10/14/2025 – Climate- Science.press

Slicing the earth to study Cloud Fraction and VPD.

A global map of cloud cover, showing various patterns of clouds across different regions of the Earth in shades of blue and white.

By: Charles Blaisdell PhD ChE

Abstract

According to many sources, the earth’s Cloud Fraction, CF, is the major source of climate change uncertainty. Cloud Fraction varies a lot from northern hemisphere to southern hemisphere and in-between. Global measurement of CF has a narrow range (64% to 60%). With accuracy challenging climate change models. This essay will slice the earth by latitude and analyze the larger cloud fraction range (82% to 52%) and vapor pressure deficit, VPD. The results show the logical correlation of sun angle to cloud fraction, VPD, and Enthalpy, En, and an unexpected correlation to land fraction. The land fraction correlation is most likely related to the lower water evaporation (per unit of global surface) from land vs ocean. On a global basis land fraction is constant implying that any change in cloud fraction or VPD is related to a change in land’s ET.

Resent research by H. Wu et al (2023), (2), and H Liu et al (2022), (1) have uncovered the effects of El Nino and La Nina on cloud fraction. This essay will show these perturbations in the cloud fraction do not affect the albedo, VPD, or En.

The H. Liu et al paper (1) also shows land moisture is related to climate change. Water evaporation change from land is the basis of the Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW, theory (and model), (3). Global VPD and En are the main variables in the CRGW, theory of climate change.

Introduction

Climate change occurs when the radiation to the earth’s surface does not match the radiation back to space. Cloud reflectivity and surface reflectivity (albedo) are the main measurements of the total radiation to the surface. Cloud reflectivity being larger than surface reflectivity. Total cloud fraction has many sub reflectivity components (all contributing to the uncertainty): Type, height, density, degree of partly cloudy, and probably some others (this author is not a cloud expert, please excuse oversimplification of a complex subject).

Clouds are a small mass of the earth’s total ET mass, but very controlling part of the water cycle. Water evaporated from the oceans and land by the sun’s radiation is a major part of the water cycle. Oceans have the largest part of the cycle.

The basic mechanism of cloud formation is the cooling of moist air as it rises (or meets cooler air or lower pressure air or is forced up) and condense and makes clouds and possibly rain. Where clouds form depends on the global air circulation and where the evaporation of water occurred. Therefore, the main variables of cloud formation are temperature, pressure, and specific humidity. Dewpoint is one measure of probability of cloud formation. Vapor Pressure Deficit, VPD, is another way of looking at dewpoint. (Particulates or aerosols in the air can promote cloud formation. Particulate free air can be super saturated and not form a cloud.) VPD is defined as the difference between the saturated vapor pressure and the actual partial pressure of water.

The equations used in this essay for calculating VPD and En at 1000mb are:

Water saturation pressure, Pws, is from Vaisala Oyj (2013), (4):

Pws = 6.116441*10^((Temp * 7.591386/(240.7263+Temp)))

(in hPa) Eq 1

(Note: the above is not an Arrhenius equation but give similar results.)

Water vapor, Pw, pressure is from Vaisala Oyj (2013) (4):

Pw = SH *1000/(621.9907+SH	(in hPa) Eq 2
VPD = Pws – Pw	in hPa) Eq 3

Enthalpy, En, Vaisala Oyj (2013) (4):

En = Temp * (1.006+0.00189*SH)+2.501*SH

(in kJ/kg (da) ) Eq 4

These equations are not in Clausius–Clapeyron format but simplified for more convenient use with water

The source of water for clouds is evaporation from land and oceans. The dominate evaporation variable is the sun angle (followed by cloud fraction): the more orthogonal and the larger the area the more evaporation. From land the evaporation is from lakes, rivers, groundwater, and vegetation, and all together is called evapotranspiration, ET. For simplicity this essay will use the term ET for all evaporation of water land or ocean. The ET (per unit area of earth) from oceans is 6.45 (1000km^3/% of earth) and from land 2.79 (1000km^3/% of earth), 2.3 times smaller (from data in K. Trenberth et al (2011), (10)). Therefore, it is suspected that the size of land in a slice of earth may influence cloud formation, VPD, and En.

Global Specific Humidity, SH, is proportional to Global ET and the slice data (Google it). This essay will use ET and SH interchangeably since for the most part all the graphs deal with multipoint averages and not specific points. The SH and temperature data is for 1000mb from Physical Science Laboratory, PSL (6). Higher altitude PSL data all have very good correlation to PSL 1000mb data (not shown too many graphs already)

The preferred indicator of the probability of cloud formation is the Vapor Pressure Deficit, VPD. VPD can be measured at a single point or altitude or A representative average of many points VPDs can measure the VPD of a slice of the earth, hemisphere, or the whole earth.

The earth’s Enthalpy, En, has been shown, (9) to be related to the outgoing, LW, radiation, OLR. VPD and Enthalpy are strongly correlated. For atmospheric En, changes in En are changes in OLR radiation.

For incoming short wave radiation, ISR, the albedo (fraction of ISR reflected) from Loeb (2021), (9), and Dubal et al (2022), (7), will be used as the bests measure of ISR for comparison to cloud fraction, VPD, and En.

H. Wu et al (2023), (1), using reanalyzed data set, ERA5, has already done similar earth slicing studies to reveal cloud fraction, CF, changes with ocean vs land and is influenced by EL Nino and La Nina.

H Liu et al (2022), (2), continued with ERA5 data to show a decrease in specific humidity, (SH), correlation to CF as well as H. Wu observation of land vs ocean differences and El Nino and La Nina influence.

Cloud data has been re-calculated by many researchers, this essay will use Climate Explorer, CE, (5) data for it’s graphs. Climate Explorer and ERA5 comparisons are shown in Figure 1. The shift in both CE and ERA5 data in about 2000 is clearly seen.

Line graph showing the relationship between cloud fraction and year based on Climate Explorer and ERA5 data, with annotations indicating an El Nino La Nina shift. — Figure 1. Comparison of Climate Explorer and ERA5 data

El Nino and La Nina (unpredictable weather patterns, see Figure 2) in the southern Pacific Ocean were correlated to perturbations in cloud cover (1) (2). The contiguous large shifts from El Nino to La Nina were suspected to be related to cloud fraction shifts. Encouraging the search for better predictors of radiation to the earth’s surface. (For further information on El Nino and La Nina please consult the internet.)

Graph displaying the ONI Index related to El Nino and La Nina events, showing fluctuations suspected to influence cloud fraction perturbations from 1950 to 2015. — Figure 2. Internet graph of El Nino and El Nina perturbations

Methods

Temperature and specific humidity, SH, data from Physical Science Laboratory (6), PSL, for each chosen slice of the earth, VPD, and En were calculated. Cloud fraction data for each slice of the earth was obtained from Climate Explorer and ERA5 data in H. Liu (2023) et al (2).

The slice land fraction was obtained from an internet graph. Slice fractions were estimated for each slice, see Figure 3.

Graph illustrating the global land fraction versus latitude, showing the estimated fraction of land in various latitude zones. — Figure 3. Slice of the earth vs fraction that is land (graph from internet red lines from this essay)

Results

The expected horseshoe plots of temperature, cloud present, VPD, and Enthalpy are shown in Figure 4 (A,B,C,D). Two time periods (start of global warming and current) also plotted in Figure 4 showing where and when the most change occurred. Note that for temperature, VPD, and En the most change occurred in the middle to northern latitudes, while little change in cloud fraction is indicated there but the cloud change is indicated toward the poles. The gap in the curves for temperature, VPD, and En is wider in the northern hemisphere. The northern hemisphere gets more sun and has more land.

Graph showing the relationship between latitude slice and slice temperature, highlighting data from 1970 to 2024. — Figure 4 (A,B,C,D). Composite graph of Temperature, A, Cloud Percent, B, VPD, C, Enthalpy, D, from earth slicing.

Plotting sun angle instead of latitude range gives two points for each angle which should be the same if sun angle was the only variable related to cloud fraction. In Figure 5, VPD should relate to Cloud Fraction (increasing VPD decrease Cloud Fraction) and Enthalpy (increasing En increases LW radiation out). The Enthalpy correlation is Figure 5 are good for VPD vs En (they should be – they use the same data in different formulas). The correlation of VPD vs cloud percent is not as strong as expected. One point gives a clue to a possible why. The red circled data point is for a slice that has little to no land in the slice.

Graph depicting the relationship between sun angle and cloud percentage, including a highlighted slice with very little land. The graph shows two distinct trends for cloud percent relative to sun angle and graphs enthalpy measurements. — Figure 5. VPD vs CF and En.

To investigate the land correlation further a two variable linear regression table was created from the data in Figure 5, see Table T1.

Table displaying variable data related to land fraction, sun angle, Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD), and other output values. — Table 1 Data from Figure 5 for Regression analysis

The results (see attachment here) of the regression analysis show that the R^2 of the expected sun angle vs cloud percent is only 0.30, when land fraction of the slice is added the R^ jumps to 0.83; therefore, land fraction is playing a role (statically) in the cloud fraction of the slice. Sun angle and land fraction corelate to VPD better than to cloud fraction with an R^2 of 0.90. Enthalpy had the best correlation to sun angle and land with an R^2 of 0.95. Since Enthalpy has been correlated to outgoing LW, OLR, radiation implies that in addition to the expected slice correlation of OLR to sun angle there is also a correlation to land fraction in the slice. That land fraction in the slice has two components related to cloud fraction: physical area and ET. The sliced profiles shown in Figure 4 (A, B, C, D) show the shift in slice data with time. Since the land fraction area is not changing during the time change, this implies that the ET must have changed (ET decreased on land). On a global basis, CRGW theory (3) mathematically shows how this land decrease in ET can cause a global increase in ET and global warming.

The 20 years of CERES data presented by Loeb et al (2021) (9) and Dubal et al (2021) (7) show the albedo (the reflectivity of the earth) of the earth decreasing, R^2 = 0.73. This decrease in albedo should correlate to CE cloud fraction decrease. In 20 years of CE data (that matches Dubal 20 years) this correlation is very poor (R^2 = 0.1) (not shown). For about 40 years of CE data the R^2 improves to 0.61, see Figure 6.

A graph comparing CERES data for global albedo and global cloud percent over time, showing trends from 1980 to 2025, with orange and blue lines representing Climate Explorer data and CERES albedo data, respectively. — Figure 6. CERES albedo data (Dubal) vs Cloud Percent (CE)

VPD which has been shown to correlate to cloud fraction (poorly) correlates well to CERES albedo, see Figure 7. Global Enthalpy (related to OLR) correlates to CERES albedo even better, see Figure 7. The perturbations of El Nino and La Nina seem to be affecting cloud fraction data but not albedo, VPD, or Enthalpy data.

Scatter plots depicting the relationship between CERES Global Albedo and Global Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD) on the left, and Global Albedo versus Global Enthalpy on the right, showcasing trends and correlations in climate data. — Figure 7. VPD and En vs CERES albedo

Discussion

Slicing the earth’s data has revealed expected correlation of sun angle to cloud fraction, VPD, and Enthalpy and interesting correlation to land fraction. The land fraction seems to be related to a change in the ET of the land.

El Nino and La Nina are causing perturbations in the cloud fraction data that are not visible in the albedo, VPD, or Enthalpy data. This could be related to cloud type change when the circulation patterns switch rotation from El Nino to La Nina (see internet for more information).

Strong correlation of Enthalpy (related to OLR) to albedo suggests one of earth’s albedos components is related to global warming. Since incoming radiation is relatively constant and the earth’s cloud free albedo is small (about 15% of total albedo) and not changing very much that leaves cloud fraction. VPD is poorly correlated to cloud fraction on a slice and global basis, but very well correlated to CERES albedo making VPD a candidate to replace cloud fraction in climate change models until a better measurement of cloud fraction is found. Enthalpy is strongly related to VPD. The CRGW theory (3) ties all this together.

CRGW theory: a change (-/+) in land’s ET starts a natural chain of events that changes the earth’s energy balance (+/-). In more words: less ET on land leads to higher land VPD. Higher VPD on land leads to a plume of hotter air than mixes with upper atmospheric air to reduce clouds over land and ocean. The reduced clouds let in more sunlight increasing the En of the earth to warm the earth and evaporate more water (the ratio of ocean ET to land ET increases). The final observation is that a lower land ET results in a higher global ET, higher temperature, and lower relative humidity. The CRGW theory is reversable.

CO2 is innocent but clouds are guilty.

Bibliography

“Opposing trends of cloud coverage over land and ocean under global warming” (2023) by Huan Liu, Ilan Koren, Orit Altaratz, and Mickaël D. Chekr web link acp-23-6559-2023.pdf

Atmospheric Moisture Transports from Ocean to Land and Global Energy Flows in Reanalyses (2011) by Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jessica Mackaro web link Atmospheric Moisture Transports from Ocean to Land and Global Energy Flows in Reanalyses in: Journal of Climate Volume 24 Issue 18 (2011),

More essays by Author

Can Annual Irradiance = Annual Enthalpy? If So, What Does It Show About Climate Change – Watts Up With That?

The End of Paris?

A comparison of the 30 countries that emit more than 0.5% of global greenhouse (GHG) emissions (see the European Commission’s emissions database) with the UN’s Nationally Determined Contributions Registry reveals that 21 of them failed to register updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as required by Article 3 of the 2015 Paris Agreement, even after the deadline had been extended from February to September 2025.

From Climate Scepticism

By Robin Guenier

A comparison of the 30 countries that emit more than 0.5% of global greenhouse (GHG) emissions (see the European Commission’s emissions database ⁱ) with the UN’s Nationally Determined Contributions Registry ⁱⁱ reveals that 21 of them failed to register updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as required by Article 3 of the 2015 Paris Agreement ⁱⁱⁱ, even after the deadline had been extended from February to September 2025. Yet these countries account for 57% of global emissions, while the 9 countries that did register an updated NDC account for just 25%. What’s more, with the United States (accounting for 11% of emissions) now withdrawing from the Paris Agreement ^iv, that figure falls to only 14%, leaving 71% of emissions effectively uncommitted. This undermines one of the raisons d’être of the ‘landmark’ Paris Agreement.

The Agreement was an attempt by the West and the UN to recover from the debacle of the UN’s fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen in 2009. It was a debacle because EU and US negotiators had hoped to persuade the big developing countries to accept the emission reduction obligations of developed countries. But they were humiliatingly defeated when developing countries refused to budge. This problem was reinforced as, in succeeding COPs, developing countries continued to insist they would not accept binding reduction commitments.

To break this deadlock, the UN proposed a completely new approach for COP21 to be held in Paris in 2015. The plan was that two key innovations would be introduced: (1) an aim to hold global average temperatures to ‘well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels’; and (2) a methodology whereby countries would individually determine how they would reduce emissions augmented by a periodic review when each country’s reduction plans would be steadily scaled up; the so-called ‘ratcheting’ mechanism. These proposals were both agreed; and the Agreement, regarded as an important breakthrough, was widely praised.^v

But both innovations have failed.

First, if the 2018 IPCC Special Report (para C1)^vi got it right, there’s no possibility that the ‘well below 2ºC’ aim will be achieved. This is why: the Special Report recommended that, to limit ‘global warming to below 2°C’ – i.e. to achieve the Paris Agreement’s ‘well below 2ºC’ target (Article 2.1 (a)) – global emissions should ‘decline by about 25% from 2010 levels by 2030’. Therefore, as 2010’s global CO2 emissions were 34.0 Gigatonnes (Gt), they’d have to come down to about 25.5 Gt by 2030 to meet the target. But the world’s 8 largest emitters (China, the USA, India, Russia, Indonesia, Iran, Brazil and Saudi Arabia) together already emit more than 25.5 Gt (see Endnote 1) – and all are likely to increase (or at best stabilise) their emissions over the next five years. Therefore, warming of at least 2ºC is a certainty. And that’s true even if every other country in the world reduces its emissions radically by 2030.

Moreover, as shown in the first paragraph above, the Paris Agreement’s ‘ratcheting’ mechanism – the other innovation – is clearly not working.

All this makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that the Paris Agreement has failed – and, without Paris, what hope remains for the UN’s climate change campaign?

Robin Guenier October 2025

Endnotes

i https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table

ii https://unfccc.int/NDCREG

iii https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf

iv https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements/

v https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344224160_Paris_Agreement

vi https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

Newton Rigg Revisited – Why not deleted? The next FOI that cannot be ruled “Vexatious.”

The Met Office subsequently and covertly deleted the “visibility” of data post site closure at Lowestoft, Nairn, and Paisley thus starting the collapsing of the house of cards. Newton Rigg’s data, however, still remains and is continuing to be fabricated with temperatures, rainfall, frost days and precipitation being recently added for September 2025. This retention warranted further investigation.

A man in a suit standing on a reflective surface, looking at a cluster of floating white papers or documents being scattered in the air against a cloudy sky.

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

By Ray Sanders

Map of historic weather stations in the UK, highlighting various locations with data available, including a dropdown to select Newton Rigg.

In my original review of Newton Rigg with its “creative accounting” I made the following comment. –

“Another aspect I also took the Met Office to task with was their “Historic Stations” page and demonstrated how misleading it was notably with its portrayal of a long closed site at Lowestoft. I similarly expected changes to this web page especially as I have extensively contested the data presentation such as at Braemar and Southampton amongst others. However, it seems the Met office are not only willing to continue with this web page’s charade of being actually factual but also to extend elements of this misrepresentation throughout their systems.“

In order to ensure the data is captured, below is all the suitably asterisked fabricated data since station closure. {The notation of “provisional” for the most recent fabricated data takes irony to new levels}

A table displaying weather data with columns for month, year, temperature, and precipitation, including provisional entries for the years 2021 to 2025.

To further ensure clarity, below is the final “end data” marking the demise of Newton Rigg’s archived temperature recordings.

Spreadsheet displaying daily temperature observations for Newton Rigg with a focus on the final recorded data.

Ever since 19th July 2021 all data for Newton Rigg is fabricated data – but that is actually nothing new for Newton Rigg at all. Despite the Historic Station Data showing a continuous record from 1959 there are in fact whole years when no archived data whatsoever was being recorded as shown below.

List of downloadable CSV files related to daily temperature observations for Newton Rigg from 1985 to 1989, showing file sizes.

As well as there being precisely ZERO readings for 1987, the surrounding years were remarkably sparse for data. The successful days of actually taking any temperature readings were as follows

1985 – 212 days, 1986 – 77 days, 1987 – ZERO, 1988 – 124 days, 1989 – 233 days.

In reality the observation’s standard of this site was very poor indeed particularly so for the generally much better 20th century era. Looking at the full historic data record shows literally over a hundred monthly estimated readings. Even going back prior to the Historic quoted record period, in 1946 just 30 days readings were actually taken. All of this does bring into question why the Met Office feel Newton Rigg warrants such high profile treatment. The site, in theory, has readings all the way back to 1883 (then known as Newton Reigny) but has actually had major long distance and not openly shown re-locations. The digital archives attribute all the digitalised data from 1959 to the last location, but this is completely incorrect.

Here is the 1959 digital starting data that any meteorology or climate science student would be presented with – note quoted coordinates and elevation that I have highlighted.

Spreadsheet showing daily temperature observation data for Newton Rigg from 1959, including coordinates and height information.

Manuscript copies in the deeper archives, however, indicate different sites (one shown on my original earlier report) and another here with accurate coordinates down to the second. Ironically, I know of many long-term temperature graphs based on Newton Rigg’s data which are clearly rather pointless given the multiplicity of sites

A scanned page from the agricultural meteorological records for Newton Rigg, showing temperature, humidity, wind data, and weather conditions for February 1958.

Even more recently, notes can be found of a relocation from within its college base to outside the grounds.

2000-08-18

Current

SITE INFORMATION

GAUGES 604741 AND 604742 AT GRID REF 3493E 5310N ELEVATION 169M

If all this seems erratic, poor observational frequency is one problem but lack of observational ability is even worse. A point I regularly make is that if readings are sporadic, how trustworthy are the few that are taken? Amidst tens of noted excuses for not taking readings the archives shows multiple deletions of spurious numbers. The height of absurdity is surely this below. Reading/using the wrong instruments really should never happen…….but for two straight months?

2005-04-01

2005-06-30

MISSING DATA

MAXIMUM TEMPS DELETED.HAD BEEN USING DRY BULB THERMOMETER

What is known is that Newton Rigg (formerly Newton Reigny) has had numerous different locations over a surprisingly large area. Its observation standards were very poor – especially so for the time in stark contrast with exemplary sites such as Class 1 Cawood.. How the Met Office has gone on to show this site in terms of long-term averages is equally perverse.

A screenshot displaying the search results for climate stations near Newton Rigg, Cumbria, including distances from the station to each location.

Despite its “Historic” status and being operational since the latter 19th century, Newton Rigg was not selected to be a “Location Specific Long Term” climate average site. In lieu the Met Office chose other sites to provide 60 year rolling averages for the period 1961 to 2020 as follows:

Shap – installed 21 years after the start of the averaging period in 1982 . Great Dun Fell No 2 – Installed 32 years after the start of the averaging period in 1993. Keswick – Installed 22 years after the period start in 1983. Warcop Range – also installed in 1983 and Ambleside – DECEASED 31st December 1970 but still Zombie-like producing averages.

For a final confirmation below are the images of the Newton Rigg site – firstly when still operational from April 2021.

View of the Newton Rigg site, featuring a fenced area with a grassy space, scattered debris, and several pieces of equipment in a rural setting.

And subsequent to closure from Sept 2021

A rural field with tall grass and bushes, possibly indicating an unmaintained area, surrounded by trees in the background.

Thus despite being the only (almost) continuously running weather station in the area, its data has been ignored for area representation BUT will be used to “fill in” the period gaps for the other stations for the multiple missing decades of data.

All this comes back to the Met Office’s refusal to answer my Freedom of Information requests on the grounds that I was “Vexatious”, and it was not in the “Public Interest”. In deleting from public view, the data for Lowestoft, Paisley and Nairn the Met Office has tacitly admitted they cannot substantiate their fabrication. My FOI requests have been demonstrated to be in the public interest and caused action to be taken. I will now resubmit an FOI requesting the details of the “Well Correlated” stations still being used to fabricate Newton Rigg’s data AND if refused further legal action will be considered.

The Met Office is not above the law.

Aussie Green Wall Cracks: Queensland Commits to Reliable Coal until 2046

Premier Crisafulli has upset greens by affirming Coal’s place as the energy backbone of one of Australia’s sunniest states.

Coal-fired power station cooling towers and smoke stack reflected in a calm lake during sunset, with a pink and purple sky.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t observa; Premier Crisafulli has upset greens by affirming Coal’s place as the energy backbone of one of Australia’s sunniest states.

Coal-fired power stations to operate in Queensland until least 2046 as energy road map unveiled

By Rachel Stewart
Topic: Energy Policy

Queensland’s energy minister has announced the state’s coal-fired power stations will operate until least 2046 as he unveiled a long-awaited energy road map.

The five-year plan lays out what role coal, gas, wind, solar, pumped hydro and battery storage will play over the long-term in Queensland.

“The former Labor government’s decision to close coal units by 2035 regardless of their condition is officially abolished today,” David Janetzki said on Friday.

“This is a sensible and pragmatic plan built on economics and engineering, not ideology.”

The LNP has reset all of the state’s coal-fired stations back to their “technical life span end date”.

…

Renewables, such as wind and solar, will continue be part of the state’s energy mix, Mr Janetzki said.

…Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-10/queensland-government-to-establish-400m-energy-fund/105874318

Greens were quick to respond;

Resources / Media Releases

October 10, 2025

CRISAFULLI GOVERNMENT’S RECKLESS ROADMAP SIGNS QUEENSLANDERS UP FOR A MORE EXPENSIVE, UNRELIABLE, POLLUTING FUTURE

By Climate Council

The Crisafulli Government’s Energy Roadmap is set to sign Queenslanders up for outdated, unreliable, and expensive coal power until the 2040’s – a move that threatens to drive up household bills, worsen climate pollution and put thousands of clean energy jobs at risk.

The plan sits in stark contrast to projections from the Australian Energy Market Operator, which show all of Queensland’s coal power stations closing by 2035.

Extending the life of Queensland’s ageing coal-fired power stations and considering new gas developments flies in the face of Queensland’s legislated 2035 emissions target of a 75% cut on 2005 levels, which the Crisafulli Government reaffirmed during the 2024 election less than a year ago. Extending and expanding coal and gas power stations locks in more harmful climate pollution for longer, driving more frequent and extreme weather events that harm Queenslanders.

Climate Council energy expert Greg Bourne said: “Chaining Queensland to coal clunkers for 20 years is a bet against Queensland’s future. It’s bad economics, bad for the climate, and bad for Queensland households. This is a reckless plan from a government that said it would cut climate pollution and lower costs.

“This roadmap is more of a road block to progress. Queensland’s coal power stations failed 78 times last summer, costing taxpayers billions to keep them on life support. The government is throwing good money after bad – money that should be building renewable energy and storage projects that deliver cheaper, cleaner power for everyone.”

Climate Councillor Associate Professor Joel Gilmore said: “This plan will leave Queenslanders worse off. The evidence is clear that renewables backed by storage are the cheapest and most reliable way to power our homes and businesses. Every delay in building a cleaner energy system means higher bills and more pollution.

“The sunshine state should be leading Australia’s clean energy boom, attracting investment and creating tens of thousands of regional jobs. Instead, this roadmap risks driving that investment interstate, leaving Queensland with an outdated, expensive system that is falling apart.”

ENDS

For more information visit the Climate Council’s website – Everything you need to know about Queensland’s upcoming Energy Roadmap

For interviews please contact the Climate Council media team on media@climatecouncil.org.au or call 0485 863 063.

The Climate Council is Australia’s leading community-funded climate change communications organisation. We provide authoritative, expert and evidence-based advice on climate change to journalists, policymakers, and the wider Australian community.

For further information, go to: climatecouncil.org.au

Or follow us on social media: facebook.com/climatecouncil and twitter.com/climatecounciSource: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/crisafulli-governments-reckless-roadmap/

The good news is this move to protect Queensland coal from the green madness will shield Queensland to an extent from the renewable follies of other states. The bad news is that protection is incomplete – those same renewable heavy states keep driving up energy prices in Queensland, whenever other states’ unreliables crumble under the strain of having to provide energy when it is needed.

From June this year;

‘Bailing out bad decisions’: Queensland slams Victoria over gas supply

James Hall, Angela Macdonald-Smith and Sumeyya Ilanbey
Jun 13, 2025 – 5.55pm

Victoria cannot rely on pulling more gas from Queensland to shore up an energy system pushed to the edge by a cascading set of breakdowns and concerns over the reliability of renewables, with the pipeline flowing south already at full capacity.

Queensland’s Liberal-National government remains staunchly opposed to further propping up the southern state’s energy grid, saying it doesn’t have the gas supply capacity to keep “bailing out Victoria’s bad decisions”.

…

“Queenslanders should not be penalised over unscientific decisions down south that favour ideology over economics and engineering,” he said.

“We don’t have the pipeline capacity to keep bailing out Victoria’s bad decisions. The solution to the southern state gas crisis is for the southern states to develop their gas reserves. We’re not asking them to do anything we haven’t done ourselves.”

…Read more (paywalled):

https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/bailing-out-bad-decisions-queensland-slams-victoria-over-gas-supply-20250613-p5m762

Despite this encouraging step towards energy sanity, I don’t imagine this move will stir much enthusiasm for new Aussie coal plant investment.

There is no guarantee the new 2046 target will stick – the 2035 target could be restored by a future Queensland administration. And anyone seeking to invest in coal would also have to contend with our radical green federal government.

Climate activists hurl red paint at Christopher Columbus mural in caught in a bizarre caught-on-camera art attack

The two vandals, members of the radical group “Futuro Vegetal,” were caught on shocking video throwing red paint at “First Tribute to Christopher Columbus,” a massive mural of the Italian-born explorer painted in 1892 by artist Jose Garnelo and displayed at Madrid’s Naval Museum, Spain’s El Pais reported.

Two climate activists throwing red paint on a mural depicting Christopher Columbus at a museum, with bystanders reacting.

From New York Post

By Jorge Fitz-Gibbon

Two activists throwing red paint at a mural of Christopher Columbus in a museum, with other viewers present.

This is not how you celebrate Columbus Day.

A pair of crazed climate activists were busted Sunday after hurling red paint at a mural of Christopher Columbus — in a bizarre caught-on-camera art attack at a Spanish museum.

The activist group, whose name loosely translates to “Vegetarian Future,” also unfurled a banner reading, “October 12, nothing to celebrate. Ecosocial justice,” the outlet reported.

Spain, which funded the explorer’s voyage in 1492, celebrates it’s version of Columbus Day on October 12, while the holiday is being celebrated on Monday in the US.

The footage of the museum stunt shows two women throwing red paint on the mural, and then quickly being confronted by a security guard, who drags them away from the artwork with the help of bystanders.

According to El Pais, the activists, who were not immediately identified, were taken into custody by museum security and were later arrested and charged with crimes against cultural heritage.

Luna Lagos, a spokesperson for the activist group, said the holiday “celebrates centuries of oppression and genocide against the indifenous people of Abya Yala,” the indigenous name for the Americas.

The group also staged a sit-in on Sunday around Pablo Picaso’s Guernica at the Reina Sofia Museum.

Columbus’ voyages are the subject of controversy among many, but the explorer is widely credited with opening the way for European settlement of the Americas, and is particularly the subject of national pride for Italians and Italian-Americans, including in New York City.

🔥 ACTUAMOS 🔥

🔴 Lanzamos pintura biodegradable al cuadro "Primer Homenaje a Cristóbal Colón", en el Museo Naval.

👉La celebración del 12 de octubre es la celebración de siglos de opresión, explotación y genocidio de la población originaria de Abya Yala. pic.twitter.com/aXIWlMq7OB
— FuturoVegetal🍒 (@FuturoVegetal) October 12, 2025

#Madrid, attiviste di @FuturoVegetal imbrattano quadro dedicato a #CristoforoColombo https://t.co/wr7YYd5odn
— Tg La7 (@TgLa7) October 13, 2025

🔴 Activistas del colectivo @FuturoVegetal lanzaron pintura biodegradable roja al cuadro “Primer Homenaje a Cristóbal Colón” para denunciar los siglos de opresión y genocidio hacia los pueblos originarios de Abya Yala. ✊🌎 pic.twitter.com/QtVEFI5FrD
— IMER Noticias (@IMER_Noticias) October 13, 2025

Germany Faces €40 Billion Risk If Winter Turns Cold

Germany’s gas storage capacity is currently at a little over 76% full. It should be 90% full to prevent the economic devastation Uniper is warning about.

A train partially buried in deep snow, highlighting winter challenges in transportation. — Snow Desaster in Germany 1978/1979

OilPrice.com

By Irina Slav

A man shouting in the snow, holding a sign that reads 'WE HAVE FIVE YEARS TO STOP FOSSIL FUELED GLOBAL WARMING'.

German utility Uniper warns that a colder-than-average winter could cost Germany up to €40 billion.
Germany’s gas storage stands at 76%, well below the safe threshold.
While ICIS argues that LNG imports and new regasification capacity can offset winter demand, rising prices and regulatory hurdles may threaten Germany’s fragile energy security.

Germany could suffer economic losses of around 40 billion euros if this winter turns out colder than average, gas utility Uniper has warned in a report that said such a development could plunge Germany into a recession.

Every year, as October begins and with it, quite often, heating season, Europe begins a race to fill its gas storage facilities in time to secure a comfortable level of stocks ahead of peak demand for electricity and heat. Norway stands ready to step up gas exports to the European Union, U.S. LNG producers stand ready to boost cargoes bound for Europe, and, according to Germany’s energy market regulator, there is plenty of gas. There is one problem with that. The situation could change very quickly.

Germany’s gas storage capacity is currently at a little over 76% full. It should be 90% full to prevent the economic devastation Uniper is warning about. There would still be losses, even with 90% full storage, but they will be a lot lower than 40 billion euros, which is equal to some $46.6 billion. If storage is full at 90%, a very cold winter would “only” cost the German economy 14 billion euros, or $16.3 billion, according to the study that Uniper commissioned, conducted by a consultancy outlet called Frontier Economics.

The second sum might not look like peanuts, but, according to Uniper, the difference between the two is “a difference of around 25 billion euros, which would make the difference between stability and recession.” This is how vulnerable Germany’s economy has become to any unfavorable fluctuations in gas supply.

From the Uniper report, it appears that some financial damage—measurable in double-digit billion sums—is guaranteed. It is also unlikely that this damage remains as low as 14 billion euros because keeping storage levels at 90% during peak demand season is impossible precisely because it is peak demand season.

Not everyone is so pessimistic, however. In another recent report, Independent Commodity Intelligence Services said that even extra-low temperatures during December and January would not compromise the supply security of natural gas in Germany, so there was no reason to worry about it.

“Even in the event of a very cold winter, gas storage and additional liquefied natural gas (LNG) can together ensure sufficient supply with Europe having built enough regasification capacity,” ICIS said in its report. The outlet admitted that in a severe winter scenario, Europe could see its gas reserves drop all the way to 20%, which is red-zone low, but that would not be a problem because there will be more liquefaction capacity coming online next summer. Still, ICIS also admitted that price could become a problem as demand for LNG rises during the winter.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, Uniper asked for permission to close one of Germany’s largest natural gas storage facilities because it could not fill it in time. The reason has to do with the geology of the storage site, which is porous rather than cavernous, meaning it needs to be filled and emptied slowly, Bloomberg said in a report on the news. It also, per Uniper, has to do with regulations, which have made it uneconomical to make the effort to fill the Breitbrunn facility.

Also, meanwhile, Ukraine has said it would need to step up gas imports this winter, and by quite a margin. “We plan to boost import capability by around 30%. It will all depend on how quickly we can restore things. The sooner we manage to put facilities back into operation, the less gas we’ll need to import,” energy minister Svetlana Grinchuk said this month. The gas would be coming from G7 members, among them Germany.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

A snow-covered man with a frostbitten face sitting in a snowy landscape.

STOP BREATHING, ASTHMATICS: CNN Rails Against ‘Climate Pollution from Inhalers’ – ‘Substantial contributors to planet-warming pollution’

Studies published Monday in the journal JAMA found that medication inhalers are “substantial” contributors to planet-warming pollution. It’s not the medicine itself that’s the problem; rather, it’s the HFAs (hydrofluoroalkanes).

A hand holding a blue inhaler releases a cloud of smoke and vapor, symbolizing the environmental impact of inhalers.

From Climate Depot

By Admin

A person using a metered-dose inhaler, highlighting the connection between asthma treatment and climate pollution.

CNN: Climate pollution from inhalers has the impact of half a million cars per year, study finds – Oct 6, 2025

Studies published Monday in the journal JAMA found that medication inhalers are “substantial” contributors to planet-warming pollution. It’s not the medicine itself that’s the problem; rather, it’s the HFAs (hydrofluoroalkanes). …

To treat conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, millions of Americans use what doctors often call metered dose inhalers, small boot-shaped devices that spray set doses of medication into the lungs in a quick burst using propellants called hydrofluoroalkanes, or HFAs.

…

In one year alone, one of the new studies says, planet-warming pollution from inhalers were the equivalent of driving more than half a million cars, or the same as electricity requirements for 470,000 homes, the study said.

In one of the new studies, researchers found that pharmacists dispensed 1.6 billion inhalers in the US from 2014 to 2024, generating 24.9 million metric tons of annual carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e). Annual emissions increased 24% from 1.9 million to 2.3 million metric tons of CO2e over that decade.

“It drives me crazy that the medication I use to address my symptoms drives climate change.”

Image of a research article titled 'Inhaler-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the US', detailing key findings on the environmental impact of inhalers and their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/joseph-vazquez/2025/10/07/stop-breathing-asthmatics-cnn-rails-against-climate

By Joseph Vazquez

Tough noogies, asthmatics! CNN has officially pinned your breathing tool as the latest climate change threat to the environment.

A portrait of a woman with curly hair, wearing a dark jacket and smiling at the camera.

Jen Christensen of the CNN Health & Climate Unit railed against respiratory challenged individuals’s survival tool in an October 6 story headlined: “Climate pollution from inhalers has the impact of half a million cars per year, study finds.”

Apparently being full of hot air is no longer just an idiom for the lefty media. Christensen’s story was utterly ridiculous from the start: “The people who are most vulnerable to the hard-to-breathe air that comes with climate change may inadvertently be adding to the problem, new research finds.” Darn those respiratory-challenged people trying to stay alive, eh Jen?

For context, Christensen noted that “[t]o treat conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, millions of Americans use what doctors often call metered dose” inhalers. The problem, claimed Christensen, was how inhalers use “propellants called hydrofluoroalkanes, or HFAs,” which the wacky study she cited asserted was devastating the environment.

Christensen descended further down the rabbit hole, suggesting that lung cancer patients who literally can’t live without the metered-dose inhalers switch to alternative sources: “The other study published Monday shows that concerted efforts to reduce traditional inhaler use can make a difference.” In essence, she literally co-opted the same talking points climate lefties use to badger consumers about using renewables and EVs instead of fossil fuels and shoe-horned them into her beef with inhalers:

Metered-dose inhalers were responsible for 98% of the climate pollution from inhalers, the study found. People with lung conditions can’t live without them, but the researchers noted some might be able to switch to an alternative inhaler that emits fewer problematic propellants.

But — here’s a surprise — alternative breathing tools are more expensive! Christensen admitted in a buried paragraph that “[t]here can also be a price barrier with dry-powder inhalers, since many of the versions that use HFAs are generic and less expensive. And insurance doesn’t often cover the dry-powder kind.”

JunkScience.com founder Steve Milloy mocked CNN for being completely tone-deaf with its climate fanaticism in comments to MRC Business:

The ozone hole was a hoax. Global warming is a hoax. And because of these two hoaxes, greens don’t want asthmatics using inhalers to survive because the propellants may possibly contribute in unmeasurable amounts to the two easily debunked global atmospheric hysterias of our time.

“As an asthmatic who has relied on inhalers,” said Milloy, “it is wild that medical researchers would deny people irreplaceable life-saving medication because of nonsense spewed by Al Gore.”

It’s also wild that the media would treat this kind of faux-scholarship as being worthy of any serious consideration.

Did Christensen bother to mention any of the conflicts of interests of the researchers that were disclosed in the, er, “study” she cited? Of course not! If she did, it would throw a wrench in her appeal-to-authority-argument.

One researcher “reported receipt of personal fees from Alosa Health and for serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers.” Another disclosed “previous employment by GSK prior to initiation of this project.” GSK is a biopharma company that has a particular obsession with leftist climate pipe dreams. “We are committed to net zero impact on climate across our entire value chain,” the company’s website states. Doesn’t sound like the researchers are the most objective people in the world, eh Jen?

It’s not even until you get to the 20th paragraph of Christensen’s propaganda that readers would know that “inhalers are a relatively small cause of climate change compared to the bigger culprits like traffic, agriculture, and power generation.” But even that pathetic caveat glosses over how tiny the supposed green effects of inhalers are by the study’s own admission, which Christensen left out: “[I]nhalers are responsible for less than 0.5% of the more than 500 million mtCO2e of annual health care–related greenhouse gas emissions in the US.”

First it was the cow farts. Now it’s the things asthmatics and others use to stay alive. What’s next?

Trump, Meloni, Milei say UN climate scam must go

President Trump was not a happy camper when he stepped off a faulty escalator on his way to address the United Nations General Assembly recently. By the time he had finished speaking, many in that self-important assemblage were in an even worse mood.

Former President Donald Trump delivering a speech at the United Nations General Assembly, with a focused expression and wearing a navy suit and red tie.

From RealClearEnergy

By Duggan Flanakin

Trump was not the only world leader firing bullets into the UN’s climate and environmental policies that heretofore have been deemed sacrosanct but are now exposed as economy killers. While China is not subject to the UN’s meddling scrutiny, Europe and Africa (and the U.S.) are.

While Trump devoted the bulk of his address to foreign policy and immigration issues, he eventually turned to focus on energy. Trump called renewables “a joke” and said they don’t work and are too expensive – and inadequate to fire up the plants modern nations need.

Trump scolded the UN assemblage for not recognizing that China has been playing Western nations as fools by selling Chinese-made wind and solar while building coal and natural gas plants to power the bulk of their industrial sector. “They use coal, they use gas, they use almost anything, but they … sure as hell like selling the windmills.”

Many countries in Europe are on the brink of destruction because of the green energy agenda, Trump said. Germany had gone far down the green energy path, shuttering coal and nuclear power plants while buying oil from Russia. But Germany’s new leadership has retreated towards fossil fuels and nuclear and opened a lot of different plants, energy plants, energy-producing plants, and they’re doing well, he added.

The Germans have finally realized that going all green was a disaster – that “all green is all bankrupt. That’s what it represents,” he said. By contrast, the United Kingdom once was a great oil producer – thanks to North Sea oil. But today, oil production is so highly taxed that no developer, no oil company can go there, even though there is a tremendous amount of known oil and even more that has yet to be found.

Trump was not done.

He recalled that in 1982, the UN Environment Programme’s executive director predicted that by the year 2000 climate change would cause a global catastrophe as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust. Another UN official in 1989 said that within a decade entire nations would be wiped off the map by global warming. These same people just a few years earlier had claimed that global cooling would kill the world.

To Trump, “climate change” is the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.

Stupid people at the UN and elsewhere made faulty predictions that left their nations with no chance for success. Nations that do not disavow the green scam will ultimately fail. The “carbon footprint,” he added, is “a hoax made up by people with evil intentions.” For example, President Obama talked a lot about carbon footprint when not flying to Hawaii to play a round of golf.

He scoffed at Europe for bragging about reducing its carbon footprint by 37% – at the cost of factories closed, jobs lost, and downward-spiraling economies. Well, whoop-te-do! China now produces more carbon dioxide than the rest of the world’s developed nations combined – and global carbon dioxide has increased by 54%.

Brutal UN-backed green energy policies, Trump said, have done nothing to clean the air but have instead redistributed manufacturing and industrial activity away from developed countries that follow insane environmental rules to polluting countries that ignore those rules – and they are the ones making a fortune. Meanwhile, European electricity bills are four to five times those in China and twice to three times higher than in the United States.

The results are striking. While air conditioning has helped lower heat-related deaths in the U.S. to just 1,300 a year, Europe loses more than 175,000 annually to overheating – all in the name of pretending to stop the global warming hoax. It is high time, Trump said, to stop the scam. Nations must stop inflicting pain on their citizens while radically disrupting their own societies.

Italian President Giorgia Meloni, after calling for widespread reform of “outdated” UN conventions, turned to assault “30 years of ‘blind-faith globalization’ [in which] things have not gone well, and things could get worse. ” The UN must halt its “unsustainable green plans in Europe and the West, which are leading to deindustrialization far soon than decarbonization.”

Unsustainable environmentalism, she said, has destroyed the automobile sector in Europe, created problems and job losses in the U.S, and depleted knowledge while not improving the health of the planet (or its people). This is not to deny that the climate changes but to affirm reason, which calls for “gradual reform instead of ideological extremism” and keeping humanity at the center.

Argentina’s President Javier Milei also accused the UN leadership of “overreach” and slammed the 80-year-old body as a “supranational model of governance led by international bureaucrats who seek to impose a particular way of life on the citizens of the world.” He urged member nations to reject the UN’s overreaches that they justify by proclaiming “noble agendas.”

“We have gone,” he said, “from being an organization that aimed to mediate peace among equals to one that seeks to dictate what each nation-state and individual must do across the various corners of the globe.” Instead, he urged the UN to return to the immortal principles that uphold the dignity of life, freedom, and property of all individuals under the rule of law.”

By contrast, most African leaders – whose nations bear the brunt of anti-development UN policies that punish them for relying on fossil fuels for income and energy – gave lip service to the UN climate agenda. But Sen. Heineken Lokpobiri, Nigeria’s Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, called on global investors to seize emerging opportunities in his nation’s rapidly transforming oil sector.

Lokpobiri, in his keynote speech at the U.S.-Nigeria Council’s session on oil sector collaboration (held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly), praised his nation’s “strong reforms, enhanced production capacity, and regional influence as key drivers of growth.”

“At the heart of Nigeria’s renewed energy agenda is a clear and deliberate policy direction: to open our oil sector to deeper, smarter, and more strategic partnerships,” the Minister stated. “The time to invest is not just now — it is ripe.” Lokpobiri affirmed that Nigeria would continue to leverage its fossil fuel reserves to finance its energy mix while adhering to international climate agreements – a sop deemed necessary to pacify the anti-fossil-fuel UN environment ministry.

The Africa Petroleum Producers Organization was hosting its first Energy Investment Roundtable to spotlight Africa’s energy potential and catalyze international investment into the continent’s evolving energy sector. Given Africa’s immense shortage of affordable (or even available) electricity, sustainable energy development there means bringing lights and power to six hundred million Africans for the first time – a goal all too often ignored by UN bureaucrats and other promoters of the green agenda.

Led by President Trump, the UN got its first taste of reality in a long, long time.

Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

One Daily Beef Chipolata and a Small Nibble of Cheese: Eco Nutters Reveal New Planetary Health Diet

A stylized globe composed of various fruits, vegetables, and plants, symbolizing global nutrition and sustainability.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Colorful graphic of a food pie chart illustrating different food categories including vegetables, whole grains, dairy, and protein sources.

Ignorance of basic human biology and the woke propagandising of food ‘science’ to control global human behaviour lies behind the recently-published second version of the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet (PHD). Produced by dozens of credentialled cretins around the world, it restricts meat and dairy consumption to levels not seen since the Second World War. Pasty-faced and possibly protein-starved researchers suggest around 15 grams of red meat a day and promote a mainly plant-based diet. A suggestion to cut agricultural emissions by 50% within 25 years means using much less hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser, and that would lead to mass global starvation. But then this potty planetary piss-take could only have been suggested by people who believe that, whatever societal devastation they cause, the soy latte will magically appear as they make their way to Whole Foods to pick up their organic humous.

The few people still watching CNN were treated to the suggestion that the diet could feed 9.6 billion people “equitably” by 2050, save $5 trillion yearly and prevent 15 million deaths. All this, of course, came from a ‘business-as-usual’ computer model which used a scenario similar to the widely discredited RCP8.5. More than a daily allowance of salt needs to be taken with this made-up agitprop. Second World War total calories of 2,500 are suggested, with land-hungry whole grains, vegetables, legumes, nuts and unprocessed oils providing the vast proportion of the diet. Competing with all those wind turbines, solar farms and rewilding schemes, hard-pressed farmers, facing increasing ‘carbon’ taxes on artificial fertilisers, will still be expected to provide City-based wokies with their virtue-filled home deliveries. Haloes can be polished while they luxuriate in the glow caused by knowing that their sainted scoff has been produced by “inclusive governance that centres indigenous knowledge and community voices”. Who knows what that guff actually means in practice, although it is good to know that it is a “transformative action”.

It is easy to mock. Humans are natural meat eaters and have thrived on its consumption. A largely plant-based diet needs careful planning to ensure healthy nutrition. It is not generally recommended for growing children, and the likelihood of it being widely accepted is minimal. Poor diets, by choice or circumstance, have always existed, but on average today humans live much longer than in the past and generally have much better food supplies across the world.

Needless to say, the EAT-Lancet report is not primarily aimed at the general population, since it is funded by the Green Blob to influence policymakers. Already in London, Mayor Sadiq Khan has signed up the City to implement the plan for all by 2030. Since the PHD first appeared in 2019, it has been extensively referenced, integrated into policies and endorsed in declarations by numerous international elite organisations. Various parts of the United Nations have framed the recommendations as a scientific blueprint for aligning food systems with climate and health priorities. Waffle about climate and social ‘justice’ is ubiquitous. The Green Blob-funded C40 network of 100 cities, chaired by Khan, is committed to climate bothering and is one of the PHD’s strongest supporters, driving action at the urban level.

As noted, there has been some media coverage of PHD 2.0, but the limited publicity – the BBC has stayed silent – suggests the main target audience is the elite political class. Best not to worry the smelly food-eating plebs too much at this stage. But, as always, look at what they write and say amongst themselves, particularly when it is the product of huge quantities of Green Blob money. But how will the State enforce such dietary requirements in a free society without stringent rationing and control? As it happens, and no doubt a complete coincidence, the UK Government is currently floating proposals for a nationwide identity card. Marketed as a possible help in mitigating the country’s open borders experiment, it is not difficult to foresee widespread future uses. Apart from providing right-to-work checks, the Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer has also let slip that it could be rolled out to access ‘”your own money”. Handy, of course, if the State wants to check up on your weekly rationed purchase of an egg, a couple of pints of animal milk and a small packet of planet-destroying sausages.

The EAT operation is awash with Green money. Co-founded in 2014 by the wealthy, private jet owing environmental activist Gunhild Stordalen, it seeks to transform the global food system to mitigate the overwhelming problems it imagines are caused by humans changing the climate. In common with many other such operations, the money buys influence, if not effective control over wide swathes of industry, politics, media, academia and science. EAT is based in Oslo and is backed by the Stordalen Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC). Any colour of promoting money, except Green expert George Monbiot, is a member of its advisory board. In 2015, Gunhild Stordalen was named a “Young Global Leader” by the World Economic Forum.

The SRC is chaired by Johan Rockstrom from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, often described as the activist’s activist. He is also the lead author of the EAT-Lancet paper. The SRC is backed by its own long list of so-called philanthropic, tax-efficient foundations. Meanwhile, the latest list of cash investors in EAT-Lancet Commission 2.0 are said to include IKEA, Rockefeller, Wellcome Trust, Swedish Postcode, Novo Nordisk and Seedling.

The world is moving on from a lot of this sinister Net Zero nonsense. Peak silliness has passed but the Blob will not give up the hard Left grift until decisive political battles, still ongoing, are finally won.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

Aultbea No. 2 WMO03034 – How the Met Office makes the “Climate Change” by Extreme measures.

Viewing the above Met Office graph, the majority of the general public will almost certainly assume a dramatic, rapid and alarmingly upward trend in “temperatures” starting around the latter 1980s. Such evidence supports the current mantra of Anthropogenic Global Warming/ Manmade climate Change. It is “blatantly obvious” to those using “the science” to promote and impose on the rest of us their own personal political ideologies – “just look at the data!” The Surface Stations Project‘s intended aim is to do exactly that and look at the data in a genuinely accurate, scientific and open manner.

Three individuals examining weather measuring equipment on a mobile cart in a rural area with fields in the background.

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

By Ray Sanders

Graph showing annual mean temperature in the UK from 1890 to 2020, with colored lines indicating trend, lowest, highest, and recent average temperatures.

Aerial view of a landscape featuring a winding road, scattered buildings, and areas of cleared land. — 57.85899 -5.63294 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Temperature records from 1/9/1990

“Aultbea is a small coastal fishing village in the North-West Highlands of Scotland. It is situated on the southeast shore of Loch Ewe, about 30 kilometres west of Ullapool.” Although noted as a “Number 2” site, the original site was solely a rain gauge site not recording temperatures.

Paul Homewood, author of the excellent “Not a Lot of People know That” blog recently acquired under Freedom of Information Act a list of all currently operational and CIMO assessed Met Office weather stations by “installation date”. This list was very informative as it showed all sites by their original start date for whatever their original purpose and not necessarily temperature recording. A not atypical example of this was Achfary which was shown as starting in 1914 as confirmed by its CEDA Archived entry.

A data table showing information about the Achfary weather station, including geographic area, coordinates, grid reference, postcode, elevation, drainage stream, hydrological area ID, station start date, and station end date.

It would seem difficult to argue with the Met Office that this site has a 111 year history. Furthermore it is a double national all-time highest temperature record holder for December 2019 and January 2024.

A webpage titled 'UK climate extremes' with a dropdown menu for selecting temperature parameters by month.

Table showing the highest daily maximum temperature records in the United Kingdom, listing January 2024 with a temperature of 19.9°C at Achfary, Sutherland.

Again the very recent nature of these “Climate Extremes” {Ed note: since when were weather events defined as “climate”} must be proof positive of this dramatic warming……BUT …….what the Met office did not make clear in its FOI response was that Achfary did not actually commence temperature readings until 1st October 2006. As I also highlighted in my report, it is an atrociously located site (“CIMO Class 5 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 5 °C “) in a domestic front garden, has been relocated more than once in its short life, and is “site selected” to catch transient weather (not climate) effects known as Foehn Effect.

Article on the Foehn effect, discussing its implications on local climates and weather patterns.

The Met Office clearly states the Foehn Effect is a weather phenomenon. How does all this relate to Aultbea? The fact is that Aultbea is also an area likely to frequently record Foehn Effects and despite the Met Office showing a station start date of 1980 it actually only started its temperature record in 1990.

A weather monitoring station in Aultbea, Scotland, with various instruments surrounded by a fence in a grassy area, overlooking a body of water and distant hills.

As “Grok” AI described this weather station site – “Aultbea is on the northwest (leeward) coast of Wester Ross, immediately downwind of significant orographic barriers like the Torridon Hills (up to 1,100m) and Beinn Eighe massif, just 10–15 km inland to the southeast. These features force Atlantic air to rise, deposit rain/snow on their western slopes, and descend as warm, dry Foehn winds toward the coast. The station’s low elevation and coastal position (in a “drainage stream” area) allow it to detect the full warming and drying as air funnels toward the sea, often channeling winds along Loch Ewe”

All the above only indicates two things so far. Firstly, Foehn Effects occur in this region and secondly that there are relatively modern sites there to record them. The implications though are the key issue. These relatively rare Foehns are “extreme” events and, as I explained in the Reification of Averages the Met Office retention of their crude averaging system is “extremely” responsive to extremes. Indeed It is quite apparent that these extremes are often sought out.

Again, under Freedom of Information Request a list of the highest recorded temperatures for each day of the year of 2025 so far was recently obtained. Foehn effects are most noted in winter and early spring. Below is the data for January. {note some rather odd Scottish county names.}

A table displaying weather data, including site names, areas, observation dates, and maximum temperatures recorded in January 2025.

The first extreme that stands out is the dominance of the unrepresentative Scilly Isles Airport site – a geographic “extreme” that appears on 10 occasions. Possibly the less immediately noticeable issue is the appearances of so many Scottish sites recording daily highs in January. Achnagart, Cassley, Banff, and Tain provide a 7 consecutive day run of almost certainly Foehn phenomena – brief extreme events all contributing to cause distortion on daily means. However short lived these events may have been, a single sixty second reading is all that is required, their eager inclusion into “Climate” records is grossly misleading. 17 days (over half) of all January daily high temperatures come from either geographic or weather event extremes.

February data continues this distortion.

Table displaying temperature records from various locations in the UK for January and February 2025.

Scilly makes 7 appearances but perhaps the most interesting feature is Achfary making 3 appearances – perhaps this site can achieve the record highs for all three winter months of December, January and February. Adding in Poolewe (close to Aultbea), Aultbea itself again and both Kinloss and Lossiemouth make a total of seven. 14 out of the 28 days of February are again from geographic or likely weather event extremes.

Of the 59 winter days of 2025 so far, 31 of them are unlikely to be representative of the overall UK climate producing one-off “extremes”. Scilly has already been demonstrated to have artificially uplifted figures from poor relocation in 1991. Aultbea No 2 has temperature records from 1990, Banff from 1990, Tain from 1994 Achnagart from 2003, Achfary from 2006. Even Poolewe has been subject to a recent relocation. Whilst the aviation sites of Kinloss and Lossiemouth are long term it is quite apparent there are increased numbers of new reporting points in locations prone to Foehn Effects and producing “extremes”.

It is blindingly obvious to the vast majority that deriving a daily mean from just the maximum and minimum readings (that may only last 60 seconds each) is not going to give a genuine impression of a day’s weather let alone a 30-year rolling climate trend. To a “Climate Activist” this antiquated system is a golden opportunity to manipulate input data to produce a pre-determined end result. As noted in the Achnagart report, in the past meteorologists would ignore and rule out one-off occasional phenomena now it is evident such spurious data is actively chased and used to manipulate data presentation.

Day: October 14, 2025

The End of Paris?

Like this:

Newton Rigg Revisited – Why not deleted? The next FOI that cannot be ruled “Vexatious.”

Like this:

Aussie Green Wall Cracks: Queensland Commits to Reliable Coal until 2046

Like this:

Climate activists hurl red paint at Christopher Columbus mural in caught in a bizarre caught-on-camera art attack

Like this:

Germany Faces €40 Billion Risk If Winter Turns Cold

Like this:

STOP BREATHING, ASTHMATICS: CNN Rails Against ‘Climate Pollution from Inhalers’ – ‘Substantial contributors to planet-warming pollution’

Like this:

Trump, Meloni, Milei say UN climate scam must go

Like this:

One Daily Beef Chipolata and a Small Nibble of Cheese: Eco Nutters Reveal New Planetary Health Diet

Like this:

Aultbea No. 2 WMO03034 – How the Met Office makes the “Climate Change” by Extreme measures.

Like this: