climate-debate

More On DOE’s Report Challenging EPA Climate Claims And CO2 Alarmism

by F. Menton, Aug 4, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

earth space

On July 29 — the same day that EPA initiated the process of revoking the absurd “endangerment finding” that demonizes CO2 emissions from energy production (covered at Manhattan Contrarian here) — there was another equally momentous development on the energy front at the federal government. [emphasis, links added]

On that day, the Department of Energy released a lengthy Report with the title “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” (Although the Report bears a date of July 23, the 29th appears to be the date when it was signed by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and officially released.)

The Report is attributed to something called the “Climate Working Group,” consisting of five prominent members of the climate skeptic community: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer. Full disclosure: I know four of the five (Judith Curry is the exception), and consider two of them friends.

These are all highly competent and accomplished people, which is a dramatic contrast to the lightweights and grifters who constitute essentially all of the “mainstream” climate science community.

Most important about these five is that they are all willing to acknowledge the limitations of the knowledge possessed by the scientific community about the world’s climate.

The Report overall comes off as a fair and balanced assessment of risks and trade-offs, rather than what normally comes from climate academics and journalists, which are cheap attempts to use speculation and fake projections to scare you out of your wits.

…

climate-debate

Climate Oscillations 11: Oceanic Niño Index (ONI)

by A. May, 4 August, 2025 in WUWT

The Oceanic Niño Index or ONI is NOAA’s primarily indicator for monitoring the sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly in the critical Niño 3.4 region. It is a 3-month running mean of ERSST.v5 SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region, defined as 5°N-5°S and 120°W-170°W. Figure 1 shows the ONI as computed from the NOAA ERSST dataset. ERSST is a two-degree gridded dataset, so the region averaged for figure 1 is 6°N-6°S and 120°W-170°W.

Figure 1. A plot of the ONI from 1850 – 2023. The ONI 3-month smoothed anomaly must be above +0.5 for 5 months for an El Niño and below -0.5 for 5 months to be a La Niña. In between the ENSO state is neutral, as it is today.
Per convention a three-month moving average has been applied to the raw ONI data in figure 1. Sometimes you will see the ONI detrended, but the curve in figure 1 is not detrended and has an upward slope of one-half degree per century. The 3-month moving average has to exceed 0.5°C for five consecutive months to define an El Niño, so the chart is colored red above 0.5°C. The same is true for La Niña, but in reverse. The white area between -0.5 and +0.5 is ENSO neutral.

The current ENSO state, as of July 2025, is ENSO neutral, with an average ONI of about zero. NOAA prefers to use a base period for their ONI anomalies of 1991-2020, but we use 1961-1990 to be consistent with the other posts in this series and with HadCRUT5. There is a visual trend over the past 175 years, Niños are more common now and stronger than in previous years. Climate models have a very hard time duplicating ENSO over both short and long periods of time (IPCC, 2021, p. 115). The Niño 3.4 region is shown in figure 2 in red.

…

energy and fields, minerals and ores

The battle for Ukraine’s geological wealth

by R. Stone, July 31, 2025 in Science

In late June, Russian forces advanced in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine, seizing another few square kilometers of ground—and a significant deposit of lithium. The loss adds to a growing tally of Ukraine’s geological riches that have fallen into enemy hands. It is also one more blow to a landmark agreement that the United States and Ukraine had signed weeks earlier, enabling U.S. firms to gain access to the nation’s mineral wealth.

Under the 30 April deal, the U.S. and Ukraine pledged to establish an investment fund to rebuild Ukraine with revenues from mineral, oil, and natural gas projects. Ukraine will maintain ownership of its natural resources, while future U.S. military aid would be deemed a contribution to the fund matched by revenue from Ukraine’s mineral wealth. But with war raging, implementation largely must wait, says Anatolii Bulat, director of the M.S. Poliakov Institute of Geotechnical Mechanics (IGTM), which is tracking the fate of the country’s mineral deposits. Without lasting peace in Ukraine or a U.S. pledge to help defend Ukraine’s mineral assets, the security situation in the country will be too unstable for a long-term investment in a mine and its supporting infrastructure, the Center for Strategic and International Studies argued in a recent briefing. It noted that such projects take an average of 18 years to complete and can cost $1 billion.

…

unclassified

Flawed Attribution Study Falsely Blames South Africa’s Floods On Climate Change

by L. Lueken, July 31, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatc

Durban, South Africa flood
A recent post at Phys.org claims that a recent attribution study shows that climate change made April 2022’s flooding in South Africa “significantly” worse. [emphasis, links added]

This is an unfalsifiable (not able to be proven or disproven experimentally or observationally) claim that ignores the complexities of weather and relies on distinctly unreliable computer modeling.

The article, titled “Climate change significantly worsened deadly 2022 Durban floods, study shows,” goes over an attribution study that focused on flooding in Durban, South Africa, three years ago.

Phys.org claims the study “shows that rainfall during the storm of 11–12 April 2022 was between 40 percent and 107 percent heavier than it would have been in a cooler, preindustrial climate.”

How do they know this? They don’t; rather, they claim it based on computer model outputs.

Unlike most coverage of attribution science, Phys.org vaguely hints at the fact that the modeling is less than bulletproof, explaining that the models “simulated the storm in both today’s warmed climate and a counterfactual world without human-induced global warming.”

Climate Realism has explained at length why attribution modeling is not evidence, but it may be helpful to point out that Phys.org is only half right here.

They indeed used a counterfactual world with no warming, but the warmed model is also counterfactual. A number of assumptions, some more robustly backed by available data and evidence than others, go into modeling the “current world.”

Statistician Dr. William Briggs has what I consider the best simple summary of how attribution modeling works:

…

climate-debate

Are direct water vapor emissions endangering anyone?

by Real Climate, July 31, 2025

In the EPA EF reconsideration document there is a section on p62 where they attempt to make the argument that the CO2 endangerment finding would also apply to direct water vapor emissions to the atmosphere, which is (according to them) obviously absurd. But both claims are bogus.

First off, the definition of pollutant in the Clean Air Act (CAA) clearly does include CO2 as well as water vapor. This was the point litigated in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007:

An air pollutant is defined as any substance, or combination of substances, including physical, chemical, biological, or radioactive matter, that is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air and may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to air pollution.

A Hazardous Substance is further defined as one “that can cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse health or environmental effects“.

So there are two factors to assess. First, is the substance emitted into the air? (Yes, for both CO2 and water vapor). Second, might it be reasonably anticipated to cause adverse effects? (This is precisely the point of the Endangerment Finding process!). Thus it is not self-evidently absurd that water vapor emissions might be regulatable under the CAA, but the issue is whether there is any evidence that these emissions might plausibly have adverse effects.

It’s worth listing some pertinent comparisons between CO2, water vapor and a criteria pollutant like SO2 (which oxidises to SO4), to see the differences:

Substance CO2 SO4/SO2 Water Vapor (H2O)
Perturbation timescale(s) > 1,000 years ~ 2 weeks ~ 10 days
Increase over background since 19th Century (%) > 50% ~350% (Greenland, 1980) ~ 4% (since 1979)
~ 9% (estimate since 1900)
Anthropogenic direct emissions ~ 36 GtCO2/yr ~ 130 MtSO2/yr (1980) ~ 21 GtH2O/yr
Anthropogenic sources Fossil fuel combustion, deforestation Sulfur in coal, biomass burning Irrigation, combustion
Attribution of anthropogenic direct sources to atmospheric increase ~ 90% 100% ~4%
Impact of climate feedbacks ~ 10% (ocean/soils etc.) 0 % ~ 96% (impact of T on saturation vapor pressure)
Adverse effects of increase Increased heat waves, sea level rise, etc. Acid rain, public health, agricultural yield More intense rainfall, enhanced global warming

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

The German “Summer From Hell” That Never Came…Earlier Wild Forecasts Backfire

by P. Gosselin, July 29, 2025 in NoTricksZone 

Already as early as May 2025 predictions of a hellish record-breaking hot summer with possibly thousands of heat deaths were forecast – much of it based on the unusually dry and warm spring that had gripped much of Central Europe at the time. 

Hat-tip: Frank Bosse at Klimanachrichten

The online Frankfurter Rundschau printed a weather column by meteorologist Dominick Jung just over 2 weeks ago, on July 13, warning of a “looming, huge heat dome” for the rest of the summer over Central Europe.

German TWC meteorologist Jan Schenk had already made a prediction in Focus magazine on June 10, 2025: “According to this, we can expect extreme heat and drought in Germany, especially in July and August.”

Then came reality.

Just recently, even the climate-alarmism purveyor Der Spiegel had to concede that “it feels more like autumn.”

Plenty of rain has been falling, along with snow high in the Alps.

So what was behind all the ridiculous hellish-summer forecasts? Veteran Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann in an interview with the online Bild called all the constant exaggerations and distortion: “Symbols of an education problem with us.”

At the end of June, 2025, after having made ridiculous made predictions a year earlier in 2024, biologist Mark Benecke lectured again on climate and weather to an auditorium, showing such weather model maps:

…

…

climate-debate

Natural Disasters in 2024 – A Quarter Century Without Change

by L. Budyn, Aug 1, 2025 in SciClimEnergie

On this specific topic of natural disasters, the managers of the database we will be using here consider it reliable from the year 2000 onward.

We are therefore approaching the 30-year period that the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) defines as the minimum required to establish “climate normals”[1], used to define and analyze climate evolution. These reference periods allow current data to be compared with past averages and to identify long-term climate trends and changes.

In this case, the diagnosis seems inescapable : if the stability — or even the decline — in the frequency of natural disasters is confirmed, then the potential link between global warming and natural disasters would become a purely academic hypothesis. Interesting from a theoretical standpoint, but lacking any observable factual basis.

Yet this stands in stark contrast to what various international agencies — and their media spokespersons — have been claiming repeatedly over the past 25 years. They have not hesitated to speak of a “doubling”[2] or even a “fivefold increase”[3] in the number of natural disasters over this period, all of which, of course, is attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

How, then, will they reconcile the stability observed in the real world with the alarmism so often relayed in the media ?

We therefore await, with some curiosity, the ad hoc explanation that will justify, in this particular case, abandoning the 30-year reference period. Climate alarmists will need to explain why this criterion — endorsed by the WMO itself — would no longer reflect long-term climate trends, as it is intended to do.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

A case for ‘Climate Humility’: Analyzing the DOE’s ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate’

by A. Watts, July 31, 2025 in WUWT

Honestly, I never thought I’d see the day. To quote Mr. FOIA from ClimateGate, “A miracle has occurred.”

Yesterday’s release of the DOE’s A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate is a watershed moment in the ongoing debate over climate policy in America. Why? Because for the first time, a major U.S. government agency—on official letterhead and with a blue-ribbon cast of authors (John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer)—has published an open challenge to the central claims, data handling, and even the motivations behind mainstream climate science and policy.

This isn’t just another technical report. It is a systematic rebuke of accepted climate “wisdom,” and it does so with unusual clarity, scientific rigor, and (at times) a sense of humor often absent in climate documents. Most importantly, it directly confronts the exaggerated and politicized rhetoric that has dominated headlines for decades.

The Executive Summary from the DOE web page:

This report:

  • Reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other GHGs have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and metrics of societal well-being.
  • Assesses the near-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including enhanced plant growth and reduced ocean alkalinity.
  • Evaluates data and projections regarding long-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including estimates of future warming.
  • Finds that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.
  • Asserts that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.
  • Finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.

What Makes This Report Unique?

…

climate-debate

Judith Curry’s Take: New Climate Assessment Report from US DOE

by J. Curry, July 31, 2025 in WUWT

Climate science is baaaack

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has commissioned a new climate assessment report:

A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate 

From the Secretary’s Foreword:

What I’ve found is that media coverage often distorts the science. Many people—even well-meaning ones—walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete. To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States.

To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate. That’s why I’m inviting public comment on this report. Honest scrutiny and scientific transparency should be at the heart of our policymaking.

Climate Working Group (CWG)

These reports were authored by the DOE Climate Working Group (CWG).  Members of the Climate Working Group are: [link to biosketches ]

  • John Christy
  • Judith Curry
  • Steve Koonin
  • Ross McKitrick
  • Roy Spencer

The origins of the Group and rationale for selecting us are described in Secretary Wright’s Foreword:

To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States. I didn’t select these authors because we always agree—far from it. In fact, they may not always agree with each other. But I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I exerted no control over their conclusions. What you’ll read are their words, drawn from the best available data and scientific assessments.

—— Disclaimer:  the remainder of the text in this blog post reflects JC’s personal impressions/analysis and not that of the CWG.

…

climate-debate

Skeptics Win, Endangerment Finding Axed – Truth Finally Prevails in The Climate Wars

by A. Watts, July 29, 2025 in WUWT

Today is a monumental win for climate skeptics

Today’s decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding represents a pivotal shift in America’s approach to climate policy—one rooted in evidence, not ideology. For years, this “finding” has served as the legal justification for an array of costly, far-reaching regulations targeting everything from our nation’s power plants to the cars we drive and the energy bills we pay. Its removal is a direct response to mounting evidence that the basis for this rule was always more about speculative modeling and political maneuvering than sound science. Watch the announcement here:

…

…

…

climate-debate

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!

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Old carbon routed from land to the atmosphere by global river systems

by J.F. Dean et al., June 4, 2025 in Nature

Abstract

Rivers and streams are an important pathway in the global carbon cycle, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from their water surfaces to the atmosphere1,2. Until now, CO2 and CH4 emitted from rivers were thought to be predominantly derived from recent (sub-decadal) biomass production and, thus, part of ecosystem respiration3,4,5,6. Here we combine new and published measurements to create a global database of the radiocarbon content of river dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), CO2 and CH4. Isotopic mass balance of our database suggests that 59 ± 17% of global river CO2 emissions are derived from old carbon (millennial or older), the release of which is linked to river catchment lithology and biome. This previously unrecognized release of old, pre-industrial-aged carbon to the atmosphere from long-term soil, sediment and geologic carbon stores through lateral hydrological routing equates to 1.2 ± 0.3 Pg C year−1, similar in magnitude to terrestrial net ecosystem exchange. A consequence of this flux is a greater than expected net loss of carbon from aged organic matter stores on land. This requires a reassessment of the fate of anthropogenic carbon in terrestrial systems and in global carbon cycle budgets and models.

…

better to know...?

Study finds Southern Ocean’s surface is becoming saltier and losing sea ice, not experiencing an ‘ocean current reversal’

by ScienceFeedback, July, 2025

KEY TAKEAWAY

Recent articles and social media posts inaccurately summarized findings from a June 2025 PNAS paper by claiming that a ‘major current in the Southern Ocean has reversed’. In reality, the PNAS paper does not mention any ‘ocean current reversal’. Instead, the paper mentions a ‘reversal’ of a decades-long trend: the Southern Ocean’s surface is now becoming saltier, instead of ‘fresher’. A saltier ocean surface can speed up the melting of Antarctic sea ice – floating ice which surrounds Antarctica – by drawing heat in the ocean upward toward the ice. This trend surprised scientists in the study, given that prior observations show the Southern Ocean’s surface becoming fresher (less salty) since the 1980s.

…

…

Figure 1 – Plot showing that sea ice began retreating around 2015 when the Southern Ocean’s surface became saltier, as shown by the red line representing sea surface salinity (SSS) anomalies obtained via satellite. Source: Silvano et al. (2025)[1]

…

climate-debate

Climate Oscillations 9: Arctic & North Atlantic Oscillations

by A. May, July 18, 2025 in WUWT

ow) but they are not the same. The NAO is usually measured using the SLP (sea level air pressure) difference between the Azores or the Iberian Peninsula and Iceland and is a North Atlantic regional phenomenon, whereas the Arctic Oscillation is the SLP difference between the northern mid-latitudes and the Arctic, and is evident in all longitudes (Thompson & Wallace, 2001). The AO accounts for more of the variance in Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature than the NAO and is tightly connected to the stratospheric polar vortex (Higgins, et al., 2000) and (Thompson & Wallace, 1998). We will discuss these oscillations together in this post.

The Arctic Oscillation

…

pollution-contamination

25 years, 1 coastline report card: The shocking wins and misses

by University of Plymouth, July 16, 2025

Summary

Twenty-five years after first warning that oil spills would wane while invasive species and climate impacts would surge, an international team revisits its coastal forecasts and finds many bull’s-eyes, alongside surprising misses. Plastic pollution, ocean acidification, and sensory pollution have risen faster than imagined, even as strong treaties curbed chemicals like TBT. The scientists argue that shorelines remain “sentinels” for the global ocean and urge a blend of local action and sweeping accords such as a Global Plastics Treaty to keep future surprises in check.
…

At the dawn of the millennium, a group of eminent scientists began compiling a list of the threats they felt were most likely to impact the world’s rocky shorelines over the coming quarter of a century.

Published in 2002, it included forecasts that – among other things – pollution from oil spills would decrease, the number of invasive species across the world would rise, genetically-modified organisms would have harmful effects on the ocean, and the impacts of global climate change would be felt more intensely.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Most Americans Still Aren’t Buying Climate Hysteria

by D. Harsanyl, July 16, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

Climate alarmism hasn’t worked. Here’s why the public tuned it out.

The public awareness campaign to convince Americans that climate change is an existential threat has been an epic failure. [emphasis, links added]

In a recent segment, “Are Americans Afraid of Climate Change?” CNN’s Harry Enten incredulously noted that despite all “the bad weather” we’ve been seeing, only “40% of Americans are greatly worried about climate change. The same as in 2000!”

Why are climate activists losing?

Sooner or later, fearmongering becomes noise. Reality crashes against predictions.

Public schools, institutions of higher learning, governments, international organizations, the whole culture, and scientific institutions have spent billions and untold hours trying to normalize the idea that modernity and capitalistic gluttony have driven temperatures to dangerous extremes.

When I was growing up, it was cooling. Now, it’s warming. And with each surge of alarmism, the message depreciates.

…

climate-debate

Al Jazeera Wrongly Hypes a Climate Connection to Recent European Heatwaves

by L. Lueken, July 16, 2025 in WUWT

A recent article at Al Jazeera, titled “Wildfire risks as climate change fuels extreme heatwave in Southern Europe,” claims that recent heatwaves in parts of southern Europe are due to climate change, which the publication says is making them more intense, and will inevitably cause more deaths. This is false. Recent heatwaves are not outside of historic norms, and though Al Jazeera correctly identifies the urban heat island effect as a major contributor, they downplay its role in recent trends and the evidence concerning temperature related deaths.

Al Jazeera reports that authorities across several southern European countries have issued heat warnings and fire warnings, “as Southern Europe experiences the summer’s first severe heatwave and as experts link the rising frequency and intensity of soaring temperatures to climate change.”

Countries impacted are: Spain; Portugal, where Al Jazeera says Lisbon is “expected” to see temperatures around 107°F; the Italian island of Sicily, which saw some wildfires over the weekend; and Greece.

Much of the article presents a reasonable discussion of the dangers heatwaves can pose, like increases in the likelihood of wildfire outbreaks and heat stroke. Unfortunately, the author of the post proceeds to make unfounded claims regarding the cause of the summer heat, like that “extreme weather events are becoming increasingly common across Europe’s southern region due to global warming.”

This is false; extreme weather is not becoming more severe or frequent. For example, Lisbon’s predicted high is not unprecedented, in part because the city is prone to being impacted by what is called the “Saharan air layer.” This is the same phenomenon that carries dust all the way across the Atlantic, as well as hot dry air with boosts temperatures. In 2018, Lisbon recorded a high of 111°F, and the all time high for Portugal was 117°F in 2003.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

New Study: Africa’s Atlantic Coast Sea Levels Were Still 1 Meter Higher Than Today 2000 Years Ago

by K. Richard, July 14 2025, in NoTricksZone 

The narrative that says relative sea level changes are driven by variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations has taken another hit.

Before relative sea level (RSL) declined to its present position over the last millennium, Africa’s Atlantic coast RSL ranged anywhere from 0.8 to 4 meters higher than today between 5000 and 1700 years ago (Vacchi et al., 2025).

This Mid- to Late-Holocene RSL highstand was “mainly controlled by the deglaciation history” − meltwater contributions from Earth’s ice sheets and glaciers. Because the climate was so much warmer than today at that time, there was significantly less water locked up on land as ice.

The Antarctic Thermal Optimum “simulated melt of the western Antarctic ice sheet until 2.0 ka BP.” Consequently, sea levels were still ≥ 1 meter higher than present during the Roman Warm Period

“Between -15°N and -0°…data indicate RSL reached its maximal elevation above the present sea level in the late Holocene (~2.0 to ~1.7 ka BP).”

…

climate-debate

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:

precipation england wales

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.

climate-debate

New Study: The Arctic Was 9°C Warmer Than Today During the Holocene Thermal Maximum

by K. Richard, July 8, 2025 in WUWT

Holocene (11,700 to 8,200 years ago) Arctic (Svalbard) temperatures “were up to 9°C higher than today” according to the authors of a new Nature journal study. At that time CO2 was thought to only hover around 260 ppm.

Svalbard then cooled as CO2 rose for the next 8,000 years – a negative correlation that wholly contradicts the rising-CO2-drives-Arctic-warmth narrative.

Nonetheless, climate models are predicated on the assumption rising human CO2 emissions (RCP 8.5) will lead to a warming of ~8°C by 2100.

…

climate-debate

Ocean “Reversal” Hysteria: Facts Not Included

by W. Eschenbach, July 6, 2025 in WUWT

ery so often, the climate media machine spits out a headline so breathless you’d think the laws of physics had just been accidentally repealed by a badly-worded executive order. Case in point: bne IntelliNews in Germany recently told us that a “major ocean current in the Southern Hemisphere has reversed direction for the first time in recorded history,” and that climatologists are calling it a“catastrophic” tipping point. It also quotes a climatologist as saying “The stunning reversal of ocean circulation in the Southern Hemisphere confirms the global climate system has entered a catastrophic phase.”

And the headline for that hysteria?

Southern Ocean current reverses for first time, signalling risk of climate system collapse

The implication: pack your bags, the climate apocalypse is here, and don’t forget your floaties.

But as is so often the case, the devil isn’t just in the details—it’s in the words they didn’t mention. The article, like a magician with something up both sleeves, never links to the actual scientific study.

…

…

So, after a bit of digital spelunking, I dug up the source. It’s an article in PNAS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, yclept “Rising surface salinity and declining sea ice: A new Southern Ocean state revealed by satellites.”

And when I got to the study, what do you know? The study doesn’t mention “tipping point,” “collapse,” “current reversal,” “Southern Ocean current” or even “overturning circulation.” The only “reversal” in the paper refers to satellites detecting a reversal in surface salinity trends from decreasing to increasing, not a reversal in the the direction of the Southern ocean’s most complex circulation shown above.

So what did the study actually say? Here’s the paper’s abstract:

“For decades, the surface of the polar Southern Ocean (south of 50°S) has been freshening—an expected response to a warming climate. This freshening enhanced upper-ocean stratification, reducing the upward transport of subsurface heat and possibly contributing to sea ice expansion. It also limited the formation of open-ocean polynyas. Using satellite observations, we reveal a marked increase in surface salinity across the circumpolar Southern Ocean since 2015. This shift has weakened upper-ocean stratification, coinciding with a dramatic decline in Antarctic sea ice coverage. Additionally, rising salinity facilitated the reemergence of the Maud Rise polynya in the Weddell Sea, a phenomenon last observed in the mid-1970s. Crucially, we demonstrate that satellites can now monitor these changes in real time, providing essential evidence of the Southern Ocean’s potential transition toward persistently reduced sea ice coverage.”

…

climate-debate

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:

…

climate-debate

Stop Lying, The Guardian, the World’s Oceans Aren’t Becoming Dangerously Acidic

by H.S. Sterling, Jul 5, 2025 in WUWT

From ClimateREALISM

The U.K.’s The Guardian ran an article claiming that the world’s oceans have surpassed a critical tipping point in acidity threatening sea life. This is false. The pH content of the world’s oceans varies by time and place throughout the day, rising and falling modestly, but the average pH content remains far from acidic and there is no evidence crustaceans or other types of shellfish are being threatened by the sea water becoming acidic.

Lisa Bachelor, the writer of The Guardian’s article, “‘Ticking timebomb’: sea acidity has reached critical levels, threatening entire ecosystems – study,” says:

The world’s oceans are in worse health than realized, scientists have said today, as they warn that a key measurement shows we are “running out of time” to protect marine ecosystems.

Ocean acidification, often called the “evil twin” of the climate crisis, is caused when carbon dioxide is rapidly absorbed by the ocean, where it reacts with water molecules leading to a fall in the pH level of the seawater. It damages coral reefs and other ocean habitats and, in extreme cases, can dissolve the shells of marine creatures.

Bachelor’s story is based upon a study which claims that ocean acidity has breached a “planetary boundary,” the seventh of nine such milestones or boundaries to be breached, threatening to cause permanent damage to the planet’s health.

The study looked at ice core records and studies of marine life, run through algorithms of complex computer models to assess the past 150 years, concluding the ocean acidification boundary had been breached, with the world facing a “ticking timebomb,” of sea life destruction.

This study’s findings are driven by woefully flawed computer models, a limited time horizon and understanding of long-term history, and lack a basis in real world data. As such it and The Guardian’s dire warnings based on it, are unjustified.

Model outputs are only as good as the assumptions, data, and our understandings of the feedbacks and systems built into them. Even as our knowledge improves, our understanding of the oceans and the interactions of its various currents, systems, inputs, and outputs remain limited, thus the assumptions built into the models are weak and uncertain. As discussed at Climate Realism, here, here, and here, for example, the climate model outputs fail to match reality.

La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse