Day: December 20, 2025

Don’t Throw Out the Supercomputer with the Climate Models

If you listen carefully to the collective wailing coming out of Boulder, Colorado this week, you’d think the Trump administration had just announced plans to shut down the National Weather Service and replace Doppler radar with tea leaves.

Modern architectural buildings surrounded by greenery and mountains under a blue sky.

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

If you listen carefully to the collective wailing coming out of Boulder, Colorado this week, you’d think the Trump administration had just announced plans to shut down the National Weather Service and replace Doppler radar with tea leaves.

In reality, what’s on the table is far more nuanced, and far less apocalyptic, than the headlines suggest.

According to USA TODAY, the administration is moving to dismantle or restructure the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), long regarded as a flagship institution in atmospheric and climate science . Predictably, this has been framed as an “attack on science,” “public safety at risk,” and — my personal favorite — a blow to America’s “competitive advantage.”

Cue the hysteria.

But let’s pause for a moment and separate weather science, useful computing infrastructure, and policy-driven climate alarmism, because conflating the three is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place.

NCAR was founded in 1960 to advance atmospheric chemistry, physical meteorology, and weather prediction. On that front, it has an impressive résumé. Hurricane dropsondes, numerical weather prediction advances, and severe weather research are real, tangible contributions that have saved lives and property. Even longtime critics of climate exaggeration — including Roger Pielke Jr. — acknowledge NCAR as a scientific “crown jewel” that deserves improvement, not destruction .

The problem is not that NCAR does weather.

The problem is what NCAR increasingly became.

Over the past two decades, NCAR — like much of federally funded climate science — drifted from observational rigor toward model-driven storytelling. Computer models, tuned to assumptions and parameterizations that consistently overstate warming and extreme weather trends, became the dominant product. Those outputs were then laundered through press offices and compliant media outlets as “settled science,” stripped of uncertainty and error bars.

That’s not atmospheric science. That’s advocacy.

When an institution begins hosting “justice-centered” programs, art exhibits about water relationships, and ideological framing exercises under the banner of Earth science, it invites scrutiny. The administration’s criticism of “woke” or policy-driven research may be blunt, but it is not entirely misplaced .

Climate Models are Useful Tools, but Terrible Oracles

Let’s be clear: climate models are not useless. They are tools — exploratory tools — not crystal balls.

Yet NCAR’s climate modeling efforts have been routinely used to justify sweeping policy claims: existential crises, “thresholds passed,” and forecasts of unprecedented catastrophe. Many of these claims fail basic validation against historical data. Satellite records, surface observations, and extreme weather statistics simply do not support the worst projections being sold to the public.

When models diverge from reality, the scientific response should be recalibration and humility — not louder press releases.

This is where skepticism becomes not only reasonable, but necessary.

That said, dismantling NCAR entirely — especially without a scalpel — risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The USA TODAY article notes that NCAR operates a federally owned supercomputing center in Cheyenne, Wyoming. That facility is a national asset, regardless of one’s views on climate policy. High-performance computing is not inherently ideological. It can support:

  • Short-term weather forecasting
  • Severe storm modeling
  • Aviation and military applications
  • Hydrology and flood prediction
  • Energy load forecasting
  • Even non-climate scientific research entirely unrelated to CO₂

Shutting it down simply because some of its cycles were used to run overheated climate scenarios would be an act of bureaucratic vandalism.

A far more rational approach would be repurposing and refocusing.

Strip out the advocacy. Re-center on observational science. Decouple supercomputing from policy-driven climate modeling. Move critical infrastructure where it can serve broader national interests — or at least put it under management that understands the difference between uncertainty and certainty theater.

The media narrative wants a villain-versus-hero storyline: Trump versus science. Reality is messier — and more interesting.

There is legitimate criticism to be made of how climate science has been politicized, how uncertainty has been buried, and how institutions like NCAR have increasingly blurred the line between research and activism. Ignoring that problem would be irresponsible.

But responding with a blunt instrument risks collateral damage to areas of atmospheric science that actually work, and matter.

Reform NCAR? Absolutely.
Audit its programs? Long overdue.
Throttle back the model-driven hysteria? Please do.

But before anyone pulls the plug entirely, it might be wise to remember that weather is real, models are fallible, and supercomputers don’t vote.

If the goal is better science — not louder narratives — then precision, not demolition, should be the order of the day.

The Electric Vehicle Collapse: Wow, That Was Quick!

It was less than three years ago — early 2023 — that I was writing about the then-universal government and industry line that electric vehicles (EVs) would soon be taking over the American car market. In April 2022 the Biden Administration had adopted aggressive vehicle mileage standards intended to be achievable only through rapid transition to EVs. Our “climate leader” states, California and New York, had then adopted regulations in August and September 2022, respectively, mandating a phase-out of sales of combustion vehicles, to culminate in 2035, after which only EVs would be allowed.

A sleek blue sports car parked in a modern garage, showcasing its stylish design and exterior features.

From The Manhattan Contrarian

 By Francis Menton

It was less than three years ago — early 2023 — that I was writing about the then-universal government and industry line that electric vehicles (EVs) would soon be taking over the American car market. In April 2022 the Biden Administration had adopted aggressive vehicle mileage standards intended to be achievable only through rapid transition to EVs. Our “climate leader” states, California and New York, had then adopted regulations in August and September 2022, respectively, mandating a phase-out of sales of combustion vehicles, to culminate in 2035, after which only EVs would be allowed. In a post in January 2023, I linked to the websites of Ford and GM, where they both touted their grand plans for rapid conversion of their companies to the manufacture of mostly or entirely EVs. At that time, Ford was claiming that it would “lead America’s shift to EVs,” and would achieve 50% of its sales in that category by 2030. GM bragged about its “path to an all-electric future” by 2035.

In a post on February 23, 2023, I expressed skepticism.

It seems like all the smart people have made up their minds that the future of automobiles belongs to electric vehicles. . . . So, are electric vehicles about to sweep the country and become the dominant form of transportation? I bet against it.

Here was my reasoning:

This is just a specific instance of the general principle that it is always wise to bet against central planning of the economy. EVs may be a successful niche product for a small number of wealthy consumers, but the idea that they will fully replace gasoline powered cars in short order is the dream of central planners, who think they can implement their dream by coercion. Central planning never works, and won’t work this time either.

The past few weeks have brought a lot of news on the EV front. The short version is that even I would not have predicted how quickly and completely the EV fantasy has collapsed.

The background, of course, is that the second Trump administration took prompt steps on re-entering office to end the huge federal support that had been propping up EV sales. The large tax credit for EV purchases was ended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on July 4 and effective after September 30, 2025. On December 3, the administration announced the roll-back of the vehicle mileage standards known as “CAFE,” to levels at which combustion vehicles can comply.

The collapse of EV sales began immediately with the end of the tax credit. On October 31, trade publication Inside EVs reported on the first month’s results after the end of the credit:

Both J.D. Power and S&P Global Mobility estimate that October’s EV market share plummeted to around 5% in the U.S., from a record high of over 12% in September. The battery-powered share of sales also dropped significantly on a year-over-year basis, from over 8% in October 2024. The last time EVs made up 5% of U.S. vehicle sales was in early 2022. According to S&P Global Mobility, some 64,000 new electric vehicles were sold in October. That’s an epic drop from September, when Americans bought or leased nearly 150,000 EVs as they scrambled to cash in on the expiring $7,500 incentive.

The big automakers were quick to realize that they had to do a pivot. On December 15 the Wall Street Journal reported that Ford would take a massive charge of $19.5 billion to write down its EV investments:

Ford Motor said Monday it expected to take about $19.5 billion in charges, mainly tied to its electric-vehicle business, a massive hit as the automaker retrenches in the face of sinking EV demand. The sum is among the largest impairments taken by a company and marks the U.S. auto industry’s biggest reckoning to date that it can’t realize its electric-vehicle ambitions anytime soon.

The $19.5 billion is in addition to some $13 billion of operating losses that Ford has incurred over the past 3 years trying to compete in the EV business, even with the huge government subsidies:

Ford . . . has lost $13 billion on its EV business since 2023. . . .

Over at GM, the write-down is smaller, but the change of direction is no less stark. From NBC News, October 16:

On Tuesday, General Motors reported it was taking losses totaling $1.6 billion related to planned changes to its EV rollout. The company attributed some of the change to President Donald Trump’s elimination of the $7,500 in EV purchasing incentives enacted by President Joe Biden.

Nor is the collapse of EV sales limited to Ford and GM. From the NBC piece, as to Tesla:

Plunging sales at Tesla — still the U.S. leader in EV sales — are also contributing to the weakening outlook. Its second-quarter sales dropped almost 13%, and CEO Elon Musk has warned of some “rough quarters” ahead for the company.

And a comparable phenomenon is occurring in other countries, although under differing regulatory and policy regimes. From the Wall Street Journal, October 14:

The Rest of the World Is Following America’s Retreat on EVs. Canada, U.K. and European Union back off electric-vehicle targets as economic reality sets in and even China shows cracks. . . . Carmakers argue the EV business model is an unprofitable proposition given still-high battery costs, spotty car-charging networks and dwindling government subsidies. Incentive programs have ended or have been pared back across Europe and in the U.S. and Canada.

Let’s face it, this was always ill-conceived central planning, and it was never going to work. I went back to the links that I had included to the Ford and GM websites in my January 2022 post. Both links remain active, but the excited talk about leading the way to an all-EV future has been scrubbed from both. Instead, if you go there, you will find, in the case of GM, further links to follow if you want to buy yourself an EV, and in the case of Ford, general news about the company. Reality has returned.

Trump team plans to break up ‘global mothership’ of climate science

The administration of US President Donald Trump intends to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), a world-leading Earth-science centre in Boulder, Colorado. The centre’s modelling and Earth observations underpin a wide range of US and global research, especially on climate.

A view of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) buildings surrounded by green trees and a mountain in the background, under a clear sky.

Much of the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s non-climate portfolio will be dispersed, the White House says.

The administration of US President Donald Trump intends to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), a world-leading Earth-science centre in Boulder, Colorado.

The centre’s modelling and Earth observations underpin a wide range of US and global research, especially on climate. Nature.com has the story.

“This facility is one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country,” wrote Russell Vought, Trump’s budget director, announcing the planned closure in a post yesterday on the social-media platform X. In a statement, the White House called NCAR “the premier research stronghold for left-wing climate lunacy”. The plan was first reported by USA Today.

The White House said that the National Science Foundation (NSF), which provides funding for the centre, “will be breaking up NCAR to eliminate Green New Scam research activities. Any vital functions, such as weather modeling and supercomputing, will be moved under the purview of another entity or location.”

On Wednesday, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) — the non-profit consortium of more than 130 colleges and universities that runs NCAR — received a letter of intent from the NSF regarding the planned break-up of NCAR, consortium president Antonio Busalacchi told Nature.

The letter requested information regarding divesting, transferring or restructuring the various components of NCAR. It mentioned NCAR’s research aircraft fleet and its supercomputing center in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as components that might be relocated. “Morale is terrible,” Busalacchi says.

Any such action will be challenged by members of Congress. “I for one am not going to let this take place on my watch,” Joe Neguse, a Democrat who represents Boulder in the US House of Representatives, said Wednesday in a virtual address to the American Geophysical Union meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana. Congress sets the federal budget and can direct the US government to fund NCAR.

Read the full story here.

Getting the lead out of getting the lead out

People have recognized the dangers of lead at least since Hippocrates linked lead to poisonings circa 370 B.C., but the U.S. did not begin regulating the lead content in public drinking water until enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974. Two years later, the U.S. banned lead in new pipes and solder, but millions of miles of lead-containing pipes and lead-based solder remain.

An illustration of the chemical element lead (Pb) with its atomic number (82) and atomic weight (207.2), accompanied by several rocks representing lead.
Lead element symbol and raw ore. 3D rendering isolated on white background

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

People have recognized the dangers of lead at least since Hippocrates linked lead to poisonings circa 370 B.C., but the U.S. did not begin regulating the lead content in public drinking water until enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974. Two years later, the U.S. banned lead in new pipes and solder, but millions of miles of lead-containing pipes and lead-based solder remain.

As if a doubtful nation had not taken the SDWA seriously, EPA did not issue its first comprehensive Lead and Copper Rule until 1991. The rule established an action level of 15 parts per billion for lead, as well as required corrosion control, public notification, and lead service line replacement programs. It did not mandate immediate replacement of all lead service lines.

The first Trump administration finalized the first updates in decades to the SDWA’s Lead and Copper Rule. Its 2019 proposal, finalized in October 2020, “require[d] more replacements than ever before” for aging water systems leaching lead and posing a public health threat.

The Trump rule also lowered the action level for forcing providers to work with state regulators to replace lead service lines from 15 ppb to 10 ppb but kept the 15-ppb level for requiring communities to replace 3% (rather than 7%) of known or suspected lead lines each year. However, as then-EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler noted, the rule also closed loopholes that had kept actual replacement rates at near the new levels anyway.

It took nearly all of President Biden’s four-year term for the administration to issue its own Lead and Copper Rule Improvements that, among other things, sought to require all U.S. drinking water systems to identify and replace any remaining lead pipes within the next decade. Such an expedited timetable had been eschewed by Trump 45 as achievable only via smoke and mirrors.

At the same time, the EPA announced $2.6 billion in new drinking water infrastructure funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, with nearly half set aside for disadvantaged communities. Other new funding included $35 million in competitive grants for reducing lead in drinking water and funding to support lead pipe replacement projects.

The EPA and its affiliates combat lead in drinking water by testing at the tap — because even the purest water that leaves a treatment plant can be contaminated as it travels through corroded lead service lines. If lead (or copper above set levels) is detected at the tap, any corrosion control treatments have been ineffective, and the service line becomes a candidate for replacement.

Public education is aimed at both making people aware of the potential problem and incentivizing affected people to demand positive action on their behalf. One difficulty is separating fact from presumption — for example, EPA’s own estimates of the number of lead service lines that must be replaced have run from 3 to 4 million to over 9 million.

The 1991 Lead and Copper Rule required states to replace a minimum of 7% of lead piping each year. States may exceed those figures — but are not supposed to fall short, even if replacement costs are exorbitant. But not until 2021 did Congress create a $15 billion fund, to be released by the EPA in $3 billion annual increments, to help states identify and replace corroded lead piping that threatens public health.

Some states prefer to bank their allocations until they can fund larger pipe replacement projects using multi-year funding, while other states merely use the federal dollars as reimbursements for work they already completed. Only a few may be ahead of the 10-year timetable.

It is the EPA’s job to determine each state’s share of that $3 billion a year — and in 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin explained a five-month delay in determining those allocations, noting that this year’s formulation was based on an updated approach using information from the 7th Drinking Water Needs Survey and Assessment, as well as “certain adjustments” from lead service line inventory data submitted by states that shed more light on the size of the job.

Simply put, there has not been a new legal installation of a lead service line since 1986, and many older properties (including apartment complexes) that had lead pipes have been demolished. However, there is no accurate count and no strategy to ensure high accuracy levels.

Zeldin believes some revised state counts are more accurate and is also aware that many federal programs can be plagued by fraud or incompetence. If State A claimed twice the number of lines to be replaced as actually existed, and State B did not, and no one noticed the discrepancy, State A would be robbing other states of their rightful share. Without oversight, the door to fraud is wide open.

The American Water Works Association, which had intervened in court in support of the 2020 (Trump) Lead and Copper Rule revisions, quickly filed a lawsuit against the 2024 (Biden) rule. In 2021, the AWWA boasted of the “tremendous progress water utilities are making to identify lead service lines, share that information with households, and overcome the legal and financial barriers to replacement.”

But the AWWA was “deeply concerned” that the Biden revisions incorrectly assume that a water system “controls” a lead service line when it has “access” to that line. The SDWA distinguishes access from control, yet the Biden upgrades attempt to expand the definition of a public water system to include private property and makes water utilities responsible for issues on private property they cannot necessarily legally address.

The Biden rule, said the AWWA, also posed affordability challenges for households struggling to pay for essential needs. With a nationwide price tag for replacing all lead service lines above $100 billion, many consumers will crumble financially when hit with huge water bills already ballooned by compliance with the PFAS rule.

That’s why the 2025 Trump action backs away from the idealism behind the 2024 Biden rule. They, too, do not see the 10-year timeframe as feasible — unlike the typical bureaucrat who has never had to grapple with building consensus among utilities, government, consumers, and other stakeholders to allocate the dollars needed to replace every lead service line in America.

America’s battle to eliminate lead from tap water started slowly — and only forty years ago. No one wants another Flint, Michigan, horror story — but the simple truth is that in America it takes far more than Washington federal mandates and money for people at the local level to identify lead service lines and prioritize those in the greatest need of immediate replacement. The legal battles alone can take a decade or more.

Meanwhile, the EPA and all of Washington over the past several decades have been hyper-focused on “climate change” while — until Trump 45 — ignoring real-world problems like water and wastewater infrastructure and the electric grid. If today’s timetable is too slow, look backward for the blame.

We could have started replacing lead service lines decades ago. But exceeding the speed limit is not the right way to make up for being late to the courthouse to fight a speeding ticket.

On the other hand, by setting more reasonable timetables, local communities may find that the pressure relief enables them to accelerate replacement without bankrupting public drinking water systems or their customers.

Climate Study: “Storms reduce the summer ocean heat gain by limiting solar radiation reaching the surface”

According to a recent study, climate models overestimate Southern Ocean surface heating, because they underestimate the impact of storms.

A bright sun shines above a calm sea, with waves reflecting light and fluffy clouds scattered across a blue sky.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

According to a recent study, climate models overestimate Southern Ocean surface heating, because they underestimate the impact of storms.

NEWS RELEASE 16-DEC-2025

Storms in the Southern Ocean mitigates global warming

Peer-Reviewed Publication
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Intense storms that sweep over the Southern Ocean enable the ocean to absorb more heat from the atmosphere. New research from the University of Gothenburg shows that today’s climate models underestimate how storms mix the ocean and thereby give less reliable future projections of our climate.

The Southern Ocean is a vast expanse of ocean encircling the Antarctic continent, regulating Earth’s climate by moving heat, carbon, and nutrients out in the world’s oceans.

It provides a critical climate service by absorbing over 75 per cent of the excess heat generated by humans globally. The Southern Ocean’s capacity to reduce climate warming depends on how efficiently it can absorb heat from our atmosphere.

…

“Our research shows that summers with stronger storm activity generate lower surface temperatures across the Southern Ocean. Hence, a stormy ocean can absorb more heat from the atmosphere, then in calm weather,” says Marcel du Plessis, Researcher in oceanography at the University of Gothenburg and main author of the study.

How much heat the ocean absorbs from the atmosphere influences everything from how high temperatures will be on land, to the extent of sea ice and the severity of marine heatwaves.

…

Current climate models, which underpin the climate projections used to guide policy, tend to underestimate the strength of Southern Ocean storms and thereby simulate an overly warm ocean.

“That is why our findings are important, because a better representation of storm processes is essential for more accurate future climate projections,” says Marcel du Plessis. 

…

It’s in the Antarctic summer that storms have their strongest impact on ocean heat uptake. In winter, completely different processes take place. This will be the next challenge for researchers to observe and understand.

Media Contact

Olof Lönnehed
University of Gothenburg
olof.lonnehed@science.gu.se
Office: +46 766-186970

Expert Contact

Marcel du Plessis
University of Gothenburg
marcel.du.plessis@gu.se
Cell: +46 72 900 8118Read more: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1109536

The abstract of the study;

Published: 03 December 2025

Southern Ocean summer warming is regulated by storm-driven mixing

Nature Geoscience (2025)Cite this article

Abstract

The Southern Ocean absorbs most of the excess heat resulting from climate change. However, climate projections show a persistent warm summer bias in its sea surface temperatures, indicating a limited understanding of the air–sea heat exchange mechanisms governing this region. Here we examine the impact of storms on the interannual variability of Southern Ocean surface temperatures during summer using in situ observations from underwater and surface robotic vehicles, climate reanalyses and satellite data. We show that synoptic-scale storms regulate summer sea surface temperatures through alteration of the effective heat capacity of the mixed layer and the entrainment of colder water from below. Storms reduce the summer ocean heat gain by limiting solar radiation reaching the surface. This effect is partially offset by a reduction in heat loss due to turbulent air–sea exchange. We also find that interannual variations in sea surface temperature during summer in the Southern Ocean are driven by changes in storm-mean wind speeds, which are linked to the Southern Annular Mode. Our results demonstrate a causal link between storm forcing and sea surface temperature variability, which is critical for reducing warming biases in climate models and improving future climate projections.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-025-01857-3

From the study;

…

During the third period (days 23 to 47), a series of intense storms deepened the mixed layer to about 100 m. This, along with a reduction of the mean net heat flux to 131 W m−2, decreased the SST warming rate to 0.025 °C d−1. The drop in heat flux was primarily due to the reduction in incoming top-of-atmosphere shortwave radiation (Fig. 2f). That said, with the positive net heat flux still large, the SST continued to increase until reaching the seasonal maximum (Tmax = 2.28 °C). After this, the SST remained comparatively stable at −0.002 °C d−1 as the net heat flux reduced to 88 W m−2, again due to a drop in incoming shortwave radiation (Fig. 2f). This slightly negative SST tendency—despite the positive heat flux—can be explained by a multi-day entrainment-driven cooling associated with deep turbulent mixing, starting on day 47 (Fig. 2e and Extended Data Fig. 3). Thus, in addition to regulating MLD and the mixed-layer’s heat capacity, intense storms can reduce SST through wind-driven entrainment of cooler subsurface water. This is seen during two other notable SST cooling events in response to mixing below the MLD, on days 5 and 24 (Fig. 2a,c). Cumulatively, all three entrainment events reduced the SST by about 1 °C over the summer (Fig. 2a), with the two strongest events cooling the SST by 0.4 °C each (days 24 to 27 and days 47 to 52). These large SST changes, caused by individual storms, highlight the rectified effect of storm-driven entrainment on the seasonal-scale warming during summer.

…Read more: Same link as above

Interesting they forgot to mention the part about storms limiting solar radiation reaching the surface in the press release.

Another part they left out is how much this underestimated deep mixing is likely to retard global warming, thanks to the enormous thermal capacity of the oceans. Even if the model interpretation that most global warming is being absorbed by the ocean is correct, it would likely take thousands of years to nudge deep ocean temperature by a single degree. The ocean depths are just above freezing, 12,000 years of Holocene interglacial global warming has barely nudged the dial.

Given the uptick in storms when summer insolation heats the sea, storms which act to reduce sea surface temperature, it seems likely stronger than expected summer storms are yet another unaccounted-for negative feedback which works against climate alarmist fantasies of runaway global warming.

Yahoo’s Waning Ocean Current Claims Are Hyperbolic and False

A recent Yahoo News article, “Experts warn ongoing concern with Atlantic Ocean will be direct threat to dozens of nations: ‘Consequences for at least 1,000 years to come,’” by Timothy McGill, claims a new modeling study shows that a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC,) would intensify Southern Europe’s drought risk, producing consequences lasting “at least 1,000 years.” It presents this as an increasingly likely, looming climate catastrophe. This is false. There is no direct observational evidence that the AMOC has changed according to real-world data finding that the AMOC has not declined over the past 60 years.

Waves crashing in the ocean under a cloudy sky.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

Stormy ocean waves under a cloudy sky, with the word 'WRONG' superimposed in red text.

A recent Yahoo News article, “Experts warn ongoing concern with Atlantic Ocean will be direct threat to dozens of nations: ‘Consequences for at least 1,000 years to come,’” by Timothy McGill, claims a new modeling study shows that a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC,) would intensify Southern Europe’s drought risk, producing consequences lasting “at least 1,000 years.” It presents this as an increasingly likely, looming climate catastrophe. This is false. There is no direct observational evidence that the AMOC has changed according to real-world data finding that the AMOC has not declined over the past 60 years.

The article declares, “The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is expected to weaken or even collapse under anthropogenic climate change,” quoting Stefan Rahmstorf warning, “[i]f the AMOC shuts down, this would have consequences for at least 1,000 years to come.” It also leans on the familiar “tipping point” language, wrongly implying a near-term collapse of the Atlantic conveyer belt would plunge the world into a period of irreversible climate disruption.

The problem is that the AMOC story has been a moving target for more than a decade, with headline claims repeatedly whipsawing between “it’s slowing,” “it’s speeding up,” and “there’s no clear trend.” This ongoing flip-flop is clearly debunked by Heartland President James Taylor. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s own explainer, “What is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)?,” concedes that while research suggests weakening “over the past century,” whether it will continue to slow or stop “remains uncertain,” which is a polite way of saying the observational record does not support the kind of certainty implied by “increasingly likely” collapse rhetoric. The Climate at a Glance reference, “Ocean Currents,” relies on real-world AMOC data and does what the Yahoo News article does not: it documents the long pattern of contradictory AMOC alarmist claims, including repeated assertions that models show a dramatic slowdown “not experienced in 1,600 years,” followed by subsequent papers and analyses disputing the magnitude, timing, or even existence of a measurable trend.

And that is the key point: this Yahoo piece is ultimately about a modeling exercise, not an observed “collapse in progress.” The article even frames the study as testing scenarios in a large climate model and then projecting how European summer precipitation might respond if the AMOC “fails.” That’s not a measurement; it’s an if-then thought experiment inside a model. When a model’s assumptions are stacked into a “collapsed AMOC” scenario and then run forward for 1,000 years, you will indeed get 1,000 years of modeled consequences. But that tells you more about the model’s design than it does about what will actually happen.

This is also where the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC)  Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) is routinely misused in media coverage. The IPCC’s AR6 discusses AMOC as a system likely to weaken under warming in many models, but it also treats the topic cautiously because direct long-term observations are limited, and reanalysis/proxy reconstructions can disagree. The article does not convey that caution; it sells certainty and urgency, then bolts on a thousand-year scare tag to raise the emotional stakes.

If you want to see the contradiction problem laid out plainly, Climate Realism has multiple AMOC fact checks with specific examples of media flip-flops and exaggerated certainty, including “CNN Lies in its AMOC Collapse Story: Another Flip-Flop in a Long Line of Alarmist Claims,” “No, NewsBreak, the Supposed ‘Cold Blob’ in the Atlantic Isn’t a Harbinger of the Atlantic Ocean Current Collapsing,” “Why Isn’t the Mainstream Media Reporting that Ocean Circulation Is Doing Well?,” and “The BBC Tries a Feckless Rescue as Scientists Inconveniently Find the Gulf Stream Isn’t Getting Weaker.” Those articles document a very simple reality: the AMOC has been used as a media boogeyman for years precisely because it’s scientifically complex, difficult to observe accurately over long-term periods, and therefore easy to oversell with model projections and dramatic graphics to a gullible public.

What Yahoo also ignores is how much this AMOC panic has already been culturally packaged as catastrophe entertainment. The 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow was built around a rapid AMOC/Gulf Stream shutdown that plunges the Northern Hemisphere into instant ice-age conditions. Scientists panned that scenario at the time as wildly unrealistic in its speed and mechanics, a point summarized in coverage such as ScienceDaily’s discussion of whether ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ could happen, which notes that climate scientists criticized the film. Yet the rhetoric in today’s reporting often walks right back toward the same cinematic framing: collapse, tipping, imminent disruption, and now—conveniently—“1,000 years” of punishment for extra moral emphasis.

Finally, the article buries the biggest giveaway in plain sight: the claimed consequences are said to be relevant for “decision makers of today,” not because the AMOC has demonstrated a measured march toward shutdown, but because a model was forced into a collapse state and then used to generate dramatic downstream impacts. That is advocacy by simulation, not evidence that the real AMOC is about to “fail,” much less that it will lock Europe into a millennium of drought as a quasi-certain outcome. In fact, the purported downstream impacts are unproven and highly debatable because AMOC collapse is not a proven cause of long-term regional or global ice ages. Rather, it is speculative based on model outputs, for which real world data suggest, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Yahoo is misleading readers by presenting a highly speculative, model-driven collapse scenario as a growing near-term likelihood, while ignoring the fact that the measurements of the current don’t show a clear decline. The story also overlooks the fact that AMOC claims have ping-ponged for years across the scientific and media landscape, from declining currents, or currents speeding up, to no real change. When the best you can say about the observations is “uncertain,” the responsible move is humility, not thousand-year climate doom mongering.

Government Minister Steps in to Defend Met Office as Fake Temperature Scandal Escalates

In a couple of weeks’ time, the Met Office is likely to announce another ‘hottest year evah’ in the UK. The message will be broadcast faithfully by trusted messengers in mainstream media, keen to prop up the fading Net Zero fantasy, but greeted with howls of derision across social media. Eye-opening investigative research over the last two years has revealed a national temperature network mainly composed of ‘junk’ inappropriate sites and massive data inventions across over 100 non-existent stations.

A weather station setup featuring an old 'Met Office' sign and several weather measuring instruments placed on a wooden table outdoors, surrounded by rolling hills and a clear blue sky.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

A man in a blue suit and red tie sits at a table, smiling at the camera. The background features a window and abstract artwork on the wall.

In a couple of weeks’ time, the Met Office is likely to announce another ‘hottest year evah’ in the UK. The message will be broadcast faithfully by trusted messengers in mainstream media, keen to prop up the fading Net Zero fantasy, but greeted with howls of derision across social media. Eye-opening investigative research over the last two years has revealed a national temperature network mainly composed of ‘junk’ inappropriate sites and massive data inventions across over 100 non-existent stations. Now the British Government has stepped in with the suggestion that questioning the Met Office’s shoddy measuring systems “weakens trust in science”. Misinformation is said to have proliferated on “conspiracy networks”.

Step forward Lord Patrick Vallance, the former Government Chief Scientific Adviser at the heart of the Covid lockdown panic but now an unelected Science Minister in the Labour Administration. “There has been a growing online narrative in some online and social media spaces attempting to undermine Met Office observations and data,” he observes. Vallance’s conspiracy claims echo similar comments made earlier in the year by the Met Office. The investigative efforts of a small number of people were said by the state meteorologist to be an “attempt to undermine decades of robust science around the world ‘s changing climate”.

Only in the world inhabited by Vallance and the Met Office can a conspiracy be whipped up when rigorous examination and questioning is applied to scientific data. From Covid to climate, it seems the scientific process is a closed book to state scientists following the settled political narrative. One of the ‘conspirators’ is citizen sleuth Ray Sanders, who has undertaken a forensic examination of nearly 400 individual Met Office recording stations. Commenting on the official ministerial response, he observed that not one word constituted a scientific approach. “It is a political monologue of the lowest order,” he opined.

Regular co-conspiratorial readers will of course be aware of the reporting problems at the Met Office. Over the last 18 months, the percentage of sites in junk CIMO Classes 4 and 5 with ‘uncertainties’ due to nearby unnatural obstacles of 2°C and 5°C respectively has climbed from 77.9% to over 80%. In that period, the number of pristine Class 1 sites capable of measuring an uncorrupted ambient air temperature over a large surrounding area has fallen from 24 to just 19. Ray Sanders has catalogued most of the unsuitable sites producing measurements taken by airport runways, in walled gardens, near main roads and in the middle of solar farms. Daily high unnatural heat spikes, amplified by the recent introduction of more accurate electronic devices, are an obvious unaddressed problem, but they are often fed into the official statistics. One such 60-second spike in July 2022 pushed the temperature at RAF Coningsby up to 40.3°C, a declared national record that is widely publicised.

Meanwhile, temperature databases are awash with non-existent stations and invented data. Explanations that the ‘estimates’ are taken from ‘well-correlated neighbouring stations’ might be more convincing if those stations could be identified. Freedom of Information (FOI) efforts by Ray Sanders seeking such details have been dismissed as “vexatious” and “not in the public interest”. The picture has emerged of a very rough-and-ready network, suitable for specific local temperature reporting at places such as airports, but unconvincing in promoting widespread average temperatures down to one hundredth of a degree centigrade.

The Vallance explanations are contained in a letter written to the Conservative MP Sir Julian Lewis following concerns raised by Derek Tripp, a local councillor in his constituency. He notes that in September, the Met Office decided to remove estimated data from three non-existent stations on its historic temperature database. “They recognised that confusion could be caused when there appears to be a continued flow of data on this website from stations that have closed,” he said.

In fact, the confusion was caused by the Daily Sceptic seeking FOI details in November of well-correlated neighbouring stations responsible for data at one of the stations, namely Lowestoft. The well-correlated explanation is often used by the Met Office and formed the basis of an earlier ‘fact check’ by Science Feedback that seems to have relied exclusively on text provided by the Met Office. Sanders had earlier determined that there were no such stations within a reasonable distance of Lowestoft. The Met Office admitted under FOI that it did not use such stations but rather made estimates using its HADUK-Grid. This was little more than passing the buck since HADUK-Grid inputs temperature information from nearby stations, none of which it seems can ever be identified.

Vallance went on to note that the historic dataset was for “general interest only and is not intended for climate monitoring purposes”. Curiously, Vallance failed to point out that this was a very recent explanation since it only appeared on the Met Office historic page after the Daily Sceptic submitted its FOI.

On the 80% junk nature of the Met Office’s temperature sites, Vallance rushes to the aid of the party. “It is misleading and inappropriate to interpret the CIMO classifications in isolation to question the quality of the Met Office’s observing network or the integrity of the UK’s climate record,” he states. What pompous piffle. In-house activists have been allowed to leverage the reputation of the Met Office to produce a flood of dubious measurements and statistics designed to create mass climate psychosis with the aim of promoting a hard-Left Net Zero agenda. The World Meteorological Organisation could not be clearer in stating that a CIMO Class 1 location can be considered as a “reference” site giving a true air temperature over a wide surrounding area. “A Class 5 site is a site where nearby obstacles create an inappropriate environment for a meteorological measurement that is intended to be representative of a wide area,” it notes. A site with a poor class number can still be valuable for a specified application, it adds.

In other words, a Class 5 is useful for giving jet pilots a vital runway temperature, but less so for telling us that the annual temperature in the UK was 0.06°C cooler in 2023 than the ‘record’ year of 2022.

Vallance also claims that the Met Office “follows a structured, requirements-driven process to identify and establish new land observing stations”. It is reasonable to ask what “requirements-driven” process is being used by the Met Office, given that a large majority of sites started over the last 30, 10 and five years are to be found in the junk 4 and 5 Classes. Even worse, the Daily Sceptic has disclosed using FOI information that 20 new sites have opened since April 2024, and of the 17 that have received CIMO classifications, a frankly incredible 64.7% started life in the Class 4 and 5 junk lane.

And they say we are the conspiracy nuts.

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

Climate Fundraising Update: Hope amid Doom

It’s a funny, scary time in the climate alarmist camp. Once-favorable economic and political trends are going the other way in the U.S. and increasingly in the world. What to do? Literally thousands of climate-issue employees (grifters?) need to find alternative employment, almost all in net-positive (CO2) industries where value is being created rather than redistributed and lost. Big Money Green will keep priming the pump for many, however, so a base of false-green advocacy will remain.

A cartoon eagle character wearing a red cape holds a sign that reads 'Save the Planet!' with factories in the background.

Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Climate activists are in denial. A great reset is underway…. But are they willing to emotionally reject their prior thinking for cause?”

It’s a funny, scary time in the climate alarmist camp. Once-favorable economic and political trends are going the other way in the U.S. and increasingly in the world. What to do? Literally thousands of climate-issue employees (grifters?) need to find alternative employment, almost all in net-positive (CO2) industries where value is being created rather than redistributed and lost. Big Money Green will keep priming the pump for many, however, so a base of false-green advocacy will remain.

Scaleback

In 2024 (Google summary):

  • Breakthrough Energy, the climate group funded by Bill Gates, laid off all of its US public policy team and its entire European staff. This decision was seen as a major retreat from public policy advocacy in a shifting political landscape.
  • Rewiring America, a nonprofit focused on housing electrification, announced layoffs after its grant funds were frozen by the EPA.
  • The Connecticut Roundtable on Climate and Jobs also announced layoffs, citing a decline in grants, which they linked partly to Bill Gates’ foundation pulling back on funding for policy-focused organizations. 

And in 2025, Jeff Bezos’ Earth Fund halted funding, while 350.org suspended programming in the U.S. and cut back worldwide. Greenpeace USA might be next.

Grist Appeal

At Grist, a fundraising appeal begins with weather-climate Doomism followed by this:

But the truth is more complicated — and in some places, more hopeful. As our recent story highlights, positive tipping points are happening all around us. Cities are rapidly shifting to clean energy. E-bikes are outpacing gas-powered vehicles in some regions. Nations are hitting milestones in renewable power that once seemed impossible.

These are turning points that matter — and they deserve to be reported with clarity, context, and depth.

At Grist, that’s exactly what we do. We shine a light on the progress unfolding across communities and hold power to account when that progress is obstructed. We report on the breakthroughs not to distract from the urgency of the crisis, but to show what real, durable change looks like.

NRDC Misinformation

Pure misinformation is also being peddled to keep the faithful from bailing. National Resources Defense Council (Manish Bapna) reported from COP30:

… after everything that has happened in 2025, including the Trump Administration slamming the brakes on clean energy and climate action… what is the mood? … Yet the mood is not one of despair. The urgency is real, but so is the determination. New leaders are stepping up, and the global community continues to move forward. I am hopeful, and so are most of my colleagues. This is not only because I believe in humanity’s ability to rise to the occasion, although I do. It is also because the numbers tell a clear story. Clean energy is winning on economics.

I commented:

“Clean energy is winning on economics.” Bunk. The heralded ‘energy transition’ is really ‘energy duplication’ inflating rates. Repeal the IRA, ITC, and PTC immediately to get your verdict–and spare the living space of wind, solar, and battery industrialization (and duplication).

Final Comment

Climate activists are in denial. A great reset is underway despite tons of money and legions of soldiers for their public-rejected cause. I have challenged the Climate Industrial Complex, the Church of Climate, to open their minds to reject the industrialization of wind/solar/batteries and accept the benefits of CO2 growth (global greening) and fossil fuels (human betterment, adaptation). But are they willing to emotionally reject their prior thinking for cause?

New Study: 8000 Years Ago, Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica

Today’s sea levels are the lowest of the last several thousand years.

A group of emperor penguins on a snowy landscape with a large ice formation under a clear blue sky.

From NoTrickZone

By Kenneth Richard

A group of emperor penguins standing on ice with a backdrop of snowy mountains and a glacier, reflecting in calm water.

Today’s sea levels are the lowest of the last several thousand years.

Carbon dating evidence from the elevation of abandoned penguin rookeries (and other proxies) reveal relative sea level (RSL) was ~30 m higher than today across East Antarctica about 8000 years ago (Small et al., 2025).

Following that high stand RSL fell rapidly at rates of 4 to 10 m per 1000 years. RSL was 24 m above present sea level (ASL) by 7200 years ago, 15 m ASL by 5700 years ago, 5 m ASL by 3200 years ago, and still 1 m ASL about 800 years ago.

A scientific study diagram depicting relative sea-level changes over time in the Windmill Islands, East Antarctica, including data points related to penguin rookeries and sea-level height estimates.
Image Source: Small et al., 2025

Another study from Antarctica’s South Shetland Islands suggests RSL has plummeted by 10 meters just in the last 2000 years after a 15 m highstand 9000 years ago.

Graph depicting the Holocene relative sea level curve for the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica, showing changes in elevation over time.
Image Source: Watcham et al., 2011

There are regions in the northern hemisphere where RSL reached similarly high elevations as they did across East Antarctica. The southeast coast of Sweden, the southern Baltic Sea, records RSL 22 m higher than today from approximately 7500 to 6200 years ago (Katrantsiotis et al., 2023).

A graph depicting relative sea level changes in the Västervik-Gamblebyviken region of Sweden over the last 10,000 years, illustrating various transgressions and isolations associated with historical sea level fluctuations.
Image Source: Katrantsiotis et al., 2023

Time Magazine: Climate Change will Bring More AND Less Christmas Snow?

Time Magazine placing an each way bet?

Santa Claus in a red suit and sunglasses reclining on desert sand, surrounded by swirling dust and rocky terrain.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Time Magazine placing an each way bet?

DEC 13, 2025 5:06 AM AET
What Climate Change Means for White Christmases

by Simmone Shah
REPORTER

If you’ve been dreaming of a white Christmas, be warned that it might not become a reality. 

Many people have memories of watching the snow fall on Christmas Day—but data shows that, across the country, a white Christmas occurs less frequently than you might think.

…

While a few degrees might not seem like much, it could mean the difference between snow and rain. “With warmer temperatures being recorded across the nation, the odds of a white Christmas are going down,” says Pete Globe, assistant state climatologist at the Colorado Climate Center. “So, there is at least some truth to the anecdote that we’re seeing less white Christmases across a lot of the country.” 

That’s due to a mix of climate change and climate variability, the natural fluctuations in climate patterns in a given region. The northeast, upper Midwest and New York and New Jersey are some of the areas where this trend is strongest, says Globe. Climate change is also causing shorter, warmer winters. But that doesn’t mean that a white Christmas will become a thing of the past. Some areas that often see snow might see more intense storms due to climate change, as a warmer atmosphere is able to hold more moisture. 

…Read more: https://time.com/7340507/climate-change-snow-white-christmas/

Soo let’s see if I got this right. You probably won’t see snow this Christmas, because of global warming. But if you do see snow, that will be because of global warming.

Falsify that prediction Mr Popper.