August | 2025 | Science Matters

More Evidence Temperatures Drive CO2 Levels, Not the Reverse

Robbins, 2025 Figure 2: Global tropic SSTs overlaid onto monthly atmospheric CO2 increases (Mauna Loa)

Kenneth Richard posted a No Tricks Zone article: Another New Study Suggests Most – 80% – Of The Modern CO2 Increase Has Been Natural. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

CO2 concentration increases are not the cause of rising temperature,
but an effect of rising temperature.

The 2025 paper by Bernard Robbins is Atmospheric CO2: Exploring the Role of Sea Surface Temperatures and the Influence of Anthropogenic CO2. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Abstract

Close examination of the small perturbations within the atmospheric CO2 trend, as measured at Mauna Loa, reveals a strong correlation with variations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs), most notably with those in the tropics. The temperature-dependent process of CO2 degassing and absorption via sea surfaces is well-documented, and changes in SSTs will also coincide with changes in terrestrial temperatures, and temperature-dependent changes in the marine and terrestrial biospheres with their associated carbon cycles.

Using SST and Mauna Loa datasets, three methods of analysis are presented that seek to identify and estimate the anthropogenic and, by default, natural components of recent increases in atmospheric CO2, an assumption being that changes in SSTs coincide with changes in nature’s influence, as a whole, on atmospheric CO2 levels. The findings of the analyses suggest that an anthropogenic component is likely to be around 20 %, or less, of the total increase since the start of the industrial revolution.

The inference is that around 80 % or more of those increases are of natural origin, and indeed the findings suggest that nature is continually working to maintain an atmospheric/surface CO2 balance, which is itself dependent on temperature. A further pointer to this balance may come from chemical measurements that indicate a brief peak in atmospheric CO2 levels centred around the 1940s, and that coincided with a peak in global SSTs.

Source: The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature OleHumlum, KjellStordahl, Jan-ErikSolheim.

Introduction

Research into the influence SSTs have on changes in atmospheric CO2 includes the work by Humlum et al. (2013). When examining phase relationships, they found a maximum correlation for changes in atmospheric CO2 lagging 11-12 months behind those of global SSTs [1]. A paper by the late Fred Goldberg (2008) noted their correlation by examining El Niño events [2]. He also considered Henry’s law [3] in relation to SSTs, i.e. a temperature-dependent equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and its solubility in seawater. Spencer (2008) also noted similarities between surface temperature variations with changes in atmospheric CO2 [4].

For the oceans specifically, areas of surface CO2 absorption and degassing are shown in maps provided by NOAA [5] and ESA [6] for example. These maps show that colder sea surfaces towards the poles are net absorbers of CO2 whilst the warmer surface waters of the tropics are net emitters. An analogy often cited is the greater ability of carbonated drinks to retain CO2 at cooler temperatures; this ability drops as the drinks get warmer.

Figure 1: Deseasonalised atmospheric CO2 data (Mauna Loa).

A strong correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and SSTs can be readily discerned from the relevant datasets. To illustrate, the upper graph in Fig. 1 plots atmospheric CO2 in parts per million (ppm) as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1982. The data [7] has been ‘deseason-alised’ by NOAA to remove natural annual CO2 cycles.

The similarity between the two traces is striking: short-term fluctuations in CO2 readings at Mauna Loa appear particularly sensitive to tropic conditions (if tropic SSTs are substituted for global SSTs in Fig. 2, the correlation is less strong). Warm tropical seas, with surface temperatures typically around 25-30 oC, cover almost one third of the earth’s surface. The most prominent peaks in the figure coincide with strong El Niño events. Taken at face value, and ignoring any influence from anthropogenic emissions, Fig. 2 suggests that if the tropic SST anomaly dropped to around -1 oC (with related drops globally) then the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa, would level off.

Robbins, 2025 Figure 2: Global tropic SSTs overlaid onto monthly atmospheric CO2 increases (Mauna Loa)

An important point is that changes in SSTs will coincide with those of terrestrial temperatures, temperature-dependent changes to both terrestrial and marine carbon cycles and, taking into consideration the research by Humlum et al. (2013) who found that changes in atmospheric CO2 followed changes in SSTs, an assumption in the work presented here is that nature’s influence on atmospheric CO2 levels, as a whole, follows on from changes in SSTs.

Discussion

The techniques used in Analyses 1 and 2, aimed at discerning and estimating the human contribution to recent increases in atmospheric CO2, are based on processing of monthly data from both SST and atmospheric CO2 datasets. Using the technique described in Analysis 1, no contribution from human emissions to the measured increases in atmospheric CO2, since 1995, was discerned. Given an approximate 60 % increase in annual human emissions since 1995 this suggests, by itself, that any human contribution to the measured increases is likely to be relatively small compared to nature’s contribution.

For the technique described in Analysis 2, a figure of ~27 ppm was estimated for a possible human contribution out of a total increase of 143 ppm since 1850, equating to around 19 % of the total increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution. Thus the results of these two analyses, taken together, suggest that nature appears to account for around 80 % or more of increases in atmospheric CO2 since 1995.

The technique described in Analysis 3 examines the relationship between longer-term trends in SST datasets and atmospheric CO2 measurements. This data analysis goes as far back as the late 1950s, when the ongoing acquisition of atmospheric CO2 measurements began at Mauna Loa. The resulting three graphs show an apparent almost-linear long-term relationship between SSTs and atmospheric CO2. Linear trend lines fitted to these graphs produce gradients of between ~120 and ~145 ppm/ 0C for the three SST datasets examined.

Figure 15: Atmospheric CO2 as a function of global SST trend since 1958

As for anthropogenic CO2, published figures (e.g. GCB data) suggest a roughly linear relationship between cumulative anthropogenic emissions as a function of time, and atmospheric CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa. If it’s reasoned that this mostly accounts for the linear trends as calculated in Analysis 3, this reasoning would not fit with the findings of the first two analysis methods that suggest 80 % or more of recent atmospheric CO2 increases are of natural origin.

Conclusions

Analyses of SST and atmospheric CO2 data, acquired since 1995, produce an estimated atmospheric CO2 increase, possibly attributed to human emissions, of around 20 %, or less, of the total increase since the industrial revolution, thus inferring that around 80 % or more of the increase is of natural origin.

Further data examination points to an almost linear longer-term relationship between SSTs and atmospheric CO2 since at least the late 1950s, and is suggestive of nature working to maintain a temperature-dependent atmosphere/surface CO2 balance. Recent historical evidence of such a balance may come from chemical measurements that indicate a brief peak in atmospheric CO2 levels centred around the 1940s, and that coincided with a peak in global SSTs.

Human emissions of CO2 are about 1/20-th of the natural turnover, and the findings of the analyses presented here suggest that this relatively-small human contribution is being readily incorporated into nature’s carbon cycles as they continually adjust to our constantly-changing climate.

As for surface temperatures, the research by Humlum et al. concluded that changes in atmospheric temperature are an ‘effect’ of changes in SSTs and not a ‘cause’ as some might advocate. And Humlum’s ‘take home’ message from a recent presentation was:

‘What controls the ocean surface temperature, controls the global climate’ [33]. He suggests the sun would be a good candidate, modulated with the cloud cover.

Killer Climate Lawsuit on Shaky Ground

Posted on August 29 by Ron Clutz

Washington Free Beacon reports on shaky case to make climate change a killer First-Of-Its-Kind Lawsuit Blaming Oil Companies for Woman’s Heat-Wave Death Failed to Mention Her Heart Disease. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

‘The diagnosis and likely treatment for it is highly relevant,’
doctor tells Free Beacon

A first-of-its-kind lawsuit accusing some of the nation’s largest oil companies of causing global warming and therefore causing a Washington woman’s 2021 heat-wave death left out one critical detail: she had been diagnosed with heart disease.

Juliana Leon’s death certificate, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, shows she had been diagnosed with hypertensive cardiovascular disease, a condition that stems from unmanaged high blood pressure and increases the risks of heart failure and sudden cardiac death. The medical examiner for King County, Wash., determined that the condition contributed to her death, meaning it wasn’t the direct cause of death, but made her more vulnerable to it.

The wrongful death lawsuit Leon’s daughter filed earlier this year against oil companies, however, failed to make a single mention of her underlying condition. It instead focused entirely on the direct cause of death: hyperthermia.

The revelation, which has not been reported until now, is relevant because it could explain why Leon succumbed to the high temperatures that hit the Pacific Northwest in June 2021, according to doctors interviewed by the Free Beacon. And it is important too because of the lawsuit’s potentially wide-reaching impact. If successful, the lawsuit could lead to dozens of similar wrongful death suits and even future criminal homicide prosecutions against the oil industry.

The lawsuit—the first instance of a case attempting to put oil companies on the hook for heat-related wrongful death—is part of a coordinated effort nationwide to use the courts to cripple the oil industry and usher in a green energy transition. Activists say such litigation will hold the industry accountable, while critics say it is designed to bankrupt the industry, something that would have devastating economic impacts.

“The main reasons for hyperthermia under these conditions include medications or skin conditions impairing the ability to sweat. People with hypertensive cardiovascular disease are likely to be taking such medicines,” said Jane Orient, the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and a clinical lecturer at the University of Arizona College of Medicine.

“I think the diagnosis and likely treatment for it are highly relevant,” she continued. “A body temperature as high as 110 is extremely unlikely without impairment in the body’s temperature-regulating mechanism, at least under the circumstances here. Most people will have dehydration, but not heat stroke, during a heat wave. This lady likely had both.”

Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the founder of a private surgical practice in Arizona, agreed that the diagnosis could be relevant. Singer told the Free Beacon:

“Having hypertension and its cardiovascular stigmata, depending on severity, might affect a person’s risk of succumbing to hyperthermia. But it’s the hyperthermia that kills,”

Lawyers representing Leon’s estate and daughter did not respond to requests for comment.

Leon died on June 28, 2021, during an extreme heat wave, which ultimately claimed the lives of 100 people in Washington, state data show. According to the wrongful death lawsuit, Leon died in her car after the vehicle’s air conditioning system broke and as outside temperature exceeded 105 degrees Fahrenheit. Her internal temperature rose to 110 degrees Fahrenheit right before she died.

Two weeks earlier, Leon had undergone bariatric surgery, a weight-loss surgery that helps reduce the risk of heart disease and high blood pressure. As a result, she had been on a liquid diet in the two weeks leading up to her death. In fact, Leon died in her car on her drive home from the doctor’s office where she was informed that morning that she may begin to eat soft foods again.

Still, the lawsuit blames seven oil companies for her death, arguing that they knew their products caused global warming decades ago, but continued selling them anyway. The lawsuit states that the 2021 heat wave in the Pacific Northwest wouldn’t have occurred without human-caused global warming.

A study published in the American Meteorological Society’s journal Weather and Forecasting last year found that there is “little evidence” greenhouse gases amplified the heat wave and emphasized that weather forecasts for the event were “highly accurate.” “Global warming may have made a small contribution, but an extreme heat wave, driven by natural variability, would have occurred in any case,” it concluded. Singer told the Free Beacon:

“You don’t need climate change to have a heat wave. Humans have been experiencing heat spells since the beginning of recorded history,”

The Free Beacon reported last week that an environmental group funded by the powerful Rockefeller Family Fund is quietly steering the wrongful death suit. According to legal filings, Leon’s daughter quietly appointed a climate activist to serve as the agent for her deceased mother’s estate. Those documents were authored by lawyers at the Rockefeller-backed Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit leading the coordinated, nationwide plan to “drive divestment” from and “delegitimize” the oil industry through litigation.

Beware Claims Attributing Extreme Events to Hydrocarbons

Posted on August 28 by Ron Clutz

RIP. You did good science and for that we are grateful.

Roger Pielke Jr. alerts us to a dangerous development in the IPCC effort claiming loss and damage from using hydrocarbons. His blog article is A Takeover of the IPCC.

The IPCC’s longstanding framework for detection and attribution looks DOA in AR7

Pielke: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just released the names of its authors for its seventh assessment report (AR7). The author list for its Chapter 3 — Changes in regional climate and extremes, and their causes — suggests strongly that the IPCC will be shifting from its longstanding focus on detection and attribution (D&A) of extreme events to a focus on “extreme event attribution” (EEA).

The IPCC AR6 was decidedly lukewarm to freezing cold on the notion of EEA, and emphasized the traditional D&A framework. Those days may now be over. World Weather Attribution (WWA) co-founder Frederika Otto has been put in charge of the chapter, along with another academic who focuses on extreme event attribution.

Pielke has a series of articles taking exception to EEA methods and claims. This post is a synopsis of work by Patrick Brown on the same issue, which is likely to be featured by climatists in the days and months ahead.

How Climate Attribution Studies Become Devious and Untrustworthy

Patrick Brown raises the question Do Climate Attribution Studies Tell the Full Story? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images, his analysis concluding thusly:

How a cascade of selection effects bias
the collective output of extreme event attribution studies.

Weather and climate extremes—such as high temperatures, floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, extratropical cyclones, and severe thunderstorms—have always threatened both human and natural systems. Given their significant impacts, there is considerable interest in how human-caused climate change influences these extremes. This is the focus of the relatively new discipline of Extreme Event Attribution (EEA).

Over the past couple of decades, there has been an explosion in EEA studies focusing on (or, “triggered by”) some prior notable weather or climate extreme. Non-peer-reviewed reports from World Weather Attribution (e.g., here, here, and here) represent some of the most notable examples of these kinds of analyses, and many similar studies also populate the peer-reviewed literature. The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society’s “Explaining Extreme Events From a Climate Perspective” annual series compiles such studies, as does the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, and they are also synthesized in reports like those from the IPCC (IPCC WG1 AR6 Chapter 11.2.3) and the United States National Climate Assessment.

The collective output of these kinds of studies certainly gives the impression that human-caused climate change is drastically changing the frequency and intensity of all kinds of weather extremes. Indeed, Carbon Brief recently published an extensive summary of the science of EEA studies, which begins with the proclamation, “As global temperatures rise, extreme weather events are becoming more intense and more frequent all around the world.”

However, these numbers cannot be taken as an accurate quantification of the influence of climate change on extreme weather because they are heavily influenced by a cascade of selection biases originating from the physical climate system, as well as researcher and media incentives. Identifying and understanding these biases is a prerequisite for properly interpreting the collective output of EEA studies and, thus, what implications they hold for general scientific understanding, as well as political and legal questions.

The large apparent discrepancy between the size of the influence of human-caused climate change on extreme weather reported in EEA studies (like those compiled by Carbon Brief) compared to more comprehensive systematic analyses (like those compiled by the IPCC) can, in large part, be attributed to the many layers of Selection Biases that influence the EEA literature’s collective output.

Selection Bias is a broad term that refers to any bias that arises from a process that selects data for analysis in a way that fails to ensure that data is representative of the broader population that the study wishes to describe.

Selection biases in the context of EEA studies include those associated with the physical climate system itself, those concerning proclivities and incentives facing researchers/journals, and those concerning the proclivities and incentives facing the media. They include

Occurrence Bias is a bias introduced by the physical climate system. Since EEA studies tend to be triggered by extreme events that have actually occurred, there is reason to believe that these studies will disproportionately sample events that are more likely than average to be exacerbated by climate change because the events occurred in the first place. Essentially, extreme events that are more likely to occur under climate change—and thus more likely to be observed—are going to be overrepresented in EEA studies, and extreme events that are less likely to occur under climate change—and thus less likely to be observed—are going to be underrepresented in EEA studies.

The map below illustrates this phenomenon. It shows changes in the magnitude of extreme drought under climate change. Specifically, it shows the fractional change in the intensity of once-per-50-year droughts (as quantified by monthly soil moisture) between a preindustrial and 21st-century run (SSP2-4.5 emissions) of the highly-regarded NCAR CESM2 Climate Model. Blue areas represent locations where the model simulates that extreme droughts become less frequent and intense with enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, and red areas represent locations where the model simulates that extreme droughts become more frequent and intense with enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. It is notable that overall, this model simulates that warmingdecreases the frequency and intensity of extreme drought in more locations than it increases it (consistent with soil moistening under warming simulated by other models).

Now, here’s the kicker: The black dots show locations where once-per-50-year droughts actually occurred in the 21st-century simulation and thus represent events that would plausibly trigger EEA studies.

What do you notice about where the dots are compared to where the red is? That’s right; the simulated EEA studies overwhelmingly sample areas where droughts are getting more intense and more frequent by the very nature that those are the types of droughts that are more likely to occur in the warming climate. The result is that the EEA sample is majorly biased: warming decreased the intensity of once-per-50-year droughts by about 1% overall, but it increased their intensity within the EEA sample by 18%!

Thus, if you just relied on the EEA sample, you would come away with an
incorrect impression not only on the magnitude of change in extreme droughts
but also on the sign of the direction of change!

Choice Bias arises when researchers use prior knowledge to choose events for EEA studies that are more likely to have been made more severe by climate change. A clear example of Choice Bias pervading the Carbon Brief database is there have been 3.6 times more studies on extreme heat than there have been on extreme winter weather (205 vs. 57). Another example would be the dearth of EEA studies on extratropical cyclones (the kinds of low-pressure systems with cold and warm fronts that are responsible for most of the dramatic weather outside of the tropics). The IPCC states that the number of extratropical cyclones associated with intense surface wind speeds is expected to decrease strongly in the Northern Hemisphere with warming. Yet, it is relatively rare for EEA attribution studies to be done on these types of systems, which results in an exclusion of this good news from the EEA literature.

Publication Bias could be playing a role, too, where researchers are more likely to submit, and journals are likely to publish studies that report significant effects on salient events compared to studies that find null effects.

From Clark et al., 2023

Finally, the climate reporting media ecosystem is characterized by actors whose explicit mission is to raise awareness of the negative impacts of climate change, and thus, there will be a natural Media Coverage Bias with a tendency to selectively highlight EEA studies where climate change is found to be a larger driver than EEA studies that do not reach such a conclusion. These selection biases are apparent at the aggregate level, but there is also strong evidence of their presence in individual studies.

A more recent specific example suggestive of many of these dynamics is a study, Gilford et al. (2024), titled “Human-caused ocean warming has intensified recent hurricanes”. This study was conducted by three researchers at Climate Central, which summarizes the study’s findings with the following infographic:

From Climate Central press release on Gilford et al. (2024).

Essentially, they claim that climate change is enhancing the intensity of all hurricanes and that the enhancement is quite large: Storms today are calculated to be an entire Category stronger than they would have been in a preindustrial climate.

This is a huge effect, and thus, if it were real, it is reasonable to expect to see clear long-term trends in metrics of tropical cyclone (hurricane) intensity like the accumulated number of major (Category 3+) hurricane days or the accumulated cyclone energy from all tropical cyclones (which is proportional to the square of hurricane windspeed accumulated over their lifetimes). However, any long-term trends in such metrics are subtle at best, both globally and over the North Atlantic.

From Colorado State University Department of Atmospheric Science Tropical Meteorology Project.

So, this is a microcosm of the aforementioned apparent discrepancy between more broad quantifications of changes in extremes and their associated EEA counterparts, and again, I’d argue there are several selection biases at play affecting the production and dissemination of the EEA study.

Let’s start with Choice Bias on methodology. Human-caused warming changes the environment in some ways that work to enhance hurricanes and in other ways that diminish them. The main way that hurricanes are enhanced is via the increase in sea surface temperatures (which provides the fundamental fuel for hurricanes), and the main way that hurricanes are diminished is via changes in atmospheric wind shear and humidity.

The net result of these countervailing factors pulling in opposite directions is that we expect fewer hurricanes overall, but when hurricanes are able to form, they can be stronger than they would otherwise. These factors, though, are small relative to natural random variability, and thus, they are difficult to detect in observations.

However, the Climate Central researchers made the methodological choice
to largely exclude the influence of factors that diminish
hurricane development from the study.

Are these Choice Biases in event type and methodology an accident? There are many reasons to believe they are not.

The research paper itself spells out that the motivation of the study is to “connect the dots” between climate change and hurricanes because “landfalling hurricanes with high intensities—can act as ‘focusing events’ that draw public attention” and that “Increased attention during and in wake of storms creates opportunities for public and private discourse around climate and disaster preparedness.”

Then, there is the extensive media coverage of this study. It was picked up by 134 news outlets and ranked in the 99.95th percentile of research articles (across all journals) of similar age in terms of online attention. Further, it was immediately incorporated into seven Wikipedia articles (likely having high leverage on AI queries, which would make its findings indistinguishable from scientific “fact”). This is affected by the aforementioned Media Coverage Bias, but it is also undoubtedly directly influenced by the efforts of Climate Central, which is explicitly an advocacy organization whose self-described specialty is media placement and dissemination.

The above sheds light on the reasons for certain choice biases in a particular study, but there is plenty of evidence that these selection biases are pervasive in the EEA field. After all, Dr. Myles Allen essentially founded the field with the motivation of answering the question, “Will it ever be possible to sue anyone for damaging the climate?”. This same motivation seems to animate many of the most high-profile scientists in the field today, like Allen’s protege, Dr. Friederike Otto (co-founder and leader of World Weather Attribution). She and her organization are frequently cited as bringing the necessary intellectual authority to credibly sue fossil fuel companies. She states the motivation of her work explicitly:

“Attributing extreme weather events to climate change, as I do
through my work as a climatologist, means we can hold
countries and companies to account for their inaction.”

Given the explicitly stated motivation of those in the EEA field, it is quite reasonable to suppose that there are major selection biases at play, and thus, it is not at all surprising that the collective output of the EEA field would look so different from more broad comprehensive assessments.

2025 Update: Pushing for Climate Diversity

Posted on August 27 by Ron Clutz

Update:

WUWT just published a graph regarding a study of Ocean Air Sheltered (OAS) station records compared to higher temperatures at ocean affected places. The diversity of microclimates is often lost in the concern over global climate change. So this post is pertinent to understanding these complexities.

Background

Amidst all the concerns for social diversity, let’s raise a cry for scientific diversity. No, I am not referring to the gender or racial identities of people doing science, but rather acknowledging the diversity of climates and their divergent patterns over time. The actual climate realities affecting people’s lives are hidden within global averages and abstractions. A previous post Concurrent Warming and Cooling presented research findings that on long time scales maritime climates can shift toward inland patterns including both colder winters and warmer summers.

It occurred to me that Frank Lansner had done studies on weather stations showing differences depending on exposure to ocean breezes or not. That led me to his recent publication Temperature trends with reduced impact of ocean air temperature Lansner and Pederson March 21, 2018. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Abstract

Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds.

Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean air-sheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean.

We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.

As a contrast to the OAS stations, we compare with what we designate as ocean air affected (OAA) stations, which are more exposed to the influence of the ocean, see Figure 1. The optimal OAA locations are defined as positions with potential first contact with ocean air. In general, stations where the location offers no shelter in the directions of predominant winds are best categorized as OAA stations.

Conversely, the optimal OAS area is a lower point surrounded by mountains in all directions. In this case, the existence of predominant wind directions is not needed. Only in locations with a predominant wind direction, the leeward side of the mountains can also form an OAS region.

Figure 2. The optimal OAA and OAS locations with respect to dominating wind direction.

A total of 10 areas were chosen for this work to present the temperature trends of OAS areas (typically valley areas) and OAA areas from Scandinavia, Central Siberia, Central Balkan, Midwest USA, Central China, Pakistan/North India, the Sahel Area, Southern Africa, Central South America, and Southeast Australia. In this work, we have only considered an area as “OAS” or “OAA” if it comprises at least eight independent temperature sets. In the following, temperature data 1900–2010 from individual areas are discussed.

As an example, we show in Figure 3 the results for the Scandinavian area where we have used a total of 49 OAS stations and 18 OAA stations. The large number of stations available is due to the use of meteorological yearbooks as supplement to data sources such as ECA&D climate data and Nordklim database.

Figure 3. OAS and OAA temperature stations, Scandinavia.

The upper set of curves is from the OAS areas: Here the blue lines show one-year mean temperature averages for each temperature station, the red lines show the average of all stations of the area, and the thick black line is a five-year running mean of the station average. The reference period is 1951–1980. The middle set of curves is from the OAA areas. Here the orange lines show one-year mean temperature averages for each temperature station, the red lines show average of the stations of the area, and the thick black line is a five-year running mean of the station average. The reference period is 1951–1980.

On the lower set of curves labeled “OAS vs. OAA areas,” a comparison of the two data sets of stations is shown. The blue lines are the one-year average of OAS stations of the area and the red lines are the one-year average of OAA stations of the area. The reference period is 1995–2010. We note that these Scandinavian OAS stations are not well shielded from easterly winds.

Although easterly winds are not frequent (see Figure 2), the OAS area used cannot be characterized as an optimal OAS area. Despite this, we find a difference between the OAS and OAA area temperature data. While the general five-year running mean temperature curves (left panel in Figure 3) show resemblance in warming/cooling cycles, the OAA stations show less variation than the OAS stations.

We also find the absolute temperature anomalies for the Scandinavian OAS areas deviate from the OAA area with the OAS stations showing less warming than the OAA stations during the 20th century. For the years 1920–1950, we thus find temperatures in the OAS area to be up to 1 K warmer than temperature in the OAA area. In recent years, there is a closer agreement between OAS and OAA trends and even though the Scandinavian OAS data generally are warmer than OAA data for 1920–1950, we also note that in some very cold years, OAS temperatures are slightly colder than the OAA temperatures.

The paper presents all ten regions analyzed, but I will include here the USA example to see how it compares with other depictions of US regions. For example, see the map at the top shows the dramatic difference between temperature records in Eastern versus Western US stations. Here is the assessment from Lansner and Pederson. Note the topographical realities.

For the USA (Figure 6), we defined the OAS area as consisting of eight boxes, each of size 5° X 5°. The boxes were defined as 40–45N X 100–95 W, 40–45N X 95–90W, 35– 40N X 100–95W, 35–40N X 95–90 W, 35–40N X 90–85W, 35–30N X 100– 95W, 35–30N X 95–90W, and 35–30N X 90–85W. A total of 236 temperature stations were used from this area. Full 5 X 5 grids were not found to be suited as OAA areas, but 27 stations indicated on the map were used for the OAA data set. All data were taken from GHCN v2 raw data. The OAS area in the US Midwest is well protected against westerly oceanic (Pacific) winds due to the Rocky Mountains. The US Midwest is also to some degree sheltered against easterly winds due to the Appalachian mountain range. Again the temperature trends from the OAS area as defined above show the 1920–1955 period in most years to be around 1 K warmer than temperature trends from the OAA areas.

Summation

Figure 13. OAS and OAA temperature averages, Northern Hemisphere.

In Figure 13 we have combined average temperature trends for all seven NH OAS areas (blue curves) and OAA areas (brown curves) were areas are divided into low (0–45N) and high (45–90N) latitudes (dark colors are used for low and light colors for high latitudes). Both for the OAS areas and the OAA areas we see that the seven NH areas have similar development of temperature trends for 1900–2010. The larger variation in data from high latitudes (45–90N) is likely to reflect the Arctic amplification of temperature variations. OAS temperature stations further away from the Arctic (0–45N) seem to show less temperature increase during 1980–2010 than the OAS areas most affected by the Arctic (45– 90N). The NH OAS data all reveal a period of heating of the Earth surface 1920–1950 that the OAA data do not reflect well.

Figure 19. OAS and OAA temperatures, all regions.

Conclusion

Bromley et al. raise shifts in seasonality as a factor in climate change. Now Lansner and Pederson show differences in temperature trends due to ocean exposure, and also greater fluctuations with higher latitudes. Note that the cooling in the USA is replicated in the pattern shown worldwide in OAS regions. The key factor is the hotter temperatures prior to 1950s appearing in OAS records but not in OAA records.

Despite all the clamor about global warming (or recently global cooling since the hiatus), it all depends on where you are. Recognizing the diversity of local and regional climates is the sort of climate justice I can support.

Footnote:

I do not subscribe to Arctic “Amplification” to explain latitudinal differences. Since earth’s climate system is always working to transport energy from the equator to poles, any additional heat shows up in higher latitudes by meridional transport. Previous posts have noted how anomalies give a distorted picture since temperatures are more volatile at higher (colder) NH latitudes.

See: Temperature Misunderstandings

Clive Best provides this animation of recent monthly temperature anomalies which demonstrates how most variability in anomalies occur over northern continents.

Green Energy Companies Going Down the Drain

Posted on August 26 by Ron Clutz

Three reports provide data on hollowing out the alternative energy (non-hydrocarbon) sector. Firstly an update from E2 $22 Billion in Clean Energy Projects Cancelled in First Half of 2025; $6.7 Billion Cancelled in June. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Clean Economy Works | total projects cancelled, closed,
downsized by sector Aug. 2022-June 2025

*totals will not match overall figures as some projects are categorized into multiple sectors

Businesses canceled, closed, and scaled back more than $22 billion worth of new factories and clean energy projects in the first half of 2025 after cancelling another $6.7 billion in June alone, according to E2’s latest monthly analysis of clean energy projects tracked by E2 and the Clean Economy Tracker.

The latest wave of cancellations — affecting five battery, storage, and electric vehicle factories in Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Oregon — follows growing uncertainty among businesses as Congress was making the final push to effectively end federal clean energy tax credits. More than 5,000 jobs were lost to the cancellations and scales backs in June, bringing the total number of jobs lost to abandoned projects in 2025 to 16,500.

June’s cancellations were led by major automakers scaling back electric vehicle production investments. General Motors cancelled a $4.3 billion plan to expand its Orion plant in Michigan to build new electric pickups and instead shift its investments there to build 8-cylinder gas vehicles. Additionally, Toyota scaled back a $2.2 billion plan to retool a manufacturing plant in Indiana that was going to build a new three-row electric SUV, consolidating production to its Georgetown, Kentucky plant instead.

Cancellations, Closures, Downsizes

This tracking includes all projects, plants, operations, or expansions that were cancelled or closed since passage of the IRA in August 2022. This does not include announced layoffs that are not associated with a project downsizing unless there is a stated decease in production output. This list also does not include the transfer of project ownership, if production will continue under the new ownership, power purchasing agreements, or other similar type of announcements. Project delays or idling of facilities are not included unless there in an announced decrease in production or investment or unless the project will need to be restarted to proceed in the future.

A second report is from Big Green Machine CLEAN ENERGY MANUFACTURING: TRUMP 47+ 7 MONTHS. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

What has happened to investment in US clean energy manufacturing and supply chains since Trump took office on January 20, 2025? Our Trump + 7 month tracker below was updated on August 20, 2025. You can also read our 6-month report below or download the report.

The Big Green Machine: Trump + 6 months report (released on July 29, 2025, based on data through July 20, 2025).

Since Donald Trump took office on January 20, 2025, newly announced investments in clean energy manufacturing projects have slowed dramatically, while the number of projects that have been paused, canceled, or closed has skyrocketed. Projects are being paused, cancelled, and closed at a rate 6 times more than during the same period in 2024 and 30 times more than during the same period in 2023.

The Big Green Machine tracks investments in the supply chain, from mine to factory, in the wind, solar, batteries, and electric vehicle industries. Over the past six months, 26 projects, totaling $27.6 billion in capital investment and creating 18,849 jobs, have been paused, canceled, or closed. During the same period, 29 new projects were announced, adding up to $3.0 billion in capital investment and 8,334 jobs.

This marks a dramatic reversal from the first six months of 2024. During that period, 54 new projects adding up to $15.9 billion in capital investment and 25,942 new jobs were announced. In comparison, 8 projects adding up to $4.1 billion in capital investment and 3,820 jobs were paused, canceled, or closed during the first six months of 2024.

That does not mean all activity in the clean energy sector has stopped. Since Trump took office, many previously announced projects have broken ground, started pilot production, or moved into full production. By our count, 39 projects adding up to $21.1 billion in capital investment and 25,269 jobs have advanced in the past six months. But the projects that are advancing are, on average, smaller in size than the projects that are slowing.

Other patterns are emerging with respect to which projects are advancing or slowing. Not surprisingly, projects counting on federal support in the form of loans and grants are more likely to be slowing. In addition, our tracking shows that projects located in communities with lower median household incomes and communities classified as disadvantaged are seeing a higher proportion of slowed projects, meaning that communities in need of opportunity are losing out.

Unlike the two above reports focusing on 2025 contractions, the third report from Canary media details the green energy bloodbath last year The cleantech companies that didn’t make it through 2024. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

From carbon removal startups to solar icons, the climate world saw a number of corporate flameouts this year. Here are some takeaways and lessons learned.

Examples included (among many others)

Solar sunsets

Arguably the most shocking cleantech corporate demise of 2024 was that of SunPower, a solar industry icon that grew from humble startup roots to a valuation in the billions, only to file for bankruptcy in August. Even as solar installations smash records in the U.S. and the federal government channels capital into onshoring solar panel production, SunPower found itself undone by China’s industrial policy might and its own boardroom missteps. High interest rates and other policy headwinds, like California’s NEM 3.0, didn’t help. Also Ubiquitous Energy, Toledo Solar

Solar installer bloodbath

High interest rates and rooftop solar incentive shifts in leading states rippled through the long tail of residential solar installers and led to scores of bankruptcies in the past two years, an unprecedented collapse.

Here are a few of the larger casualties from this year: Sunworks, a residential and commercial solar installer, filed for bankruptcy in February. Founded in 2002, Sunworks had developed 224 megawatts of solar projects across 15 states and employed 640 people. Titan Solar operated in 16 states and abruptly shut down its operations in June. Utah-based residential solar company Lumio filed for bankruptcy in September.

Energy storage setbacks

Armed with billions in investor capital, scores of storage startups have been aiming to dethrone energy stalwarts like lithium-ion and diesel generators — but in the words of The Wire’s Omar Little, “If you come at the king, you best not miss.”

These companies missed. Sweden’s Northvolt, once valued by investors at almost $12 billion, filed for bankruptcy in November in the year’s biggest battery bust. Ambri, an energy storage aspirant with technology based on the research of MIT professor Donald Sadoway, declared bankruptcy in May. Richmond, California–based Moxion Power laid off 101 workers in June and shuttered its doors, following a wave of hype for its 75-kilowatt portable lithium-ion batteries that it hoped would replace diesel generators. Two other notable failures in the storage sector: Ionic Materials, a 40-person MIT spin-out developing battery materials, Australian flow battery firm Redflow.

Removing carbon one VC dollar at a time

Running Tide was the largest marine carbon-removal startup and the first to sell ocean carbon credits. Its initial plan of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequestering it in the ocean by growing and sinking kelp morphed into sinking wood chips coated with lime-kiln dust. Running Tide announced that it was folding in June after raising more than $54 million.

Unsustainable aviation

Chasing a clean fuels breakthrough, Fulcrum BioEnergy promised to transform municipal waste into sustainable aviation fuel through a low-emissions gasification process. Instead, the company incinerated hundreds of millions in funding from BP, United Airlines, Cathay Pacific, and Japan Airlines — and hundreds of millions more in municipal bonds. The firm ceased operations in May. Also Universal Hydrogen

Charger bankruptcy

Tritium, a major provider of high-speed EV chargers, went bust in April but found a buyer for its insolvent business in India-based Exicom, which claims it will keep Tritium’s U.S. factory in business. Tritium has sold roughly 13,000 chargers in 47 countries and claimed a 30 percent U.S. market share for direct-current fast chargers in 2023.

Zero to 60 and back to zero with EVs

Luxury EV maker Fisker went bankrupt again; electric-van maker Arrival went bankrupt and sold its assets to another struggling EV maker, Canoo, which is currently furloughing employees; Cake, a Swedish e-motorcycle startup, sold 6,000 bikes but filed for bankruptcy in February after raising more than $75 million.

Arcimoto, Faraday Future, Mullen Automotive, and Workhorse Group are publicly traded EV companies but are facing delisting warnings, paltry revenue, and valuations that are rapidly approaching zero. Nikola stock is down by 90 percent year to date.

Comment

These reports are from green energy enthusiasts and promoters, expressing concerns without questioning the so-called transition to zero carbon. They really do want to pave farmland over with solar and wind installations. The rest of us understand that the whole green economy notion is delusional and needs dismantling ASAP. The creative destruction of these misbegotten enterprises is a step in the right direction.

Canada Provinces Defy Climatists, Opt for Energy Freedom

Posted on August 25 by Ron Clutz

BREAKING! Alberta DROPS BOMBSHELL After Canada REJECTS U.S. Pipeline Deal! The video explains how ordinary Canadians are taking action to reject climatism ideology in favor of energy realism and freedom. The transcript is below in italics with my bolds and added images.

What happens when a single province challenges an entire nation? Alberta just dropped a political bombshell after Ottawa rejected its 10 billion US dollar pipeline deals.

“Today marks an important step forward in uniting our country as Saskatchewan jumps on board with Alberta and Ontario to pursue our shared goals of economic growth, opportunity, and prosperity.” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith

But Premier Danielle Smith isn’t backing down. She’s fighting back with her crossborder energy corridor, striking partnerships with US states and challenging the decision and power of Ottawa.

“Today, we’re signing a memorandum of understanding that makes Saskatchewan an official signatory and partner as we work together on building oil and gas pipelines and expanding trade corridors to global markets.”

This fight isn’t about a single pipeline anymore. It’s a full-blown showdown over the economic soul of Canada. Who really controls the future? Federal climate crusaders in Ottawa or the oil-driven defiance in Alberta? It started quietly. For months Alberta had been negotiating with US refiners and private investors on a bold plan, a new pipeline corridor linking the oil sands to refineries in Montana, North Dakota, and ultimately to the Gulf Coast.

This wasn’t a revival of Keystone XL, but the logic was the same: move more bitumen and synthetic crude, cut rail dependency, and deliver secure Canadian energy to the hungry markets in America. The numbers told the story. This agreement will see our three provinces advance pipelines and pathways to boost exports of homegrown energy, potash, critical minerals, and agricultural products to markets across Canada and across the world.

The proposed cost was between 8 and 10 billion, almost entirely financed by private industry. There were no bailouts and no federal funding. All Alberta asked from Ottawa was a green light on crossborder approval. For Premier Danielle Smith, this wasn’t just about energy. It was about survival.

And if Prime Minister Mark Carney doesn’t want to work with us, it’s not just myself and Scott Moe he’ll have to worry about. He’ll also have to contend with Premier Doug Ford, who has said many times he’ll be all over him like an 800lb gorilla.

So, it’s time to get rid of the bad laws that have harmed Canada’s ability to grow the energy sector and other industries such as mining and manufacturing. The economy of Alberta is built on oil exports. But without enough pipeline capacity, producers were forced to rely on rail. Rail is slower, more expensive, and more dangerous. The delay of one day meant millions lost. Thousands of jobs at risk, and the Albertan communities paying the price.

Industry leaders were optimistic. US refiners in the Midwest and Gulf were eager for Canadian heavy crude, a more stable and cleaner alternative compared to politically volatile suppliers abroad. The environmental analysts even argued the project would cut per barrel emissions by replacing rail transport with efficient modern pipelines. Everything was lined up perfectly.

But then Ottawa said no. The Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected the deal outright. He made it clear no new crossborder pipelines would be approved. But why? The answer was climate. Carney and his government had pledged to lead Canada into a net zero future. New pipelines, federal ministers argued, would lock in emissions, heavy oil production for decades. That was incompatible with the climate commitments and international reputation of Canada.

Behind the scenes, politics also played a role. Quebec and large parts of Ontario, crucial bases of support for federal liberals and centrists, have long opposed the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure. The approval of pipeline in Alberta risked urban climate conscious voters in Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa.

Rejecting it sent a signal the energy future of Canada will be hydrogen,
renewables, and critical minerals, not the oil sands in Alberta.

For Alberta, the message was brutal. It wasn’t just a policy decision. It was a blockade. But Danielle Smith didn’t wait. Within 48 hours, she called an emergency press conference. Standing beside industry leaders and ministers, she declared Alberta would move ahead with or without Ottawa. Smith announced a bold new plan, a provincially backed pipeline corridor fast-tracked under Albertan jurisdiction, financed by private investors, and supported by 1.2 $2 billion in provincial loan guarantees. The construction preparation is expected to begin within 12 months.

Danielle Smith revealed exploratory agreements with the governors of Montana and North Dakota to coordinate crossborder energy projects, trade facilitation, and infrastructure planning. In short, if Ottawa won’t help, Alberta will work directly with the states in the United States. The message was clear. Alberta wasn’t asking anymore. It was acting.

The stakes are enormous. Albertian oil sands directly support over 140,000 jobs and billions of dollars in export earnings. Without pipelines, producers such as Suncor, Cenovis, and Meg Energy face rising transportation costs, reduced competitiveness, and shrinking investment. For workers, the uncertainty is devastating. Thousands of pipe fitters, welders, truck drivers, and construction crews were counting on jobs tied to the $10 billion project. The communities along potential routes were preparing for growth. Now they’re caught between the rejection of Ottawa and Albertan defiance.

But the ripple effects don’t stop in Canada. Smith framed it bluntly. This wasn’t ideology. It was survival. Alberta wasn’t going to stand by while Ottawa, in her words, choked our future. Once she doubled down by raising the stakes even higher. Alberta would consider tapping the Alberta pension plan to finance its energy infrastructure. The logic? If Ottawa won’t support their priorities, then Albertans’ money should.

The bombshell ignited fury across the West. Saskatchewan and Ontario quickly signed memorandums of understanding with Alberta, pledging to expand pipelines, rail exports, and energy trade. Wexit groups, which had been dormant for a long time, roared back online. Conservative premiers in Saskatchewan and BC echoed the defiance of Smith, accusing Ottawa of sabotaging resource provinces. The Ottawan response was predictable. Federal ministers doubled down on climate goals. So, no more pipelines and no more fossil expansion, only renewables, critical minerals, and electrification. The Canadian government painted Albertan response as reckless and accused Smith of manufacturing a crisis for political gain.

But here’s the truth. This isn’t just a policy dispute anymore. It’s a battle for the Canadian economic soul. The question is, how far will this go? Because what happens next could reshape Canada forever. The fallout is already shaking the political map of Canada. In Western Canada, calls for autonomy are louder than ever. Saskatchewan’s premier joined Smith in declaring that energy independence is no longer optional. It’s survival. Even Ontario, often aligned with Ottawa, signed agreements to boost pipeline and mineral trade with Alberta.

For many, this is more than economics. It’s about fairness. Albertans see the wealth of their province generated from oil exports funding national programs while Ottawa refuses to support the very industry that creates that wealth. The rejection crystallized a long-standing grievance that the federal government takes from Alberta but never gives back.

The tension is spilling into Parliament. Conservative MPs accused Carney of abandoning Canadian workers to please foreign investors and climate lobbyists. They warned that the stance of Ottawa weakens national unity and strengthens separatist sentiment. Meanwhile, Block Quebecois MPs cheered the rejection, saying Alberta should stop holding Canada hostage with oil. The divide is sharper than ever.

South of the border, the reaction is more pragmatic. Governors in Montana and North Dakota see opportunity. By partnering directly with Alberta, they can secure stable energy supplies and create jobs in pipeline construction, refining, and logistics. Quietly, US officials are already signaling support.

But this puts Ottawa in a bind. If Alberta succeeds in striking crossborder deals without federal blessing, it challenges the very structure of Canadian federalism. The energy and trade are constitutionally shared powers. But what happens if a province pushes ahead anyway? The legal challenges are inevitable. Ottawa may try to block Alberta in court, but that could trigger an even deeper political backlash.

So, for now, Ottawa is betting on a green future. Alberta is betting on oil. Both sides are digging in. If Alberta pulls this off, it could change the balance of power in Canada forever. If it fails, the province risks isolation, lost investment, and a deeper rift with Ottawa.

Surplus Arctic Ice late August 2025

Posted on August 23 by Ron Clutz

After a sub-par March maximum, by end of May 2025 Arctic ice closed the gap with the 19-year average. Then in June the gap reopened and in July the melting pace matched the average, abeit four days in advance of average. In mid-August MASIE showed the Arctic ice extent matching the 19-year average. Now with a week to go Arctic ice has been above average for the last five days, by over +200k km2 yesterday.

During August the average year loses 1.9M km2 of ice extent. MASIE on day 213 was 308k km2 down, and the gap closed steadily, going into surplus on day 230. Note 2020 and 2024 were well below average mid-August. 2024 ended nearly average, while 2020 went down almost off the chart. Meanwhile SII v.4 started August ~400k km2 lower than MASIE, increasing to 600k km2 yesterday. More on what happened to SII in footnote.

The regional distribution of ice extents is shown in the table below. (Bering and Okhotsk seas are excluded since both are now virtually open water.)

Region	2025234	Ave. Day 234	2025-Ave.	2020234	2025-2020
(0) Northern_Hemisphere	5665223	5452280	212942	4947191	718032
(1) Beaufort_Sea	912878	636530	276349	802063	110815
(2) Chukchi_Sea	456078	382204	73873	382512	73565
(3) East_Siberian_Sea	597683	465057	132626	248241	349443
(4) Laptev_Sea	210514	216232	-5718	36330	174184
(5) Kara_Sea	3533	70094	-66561	23616	-20083
(6) Barents_Sea	0	18103	-18103	342	-342
(7) Greenland_Sea	124456	195018	-70562	227692	-103236
(8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence	63370	40548	22822	13063	50308
(9) Canadian_Archipelago	371460	348507	22954	356783	14677
(10) Hudson_Bay	21111	34968	-13858	35329	-14218
(11) Central_Arctic	2902590	3043900	-141310	2820550	82040

The table shows large surpluses in Eurasian basins Beaufort, Chukchi and E. Siberian, more than offsetting deficits in Central Arctic, Kara and Greenland seas. Hudson Bay is mostly open water at this time of year. 2025 exceeds the average ice extents by 212k km2, or 4%, and is 718k km2 greater than 2020, or 0.7 Wadhams of ice extent.

Why is this important? All the claims of global climate emergency depend on dangerously higher temperatures, lower sea ice, and rising sea levels. The lack of additional warming prior to 2023 El Nino is documented in a post SH Drives UAH Temps Cooler July 2025.

The lack of acceleration in sea levels along coastlines has been discussed also. See Observed vs. Imagined Sea Levels 2023 Update

Also, a longer term perspective is informative:

post-glacial_sea_level

Footnote Regarding SII v.4

NSDIC acknowledged my query regarding the SII (Sea Ice Index) dataset. While awaiting an explanation I investigated further. My last download of the SII Daily Arctic Ice Extents was on July 30, meaning that the most recent data in that file was day 210, July 29. The header on that file was Sea_Ice_Index_Daily_Extent_G02135_v3.

Then on August 1, the downloaded file had the heading Sea_Ice_Index_Daily_Extent_G02135_v4. So it appears that these are now the values from a new version of SII. As I wrote in my query, since March 14 all of the values for Arctic Ice Extents are lower in this new record. The graph above shows the implications for August as an example of estimates from SIIv.4

The change started in January 2025 and will be the basis for future reporting. The logic for this is presented in this document: Sea Ice Index Version 4 Analysis

In June 2025, NSIDC was informed that access to data from the Special Sensor Microwave
Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) onboard the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)
satellites would end on July 31 (NSIDC, 2025). To prepare for this, we rapidly developed version
4 of the Sea Ice Index. This new version transitions from using sea ice concentration fields
derived from SSMIS data as input to using fields derived from the Advanced Microwave
Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor onboard the Global Change Observation Mission – W1
(GCOM-W1) satellite. On 29 July 2025, we learned that the Defense Department decision to terminate access to DMSP data had been reversed and that data will continue to be available until September 2026.

We are publishing Version 4, however, for these reasons:

• The SSMIS instruments are well past their designed lifespan and a transition to
AMSR2 is inevitable. Unless the sensors fail earlier, the DoD will formally end the
program in September 2026.
• Although access of SSMIS will continue through September 2026, the Fleet
Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center (FNMOC), where SSMIS data
from the DMSP satellite are downloaded, made an announcement that “Support
will be on a best effort basis and should be considered data of opportunity.” This
means that SSMIS data will likely contain data gaps.
• We have developer time to make this transition now and may not in the future.
• We are confident that Version 4 data are commensurate in accuracy to those
provided by Version 3.

No Climate Crisis in Texas

Posted on August 21 by Ron Clutz

CO2 Coalition analyzed the data and concluded that Texas has no climate crisis to fear. The report is Texas and Climate Change: No Climate Crisis in the Lone Star State. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report will examine the scientific basis for claims of harmful effects from climate change in Texas. Assertions have been made that many areas around the world are experiencing negative impacts from unusual and unprecedented warming driven by increasing human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Texas is no different. Promotion of the need to achieve “net zero” emissions is predicated on fear of existing and future devastating calamities resulting from CO₂-enhanced warming.

The Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) report (USGCRP, 2023) says that climate change is “putting us at risk from climate hazards that degrade our lands and waters, quality of life, health and well-being, and cultural interconnectedness.” The NCA5 report lists “warmer temperatures, more erratic precipitation, and sea level rise,” as well as “drier conditions” and “extreme heat and high humidity,” as the “climate hazards” affecting the Southern Great Plains, which encompasses the State of Texas (Figure 1).

In addition, Texas A&M University has published a Texas-specific report, Future Trends of Extreme Weather in Texas (Nielsen-Gammon et al., 2024), which warns of future harm to the citizens of Texas from man-made climate change. Predicted effects include increasing temperature, precipitation, drought, floods, storms, sea-level rise and wildfires.

Within this report, we analyze scientific data from various sources, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and reports published in peer-reviewed journals.

Based on these data, we arrived at the following key findings:

The temperature in Texas has shown no unprecedented or unusual warming, despite
increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂). Recent temperatures in Texas are similar
to those found more than 100 years ago.
The annual number of 100 °F days in Texas has an overall decreasing trend.
Texas has had a modest increase of 0.0245 inches per year of precipitation during 1850–
2023, which means that Texas is in no immediate danger of becoming drier.
Droughts in Texas are not becoming more severe or numerous.
Tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods are not becoming more frequent in Texas.
Sea-level rise and coastal subsidence are not threatening or inundating the Texan coast.
Wildfires are not becoming more frequent or severe in the United States.
Air quality in the United States is generally good and getting better.
Agriculture in Texas is thriving.
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is essential and beneficial for life on Earth, as CO₂ greens the Earth
and more CO₂ allows plants to grow bigger, produce more food and better resist
drought.

The evidence presented here is clear: there is no climate crisis in Texas. Not only is CO₂ beneficial, but it is essential for life on Earth. Therefore, any measures for combating a purported climate crisis and for reducing CO₂ emissions are not only unnecessary and costly but would also cause considerable harm to agriculture with no benefit.

The complete publication is Texas and Climate Change which includes exhibits like these:

July 2025 Ocean SSTs: NH Warms Slightly

Posted on August 20 by Ron Clutz

The best context for understanding decadal temperature changes comes from the world’s sea surface temperatures (SST), for several reasons:

The ocean covers 71% of the globe and drives average temperatures;
SSTs have a constant water content, (unlike air temperatures), so give a better reading of heat content variations;
A major El Nino was the dominant climate feature in recent years.

Previously I used HadSST3 for these reports, but Hadley Centre has made HadSST4 the priority, and v.3 will no longer be updated. I’ve grown weary of waiting each month for HadSST4 updates, so this report is based on data from OISST2.1. This dataset uses the same in situ sources as HadSST along with satellite indicators. Importantly, it produces daily anomalies from baseline period 1982-2010. The data is available at Climate Reanalyzer (here). Product guide is (here). The charts and analysis below is produced from the current data.

The Current Context

The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in OISST2.1 starting in 2015 through July 2025. A global cooling pattern is seen clearly in the Tropics since its peak in 2016, joined by NH and SH cycling downward since 2016, followed by rising temperatures in 2023 and 2024 and cooling in 2025.

Note that in 2015-2016 the Tropics and SH peaked in between two summer NH spikes. That pattern repeated in 2019-2020 with a lesser Tropics peak and SH bump, but with higher NH spikes. By end of 2020, cooler SSTs in all regions took the Global anomaly well below the mean for this period. A small warming was driven by NH summer peaks in 2021-22, but offset by cooling in SH and the tropics, By January 2023 the global anomaly was again below the mean.

Then in 2023-24 came an event resembling 2015-16 with a Tropical spike and two NH spikes alongside, all higher than 2015-16. There was also a coinciding rise in SH, and the Global anomaly was pulled up to 0.8°C in 2023, ~0.2° higher than the 2015 peak. Then NH started down autumn 2023, followed by Tropics and SH descending 2024 to the present. During 2 years of cooling in SH and the Tropics, the Global anomaly came back down, led by NH cooling the last 12 months from its 1.0°C peak last August, down to 0.5C in April this year.. Further declines in Tropics and SH offset NH warming in May and June, and now in July 2025 a slight upward bump in Global anomaly over 0.6°C.

Comment:

The climatists have seized on this unusual warming as proof their Zero Carbon agenda is needed, without addressing how impossible it would be for CO2 warming the air to raise ocean temperatures. It is the ocean that warms the air, not the other way around. Recently Steven Koonin had this to say about the phonomenon confirmed in the graph above:

El Nino is a phenomenon in the climate system that happens once every four or five years. Heat builds up in the equatorial Pacific to the west of Indonesia and so on. Then when enough of it builds up it surges across the Pacific and changes the currents and the winds. As it surges toward South America it was discovered and named in the 19th century It iswell understood at this point that the phenomenon has nothing to do with CO2.

Now people talk about changes in that phenomena as a result of CO2 but it’s there in the climate system already and when it happens it influences weather all over the world. We feel it when it gets rainier in Southern California for example. So for the last 3 years we have been in the opposite of an El Nino, a La Nina, part of the reason people think the West Coast has been in drought.

It has now shifted in the last months to an El Nino condition that warms the globe and is thought to contribute to this Spike we have seen. But there are other contributions as well. One of the most surprising ones is that back in January of 2022 an enormous underwater volcano went off in Tonga and it put up a lot of water vapor into the upper atmosphere. It increased the upper atmosphere of water vapor by about 10 percent, and that’s a warming effect, and it may be that is contributing to why the spike is so high.

A longer view of SSTs

To enlarge, open image in new tab.

The graph above is noisy, but the density is needed to see the seasonal patterns in the oceanic fluctuations. Previous posts focused on the rise and fall of the last El Nino starting in 2015. This post adds a longer view, encompassing the significant 1998 El Nino and since. The color schemes are retained for Global, Tropics, NH and SH anomalies. Despite the longer time frame, I have kept the monthly data (rather than yearly averages) because of interesting shifts between January and July. 1995 is a reasonable (ENSO neutral) starting point prior to the first El Nino.

The sharp Tropical rise peaking in 1998 is dominant in the record, starting Jan. ’97 to pull up SSTs uniformly before returning to the same level Jan. ’99. There were strong cool periods before and after the 1998 El Nino event. Then SSTs in all regions returned to the mean in 2001-2.

SSTS fluctuate around the mean until 2007, when another, smaller ENSO event occurs. There is cooling 2007-8, a lower peak warming in 2009-10, following by cooling in 2011-12. Again SSTs are average 2013-14.

Now a different pattern appears. The Tropics cooled sharply to Jan 11, then rise steadily for 4 years to Jan 15, at which point the most recent major El Nino takes off. But this time in contrast to ’97-’99, the Northern Hemisphere produces peaks every summer pulling up the Global average. In fact, these NH peaks appear every July starting in 2003, growing stronger to produce 3 massive highs in 2014, 15 and 16. NH July 2017 was only slightly lower, and a fifth NH peak still lower in Sept. 2018.

The highest summer NH peaks came in 2019 and 2020, only this time the Tropics and SH were offsetting rather adding to the warming. (Note: these are high anomalies on top of the highest absolute temps in the NH.) Since 2014 SH has played a moderating role, offsetting the NH warming pulses. After September 2020 temps dropped off down until February 2021. In 2021-22 there were again summer NH spikes, but in 2022 moderated first by cooling Tropics and SH SSTs, then in October to January 2023 by deeper cooling in NH and Tropics.

Then in 2023 the Tropics flipped from below to well above average, while NH produced a summer peak extending into September higher than any previous year. Despite El Nino driving the Tropics January 2024 anomaly higher than 1998 and 2016 peaks, following months cooled in all regions, and the Tropics continued cooling in April, May and June along with SH dropping. After July and August NH warming again pulled the global anomaly higher, September through January 2025 resumed cooling in all regions, continuing February through April 2025, with little change in May,June and July despite upward bumps in NH.

What to make of all this? The patterns suggest that in addition to El Ninos in the Pacific driving the Tropic SSTs, something else is going on in the NH. The obvious culprit is the North Atlantic, since I have seen this sort of pulsing before. After reading some papers by David Dilley, I confirmed his observation of Atlantic pulses into the Arctic every 8 to 10 years.

Contemporary AMO Observations

Through January 2023 I depended on the Kaplan AMO Index (not smoothed, not detrended) for N. Atlantic observations. But it is no longer being updated, and NOAA says they don’t know its future. So I find that ERSSTv5 AMO dataset has current data. It differs from Kaplan, which reported average absolute temps measured in N. Atlantic. “ERSST5 AMO follows Trenberth and Shea (2006) proposal to use the NA region EQ-60°N, 0°-80°W and subtract the global rise of SST 60°S-60°N to obtain a measure of the internal variability, arguing that the effect of external forcing on the North Atlantic should be similar to the effect on the other oceans.” So the values represent SST anomaly differences between the N. Atlantic and the Global ocean.

The chart above confirms what Kaplan also showed. As August is the hottest month for the N. Atlantic, its variability, high and low, drives the annual results for this basin. Note also the peaks in 2010, lows after 2014, and a rise in 2021. Then in 2023 the peak was holding at 1.4C before declining. An annual chart below is informative:

Note the difference between blue/green years, beige/brown, and purple/red years. 2010, 2021, 2022 all peaked strongly in August or September. 1998 and 2007 were mildly warm. 2016 and 2018 were matching or cooler than the global average. 2023 started out slightly warm, then rose steadily to an extraordinary peak in July. August to October were only slightly lower, but by December cooled by ~0.4C.

Then in 2024 the AMO anomaly started higher than any previous year, then leveled off for two months declining slightly into April. Remarkably, May showed an upward leap putting this on a higher track than 2023, and rising slightly higher in June. In July, August and September 2024 the anomaly declined, and despite a small rise in October, ended close to where it began. Note 2025 started much lower than the previous year and headed sharply downward, well below the previous two years, then in May, June and now July aligning with 2010.

The pattern suggests the ocean may be demonstrating a stairstep pattern like that we have also seen in HadCRUT4.

The rose line is the average anomaly 1982-1996 inclusive, value -0.10. The orange line the average 1982-2025, value 0.13, also for the period 1997-2012. The red line is 2015-2025, value 0.46. As noted above, these rising stages are driven by the combined warming in the Tropics and NH, including both Pacific and Atlantic basins.

Curiosity: Solar Coincidence?

The news about our current solar cycle 25 is that the solar activity is hitting peak numbers now and higher than expected 1-2 years in the future. As livescience put it: Solar maximum could hit us harder and sooner than we thought. How dangerous will the sun’s chaotic peak be? Some charts from spaceweatherlive look familar to these sea surface temperature charts.

Summary

The oceans are driving the warming this century. SSTs took a step up with the 1998 El Nino and have stayed there with help from the North Atlantic, and more recently the Pacific northern “Blob.” The ocean surfaces are releasing a lot of energy, warming the air, but eventually will have a cooling effect. The decline after 1937 was rapid by comparison, so one wonders: How long can the oceans keep this up? And is the sun adding forcing to this process?

uss-pearl-harbor-deploys-global-drifter-buoys-in-pacific-ocean

USS Pearl Harbor deploys Global Drifter Buoys in Pacific Ocean

About That Annoying DOE Climate Review

Posted on August 18 by Ron Clutz

When it comes to the recent DOE Climate Review, legacy media coverage is lop-sided and limited to declarations of disgust and dismissal from climate insiders. Andrew Bolt in Australia is an exception, interested as he is in why climatists find the study so annoying. So his interview with one of the authors explores the controversy and why the media is averting their attention.

For those preferring to read, below is a transcript from the closed captions in italics wtih my bolds and added images. AB refers to Bolt and SK to Koonin

AB: I’m amazed how little attention the media has given to a new report on global warming I mentioned last week. I’m not that surprised to be honest. I mean, I’ve seen how the media ignores proof that the warming scare is grossly exaggerated, but I think you deserve to know more about this report.

In the United States, Chris Wright is the brilliant gas tycoon who now leads the US Department of Energy. He hired five very prominent climate experts to report back to the government on what the climate was really doing and whether we could trust predictions by the most popular climate models that we’re facing dangerous warming of at least 3 degrees this century and we’re already copying all sorts of climate disasters.

Well, the authors’ conclusion was that the climate models are actually unreliable. They’re all over the shop. They predict probably one degree more warming than is likely and we aren’t getting many of the predicted climate disasters. Plus, global warming also has benefits that are often ignored, especially a big increase in trees and crops that we’ve been seeing, a greening of the planet.

And in this report, the authors sum it all up like this. models, the climate models and experience suggests that carbon dioxide induced warming may be less damaging economically than commonly believed and excessively aggressive mitigation policies, you might include our own net zero schemes, could prove more detrimental than beneficial. [See DOE Climate Team: Twelve Keys in Assessing Climate Change]

So, you can understand why the authors have since been absolutely trashed for daring to doubt the climate scare and upsetting the climate industry. They’ve been called all sorts of names painted as fools, frauds, Donald Trump Toadies, even Stalinists, would you believe? But don’t be fooled by the abuse because the five authors are in fact very prominent experts. Professor emeritus Judith Curry has published 192 peer-reviewed papers on the climate. Dr. Roy Spencer, NASA senior scientist runs probably the most accurate measure of world temperature. Professor Ross McKitrick is an expert reviewer of the last three reports of the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change). And distinguished professor John Christie, is a former lead author of an IPCC report. I mean, these are very serious people.

Plus Steven Koonin. He’s a physicist and former under secretary of science for President Barack Obama, a Democrat. And I am joined by Steven, Steve thank you so much for your time. Why did you and the other four experts behind this report actually agree to do it when you must have known the climate industry and the media would really go after you?

SK: Indeed. But you know, all five of us scientists have long felt that the science was misrepresented to the public and the decision makers, and we wanted to do our best to set the record straight.

AB: Well, on many points your report agrees with what I’ll call the consensus, the alarmist position, perhaps the position of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You say, “Yes, global warming is real. Yes, it’s a problem. Yes, it’s caused in part by humans.” Now, tell us where you disagree with this consensus.

SK: Well, you know, people have said 95% of our report agrees with or is taken right out of the IPCC. It’s just that there are aspects of what the consensus says that do not find their way to the public. For example:

♦ There are no detectable trends in the great majority of extreme weather types.

♦ The models that we use to project climates into the future are demonstrably deficient. They’re in many ways all over the place in terms of their projections. And,

♦ The projected impacts of future climate change, even using those deficient models, are minimal.

These are very important central points that are there in the report
but do not make their way into the public discussion.

AB: You actually point out that the models tend to run hot, as in predict more warming than we’ve had. They’re unreliable. A number of basing false assumptions of how much emissions we’re going to get. You actually predict almost one degree less warming over the century than the IPCC model consensus. How important is that?

SK: Well, to be clear, we don’t predict. We simply cite and assess the work of others. But certainly, if the warming is a degree less than what the IPCC consensus says, that’s a big deal.

AB: And what about the climate disasters? I mean, every time like we’ve got it right now, you know, we’ve got some algae blooming off the South Australian coast. Global warming. We get heavy rain, global warming. We get a drought, global warming. How much influence has man-made warming really had from the work that you’ve done in this report? How much has it really influenced the natural disasters we tend to see?

SK: Yeah, you know, people have a very short memory for weather disasters. There’s a lovely example that turned up at the beginning of July, having to do with the floods in Texas that we that were a terrible tragedy. But if you look back in the records, you can find the same kind of event happening in the same place in 1900. And of course, human influences on the climate were much smaller in 1900. And so you have a very hard time to logically attributing the recent disaster to carbon dioxide.

The same is true for many other severe weather phenomena.
They happened in the past. They’re just relatively rare. And so
we get surprised when we see them happen in the present day.

AB: Yeah. I noticed for instance in your report you say the number of heat waves in America actually peaked nearly 100 years ago.

SK: The number of heat waves that were striking America at the time, and what we see now is much less, you know. The damning thing about the heat waves is that we really don’t understand why the 30s were so much warmer than it has been in many subsequent decades. And that speaks to our rather poor understanding of the ways in which the climate varies.

AB: I think the real thing about your report that’s annoying so many people in the climate industry is this. You say the warming will be less than what most people are claiming. You say the disasters from the warming we’ve seen are basically exaggerated. They’re not that many that you can point to. And the the attempts we make to stop all this are very expensive. And well, do they really work? Isn’ it the takeaway here, that it might not actually be worth trying to stop what isn’t the the climate disaster that many claim.

SK: Absolutely. You know, in deciding what to do, we have to balance the hazards, the certainties and uncertainties in the changing climate against other considerations. Like the world needs more and more energy, and in deciding what to do you have to look at the costs. Are they going to be effective? What about equity between generations, between countries, and so on. It’s not simply that, oh my god, we’ve broken the climate and we’ve got to fix it. And I do think some people get annoyed when we start to expose those nuances of the situation.

AB: Oh yes. So you’ve really offended in the church of climate. And of course you also stress what’s undeniably true. The greening of the planet is actually a benefit of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. More trees, more plants, more food.

SK: Agricultural yields have in fact doubled over the last 60 years or so. And a good fraction of that, NASA says 75% is attributable to higher carbon dioxide levels. You know, if you look inside a hot house, we put the carbon dioxide levels typically up to about 1,200 parts per million, which is just about three times what you find in the atmosphere even now.

AB: Now, you’ve come under massive attack, of course, Steve Koonin. I mean, environmental groups are even suing to censor the report. You’ve got media outlets of the left demonizing you, running so-called fact checks. I’ve had a look at a few, and they’re not persuasive. Some climate scientists are abusing you, claiming, you know, the group of you are just handpicked skeptics, even though you used to be with the Obama administration. Have there been any criticisms of your report that you think, “Yep, that’s fairenough. we’ve goofed here or we haven’t taken this into consideration. Any criticism you think you can you should take on the chin?

SK: Well, we’ve seen one already that we basically made a a typographical error in one of the footnotes. We have acknowledged that to the person who pointed it out and of course we will fix it. But you know, we’re refraining right now from looking in detail at the criticisms till they come in over the next couple weeks through the public portal. Then as we have promised, we will deal with every serious criticism seriously and like good scientists we will modify the report as might be warranted from those criticisms.

AB: Steve Koonin, you’ve been fighting the alarmism for some time now. I think this is your your weightiest blow against the scaremongering. So congratulations and thank you so much for your time.

	oldbrew on EU Climatists Backpedaling
	Ron Clutz on Be Grateful for the Warming We…
	beththeserf on Be Grateful for the Warming We…
	Carney Directs Canad… on On Energy, Carney the Wrong Ma…
	Carney Directs Canad… on Canada PM Carney Floats Imagin…

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Month: August 2025