New paleo evidence reveals floods in Earth’s past that were hundreds of times larger than anything we’ve seen recently — and had nothing to do with CO₂.
“The past is not dead. It’s not even past.” — William Faulkner
The media’s appetite for climate catastrophe never seems to get full. Virtually every flood event now comes packaged with breathless declarations of “unprecedented” intensity and grim warnings of fossil-fueled doom. But a new study covered by Phys.org just threw a mammoth-sized monkey wrench into that narrative — quite literally.
Researchers examining paleoflood evidence in the Pacific Northwest have found that ancient deluges during the last Ice Age were not just bigger, they were so massive that they make modern floods look like puddle-jumping. In some cases, peak discharges exceeded 10 million cubic meters per second, compared to just tens of thousands for modern floods — including extreme ones like the 1993 Mississippi River flood.
Let’s be clear: these were natural events, happening 12,000 to 18,000 years ago, long before coal plants, internal combustion engines, or UN climate conferences.
The new study builds on decades of work around the Missoula Floods — a series of truly biblical floods unleashed when glacial ice dams repeatedly failed, releasing the waters of Glacial Lake Missoula across eastern Washington and beyond. These floods:
Created sediment fans and slackwater deposits hundreds of feet deep.
Modern researchers are now using LiDAR, stratigraphy, and radiocarbon dating to map these features in exquisite detail — and what they’re finding is unmistakable: nature has produced floods on a scale we can barely comprehend, entirely without the help of SUVs, coal power plants, or increased atmospheric CO₂.
Why This Changes the Flood Narrative
🔹 1. “Unprecedented”? Not Even Close.
One of the most abused words in climate reporting is “unprecedented.” We saw it used in the wake of the Pakistan floods in 2022, the German floods of 2021, and countless others. But paleo-hydrological data remind us that extreme floods are not new, and they are not inherently human-caused.
Labeling every modern flood as evidence of climate breakdown, without acknowledging the geological record, is either bad science or bad faith — sometimes both.
🔹 2. Natural Variability Still Reigns Supreme
What this new study really underscores is something skeptics have been saying for years: you cannot meaningfully assess modern extremes without understanding natural variability. The Earth’s climate and hydrologic systems have long been capable of producing massive, abrupt, and destructive events. Pretending otherwise is a political act, not a scientific one.
It’s also worth noting that attribution science — the process by which modelers “link” extreme events to climate change — typically relies on modern observational datasets going back only to the 1950s or so. These models almost never account for long-term geologic-scale extremes, like those revealed in studies like this one. That’s a glaring omission, and one that calls into question the reliability of claims like “climate change made this flood worse.”
Let’s be blunt: if a flood today rivaled the scale of the Missoula outbursts, every climate model would be off the charts — and every climate reporter would blame it on carbon emissions. But these floods happened naturally. They were driven by glacial mechanics, not greenhouse gases.
If your climate model cannot reproduce the known history of past megafloods, why should we trust its projections for the year 2100?
Final Thoughts: A Lesson in Humility
This new study serves as a powerful reminder that the natural world is not tame, not linear, and not bound by human carbon cycles. It has produced extremes far beyond what we’ve seen in our brief observational window.
So the next time someone insists that a big flood is proof of man-made climate collapse or crisis, or the doom de jour, send them a link to this study. Then ask them why they’re ignoring the evidence carved into the Earth itself.
And remember: history didn’t start in 1979 — even if most climate narratives do.
Further Reading:
Want to see more skeptical deep dives like this?Subscribe to wattsupwiththat.com and support independent science journalism that questions the climate narrative – plus get exclusive content available only to subscribers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
51.47918 -0.45054 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 3 Installed 1/1/1947
For the Met Office to claim this site meets any form of acceptable regulations for providing data sufficiently accurate for inclusion into the national historic temperature record is a clear indication of how far they are prepared to go to produce totally unacceptable readings. This site is completely unsatisfactory even for the production of data for the immediate aviation use of the airport (which incidentally it does not, the Airport uses its own instruments) – it is simply meteorological junk. And the Met Office knows that!
Before examining the site in detail, a bit of history. Meteorological temperature observations are taken by thermometers housed in devices known as Stevenson Screens. Scottish civil engineer Thomas Stevenson (father of Robert Louis Stevenson) designed his screen in 1864. By 1884 modifications to the design enabled it to become the adopted design of all UK Met office sites and thence ultimately almost worldwide. 1884 was also the year that a significant flaw in the design was uncovered by someone more qualified in the subject, Scottish meteorologist John Aitken. Under certain weather conditions Aitken proved the screen was found to over-record temperatures often by 1°C and in particular extremes as much as 2°C. This problem was accepted and became known as the Aitken Effect but somewhat surprisingly was completely ignored.
So what is the Aitken effect? The flaw Aitken discovered was that in calmer conditions with wind speeds below 1 metre per second (2.23 miles per hour – Beaufort Scale 1) there was insufficient air flow within the screen. Particularly on sunny days, this static air could warm up above the surrounding ambient air temperature and thus over record. The point was proven, all meteorologists understood it and indeed are still taught about it on university courses. However, it very conveniently was metaphorically swept under the carpet presumably on the basis that such conditions were “rare” events.
The AGW climate promoting website the Conversation even recently highlighted this issue with modern research but preferred to spin the discussion around to the virtues of Victorians rather than emphasising the shortcomings of Stevenson screens. They also opted to promote the solution to this issue referring to “aspirated” instrumentation that uses a small fan to ensure air movement around the screen’s instruments and thus ensures more accurate readings. So far the Met Office has not got this memo and do not use aspirated screens in any of their stations, but other private sites often do – notably at Heathrow Airport.
The main takeaway from the above, however, is this exercise in hand waving stated in the above article.
The only thing more staggering about the level of proven inaccuracy is the casual way it is passed off as “relatively minor”…….says who? Only 1% (i.e a surprisingly large amount) will be MORE than 1°C – So what percentage are, say, between 0.1°C and 1°C? “12% of recorded minimum temperatures” is almost one in eight of every reading. The line “This is relatively minor, and will not affect the important conclusion that globally, air temperatures are increasing.” is a full on bare faced lie. Such levels of inaccuracy (however played down and mis-described) can only ever have a distorting effect. This is allegedly considered a “science” that accepts such levels of inaccuracy and then quotes readings to the tenth of a degree and averages to the hundredth of a degree. Clearly “researchers” at Reading University missed the memo “ every fraction of a degree temperature increase has a real impact on our lives and our planet. Prof. Celeste Saulo, WMO Secretary-General”
So why is this first issue so relevant to Heathrow? A close up image of the station is very revealing.
This photograph is taken from the south looking north to the enclosure and screen. The profiled metal cladding obscures the screen from the road and is in effect a south facing wall in front of the screen. All the extensive wire fencing and heat reflecting cladding is effectively acting as an almost complete wind break and walled garden. To get a degree of scale, the screen is set at 1.5 metres to the base, the cladding is likely 1 metre height in addition. Seen from the Northern Perimeter Road side it looks like this.
There is a solid barrier to wind penetration from the roadside. In any low wind speed events, day or night, the incidence of still air building up inside the screen is hugely increased over natural surroundings. Whilst such Aitken effect events may be rare in natural surroundings, in this enclosed compound they will be much more frequent, furthermore on hot sunny days the effect can readily build to the more extreme effect of 2°C.
So what of my claim the Met Office already knows this? Well as mentioned earlier modern large airports require much more extensive weather instrumentation than the modern day Met Office supplies. The aviation requirements run to this 37 page document https://imdpune.gov.in/training/surface/installationofami.pdf
As the document points out the impacts of small changes in parameters can have high impacts. A misread of a climate reporting station is likely harmless, an aviation runway misread can prove disastrous.
This is the detail on Heathrow’s own site “Heathrow Airport’s own weather station is not a single fixed point like the Met Office’s but consists of multiple sensors and instruments strategically placed across the airfield. The primary operational weather monitoring is centered around the air traffic control tower, located near the heart of the airport between the two runways, roughly at 51.477° N, -0.461° W. This central location allows it to collect data directly from the runway environment, including wind speed, direction, temperature, and visibility, which are critical for aircraft operations. Additional sensors are also positioned along the runways—specifically near the thresholds of Runway 09L/27R and Runway 09R/27L—to provide localized data for each runway’s conditions.
This setup ensures the airport has precise, immediate weather information beyond what the Met Office station alone can offer, meeting the stringent demands of aviation safety and efficiency.”
In close up the airport main temperature sensors are as below.
The proximity to the runways would be expected to cause higher readings but the sensors are artificially aspirated to avoid stagnation and over reading……..and they typically read LOWER than the official Met Office screen in calm weather conditions.
The Met Office have tacitly acknowledged this Aitken effect problem several times despite trying not to. When Paul Homewood host of Not a Lot of People Know That and Clive Best raised issues regarding the potential of aircraft take offs/landings affecting the official climate screen’s readings, the Met Office press officer, Nicola Maxey, countered the suggestion as follows
“In addition the turbulence generated by passing aircraft would help mix the air close to the ground and so, is more likely to lower the air temperature rather than raise it.”
What Nicola Maxey did not want to admit was that in the calm weather stagnant air in the screen was warming and over recording – the breeze (distant jet blast) from aircraft might possibly dissipate the effect. The point was not lost on Clive Best who retorted “If they just want mixing – then instal a fan !” which is exactly what the Heathrow private sensors had already done to ensure accuracy.
I have so far been unable to conclusively prove this point but a large body of evidence is forming that on the 19th July 2022 when the Met Office proclaimed 40.2°C at their site, the airport unit only recorded 39°C – a likely Aitken effect discrepancy given the flat calm and intense sun at the time. I will notify if/when I can get final confirmation of this.
However, the overall Heathrow situation is much worse than just atrocious siting and known screen over recording errors. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980493
Firstly “Paul Williams, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading” {the organisation that tested aspirated instruments above} applies more hand-waving techniques to the suggestion that aircraft engines could have any notable effect.
“Planes make a negligible difference,” says Professor Williams. “Every time you use energy – whether it’s from a plane’s engine, or even just switching on a light bulb or taking a shower – it’s eventually turned into heat. “But all of that is a minor influence compared to the effect of the urban heat island.”
I am confident that a more measured reply would have been in order from a reputable professor. After all a single Boeing 747-8 can hold over 238,000 litres of fuel and consume up to 10% on a fully laden take off up to cruising height. Heathrow typically handles 1,300 take offs/ landing over an 18 hour operating day of mostly larger aircraft. This amounts to an exceptionally large amount of fuel being combusted and turned into high temperature waste heat. That heat has to go somewhere. The suggestion that planes make a negligible difference is akin to other above Reading University researchers claiming 12% of minimum readings being over recorded due to Aitken effect has no effect – unquestionable nonsense. {If anyone feels they can run a good calculation on the waste heat produced I would be very interested in it}
Our professor (unwittingly it would seem) continues to point out that the whole Heathrow reading is inaccurate for the wider area representation due to the obvious Urban Heat Island Effect. What he actually states in his “defence” of Heathrow is that it only records the massive distortion effect of the London area. This is clearly a man-made effect but nothing even remotely associated with the national “Climate” nor any perceived changes over time. Prior to the airport construction in the 1940s the area was green fields with a “Row” of small houses on the Heath – the area would not have been recording anything like current temperatures in the absence of the airport and London urban area expansion.
Having admitted that the elevated temperatures are an unnatural London effect and completely dismissed a major heat source from the jet blast, comes the absurdly arrogant claim:
” The Met Office told the BBC that its weather stations are built to very specific standards and any biases that could affect temperature records are taken into account when analysing readings.”
More complete nonsense, the Met Office simply delivers the highest possible recorded number in full knowledge it is corrupted by flawed screen design, from a corrupted site in a massive UHI and makes no assessment or adjustments whatsoever. They are “excellent” simply by their own claim – all evidence clearly shows this is not the case and independent review is not allowed.
Having already compared Heathrow to another wholly unnatural site in the London UHI (Kew) the article further goes on to compare soil structure (Heathland) with yet another wholly unnatural environment of the Royal Horticultural Society Gardens at Wisley.
“Even the soil can be a factor, according to Gareth Harvey from the BBC Weather Centre.”Take another very warm spot, like Wisley – located in the Surrey heathland and typified by sandy soils,” he says.”Sand is a natural insulator and so the heating effect of sunshine is stored in the top layer only, which gets very hot and then warms the air.”
One wonders if Gareth Harvey has ever actually ever been to Heathrow Airport – are we expected to take a BBC Weather Centre spokesman seriously when he comments on the “sandy soils”? Oddly enough there really is not a great deal of exposed soil in the 12.3 square kilometres of surface area that makes up Heathrow Airport……it is almost entirely tarmac, concrete, buildings and jet engined aircraft.
The BBC/Met Office axis sums up the Heathrow weather station with the lines
” In summary, the overall temperature of any particular weather station is likely to be affected by several factors – including: the amount of tarmac, the number of buildings, distance from the sea and even the type of soil.
So, there’s more to Heathrow’s hot spot than its proximity to roaring jet engines.”
Translating the above I arrive at the conclusion that a “Strawman” has been falsely set up, i.e. jet engines distorting temperature, to refute this spurious argument and thereby waive away the obvious point that the Heathrow weather station is totally unacceptable for any meteorological purposes whatsoever.
My summary relates to the real world facts.
1. The Heathrow screen is in an appallingly bad immediate location – it is not Class 3 by any rational measure. It is not suitable for readings to be added to the national historic temperature record. It is also not suitable for aviation purposes.
2. This poor location regularly leads to enhanced Aitken effect and over readings of both minimum and maximum temperatures thus supplying false readings and distorted daily averages in an ever upwards direction over time as the site has been developed.
3. Both London in general and Heathrow in particular display a very large and accepted Urban Heat Island effect also artificially raising both maximum and minimum temperatures. No adjustments nor allowances are made for this in reporting readings.
4. The Met Office do NOT apply rigorous standards nor make any adjustments whatsoever to absolute readings and knowingly produce inaccurate readings. The vast majority of weather station sites are actually classed (by the Met Office themselves) at Classes 4 and 5 thus being inferior to Heathrow.
6. The nearest Class 1 station to Heathrow (at Rothamsted Research) registered over 2 degrees cooler despite being much nearer to the centre of the hot weather event area in 2022.
7. This site should either be removed or ignored as it serves no accurate meteorological function.
I feel this review should be an ongoing discussion document and I would very much welcome views, opinions and further information from readers. I am more than happy to be proved wrong if I am so please feel free to criticise (politely) if warranted. Having previously compared Heathrow with Leuchars I will shortly be reviewing Heathrow’s near neighbour and equally bizarre site at RAF Northholt so there are plenty of options to open up the discussion.
The Guardian’s Damian Carrington has fallen for the old trick!
The climate crisis is on track to destroy capitalism, a top insurer has warned, with the vast cost of extreme weather impacts leaving the financial sector unable to operate.
The world is fast approaching temperature levels where insurers will no longer be able to offer cover for many climate risks, said Günther Thallinger, on the board of Allianz SE, one of the world’s biggest insurance companies. He said that without insurance, which is already being pulled in some places, many other financial services become unviable, from mortgages to investments.
Thallinger said: “The good news is we already have the technologies to switch from fossil combustion to zero-emission energy. The only thing missing is speed and scale. This is about saving the conditions under which markets, finance, and civilisation itself can continue to operate.”
Operating profits increased to £16.0 billion last year, a margin of 9% of premiums.
Taking away the Life Sector, the Property and Motor Sector still accounted for over half the total profit.
The insurance business is all about calculation of risk, which then leads to the setting of premiums. If risks increase, for whatever reason, premiums rise in line; the insurer over time continues to make his margin.
Some things may become uninsurable, a house built on a flood plain, for instance. That’s tough luck for the homeowner, but the house should clearly never have been built there.
But overall weather losses have been falling in real terms as a proportion of GDP:
Given that the world’s GDP is estimated at $106 trillion, Roger Pielke’s figures suggest weather losses of about $200 billion a year, in line with the $2 trillion quoted by Aviva for the decade to 2023.
The Guardian would like its readers to believe that such numbers are catastrophic and unaffordable for the insurance industry. In reality it is just business as usual.
But what better way to push up premiums than to play the climate card.
I often get asked this question on social media, so I decided to provide the answer as a simple primer.
1. The Basics: Climate Does Change
First, let’s be clear — climate change is real in the literal sense. The Earth’s climate has been changing for billions of years. We have geological records showing periods that were much warmer (like the Eocene, with crocodiles in the Arctic), and much colder (like the Ice Ages that covered North America in glaciers).
Even more recently, we have the Holocene Climate Optimum, significantly warmer than present day:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
