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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Source: Stankowski, 2025

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/GvhBuYw

April 14, 2025 at 12:07PM

We’re told the research is by scientists who ‘study human-driven global warming’, but they’re assuming what they’re trying to prove, a bit like dark matter theorists. Keep insisting more time and resources will do the trick, and keep churning out adjustments to observational data. But now it seems time’s up and funding will be cut back in a big way (possibly 75%), under the current US government.
– – –
The Trump administration, pursuing its deeply skeptical approach to climate change, wants to severely cut back the research arm of a government agency that plays a pivotal role in global climate science, US media reported Friday.

The administration plans to ask Congress, which sets the budgets for federal agencies, to cut funding for research labs and offices overseeing climate studies in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), according to an internal White House document consulted by CNN and the journal Science.

“Trump’s budget plan for NOAA is both outrageous and dangerous,” said Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, the ranking Democrat on the House science committee, warning that the administration is “wholly destroying” essential services in a statement.

About 75% of funding for NOAA’s research branch could be eliminated from the 2026 budget—drastic cuts to the prestigious agency that could be implemented starting this year, says Phys.org.

The administration wants to eliminate the jobs of hundreds of federal and academic scientists who study human-driven global warming, Science reported. [Talkshop comment – studying a theoretical atmospheric effect].

The cuts would be on top of at least 1,000 NOAA jobs eliminated last month under the drastic downsizing overseen by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Scientists say the further cuts could have enormous consequences, given NOAA’s crucial role both nationally and globally in weather forecasting, climate studies and fisheries conservation.

Researchers and labs around the world rely on data and mathematical models from NOAA, so an end to its research programs could have a drastic impact, scientists say.
. . .
Some conservatives see NOAA as a chief purveyor of what they call “climate alarmism.”

The Trump administration has launched a concerted assault on the government’s climate-related resources, ordering massive layoffs and deleting websites with data on the weather and climate.

The White House also wants to make budget cuts to a branch of NASA that is tasked with using satellites to study and monitor the effects of climate change, according to media reports.

Full article here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/MXmUstc

April 14, 2025 at 09:58AM

From ClimateREALISM

By Linnea Lueken

A recent story by ABC News, “Climate and environment updates: Tornado activity doubled March average: NOAA,” classifies recent severe tornado outbreaks under their “climate crisis” category, implying that these storms were caused by global warming. This is false. Climate change is not causing an increase in the number or severity of tornados, nor can it be connected to such a limited event.

ABC warns:

The climate crisis is not a distant threat; it’s happening right now and affecting what matters most to us.

According to a new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. tornado activity in March was more than twice the monthly average, with over 200 tornadoes recorded.

Although ABC doesn’t explicitly state that this tornado season has been caused by climate change, the story strongly implies it, and as such it cannot be left unchallenged, because it is wrong.

The United States did experience a destructive and violent tornado season in March 2025, but it was not a record breaker in terms of numbers or strength, nor does it reflect a long-term trend that would be necessary to prove the climate connection.

The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) disagree strongly with ABC’s claims. They report that tornado records in the past are spotty, because they are very short lived and aren’t always reported, especially as one moves further back into the past. NCEI reports “[m]any significant tornadoes may not make it into the historical record since Tornado Alley was very sparsely populated during the 20th century.”

Doppler weather radar did not become widespread until the 1990s. Because of the low coverage of weather radar before then, and much higher coverage in recent years, NCEI explains that “observation practices have led to an increase in the number of reported weaker tornadoes, and in recent years EF-0 tornadoes have become more prevalent in the total number of reported tornadoes.”

NCEI continues:

With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the United States, the total number of EF-1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF-3 to EF-5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These tornadoes would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tornado count show no trend in the number of tornadoes since the introduction of widespread Doppler radar. (See figures below)

When it comes to the strongest tornadoes, EF-3 and above, there appears to be a downwards trend. (see figure below)

Climate at a Glance: Tornadoes points out that as recently as 2017 through 2018, the United States set records for the longest period in history without a tornado death and the longest period in history without an F3 or stronger tornado. In fact, the two record-low years for number of tornadoes both occurred this past dozen years, in 2014 and 2018.

Moreover, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds that “[t]here is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes.”

ABC’s alarming coverage of the 2025 tornado season is at odds with the data. There is no dangerous climate signal in the tornado data, there may even be evidence that the modest warming of the past century is related to the decline in severe tornado outbreaks in the United States. A single severe tornado season, or concentrated outbreak, is not evidence of catastrophic climate change, only a long-term sustained trend would suggest climate change might be a factor, and there is no such trend.

---

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/rt8FLB3

April 14, 2025 at 08:01AM

54.88553 -6.96646 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 5 Installed 1/1/1969

Banagher is one of the many weather stations located at water treatment works such as Caugh Hill that even offers guided tours of their very modern facilities. The original readings and communication of them to the Met Office was by staff at the water works themselves – a standard practise in such situations. From 9/12/2009 the manual reporting was replaced by an automatic unit thereby obviating the need for daily visits to the screen. And therein started the problems.

One advantage of manually reporting stations is that they are (should be) visited by a human being on a daily basis to take readings. A daily observer visit will also enable observation of the site and any conscientious observer would note anything detrimental and hopefully ensure remedial action taken. A dirty screen absorbing excess solar radiation would hopefully be cleaned, a screen door inadvertently left open would be closed the next day and so on. Caugh Hill was automated 9/12/2009 so from then on human site visits are far less frequent and any detrimental meteorological issues often go unseen.

In the case of Caugh Hill the immediate history prior to automation was not good. In 2009 there were 186 missing readings, in 2008 – 83 days readings were not correctly made. This poor reading frequency renders data from such sites completely meaningless for climate reporting purposes, but of course the Met Office always has a work around for lack of data by simply homogenising an “average” and filling in the blanks with “numbers” of some sort. Perhaps the oddest thing about such poor readings records in this case was that taking them was as much relevant to the site owners (the water company) as it is to the Met office – very oddly lax on the part of paid employees.

What becomes more ridiculous is the way that this site is treated as a dumping ground for supplies to the water works. The headline image is the latest aerial view from Google indicating large “rounds” of supplies to the water works completely enclosing the site from the east and south. This is not unusual and historic imagery has numerous views of materials surrounding and compromising the site since automation such as below from 2020.

Whilst this sort of problem will unquestionably distort readings, it is possibly not such a major issue with less “important” stations such as Banagher which really are poor sites even before such abuse. The bigger problem relates to higher profile sites such as East Malling which is claimed to be Class 1. The automation of readings and absence of a daily observer means that huge encroachments on site quality go unnoticed and the Met Office clearly does not seem to be overly concerned. I advised them on the 4th February 2025 of the encroachment of greenhouses degrading the East Malling site, however, they declared no concerns whatsoever and despite my asking they reassess their opinion (in light of evidence supplied on the 11th February) they have not responded.

In summary Banagher, Caugh Hill is a poor site that is being badly neglected and cannot supply reliable data. That this is becoming the norm for so many sites is unacceptable.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/P7W9uJB

April 14, 2025 at 07:51AM