the combative academic one dollar in compensatory damages from Simberg and Steyn. It also awarded Mann punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn.

Mann claimed the jury’s decision was “a victory for science and it’s a victory for scientists.

In their February 15, 2024, op-ed, Mann and Fontaine said, “We hope this sends a broader message that defamatory attacks on scientists go beyond the bounds of protected speech and have consequences… However, we lament the time lost to this battle. This case is part of a larger culture war in which research is distorted and the truth about the climate threat is dissembled.”

Yes, well.

As reported here on Substack by Roger Pielke Jr., a federal court in Washington, DC, ruled yesterday that Mann and his lawyers acted in “bad faith” and “made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding.”

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.

Guardian Falsely Claims Climate Change is Intensifying Cyclones

by E. Worall, Mar 13, 2025 in WUWT


Are climate modellers putting the effect before the cause when it comes to long term cyclone frequency and intensity vs surface temperature? Because there is a very simple possible explanation for why atmospheric and ocean surface temperature is rising but cyclone frequency and intensity are decreasing – cyclone frequency and intensity likely have an inverse relationship with ocean surface and atmospheric heat content. Cyclones are powerful dissipators of surface heat, an uptick in cyclones would cause an immediate and sustained drop in surface temperature.

Bonus points for anyone who has a good theory for what causes more cyclones – I mean a theory which doesn’t contradict observations.

La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse