54.59346 -7.28254 Met Office CIMO Assessed CLASS 5S Installed 1/1/1865 Archived temperature records from 1/1/1981.
The Centre for Environmental Analysis (CEDA) archives show a weather station known as “Edenfel” established in County Tyrone over one hundred and sixty years ago. CEDA holds digitally archived rainfall data back to 1872 though temperature records for the site only start from 1/1/1981. In starting my site review I located the station and then tried to find imagery using the Google search engine. This brought about some very weird findings.
This rather confused me, it certainly was not a typo. I opted to try “X” and their “GROK” AI.
GROK similarly claimed no such station existed. This is exceptionally strange given the longevity of Edenfel making it one of the UK’s longest running sites. Now incredibly confused and also wary of the Met Office’s proven ability to keep “Zombie” stations alive I opted to double check their stations map.
So far so good, it must exist because the Met Office clearly shows it. So I double checked their Location Specific Long Term Averages site for data – after all it is an impressively old site.
What? “Sorry we don’t have any climate stations at or nearby that location” So what is all this data below about?
I decided to revert to BING for any images and their “Bird’s Eye” view dutifully supplied the imagery I sought and proved beyond doubt (well maybe) the site’s existence.
That is very definitely a Stevenson screen and it is in the location specified by the WGS84 coordinates supplied on the CEDA archive page. It also confirms that this is an unenclosed station (so much for the Met Office’s claims that they should always be is a secure enclosed area) and it is in the back garden of a property set in a woodland clearing. Bear in mind that Class 5 states no regulatory requirements at all simply “2.6 Class 5 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 5 °C) Site not meeting the requirements of class 4.” So Edenfel is the lowest of the low and even then the Met Office adds that “S” indicating it is subject additional shading effects. In other words so unreliable it really should not be used for climate reporting – but of course they do.
Quite how the Met office manages to use the data from Edenfel is also something of a mystery. Studying the downloadable temperature data from this manually reporting station reveals the following. 2016 – just 305 days readings, 2017 – NONE AT ALL , 2018 – 275 days readings, 2019 – 338 days readings, 2020 – just 306 days, 2021 – 350 days, 2022 – 334 and the last archived year of 2023 shows just 332 days readings. Given that this is almost certainly an “adopted” amateur site in a private garden, such lack of diligent readings (with an entire unrecorded year) seems rather disappointing. I do wonder quite how anyone could use such partial data to form daily, monthly or annual averages but no doubt the Met Office finds a way. Perhaps they use the same formulae as used to divine annualised readings at places like Hartpury and Mickleham amongst very many others.
My final research was to try and establish the provenance of this site – was there any incriminating evidence of the site being poorly kept for example? Well no, not really, largely because as I went back in historic imagery the Screen simply …….disappeared!
Search high and low, around and about (and I am unfortunately all too experienced at having to do that) and I cannot locate where this screen was from before that year of no readings in 2017. The image above shows no vestige of a Stevenson Screen and there are no archived notes of a relocation. There are, however, notes relating to the “Gauge” (as in Rain) location giving (Irish) grid reference numbers 2466E, 3719N which derive a location in a walled garden (not unusual at all) about 300 metres away. If anyone can track it down I would welcome their information.
In conclusion, perhaps AI was correct, there may, or possibly may not, be an “Edenfel” weather station and the Met Office certainly does not want to show any “climate averages” for it. I seriously doubt it really makes any difference though as it is/was a junk site with a poor readings record – par for the Met Office course.
The political pushback against futile climate obsession is moving forward. Voters who resent having their pockets picked via massive subsidies for renewables, while facing government pressure to buy expensive electric cars, unwanted heat pumps, and more, can clearly see an alternative.
– – –
Reform has said it will “wage war” against the “lunacy” of net zero after resounding successes in the local elections, reports LBC News.
Richard Tice, the party’s deputy leader, said it will use “every lever” to block renewable developments in the ten council areas it now controls.
The Labour government has pledged to achieve net zero by 2030 to combat climate change.
Many on the right, including Reform, view net zero as the reason for the UK’s high energy bills. Net zero advocates say energy costs are due to high wholesale gas prices. [Talkshop comment – electricity costs were already high when gas prices were lower].
Reform’s push to axe renewable projects comes are linked to a broader crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives – which the party views as wasteful.
Mr Tice said he had written to developers of renewable projects in Lincolnshire, where the party won the mayoral election.
He said: “I’m now going to write again to them, saying now that we’ve won these elections, you need to be under no illusion. This is war. We will wage war against you people and your terrible ideas.
“If you think that you’re going to do this in the county of Lincolnshire, you are going to regret it. You’re going to waste your money.
“It’s going to be very painful financially, so you might as well take your money and your daft ideas elsewhere.”
Alex Wilson, a member of the London Assembly with Reform UK, said that his party was the only one that “doesn’t subscribe to the absolute lunacy of sacrificing our economy for Net Zero.”
. . .
Mr Wilson said that his party would “do whatever it takes to keep pushing this issue.”
The Week That Was: 2025 05-03 (May 3, 2025) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week:“We can always prove a definite theory wrong. Notice however that we never prove it right.” — Richard Feynman (1964)
Number of the Week: R squared of 0.018.
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Scope: TWTW begins with an exploration of proof of the greenhouse effect, discussing what constitutes proof of a theory in modern physics. TWTW continues with a discussion of the failings of the hockey-stick and its defenders by Donald Rapp. TWTW then brings up the Iberian Blackout and presents a power engineer’s assessment of the problems of using solar power on a national grid.
*********************
Proof of the Greenhouse Effect: Several readers have asked, “What proof of the greenhouse effect do you have?” This question raises the critical issue of what constitutes proof of a theory (hypothesis) in modern physical sciences. Note that issue is proof of a theory, not proof of an event or fact. The answer to the question of “What proof do you have?” is NONE. However, the greenhouse theory has never been disproved. (Here, logical induction is not considered proof.)
This approach to proof stems from the history of science. For centuries certain theories of planetary motion were accepted as true but later discarded when disproven and a better theory was accepted. For example, Newtonian mechanics replaced the centuries old belief that Earth was the center of the universe. It better explained planetary motion. In turn, general relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics because it better explained planetary motion. Mercury was not keeping time according to Newtonian mechanics, although Newtonian mechanics was particularly good. (Einstein’s 1915 formula for the precession of Mercury was discovered in 1898 by Paul Gerber.)
Theories (hypotheses) must be definite, that is, testable and falsifiable. Otherwise, they are of limited value and should not be accepted. (For example, climate change is not a testable, falsifiable concept. Earth’s climate has always been changing. The issues are “what change?” and “what is the magnitude of the change?” “Is the proposed cause definite?”) The outstanding theoretical physicist, and teacher Richard Feynman gave an excellent lecture explaining the modern scientific method in “Seeking New Laws.” The lecture was the source of this week’s Quote of the Week. The lengthy lecture begins with:
“What I want to talk to you about tonight is strictly speaking not on the character of physical laws. Because one might imagine at least that one’s talking about nature, when one’s talking about the character of physical laws. But I don’t want to talk about nature, but rather how we stand relative to nature now. I want to tell you what we think we know and what there is to guess and how one goes about guessing it.
Someone suggested that it would be ideal if, as I went along, I would slowly explain how to guess the laws and then create a new law for you right as I went along.
I don’t know whether I’ll be able to do that. But first, I want to tell about what the present situation is, what it is that we know about the physics. You think that I’ve told you everything already, because in all the lectures, I told you all the great principles that are known.
But the principles must be principles about something. The principles that I just spoke of, the conservation of energy– the energy of something– and quantum mechanical laws are quantum mechanical principles about something. And all these principles added together still doesn’t tell us what the content is of the nature, that is, what we’re talking about. So I will tell you a little bit about the stuff, on which all these principles are supposed to have been working.
First of all is matter, and remarkably enough, all matter is the same. The matter of which the stars are made is known to be the same as the matter on the earth, by the character of the light that’s emitted by those stars– they give a kind of fingerprint, by which you can tell that it’s the same kind of atoms in the stars. As on the earth, the same kind of atoms appear to be in living creatures as in non-living creatures. Frogs are made out of the same goop– in different arrangement– than rocks.
So that makes our problem simpler. We have nothing but atoms, all the same, everywhere. And the atoms all seem to be made from the same general constitution. They have a nucleus, and around the nucleus there are electrons.
Feynman discusses subjects which we understand in physics and other fields that may be understandable by physical evidence and fields that are not. He discusses our understanding of the nucleus of the atom, then continues with:
Now, today although the knowledge or the theory of what goes on outside the nucleus of the atom seems precise and complete enough, in the sense that given enough time, we can calculate anything as accurately as it can be measured, it turns out that the forces between neutrons and protons, which constitute the nucleus, are not so completely known and are not understood at all well. And that’s what I mean by– that is, that we cannot today, we do not today understand the forces between neutrons and protons to the extent that if you wanted me to, and give me enough time and computers, I could calculate exactly the energy levels of carbon or something like that. Because we don’t know enough about that. Although we can do the corresponding thing for the energy levels of the outside electrons of the atom, we cannot for the nuclei. So, the nuclear forces are still not understood very well.
Now in order to find out more about that, experimenters have gone on. And they have to study phenomena at very high energy, where they hit neutrons and protons together at very high energy and produced peculiar things. And by studying those peculiar things, we hope to understand better the forces between neutrons and protons.
Well, a Pandora’s box has been opened by these experiments, although all we really wanted was to get a better idea of the forces between neutrons and protons. When we hit these things together hard, we discover that there are more particles in the world. And as a matter of fact, in this column there was plus over four dozen other particles have been dredged up in an attempt to understand these. And these four dozen other are put in this column, because they’ve very relevant to the neutron proton problem. They interact very much with neutrons and protons. And they’ve got something to do with the force between neutrons and protons. So, we’ve got a little bit too much.”
In many lectures, to both scientific and popular audiences, Feynman always stressed that no theory in physics is ever final; there are always outlying data points, which may be simply erroneous measurements, but may be the initial clues that lead to a totally new and better theory. That’s the way science works.
We don’t fully understand climate change. However, an examination of the deep-sea sedimentary rock (e.g., limestone) formed by the remains of marine organisms with skeletal structures made of calcium carbonate, such as foraminifera, falsifies the claim that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of temperature change. It is a bit player in a complex play.
Further, to our knowledge no one has proved the greenhouse effect and its influence on Earth’s temperatures wrong. Until we have superior theory on what keeps the land masses of Earth from entering a deep freeze at night, it is the one that TWTW relies on.
Unfortunately, the UN IPCC and its collaborators have adopted models that exaggerate the influence of CO2. As such, their reports may contain useful information based on physics, but their conclusions are to be discarded.
For Feynman’s lecture, see link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*********************
High Sticking: Physicist Donald Rapp retired from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and has authored many books including Ice Ages and Interglacials: Measurements, Interpretation and Models; Assessing Climate Change: Temperatures, Solar Radiation and Heat Balance; and Use of Extraterrestrial Resources for Human Space Missions to Moon or Mars (Astronautical Engineering). He is not a “global warming denier.” Rapp recently authored a published essay, “Revisiting 2,000 Years of Climate Change (Bad Science and the ‘Hockey Stick’).” In it he asserts that the 20th and 21st century warm period is warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. The IPCC and its collaborators ignore the Medieval Warm Period. But the essay focuses on the shoddy science of the “Hockey Stick” and its defense. The abstract states:
“Near the turn of the 21st century, several climate scientists believed that rising CO2 was the cause of observed warming and sought to support this by showing that excursions in the Earth temperature were small for the past 2,000 years, with a sudden increase in the 20th century at the same time period when CO2 emissions increased (a so-called “hockey stick” shape to the temperature vs. time plot). To do this, they employed a large number of proxies (such as tree rings) to estimate the Earth’s temperature over the last 2,000 years. Each proxy was compared to the measured temperature during the calibration period (the 20th century), and this relationship was used to convert up to 2,000 years of proxy measurements to estimated temperature. A sophisticated algorithm was used to process the large amount of data from multiple proxies into a yearly average temperature for up to 2,000 years. Unfortunately, they made several mistakes in the statistical analysis, one of which produced a significant statistical error.This error, in which they standardized the data against the mean during the calibration period (rather than the entire data set) had the effect of almost ignoring most of the proxies, while heavily weighting those few with an increase in the 20th century – thus artificially producing a hockey stick form to the plot of temperature vs. time. In addition, the innate merit of many proxies is dubious. The climate scientists involved appeared to ignore valid criticisms from outside their peer group, and they continued to claim the hockey stick result. Climate scientists also vigorously opposed any suggestion that factors other than CO2 also affected the climate. Climate scientists introduced elements of political influence into scientific discourse by actions such as loading up a thin paper with a large number of authors – publishing votes of confidence rather than scientific results.” [Boldface added]
The essay is detailed in the problems of the hockey stick. Moreover, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick were denied access to data from government funded work in the UK and the US. McIntyre and McKitrick eventually obtained some of the data, and revealed the statistical errors in the work. Recently McIntyre has obtained additional data that were dropped from the studies because the data contradicted the conclusions of the original hockey-stick paper. The false hockey-stick characteristic was featured in the Synthesis Report of the Third Assessment Report of the UN IPCC (2001)
If we are ever to resolve the issue as to the extent to which carbon dioxide emissions will increase global temperatures, analysis revealing errors is needed. See link under Seeking a Common Ground.
*********************
The Pain in Spain: The Iberian Peninsula suffered a blackout shortly after noon, six days after press releases stated that Spain had briefly achieved 100% renewable power. The major source of that power is solar panels. Initially, an undefined “rare atmospheric phenomenon” was blamed, but the finger pointing soon followed. In Spain, the largest source of electricity from renewables is solar power, so some commentators blamed solar power. It is not clear whether the blackout was caused by factors internal to the grid or external to the grid or even whether the cause was internal to Earth or external to Earth.
An example of a cause internal to Earth that may cause an electrical disruption is a change in Earth’s magnetic field, and it is changing. An example of a cause external to Earth that may cause electrical disruption is a solar geomagnetic storm, coronal mass ejection (solar flare) such as the Carrington Event (1859). Another could be a sharp change in high energy cosmic rays hitting Earth’s atmosphere. It has been experimentally established that cosmic rays influence cloud formation. These are among the reasons that TWTW considers it premature to discuss the blackout. However, the blackout demonstrates the need for reliable electricity, and solar power adds frailty to what should be a robust system.
Just before the Iberian blackout Net Zero Watch published a report by power engineer Neil Probert of the long-established UK power engineering company Johnson & Phillips titled “Built to fail: the silent crisis in green infrastructure.” The essay articulates how solar power adds frailty to the power grid. The essay begins with:
“Over the past decade, the UK has seen a rapid deployment of renewable energy sites. Solar and wind farms are being rolled out at scale and, on the surface, it’s a clean, green revolution. But step behind the glossy headlines and you’ll find an uncomfortable truth: the power infrastructure supporting these sites is being built to a dangerously low standard.
This isn’t just about cutting corners – it’s about systemic failure in how we treat the backbone of renewable power delivery.
Real failures, real fast
At Johnson & Phillips, the power engineering firm where I am project lead, we’ve recently replaced four transformers across different solar sites – none older than five years. We’ve also had to rebuild switchboards that suffered flashovers – a short circuit in layman’s terms – due to basic design flaws. These weren’t isolated incidents. They’re becoming common.
Each case ties back to the same root cause: sites that were engineered to meet deadlines and financial models, not long-term operational resilience.
Why are they failing?
Let’s break down the key issues in simple terms:
Thermal cycling: Solar power, in particular, causes extreme day-night thermal expansion and contraction of transformers. The latter are hermetically sealed, and have thin-walled cooling fins, which expand and contract daily. While transformers are often sold as ‘zero service,’ over time, the seal integrity can fail. If that happens, positive pressure during the day can force oil out of the system, and negative pressure at night can draw in moist air, which then degrades insulation on the components, eventually leading to internal arcing.
Underspecified materials: We’re seeing widespread use of aluminum for the windings – the coils of wire around the transformer cores. These are generally chosen over copper for price, not performance, reasons. While suitable in some cases, when poorly matched with duty cycles and environment, aluminum windings can degrade quickly.
Harmonics and power quality: The inverters which convert the direct current generated by, say, a solar farm, into the alternating current used by the grid, can dump so-called ‘harmonic currents’ back into the system. These can accelerate wear on transformers and switchgear. Sites are rarely designed with mitigation of these effects in mind.
Poor design and installation: We’ve witnessed shocking layouts, cramped substations, inadequate protection settings, and cable installations that don’t stand a chance under real load.
Training and oversight: A blunt truth – some of the engineers involved in these installations are barely trained. One-week online certifications and ‘Facetube tutorials’ don’t replace a real engineering background. Yet these are the people wiring up critical national infrastructure.
Standards without enforcement: The UK, like North America, has a host of standards – ENA guidelines, BS codes, IEC rules – all meant to ensure safety and longevity. But standards are meaningless without enforcement. In many of these projects, there’s little accountability past the energization date. By the time failures start, ownership has changed hands, warranties are blurred, and the cost of replacement is someone else’s problem.
A costly cycle
These aren’t just technical problems – they’re economic time bombs. When a transformer fails on a solar site, generation stops. Mobilization, removal, repair, and retesting can take weeks. The cost isn’t just equipment – it’s lost revenue and long-term investor trust.
We’re not against renewables. We’re fully in support of them. But we are absolutely against pretending that speed and scale are enough. If we want clean energy that’s truly sustainable, we need to treat its infrastructure with the seriousness it deserves. We need to:
specify transformers for actual duty conditions.
build substations with 25-year thinking, not 5-year budgets.
enforce design and commissioning standards.
train engineers properly.
Closing thought
The Heathrow fire has reminded us that when transformers fail, the consequences can be severe. The renewable sector must take note: you don’t get grid resilience from bargain-bin engineering. If we don’t change course, today’s green dreams will become tomorrow’s infrastructure nightmares.”
Probert gives a glossary of key terms. This should be a warning to all advocating solar power or wind power. Solar power does not have the heavy rotating turbines (weighing hundreds to thousands of tons) that hydro, nuclear, coal, or natural gas combined cycle plants have. Solar power does not have the inertia to smooth out small variations in frequencies. Grid operators strive to provide a stable frequency of plus or minus 0.05 Hertz (Hz). (North America and parts of Asia use a 60 Hz system (cycles per second); the rest of the world use a 50 Hz system).
Wind turbines have significant mass but what is not stable in industrial wind is wind speed; a drop of wind speed from 10 meters per second to 9 meters per second a 30% reduction in power. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*********************
Changes in Washington: In addition to removing the funding of the private organization that writes the US National Climate Assessment (as discussed in the last TWTW), the administration is eliminating funding for a host of programs. Some of the programs have very ambiguous goals such as “environmental justice.” See links under Funding Issues.
*********************
SEPP’S APRIL FOOLS AWARD – THE JACKSON
It is time for voting on the Annual SEPP’s April Fools Award – the Jackson. The grand prize is a large lump of coal. Last year, the deserving winner of the lump of coal was the US National Science Teaching Association. In 2023, the Association banned the CO2 Coalition from its meeting which the Coalition members paid for and were approved because the CO2 Coalition exhibit pointed out that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis which is the food source of all complex life on Earth.
There are many strong candidates for this dubious honor including leaders of US scientific agencies who signed off on questionable reports on climate change. Get your votes in by June 29 with the reason why you recommend that person for the award. The award will be announced at the 43rd annual meeting of the Doctors for Defensive Preparedness on July 5-6. The decision of the judges is final.
***************
Number of the Week: R squared of 0.018. In statistics, R squared, R², is called the Coefficient of Determination. It is the proportion of the variation of the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variable. To put it differently, how much does a change in the effect (dependent variable) can be explained by the asserted cause (independent variable). How effective is change in the independent variable in explaining change in the dependent variable? Ideally it will be close to 1 (one). Anything less than one decreases the value of using the independent variable for prediction.
Donald Rapp wrote that in 2019 McIntyre and McKitrick wrote in “CLIMATEGATE: untangling myth and reality ten years later” that one of the significant omissions in the Mann et al. reports and its defense is:
“…not including the important statistical measure of validity ‘r2’ which was exceptionally small at 0.018.”
Tree rings are insignificant for explaining global warming. TWTW suspects using carbon dioxide concentrations from deep sea sediments to explain temperature change will also produce statistically insignificant results. See link under Seeking a Common Ground.
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013
Was the Sky Ever Falling? Vacating the Endangerment Finding in an Age of Clarity
Join scientists and economists with a rich history of expertise in climate science and policy as they examine the flawed assumptions, politicized science, and weak statistical foundations that fueled the Endangerment Finding. May 13, 2025, 9:00 pm to 3:15 pm
The Social Cost of Carbon: A Flawed Measure for Energy Policy
By Jonathan Lesser, National Center for Energy Analytics, Apr 23, 2025
From executive summary: As a concept, the SCC has some theoretical merit. However, it should not be used for making energy policy choices. The SCC can vary by orders of magnitude, depending on the research model. Moreover, it is often divorced from underlying scientific or economic principles, reflecting instead the assumptions and preferences of the modelers. Yet the SCC is used to justify staggeringly expensive regulations and mandates.
Updates On The Collapse Of The Climate Scam
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Apr 26, 2025
The remarks by the secretary-general came after a virtual summit of over a dozen world leaders to discuss planning ahead of the major COP30 climate meeting later this year in Brazil.
In the meeting, major-emitter China vowed to not let up in combating climate change. [Boldface added]
[SEPP Comment: In 1990, China emitted about 10% of the world’s emissions with 2.5 billion tonnes while the world total was 22.7 billion. In 2023, China emitted about 32% of the world emissions with 11.9 billion tonnes while the world emitted 37.8 billion. The report is a joke.]
The AGU and AMS try a desperate ploy to save their climate relevance
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, May 2, 2025
“The National Climate Assessment is a comprehensive, rigorous integration and evaluation of the latest climate science knowledge that decision makers — from government at all levels to private enterprise — need in order to understand the world in which we live,” said AMS President David J. Stensrud.
The Global Renewable Energy and Sectoral Electrification (GREaSE) Model for Rapid Energy Transition Scenarios
By James Hopeward, et al., Energies, Apr 25, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
From the abstract: If a great earthquake occurred today, floodplains could expand by 90 km2 (low), 160 km2 (medium), or 300 km2 (high subsidence), more than doubling the flooding exposure of residents, structures, and roads under the high subsidence scenario. By 2100, when climate-driven sea-level rise will compound the hazard, a great earthquake could expand floodplains by 170 km2 (low), 240 km2 (medium), or 370 km2 (high subsidence), more than tripling the flooding exposure of residents, structures, and roads under the high subsidence scenario compared to the 2023 floodplain.
[SEPP Comment: Where is the evidence of climate-driven sea-level rise beyond that which has been occurring for the past 3000 years?]
Now Scientists Claim Near 20-Year Stable Arctic Sea Ice is “Unsurprising” and Predicted by Models
By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, Apr 28, 2025
Link to paper: Surprising, but not unexpected, multi-decadal pause in Arctic sea ice loss
By Mark England, et al., ESS Open Archive, Mar 29, 2025
From abstract: The Beaufort Gyre (BG) is an important feature of the Arctic Ocean. By accumulating or releasing freshwater, it influences ocean properties both within the Arctic and as far as the North Atlantic. Yet, its future remains uncertain: the gyre could strengthen as sea ice declines and allows increased wind stress on the ocean, or weaken along with the Beaufort High (BH) pressure system. Here, we provide a first evaluation of the BG in historical and climate-change simulations from 27 available global climate models.
Questioning the Orthodoxy
New Study: Central Africa Was At Least 2.5°C Warmer Than Today 7000 Years Ago
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Apr 28, 2025
Link to paper: Mid- to Late-Holocene branched GDGT-based air temperatures from a crater lake in Cameroon (Central Africa)
By Guillemette Ménot, et al., Organic Geochemistry, June 2025
New Study: US And 60-90°S Temperature Trends Do Not Align With The Humans-Did-It Narrative
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, May 1, 2025
Link to paper: Segmented linear integral correlation Kernel ensemble reconstruction: A new method for climate reconstructions with applications to Holocene era proxies from an East Antarctic ice core
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 30, 2025
They may, and it may always have been one less-than-ideal reason for the traditional habit of regarding eggheads with skepticism. But the increase in such skepticism, the growing tendency to think that much of the research-industrial complex is vain, inept and elitist, is the product of major failings in the world of science, especially the problem of peer review and the famous and increasingly urgent “replication crisis”.
CCC Threaten Climate Disaster By 2050
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 30, 2025
The Climate Change Committee have now gone well beyond any objective assessment of climate change. Instead, their latest report belongs in the world of fantasy and disaster movies:
What Does It Cost? The Consequences of the Net Zero Energy Agenda
By Staff, Discovery Institute, Accessed Apr 29, 2025
If they’re right, it means more La Niña trends not fewer. And the authors then ask “If this maxMEP solution has merit, a natural question is why most of the climate models are predicting El Niño-like trends.” To which they offer an answer, namely that the models are wrong. Or in the more delicate wording of the authors, include “aphysical” mechanisms. “Aphysical” here meaning wrong.
Measurement Issues — Surface
Global Climate Database Fed with Junk Data From RAF Airbase Where Helicopters Hover Over the Thermometer
By Chris Morrison, The Daily sceptic, Apr 30, 2025
The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) is one of the most important climate monitoring networks in the world. It is co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and numerous UN, EU and scientific bodies and its collects information that is used for scientific research within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ultimately, it forms the basis for promoting and implementing global Net Zero plans.
High Temperatures, Large Temperature Contrasts, and Crazy Hot Stations
Temperature errors are widespread, and most problematic stations are too warm.
I checked with the head of a local National Weather Service office whether there was any automatic monitoring of temperature sensor performance at local observing sites. Software that would make all kinds of temperature quality checks, including comparison with other local sites.
Measurement Issues — Atmosphere
UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for April, 2025: +0.61 deg. C
By Roy Spencer, His Blog, May 2, 2025
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through April 2025) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
Changing Weather
#LookItUp: historical extreme weather events
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 30, 2025
Link to: Dramatic weather events from 1900 to today
By Francis Carruthers, Love Exploring, May 29, 2024
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 30, 2025
No, Euronews, Europe is Not Suffering ‘Serious Impacts’ from Climate Change
By Linnea Lueken, Climate Realism, Apr 25, 2025
Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
Chasing 150 dragons
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 30, 2025
For instance, the grisly slideshow starts with “The Rise of Unpredictable Weather Patterns” which is just silly because the unpredictability of weather was a standing joke long before the invention of television made weatherpersons the butt of it.
More Climate Litigation Silliness From Academia
By Jonathan Lesser, Real Clear Energy, April 30, 2025
Rachel Cleetus, one of the experts who was working on the National Climate Assessment, told The Hill that more than 400 people had been working as volunteers on the national assessment until they received the email on Monday.
[SEPP Comment: How many came from environmental organizations?]
National Science Foundation Cancels Hundreds of Grants to Left-Wing Research Projects
“The NSF’s mission is to promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare, and secure the national defense,” an NSF spokesperson told National Review in a statement. “It is our priority to ensure all NSF awards aim to create opportunities for all Americans everywhere, without exclusion of any groups. NSF remains committed to reviewing and funding proposals that are aligned with the agency priorities.”
As a result, NSF is terminating research projects focused on left-wing ideological concepts including “equity,” intersectionality, “latinx,” and climate change, according to a database of grant cancellations maintained by Dr. Noam Ross of rOpenSci and Harvard research scientist Scott Delaney.
GISS Gets the Boot: A Seinfeldian Saga
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Apr 26, 2025
Link to article: Trump administration cancels top NASA climate lab’s lease at Columbia University
Trump Administration Finally Pulls the Plug on the Climate Fear Factory
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Apr 29, 2025
Time to Defund Climate Models?
By Steve Goreham, Master Resource, April 29, 2025
There are more than 40 climate models operating across the world, with 13 of the leading models located in the US. The US models are operated by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in New York City, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Princeton, New Jersey, and the Department of Energy (DOE) in Boulder, Colorado
At the same time, NASA management cut off funding for a support contract for the 7th Assessment Report of the IPCC. NASA has been a primary contributor to previous IPCC Assessment Reports.
Trump budget proposes slashes to renewable energy, farms, EPA
By Timothy Gardner, Valerie Volcovici and Leah Douglas, Reuters, May 2, 2025 [H/t SJ Cvrk]
Among cuts to EPA’s budget are $235 million to the Office of Research and Development, leaving it with $281 million to do research required by Congress and eliminating work to advance environmental justice.
The Political Games Continue
When the Labor Party talk about “The Science” the Opposition can easily outflank and outgun them with bigger, better science
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, April 26, 2025
Subsidies and Mandates Forever
Net Zero Subsidies Now Cost £26 Billion A Year–New Report Claims
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 2, 2025
Link to report: UK Renewable Electricity Subsidy Totals: 2002 to the Present Day
By John Constable, et al., Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), Apr 28, 2025
A Government spokesman disagreed with the REF figures used in the report and said it “ignores the benefits of clean power and significantly misleads on the cost of renewables”.
A spokesman said: “As shown by the National Energy System Operator’s independent report, clean power by 2030 is achievable and will deliver a more secure energy system, which could see a lower cost of electricity and lower bills.”
From Homewood: How REF can be “significantly misleading on the cost of renewables” is a mystery, given that REF’s numbers all come from official data
Renewable Subsidies Database
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 27, 2025
From Porter: In the past four years, the upper operational [frequency] limit was breached around 500 times in each winter season…the number of such breaches has also been growing steadily, which is consistent with falling grid inertia…and a perception that the grid is becoming less reliable.
[SEPP Comment: The UK electricity system is becoming increasingly unstable. Large fluctuations in grid frequency – the first sign of problems – are becoming much more common. “The equilibrium point for the European network, which operates on alternating current, is at a frequency of 50 Hertz. In the USA, the reference frequency is 60 Hertz. Grid operators ensure that this frequency remains stable 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The tolerance threshold is plus or minus 0.050 Hertz.”]
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 28, 2025
You may have seen Ed Miliband’s car crash interview with Sky the other day, where he insisted that gas prices are set internationally by petro state dictators.
Maybe he could explain why UK gas prices are five times those in the US!
Rewiring The UK–Mike Travers
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 2, 2025
Following OFGEM’s [UK’ energy regulator] publishing of plans for a monstrously expensive upgrade of local and regional power distribution networks for Net Zero, it is worth looking again Mike Travers GWPF paper five years ago, which analysed the costs and implications:
According to OFGEM, the average customer currently pays about £100 a year for distribution. This could increase to £430.
Economic reality of Net Zero causes divisions in the Labour Party
Video by Mike Graham of Andrew Montford, Net Zero Watch, May 1, 2025
Both parties have major vulnerabilities on inflation right now. Democrats lost the 2024 election in large part due to high inflation during the Biden’s years in response to the pandemic. Republicans now face voter concerns about rising costs due to new tariffs. Both have strong policy and political incentives to act.
[SEPP Comment: How do tariffs cause inflation in domestically produced energy?]
Collaborative Opportunities for a Prosperous American Energy Future
Right now, Congress is considering what to do with the energy production tax credits within the Inflation Reduction Act. Our latest report, “Tax Stability for Energy Dominance,” shows that the current tax incentives have created a stable market environment that has unleashed $115 billion in new clean energy generation, supporting over 3.5 million jobs, and powering a record 170 million homes in 2024. Maintaining certainty around these credits will lower energy costs, provide reliable electricity built on time, keep the United States competitive in the global AI race, and enable of the use of various technologies so we won’t be vulnerable to any one form of generation or its underlying fuel source.
[SEPP Comment: Lower costs of producing unreliable power does not necessary result in lower costs to consumers, who need reliable power.]
Connecticut Lawmakers Devise Plan To Saddle Taxpayers With Soaring Energy Prices
“There are certain fundamental truths that we must acknowledge and act on if we want to reverse the path we are on,” [bill sponsor] Fonfara said at the conference. “If we choose to do nothing, electricity costs will continue to increase.”
[SEPP Comment: And citizens may blame us who drove energy costs up?]
TOMB: Shapiro ‘Price Cap’ Could Hike Electricity Bills
By Gordon Tomb, Delaware Valley Journal, Apr 28, 2025
Josh Shapiro is governor of Pennsylvania.
Washington’s Control of Energy
House votes to overturn California gas car ban — again defying internal watchdog
However, the 246-164 vote came in defiance of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan congressional watchdog that also issues legal opinions.
That office has determined that because the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval came in the form of a waiver rather than a rule, it is not subject to the CRA.
Return of King Coal?
Climate Change Weekly # 542 — More Ways Coal Improves the Economy and the Environment
By H. Sterling Burnett, The Heartland Institute, May 2, 2025
Nuclear Energy and Fears
Chernobyl Radiation Cut by 47%: Breakthrough or Overhyped
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Apr 27, 2025
Groups Collaborate on Projects for Fusion Energy in Germany
Government officials in the German state of Hessen (or Hesse) in March signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to support development of a nuclear fusion pilot plant, what the groups called a first-of-a-kind, or FOAK, project. German officials have said they want nuclear fusion to be a priority of the country’s energy agenda, barely two years after the country decommissioned its last three operating nuclear power plants in April 2023 at the direction of then-chancellor Angela Merkel.
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
Too much wind and solar adds to blackout risk
Interview of Andres Montford of Net Zero Watch by Ian Collins, Apr 29, 2025
[SEPP Comment: Author assumes solar can deliver 99.99% reliable electricity, at Midnight?]
Green Delusion: Solar Panels are a “One Off” Investment
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Apr 27, 2025
On Wind: Bearing failures in wind turbines are a major cause of downtime in energy production for unplanned maintenance, repairs, and replacements. This failure type is a primary cost and results in higher operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the energy operator and in higher utility bills for the customer. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Gearbox Reliability Database (GRD) shows that 76 percent of gearboxes failed due to bearings, while 17 percent failed due to gear failures. [11] This shows the importance of reliable bearings and gearboxes for wind-turbine operations to the economy and society.
[SEPP Comment: For offshore wind add salt spray to the mix.]
Leverage Trump’s Tariffs: Japan Should Phase Out Chinese Solar and Pivot to U.S. Energy Imports
By Taishi Sugiyama, Real Clear Energy, April 29, 2025
British Politicians, Green Energy Company Accused of Polluting a Mississippi Town
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Apr 27, 2025
“Drax Group operates a power plant in Selby, North Yorkshire, that generates electricity by burning wood pellets. Many of these are sourced from forests in the US and shipped to the UK.
Activists from Gloster in Mississippi, where Drax runs a wood pellet factory, say pollution from its plant has caused health issues for people nearby, including heart disease, cancer and respiratory problems.”
PAC Slam Biomass Sector For Marking Own Homework
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 27, 2025
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has just released a devastating indictment of UK Government policies regarding the burning of wooden pellets at Drax and other biomass plants.
Brink Of Extinction – More And More Companies Rejecting Costly Hydrogen Technology
By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 2, 2025
“Instead of progress, disillusionment dominates. The EU in particular – especially Germany – is increasingly being criticized for its costly projects,” reports German online Blackout News. “Companies are pulling out”.
Hydrogen Projects Awarded CfDs
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 1, 2025
The prices of up to £257.99/MWh compare to current wholesale prices of around £80/MWh
Hydrogen Buses Off Road Because There Is No Hydrogen
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 26, 2025
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles
Another pile of flaming tax dollars, ho hum
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 30, 2025
The announcement was smothered in consultant-speak:
“CAMI is making operational and employment adjustments to balance inventory and align production schedules with current demand”.
I.e. we made a lot of junk we can’t sell. Well, you have to keep those subsidies coming:
California Dreaming
Another refinery closure in California increases the state’s dependency on China
By Ronald Stein and Mike Umbro, America Out Loud News, Apr 28, 2025
Contrary to the perception spread by its opponents, desalination is cost-effective, energy efficient, and can be deployed at a massive scale. Total worldwide desalination capacity is estimated to be 28-million-acre feet per year. As for energy consumption, if the 2.0 gigawatts of power generated by the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant were used for desalination, it would be enough to produce 5-million-acre feet of fresh water per year.
Time to End the Tyranny of the California Coastal Commission
Autonomous, quasi-judicial agencies like the CCC are meant to remain apolitical and humane rather than punitive in their duties. But across the U.S., many such agencies are anything but. The CCC could well qualify as one of the worst.
Health, Energy, and Climate
Chemical in plastics linked to 350K heart disease deaths: Research
From Findings: In 2018, an estimated 356,238 deaths globally were attributed to DEHP exposure, representing 13.497% of all cardiovascular deaths among individuals aged 55–64. Of these, 349,113 were attributed to the use of plastics.
[SEPP Comment: How many deaths can be attributed to breathing?]
Iowa Climate Science Education 