John Dodders

Geologist/Geophysicist and Runner.

Was man im Kopf nicht hat, das hat man in den Beinen.

[John Dodders @Dodders75]

We're all doomed

[Carl 𓅪 @Carl__P_]

It's a disgrace this.

They want us to eat 35% less meat whilst rearing almost 40% less cattle and sheep.

Not a single carbon molecule will be saved.

It's complete madness and govt overreach.

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

Can't make bricks. Can't make steel. Can't make cars. Can't grow food. Can't heat homes...

But we're gonna be the climate leader of the world!

The entire planet *will* be looking at Britain and Ed Miliband, but they will be saying "WTF have you done to yourselves?!"

[John Dodders @Dodders75]

Excellent summary. Uncertainties, layered upon more uncertainties.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

What is my stance on climate change?

Well, I'll lay it out for all of you newcomers. Grab some popcorn! 🍿

First, I do not deny the fact that the Earth has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850. However, nobody knows precisely how much because of data quality issues (e.g., uneven surface station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) that have not been (and likely cannot be) removed from the record.

But, I have no doubt that the Earth is [slightly] warmer than it was 175 years ago or that 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 of that warming might be due to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

Second, contrary to what the online army of alarmist foot soldiers have 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑 people to believe, there are not really any so-called “fingerprints” that distinguish human-caused global warming from warming caused by other forcings / variability.

Numerous scientific papers claim to have found such a “fingerprint,” but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ anthropogenic warming. But these authors fail to mention that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.

Case in point, a reduction in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, for instance, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases the rate of evaporation, which raises the vapor pressure (humidity) contributing to polar amplification and faster land warming than the ocean (e.g., Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2008).

🔗https://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k

All warming, natural or man-made, results in:

1⃣ Higher latitudes warming faster than both the mid-latitudes and tropics.

2⃣ Land heating up faster than the oceans.

This is just basic physics; look up heat capacity.

Also, an increase in, say, solar forcing would have the same material effect, though we can admittedly likely rule that out as the cause of modern trends because sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. But the sun does affect our climate in ways that have not really been thoroughly researched because little, if any funding, is ever allocated for such projects by the funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF).

In any case, the 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there is probably [at least some] anthropogenic “fingerprint” on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling.

First, you need to understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area. This is written as W/m².

Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ± 3.3 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order for the Earth's surface to maintain a constant temperature, the surface must emit 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² back to outer space.

🔗https://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj

Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing from doubling atmospheric CO₂ levels (often noted as RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (e.g., IPCC TAR, 2007). That means that the net outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to outer space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI), which leads to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).

🔗https://t.co/0JkXIQRGDH (p. 357)

In the stratosphere (~13-50 km altitude), this causes a cooling tendency because less infrared radiation (IR) flux is moving upward from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).

🔗https://t.co/JNaXP7nUC9

NASA satellite measurements indicate that cooling in the stratosphere has been observed since the late 1970s, although there has been very little cooling over the last 25 years, all the while the troposphere has continued to warm.

🔗https://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io

That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps partly caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, an artifact of particulate aerosol pollution regulations in recent years.

But, yes, I would agree with most scientists that the cooling observed in the stratosphere, at least that from the 1970s to 2000, is most likely a result of CO₂ forcing.

So what?

What happens down here in the lower atmosphere in response to CO₂ forcing is a lot more nuanced.

Why?

Because here in the troposphere, there are feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the atmospheric radiation budget far more than CO₂. And how exactly clouds respond to warming in the troposphere, if at all, is not very well understood, and by extension, not well-modeled.

What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of RF 2×CO₂ is actually very small. Specifically, it is on the order of ~1°C (e.g., Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).

🔗https://t.co/y5szlGBmjd

However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to radiative forcing mean that the real-world value—that is, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the ~1°C figure derived from radiative transfer calculations.

So, three critical pieces information are unknown:

1⃣ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, let's say, 1950). We still don't know the answer to this because the coefficients that are used to ascribe anthropogenic versus natural forcings are all estimated from computer modeling, not real physical in-situ measurements.

2⃣ The exact value of ECS.

3⃣ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization? Is it a crisis? Is it a problem in the slightest?

To break it down:

• If ECS is <3°C, the climate is insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.

• If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate is sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern.

The IPCC’s “best estimate” of ECS is 3°C with a range of 2-5°C.

🔗https://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)

In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, one of my mentors, Dr. John Christy and his co-worker, Dr. Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), calculated climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El Niño / La Niña and volcanic stratospheric aerosol injection (e.g., El Chichón, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991).

Christy and McNider found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09°C / decade (lower than observations of actual temperature increase). This, by the way, came with the stipulation that unknown mechanisms of internal variability or external forcing are assumed to be zero. I attended a lecture where he talked about this paper in detail.

🔗https://t.co/S2GEmUftKo

They then validated their 1994 findings in McNider & Christy (2017). Specifically, they found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 ± 0.26°K.

🔗https://t.co/zueJLn8V8w / open-access: https://t.co/eLcqeizbRh

Many other recent studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018; Scafetta, 2021; Spencer & Christy, 2023; Lewis, 2025) have all estimated ECS to be far lower than the IPCC AR6's “best estimate.”

🔗https://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p

🔗https://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN

🔗https://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP

🔗https://t.co/YNQhNajrrO

The jury on ECS is still out. 🤷‍♂️

What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).

🔗https://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT

🔗https://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg

However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² margin of error, which is 66 times larger than the detection limits. This range of uncertainty remains in newer estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be 1.12 ± 0.48 W/m².

🔗https://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ

This means that 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 (but not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain (nor would most be humble enough to admit it because the vast majority of academics have high egos). Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made like alarmists claim, but, even if that is the case, I'll ask again. . .

SO WHAT?

That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis or urgent problem.

The big unknown are CLOUDS. ☁️

Why?

Because (a) cloud albedo has a far greater impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than does CO₂, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to CO₂ is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without mankind's assistance for any number of reasons (e.g., El Niño / La Niña activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.). Even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by CO₂. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,

🗨️ “[𝐴]𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡.”

🔗https://t.co/NHkmfOc08y

I don't deny that global warming is occurring. I never have. I don't even deny an anthropogenic influence on it either. I never have. What I do reject, however, is unchecked alarmism and climate activism, particularly from fellow scientists.

Activism is not science and has no place in science. If you are an activist, you cannot call yourself a scientist because you are not dispassionate and objective. This goes for the vast majority of self-described “climate scientists” who actively use social media and are well-known in the debate. Two notable exceptions on the other side of the spectrum from me, in my opinion, are Drs. Robert Rohde and Paul Williams, both of whom I have always had pleasant interactions with.

I also reject the idea that every weather event needs to be blamed on climate change with a rushed, half-baked attribution study (namely the ones done by the clowns at World Weather Attribution that are often not scientifically rigorous, but get plenty of news media attention by the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post). Attribution “science” is fraudulent anyway because one of the architects behind it admitted to Politico in 2021 that it was designed with the intention of using it in litigation against oil and gas companies.

🔗https://t.co/ETUBune0A8

Conflict of interest much?

It should also be abundantly clear that climate is just a statistical description of the mean and variability of the climate system, including long-term weather. So, a change in climate is just a change in statistics. That is an outcome, not a force or accelerant that causes an extreme weather event to occur.

For what it's worth, I used to be a climate alarmist well before I got my degree in meteorology.

Now that I know a great deal (but not everything and never will) about atmospheric science, my position has evolved to a cooler heads point of view. Perhaps it is not my judgement that's clouded, but rather that of the alarmist arm-wavers who have high trust in both academic institutions and their government officials who spoon-feed them pre-canned talking points on the daily.

[Willis Eschenbach @WEschenbach]

Thanks, Ryan. The problem with the hockeystick method is twofold, and it's nothing to do with the 15th century.

First, the method that they used mines actively for hockeysticks and will create them out of random red noise. I detail this in the analysis below, with examples and information so you can try it yourself.

https://t.co/DPgoWR9BfJ

This is made worse by the inclusion of datasets that are known to be contaminated and are recognized as such. These are the Greybill Pines and the Tiljander data. I break out and examine those datasets in my analysis below.

https://t.co/ZHJbaPkpWk

When you combine those two problems, you are GUARANTEED a hockeystick … which will be meaningless.

Now, I wrote the two above posts. If you think anything in them is wrong, I invite you to QUOTE it and SHOW us why it's wrong. That's what scientists do.

Or, you could just continue waving your hands, calling me names, trying to change the subject, and avoiding discussing the actual issues I raised.

Your choice.

w.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

How climate “scientists” deceive people with statistics:

Fig. 6.5 (left) from the 4th National Climate Assessment (NCA4) shows that the 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 of record high temperature occurrences to record lows in the United States has increased significantly since 1930. The authors imply that this is incontrovertible evidence that record high temperatures are occurring more often now than they used to in the U.S., saying,

🗨️ “𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒅 𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒔 [sic] 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒-1970𝑠 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒔 [sic] 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈. 𝐵𝑦 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑠. 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠 𝑡𝑤𝑜 (𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑤𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ-𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑤-𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑠). 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑒𝑤 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑖𝑛 15 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡 20 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠, 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 2012 𝑎𝑛𝑑 2016 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 (𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑖𝑣𝑒, 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦).”

🔗 https://t.co/h8un7urlt4

I wanted to reproduce this chart to test this claim, so I took the liberty to download all NOAA GHCNd station files. I then selected all United States stations and filtered them so that I could examine records from long-term stations (which NCA4 did, although to my knowledge, they didn't define their criteria). Using my judgement, I selected all 711 stations that have at least 100 years of daily data with at least 85% of daily observations. I then wrote a Python script to analyze record high maximums and low minimums, then count the number per year set (and tied if applicable). I ran the analysis from 1895 to 2024 (because 2025 is not fully in for all stations).

As it turns out, the number of record high maximums temperatures have not increased here in the U.S.since 1895 (top panel on right). In fact, they have decreased. The number of record lows (middle panel) have decreased too, but rather sharply since the late 1980s.

But if you compute these raw values as a ratio with record lows in the denominator, it produces a sharp increase in the ratio of record high to low temperatures after 1990. That's what NCA4 did, and I was able to produce a very similar plot to Fig. 6.5 in their report.

So, while NCA4 didn't lie, they mislead people by using ratios.

[Willis Eschenbach @WEschenbach]

Thanks, Prof. Unfortunately for you, the "Hockey Stick" graph of Michael Mann and the various "Hockalikes" were falsified years ago.

The original Hockey Stick was falsified by the endless work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. You can read all about it at Steve's blog. Here's the link.

https://t.co/pIIFbWDHm4

The graph you posted appears to be one of the Hockalikes, PAGES 2000. It suffered from the same problems the Mann study had, plus a hilarious upside-down use of one of the proxy datasets. Information about that one is here.

https://t.co/vIQj5b3KBi

Mann tried reanimate his dead horse in 2008 with a paper called "“Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia”. I deconstructed that paper in my post below. I used cluster analysis, it's an interesting bit of research.

https://t.co/ZHJbaPkpWk

One of the many flaws in Mann's paper is that the method used actively mines for hockeystick results, and it will generate them out of red noise. See my paper showing how the PAGES2000 graph you present above uses that method. It will happily churn out hockeysticks out of any red noise you give it.

https://t.co/DPgoWR9BfJ

Frankly, I'm shocked that you are not aware of this quarter-century of the repeated falsification of the hockey stick/PAGES2k methods and data …

Best regards,

w.

[John Dodders @Dodders75]

Greenpeace is facing bankruptcy due to three major lawsuits against it, primarily as a result of it's moral bankruptcy.

[Climate Realists🌞 @ClimateRealists]

There is a reason Greenpeace don’t use “X”, not many here took any notice of what they had to say. It will be the same with people who constantly bang the drum of anti oil.. it will always be seen as pseudoscience, to blame climate change on oil production. Climate has always changed, to say it has never changed, is down to ignorance, and a poor education.

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

Ideology and conspiracy theory from this Sam person, who hasn't even read the "97%" study (the authors of which didn't even really understand the abstracts they read either), much less understood the criticism.

But not reading and not understanding, yet claiming a position of having read and understood is how ideological mythology works.

[John Dodders @Dodders75]

Increasing Tmin and not Tmax is diagnostic for urbanisation, not CO2.

[Jean Fisch @Jean__Fisch]

Also England saw a big heat wave and there are debates about whether "it's bigger than 1976"

The big difference are the minimal daily temperatures, which have been way higher than anything seen in 1976

1/2

[Chris "Team Leonie" Cooper @Callan4077]

Why's it dumb?

You could equally ask why only the deviant left are obsessed with the "settled science."

The fact the "climate emergency" is a left/right argument tells everyone it's far from science based.

The only thing the fucking left ever want to control is people.

[Patrice POYET @PoyetPatrice]

Chris nails it "Over the last century, there has been no increase in heatwaves in the United Stares."
I'd like an even broader study.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Evidently you struggle with both reading and graph comprehension.

So, I’ll lay it down it again. 💅

Over the last century, there has been no increase in heatwaves in the United Stares. My findings have been confirmed in a new paper published in the Journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Christy (2026).

🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘛𝘔𝘢𝘹 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 1899, 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 1925–1954.”

🔗 https://t.co/DSJXxVVKZa

These trends are consistent across most of North America too.

In eastern Australia, where fairly reliable century-long records exist, heatwaves were more common and severe prior to the 1910s.

🔗 https://t.co/cIwS2jVIXq

Most of Africa, Asia, and South America don’t have an abundance of data prior to 1950, so a fair long-term comparison is impossible, though there have been decreases in Southern Africa (Meque et al., 2022).

🔗 https://t.co/PGH3vino7P

Now, if you think it’s entirely “CO₂ and humans,” do us all a favor and net zero yourself so that you quit contributing to the problem. You’re not special or better than anyone else.

[Net Zero Watch @NetZeroWatch]

This week, Labour, Lib Dem and Green MPs all voted for the Seventh Carbon Budget, which will cut cattle and sheep numbers by around 40% to meet the UK’s statutory Net Zero by 2050 target.

They want to use higher prices to force people away from red meat and dairy and towards plant-based substitutes and “novel alternative proteins”. If imports rise as domestic farming declines, the CCC says Ministers should use carbon border tariffs to suppress demand.

None of this will make a scrap of difference to global climate change. But it will harm food security and make food more expensive.

[Bub Sluggo @BubSluggo]

Climate crisis proponents have been hyperventilating about the new temperature records from European heat wave.

Let's look at how much of that may have come from the urban heat island effect (UHI).

One example of the record temperatures came from the Bordeaux airport. To evaluate the possibility that the UHI effect may have contaminated air temperature at this site, I looked at the urbanization changes around this weather station over time using the Global Human Settlement database which tracks over time the density of urban, suburban, industrial build up from satellite imagery. I compared the 1975 and 2025 maps from the GHS database in the vicinity of the Bordeaux airport weather station, and you can see the results below in the "slider" style GIF.

Not surprisingly, over the last 50 years the increase in the density of urban development around the thermometer with the record high June temperatures is remarkable, and without a doubt has contributed in part at least to the magnitude of this June's new warm record.

[Maarten van den Berg @mr_Smith_Econ]

Een aanrader voor iedereen die klimaatdata serieus wil analyseren: https://t.co/Dso4UkAMlw (@klymot), een uitgebreide database met weerstations wereldwijd, geautomatiseerd door @connolly_s.

Wat de tool kan:
Je zoekt stations op naam of via de kaart. Vervolgens kun je de ruwe, onaangepaste data bekijken, de “adjusted” versie, en precies de wijzigingen die door de aanpassing zijn aangebracht. Daarnaast zie je de fysieke locatie van het station op de kaart, plus de bevolkingsdichtheid en het hitte-eilandeffect (Built-up), inclusief de ontwikkeling daarvan door de tijd.

Juist die aanvulling met aanpassingen, stationlocaties en hitte-eilandeffect maakt de tool waardevol. Deze informatie wordt door activisten graag onder het tapijt geveegd, terwijl ze voor de analyse van veranderingen van het hoogste belang is.

Een voorbeeld maakt duidelijk waarom. Een meetstation dat vroeger in een wei stond, kan door decennia van verstedelijking naast een geasfalteerde kruising terecht zijn gekomen. Asfalt neemt warmte op en geeft die weer af, waardoor de thermometer een stijging registreert die niet het klimaat weerspiegelt, maar de omgeving. De microklimatologische veranderingen worden zo overstemd door de stedenbouwkundige ingrepen.

https://t.co/Dso4UkAMlw legt deze context open op tafel, en dat is precies wat een zorgvuldige analyse nodig heeft.

[John Sullivan @EyesOnThePriz12]

3/3 In an advanced country with a rapidly growing population, "record high" temperatures are 𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲. Measure in enough dodgy places, &amp; sample more frequently, with the "right" equipment, &amp; you'll find them.

SFA to do with "climate change".

#DontPlayTheRiggedGame

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

@energygovuk You're fucking mad, all of you. Completely out of control.

[John Sullivan @EyesOnThePriz12]

1/3 It wasn't a "record breaking heat wave", it was a manufactured statistical artifact. Somewhere in 🇬🇧 in recent days, outside air temp. exceeded 45°C. We just didn't measure it.

But we 𝗱𝗼 record temp. in more places, more frequently, &amp; with less latency, than ever before.

[Willis Eschenbach @WEschenbach]

@Heccles94 "Stop climate change"? How?

To date, folks following your green fantasies have wasted TRILLIONS trying to reduce the atmospheric CO2, and below is what they have accomplished.

Nothing. Zero. Zip. It's continued to climb in an unchanged manner for 67 years.

w.