Tag: floods

Wrong, New York Times, Nepal’s Tragedy Wasn’t Caused by Climate Change

The New York Times (NYT), in its article “Climate Change Raises Risk of Disasters Like Nepal Floods,” claims that climate change increased the risk of the catastrophic glacier collapse and flooding in Nepal by thawing permafrost and destabilizing the mountainside. This is false.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

The New York Times (NYT), in its article “Climate Change Raises Risk of Disasters Like Nepal Floods,” claims that climate change increased the risk of the catastrophic glacier collapse and flooding in Nepal by thawing permafrost and destabilizing the mountainside. This is false. The best evidence suggests the disaster was primarily the result of a complex cascade of geological failures and human infrastructure vulnerabilities, not proof of a climate crisis.

The scenes from Nepal are heartbreaking. Entire communities were devastated as millions of tons of rock, ice, mud, and water thundered down the Langtang Lirung valley. Hundreds are dead or missing, roads and bridges have been swept away, and the landscape has been permanently altered.

When disasters of this magnitude occur, journalists should resist the temptation to immediately assign blame before the evidence is fully understood.

The NYT did exactly the opposite.

Even within its own reporting, the paper admits scientists are “still determining the exact cause” of the catastrophe and that research could take months. Despite this acknowledgement, the NYT nevertheless frames the disaster as another consequence of climate change from the headline onward. That is not reporting. It is climate crisis narrative promotion.

“Climate change is heating up the Himalayas and supercharging the risk of disasters like the deadly flash flooding in Nepal and Tibet,” says the NYT, which quotes one researcher saying, “‘There’s a very straight link between climate change and these types of disasters.’”

Yet just a few paragraphs later the article quotes Newcastle University geomorphologist Stuart Dunning, “I don’t think we can simply say this is a result of climate change.”

That caution should have been the headline. Instead, it was buried.

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s analysis of the event, “What Actually Caused the Nepal Disaster,” reaches a much more measured conclusion. The immediate trigger appears to have been an enormous bedrock collapse beneath the glacier, which destabilized the overlying ice and produced a massive rock-ice avalanche. The resulting debris flow raced downstream at extraordinary speed. That is fundamentally a geological process, not an atmospheric or climate-related one. More importantly, much of the destruction was amplified by human decisions completely unrelated to climate.

Roads, bridges, hydropower facilities, and communities had been constructed directly within vulnerable river valleys and debris-flow pathways, areas where floods have hit in the past. Infrastructure occupied locations long known to be exposed to landslides and flash floods in one of the most geologically active mountain ranges on Earth. Those choices dramatically increased the disaster’s consequences.

In other words, the event was catastrophicly worse than it might otherwise have been had people and governments not placed expensive infrastructure and growing populations directly in the path of natural mountain hazards. That is a very different conclusion than “climate change caused it.”

Ironically, the NYT itself provides historical context that weakens its central narrative. The article acknowledges that glacier failures have occurred dozens of times in the China- Nepal border region since 1900.

That matters far more than their click- bait headline.

Since these events occurred repeatedly for well over a century, long before human greenhouse gas emissions rose, this event cannot automatically be linked to modern greenhouse gas emissions and human induced climate change. Mountain glaciers fail for many reasons, including gravity, unstable rock formations, earthquakes, heavy snowfall, freeze-thaw cycles, and natural slope failure.

The Himalayas are among the youngest and most tectonically active mountain systems on Earth, caused by when the Indian Plate slammed into the Eurasian landmass. Landslides are not unusual there. Neither are rock, snow, and ice avalanches. The NYT also acknowledges that scientists initially suspected a glacial lake outburst flood before satellite observations showed no overflowing lake was involved.

That illustrates an important lesson: early assumptions after disasters are often wrong.

Unfortunately, that lesson was not applied to the climate narrative. Instead of waiting for investigators to complete their work, many media outlets including NPR, the New York Times, the Associated Press immediately declared the disaster another example of climate change. Once again, the conclusion came before the evidence.

There is another glaring omission. The article briefly notes that Nepal’s warning systems were not designed to detect this type of rapidly developing debris flow. That is a practical issue policymakers can actually address and should.

Improved geological monitoring, better hazard mapping, stronger infrastructure design, and avoiding construction in known debris-flow channels will save lives regardless of future climate conditions. Those are the real solutions. Ending fossil fuel use will not mitigate or prevent future avalanches, but it would hamper recovery efforts and infrastructure improvements.

The tragedy in Nepal deserves careful scientific investigation, not instant political messaging. Good journalism follows the evidence wherever it leads. In this case, the evidence points first to geology and human exposure to natural hazards, not to climate change. The New York Times should have let science finish its work before declaring the verdict. Sadly, the “publish first, ask questions later” method seems to be the norm these days when it comes to climate change related news.

Wrong, Deutsche Welle, There Is No Such Thing as a “Super El Niño,” Nor Is it on Team Climate

Deutsche Welle (DW) claims in “How climate change is teaming up with ‘Super El Nino” that a developing “Super El Niño,” combined with climate change, could make 2026 one of the hottest years on record while increasing the risks of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and marine heat waves around the world. This is highly misleading.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

Deutsche Welle (DW) claims in “How climate change is teaming up with ‘Super El Nino” that a developing “Super El Niño,” combined with climate change, could make 2026 one of the hottest years on record while increasing the risks of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and marine heat waves around the world. This is highly misleading. El Niño are long-recognized naturally recurring ocean-atmosphere cycles that have operated for thousands of years and strong El Niño events have occurred periodically throughout history, long before industrial greenhouse gas emission began to increase.

The first red flag appears in the headline itself. There is no official meteorological definition of a “Super El Niño.”

Neither the World Meteorological Organization, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center, nor the American Meteorological Society recognizes “Super El Niño” as a formal scientific classification. Meteorologists describe El Niño events by measuring sea surface temperature anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region of the tropical Pacific. They may characterize an event as weak, moderate, strong, or very strong, but “Super El Niño” is largely a media invention designed to make a naturally occurring climate pattern sound unprecedented.

That alone should make readers skeptical.

El Niño is not a new phenomenon, nor is it evidence of climate change. Long before automobiles, coal-fired power plants, or industrial emissions existed, El Niño events periodically warmed the tropical Pacific Ocean, temporarily altering normal weather patterns around the globe. Paleoclimate records from corals, lake sediments, and other shell middens, and other proxy data show that El Niño events have repeatedly occurred for thousands of years.

Nothing about its existence is evidence of a climate crisis. DW also suggests that climate change is “teaming up” with El Niño to produce record warmth.

That statement reverses cause and effect.

El Niño transfers enormous amounts of stored ocean heat into the atmosphere. That is precisely why global temperatures often spike during strong El Niño years and then decline as La Niña conditions return. This pattern has repeated for centuries.

The strong 1997-98 El Niño produced record global temperatures.

The powerful 2015-16 El Niño did the same.

More recently, the 2023-24 El Niño contributed to another jump in global temperatures before they began moderating as the event weakened. There is nothing unprecedented about this sequence, which is made clear in the Figure below.

Figure: Oceanic Niño Index from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center. Plotted by Meteorologist Jan Null.

It is exactly what climatologists expect from a strong El Niño. DW further claims that El Niño could intensify heat waves, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and marine heat waves around the world.

Some of those statements contain a speck of truth, but mostly they are misleading talking points.

El Niño does influence weather patterns globally. It can make some regions temporarily wetter and others drier. It can suppress Atlantic hurricane activity while increasing hurricane activity in parts of the Pacific. It affects rainfall, temperatures, and storm tracks across much of the globe.

But that is very different from claiming El Niño automatically causes more weather disasters worldwide.

Wildfires depend on ignition sources, fuel loads, forest management, humidity, and local weather. Heat waves have occurred throughout recorded history, long before anyone worried about greenhouse gases. Droughts and floods are influenced by regional circulation patterns that vary considerably from one El Niño event to another.

Simply invoking El Niño and climate change together does not establish that either is responsible for any particular extreme weather event, much less every such event. DW also repeats a common media refrain that climate change remains “the main driver” of rising temperatures while El Niño merely amplifies its effects.

That claim is presented as settled fact, but no evidence is offered by DW to support it.

In reality, year-to-year changes in global temperature are overwhelmingly dominated by natural variability, particularly the transition between El Niño and La Niña. That is why global temperatures can rise sharply during a strong El Niño and then level off or even decline afterward. Over decades and centuries, other natural oceanic current patterns, like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and the Pacific Meridional Overturning Circulation are significant factors in climate change as they redistribute ocean heat.

Natural variability remains a major driver of short-term climate fluctuations. Perhaps the biggest journalistic failure is that DW never distinguishes between weather forecasting and climate attribution.

Forecasting that a strong El Niño may influence global weather over the coming months is reasonable science. Claiming that climate change is “teaming up” with El Niño to produce nearly every type of extreme weather is speculation. Those are not the same thing.

The article also hints that 2027 could be even hotter, despite acknowledging that the future evolution of El Niño remains uncertain. That is another projection built upon assumptions, not observations.

No one knows today what the global average temperature will be in 2027 because it will depend on countless variables, including the evolution of ENSO, volcanic activity, cloud cover, ocean circulation, and other natural influences that cannot be predicted with certainty years in advance.

Good journalism should help readers understand the difference between natural climate variability and long-term climate trends. DW’s story linking the developing strong El Niño to climate change is not good journalism.

Readers deserve better than catchy labels and speculative headlines. They deserve reporting that distinguishes between what scientists actually know, what climate models project, and what remains uncertain. In this case, DW chose drama over clarity, turning one of Earth’s oldest natural climate cycles into yet another vehicle for climate alarmism.

NYT goes full witchcraft, cites an academic declaring Trump will cause bad weather!

In recent days his administration has slammed the door on every possible avenue of global cooperation on the environment. At the same time, it is sending the message that it wants the world to be awash in fossil fuels sold by America, no matter the consequences.

A man holding a black umbrella stands against a backdrop of a stormy New York City skyline, featuring tall buildings and a cloudy sky.

From The Climate Depot

By Admin

A person holding a black umbrella standing on a wet city street during rain, with blurred cars and buildings in the background.

Under Trump, U.S. Adds Fuel to a Heating Planet – The New York Times

Excerpt:

In recent days his administration has slammed the door on every possible avenue of global cooperation on the environment. At the same time, it is sending the message that it wants the world to be awash in fossil fuels sold by America, no matter the consequences.

Under President Trump, the United States has become the only nation to renege on a pledge to try to keep warming to 1.5 degrees. Its actions will make the global fight harder, scientists said.

“Emissions will be higher,” warned Justin S. Mankin, an associate professor at Dartmouth College who researches climate variability. “Trump’s greenhouse gas emissions will cause Trump’s heat waves, Trump’s droughts, Trump’s floods, and Trump’s wildfires.”

…

“The science is clear that every action matters and every ton of carbon matters,” said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist and professor at Texas Tech. “There’s a price to pay for every ton of carbon we produce, and that price is being added to our global debt.”

Quote from Justin S. Mankin, associate professor at Dartmouth College, discussing the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate variability.

#

Blaming bad weather/hurricanes on Trump and/or ‘global warming’ is a throwback to medieval witchcraft – Book Excerpt –

Have We Advanced since the Middle Ages?

Did you know?

Witch hunts increased during the Little Ice Age
The Aztecs had one advantage over our climate experts—they realized the sun was responsible for global warming
A University of Cincinnati professor blamed the rise of Hitler on global warming.

Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics William Happer in 2017 drew parallels to today’s man-made climate change claims. “I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 per cent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed,” Happer quipped.

[Note: According to The Salem Witch Trial judges: “Five of the nine judges had attended Harvard, though only William Stoughton, Samuel Sewall and Nathaniel Saltonstall had graduated.” — On 27 May 1692, Sir William Phips, the newly appointed royal governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, appointed nine of the colony’s leading magistrates to serve as judges for the newly created Court of Oyer and Terminer. When Phips sailed into Boston from London on 14 May, there were already 38 people in jail for witchcraft, and the accusations and arrests were growing daily. One of the governor’s first official acts was to create this special court to deal with the growing crisis…Governor Phips carefully chose men he described as “persons of the best prudence.”… All nine were members of the Governor’s Council, and most of them had served as judges for many years. Many had even been on panels that had heard previous witchcraft cases.]

No, Yale Climate Connections, Dramatic Photos Don’t Prove Climate Change Effects

The recent article in Yale Climate Connections, “Six photos show how climate change shaped our world in 2025,” by Samantha Harrington, presents a photo-driven narrative asserting that wildfires, floods, heat waves, hurricanes, and droughts in 2025 were “made more devastating and deadly by climate change.” This is outright false. The piece relies on striking images and rapid attribution claims to imply a climate causation but offers no hard evidence to support such claims and measured trends refute such claims.

Historical photograph depicting a rural landscape with several small houses and a concerning sky, suggesting an atmospheric disturbance.
The Dust Bowl

From The Climate Realism

By Anthony Watts

A digital collage featuring a bold red 'BOGUS' stamp overlaying a background of people participating in a memorial or tribute, amidst floral arrangements. The text highlights skepticism towards the depiction of climate change effects in media.

The recent article in Yale Climate Connections, “Six photos show how climate change shaped our world in 2025,” by Samantha Harrington, presents a photo-driven narrative asserting that wildfires, floods, heat waves, hurricanes, and droughts in 2025 were “made more devastating and deadly by climate change.” This is outright false. The piece relies on striking images and rapid attribution claims to imply a climate causation but offers no hard evidence to support such claims and measured trends refute such claims.

The article states that these images “show the consequences of our warming climate in action,” and repeatedly asserts that climate change “made” specific events more intense or likely, citing groups such as World Weather Attribution and Climate Central. The emotional power of the photographs is undeniable. But photographs are snapshots in time; they say nothing about the 30-year trends required to establish climate, nor do they substitute for long-term observational evidence. More importantly, climate is a statistical construct, an average of weather over 30 years, not a force of nature. Only weather is a force of nature, and weather events are what do the damage in these photos.

A single fire scar, a flooded living room, or a satellite image of storm damage cannot establish a climate trend any more than a single cold snap disproves warming. This basic standard is precisely why meteorological agencies use 30-year normals. By presenting six isolated events—each framed as “made worse” by climate change—Yale Climate Connections collapses weather into climate and invites readers to infer trends that the evidence does not demonstrate.

When you step away from photos and examine history and measurements, the story becomes far more nuanced. For hurricanes, long-term records summarized at Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes show no clear upward trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or accumulated cyclone energy that would justify claims of steadily worsening storms.

For floods, Climate at a Glance: Floods documents the lack of a consistent global increase in flood frequency or magnitude, a conclusion echoed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

For wildfires, Climate at a Glance: Wildfires explains that fire extent is heavily influenced by land management, ignition sources, and fuel loads, not temperature alone, with long-term trends varying widely by region. Heat waves and heavy rain events likewise show mixed regional behavior rather than a uniform global escalation, as summarized across the Climate at a Glance extreme-weather pages.

The article leans heavily on rapid-attribution claims—statements that climate change made a given event “two to four degrees hotter” or “700 times more likely.” These claims are derived from models comparing a simulated present world to a simulated counterfactual world without added greenhouse gases. They are not direct measurements. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) makes clear that attribution confidence varies widely by event type and region, and that uncertainties remain substantial. Later references to IPCC AR6 often disappear from media coverage.

Climate Realism has repeatedly debunked World Weather Attribution’s and Climate Central’s attribution claims, showing both that the factual claims of an impact between climate change and specified extreme weather events can’t be discovered in the data and that the methodology used to make such a connection is flawed, here, here, here, and here, for example.

Equally important is what the article ignores. Disasters are driven by exposure and vulnerability as much as by weather. Population growth in floodplains, development in fire-prone landscapes, inadequate drainage, poor forest management, and aging infrastructure all magnify damage. A flooded Texas home photographed in July reflects zoning decisions, river engineering, or warning systems—or lack thereof—that determine outcomes, not, in this case, a changed climate. A burned hillside in California says is indicative of fuel buildup after decades of fire suppression and inaction to prevent fuel buildup, not worsening drought or heat – neither of which are in evidence.

Here’s the key point: photos can capture damage, but they cannot diagnose causes.

Case in point, below is a photo from the year 1900:

Historic black-and-white photograph of a partially destroyed building with wooden debris scattered on the ground, showing people observing the damage.

By looking at it, you can’t determine the cause of that damage. It might be an earthquake, a tornado, hurricane, or some other high wind event. It might even be a demolition in progress. You just can’t tell.

Without the context of the event, any attribution of cause is purely speculative. That context is provided here: THE HISTORY OF GALVESTON AND THE 1900 STORM, which was a hurricane believed to be of Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale.

If the same storm happened today, rest assured that experts and media armed with rapid response “attribution science” would rush to use those same pictures to assert that climate change was somehow responsible.

Climate Realism has repeatedly documented how photo-centric storytelling and rapid attribution are used to oversell certainty. Readers can see a catalog of critiques of wildfire, flood, hurricane, and heat-wave attribution claims at its coverage of extreme weather, where media assertions are compared against observational records and IPCC findings. Likewise, Climate Realism’s many analyses of so called “attribution science” shows how model-based probability statements are routinely presented as settled fact, even when underlying data are sparse or contradictory.

Perhaps most telling, the article never asks whether these kinds of images would have been possible in earlier decades. The answer is yes. History is filled with devastating floods, fires, storms, and droughts long before modern CO₂ emissions rose. What has changed most is not the existence of extremes, but the ubiquity of cameras, drones, satellites, and social media—ensuring that every disaster is now documented in high resolution but falsely and instantly framed as evidence of “climate change” by narrative driven media outlets.

By substituting photographs for trends and models for measurements, Yale Climate Connections misleads readers into believing that six images can “show how climate change shaped our world.” They cannot. Climate is measured over decades, not captured in a frame. Until media reporting consistently distinguishes weather from climate and imagery from evidence, readers will keep getting a powerful yet false visual narrative. Only long-term trends can suggest that climate change is making weather worse and photographs can’t capture trends.

Al Jazeera is Wrong, Climate Change Is Not Responsible for Indonesian Flooding

Al Jazeera blames climate change for recent deadly flooding in Indonesia, in a post titled “Indonesia counts human cost as more climate change warnings sounded.” There is no justification for blaming climate change for recent flooding, as there is no long-term trend in precipitation there. In fact, despite the title, Al Jazeera actually spends little time on the climate angle. Rather, the article describes land use and development as a major driver of recent floods.

Close-up of falling water droplets creating a curtain of water against a blue background.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

Al Jazeera blames climate change for recent deadly flooding in Indonesia, in a post titled “Indonesia counts human cost as more climate change warnings sounded.” There is no justification for blaming climate change for recent flooding, as there is no long-term trend in precipitation there. In fact, despite the title, Al Jazeera actually spends little time on the climate angle. Rather, the article describes land use and development as a major driver of recent floods.

The subtitle of the post reads “Indonesia reports 1,000 dead and close to 1 million displaced from rains, as a report points at the threat posed by climate change and ecosystem decline across Asia.” Aside from the subtitle, the article only once mentions climate change when it says the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has issued a report warning that “the impact of climate change on Asia’s water systems poses a risk to billions.”

No more detail is given in the article, in what is clearly a halfhearted attempt to link climate change to Indonesia’s recent extreme flooding. Perhaps it is to drive readership and divert attention from the true human causes for the devastation, which are almost entirely local in origin.

While it is true that the modest warming of the past century-plus has also been accompanied by more precipitation on average in some parts of the world, it is not true that it directly leads to increased flooding. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits that it has “low confidence” in even the sign of any trend towards more or less flooding. In fact, other factors, some discussed by Al Jazeera, have a more direct connection to recent flooding than modest changes in precipitation.

Long term precipitation data for Indonesia from the World Bank Group show that, while recent years have seen elevated annual precipitation, it’s not part of a long term sustained upward trend. Older data are spotty, but the 1960s through the 1990s had lower rainfall, with the lowest sustained point in the early 1990s. Since then, precipitation in the region has slowly recovered. Recent years are high, but not dramatically so, and not higher than in the past when carbon dioxide levels were lower. (See figure below)

Graph showing the observed time series of annual precipitation in Indonesia from 1901 to 2024, with blue lines indicating annual mean precipitation and a smoothed curve representing five-year trends.

As discussed in this previous Climate Realism post about recent flooding in Southeast Asia, the region has annual and decadal fluctuations in its monsoon season that are completely natural. The entire region has always been extremely flood prone as part of the natural large regional tropical climate.

Early in the Al Jazeera article, the outlet admits as much, pointing out that Indonesia’s rainy season “frequently brings severe flooding.” They do not claim that this is historically unusual.

However, the article gets interesting when it emphasizes multiple times that “rapid deforestation, unregulated development, and degraded river basins have increased the risks” of flooding. Failures to fund important infrastructure projects, like water, flood, and sewage management, are also blamed, as is “conversion of land to other uses.”

Rice is a staple crop in Indonesia because the region can rely on pooling water and a lot of rain, which means it is naturally prone to flooding. When land that was once used to grow rice is paved over, there is no longer anywhere for the water to go, except down the new streets and into homes and businesses. This is a major problem for cities, towns, and villages located in river basins and flood prone areas, not just in Indonesia but everywhere in the world.

Deforestation contributes to the damage caused when it rains hard too. Because tree roots that once held the soil and loose rock in place on the mountainsides of Indonesia are removed, when it rains a lot, the mountainside will come down into the valleys where people build their homes and towns as a deadly landslide. Again, this will have a larger impact on flooding than a slight increase in annual precipitation. It’s also something that can be fixed.

It is also important to note that Jakarta is particularly prone to flooding because it is in a river delta, already below sea level, and has been experiencing severe land subsidence from groundwater removal that has been excessive due to an explosion in illegal wells.

Al Jazeera tried to cram a climate narrative into a story about poor infrastructure, poor land use planning, and government mismanagement of infrastructure funding, but the narrative doesn’t work. The story provides no evidence that climate change is responsible for this year’s flooding because there is none. Indonesia’s rainfall history is similar to what it has been for centuries, with little relative change in recent decades as the planet has slightly warmed.

Half-truths and misinformation on the topic of climate change and the energy transition

The consequences of climate change are fearmongering exaggerated (e.g. further spread of the apocalyptic RCP 8.5 scenario, although classified as extremely unlikely by IPCC 2021 and COP 28) or even unsubstantiated claimed. Negative aspects of the energy transition are omitted. It almost seems as if the citizen is to be kept happy by concerted indoctrination on these issues.

Aerial view of a renewable energy site featuring large solar panels and wind turbines in a vast open landscape with storage buildings.

From KlimaNachrichten

Educational failure in the media or guided by interests and ideology?

By Dr.-Ing. Ernst-Jürgen Niemann

As an engineer who has also worked on meteorological topics in research and practice and then worked in the energy sector for 30 years, including more than 10 years in the planning, tendering, awarding, construction and operation supervision of large wind farms, I am shocked by the low level of reporting, at which climate change or energy transition is very often reported unqualified or one-sidedly in the media and in politics. The consequences of climate change are fearmongering exaggerated (e.g. further spread of the apocalyptic RCP 8.5 scenario, although classified as extremely unlikely by IPCC 2021 and COP 28) or even unsubstantiated claimed. Negative aspects of the energy transition are omitted. It almost seems as if the citizen is to be kept happy by concerted indoctrination on these issues. Some typical examples are listed below:

“Hurricanes (cyclones) and floods are becoming more frequent and stronger due to climate change”: 

At every such event, journalists, “experts”, meteorologists or politicians ignite a frightening storm with such reports, for which, however, there is no evidence whatsoever. Even the IPCC (“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”), which estimates climate risks rather high and on whose predictions the CO2 –currently sees no indication or probability of an increase in storms and floods (IPCC Assessment Report AR6, Table12.12). This is almost regularly ignored. The portrayal of the Ahr Valley flood in 2021 as a result of climate change is also such an example of such “fake news” (e.g. programme “mehr/wert”, BR, 20.11.2025). The Ahr Valley flood statistics are more of a proof of the independence of such floods from climate change: In the catchment area of the Ahr, which is prone to extreme flooding, there have always been comparable or larger flood events on the basis of flood marks, such as the Magdalen flood in 1342, in 1910 or the great flood in 1804. At about 1100 m³/s, the latter was about 25% significantly higher than the Ahr Valley flood in 2021!

“Wind/solar park covers electricity needs of xx households”: When wind or solar farms are expanded or opened, there are always such or similar reports that suggest to the public that this will ensure the power supply of other households. Unfortunately not! In the case of a wind farm, even in good wind conditions such as in northern Germany, these households would sit completely in the dark for more than 10% of the time and receive too little electricity more than 50% of the time. In the case of solar parks, this would be even more fatal, as electricity availability is completely lacking at night and is hardly available even during the day in winter.

“Sun and electricity do not send an invoice”: If politicians, climate activists or interest groups repeatedly spread such statements via the media and claim unrivalled cheapness, but at the same time put forward their demand for further state funding, then something is wrong. Logically, it should then be possible to implement the immediate abolition of subsidies! A typical example of misleading marketing with a shortened logic for the expansion of renewables, which conceals the true costs and ignores the complementary costs caused.

“With the expansion of renewables, the price of electricity is becoming cheaper and cheaper”: 

These repetitive statements from interested parties or the press (e.g. FOCUS 25.11.2025) are formally correct if one only refers to the market value on the stock exchange. For example, the market value for solar on the stock exchange is constantly falling in the relevant summer months with high generation capacity due to further expansion (in 2023 approx. 5 ct/kWh, in 2024 approx. 4 ct/kWh and in 2025 almost just over 3 ct/kWh).
The economic marginal benefit of further expansion is therefore currently striving for ZERO! Responsible politicians or journalists should address this and warn against the associated increases in guaranteed price subsidies, which lead to an ever-higher burden on the state budget (EEG subsidy approx. 20 billion €/year) and consumers via grid fees! It is also a fact that the household electricity price has risen steadily with the expansion of renewables due to the high complementary costs.

“Batteries have become so cheap that battery storage should be used instead of gas-fired power plants”: 

The costs for large-scale battery storage systems have fallen to such an extent that they pay off with one charging cycle per day and a price difference of about 10 ct/kWh. The electricity exchange yo-yo that takes place in the summer half-year due to solar radiation, with price differences of up to about 20 ct/kWh during the course of the day, offers a good economic basis for this (see example below 27 May – 6 June 2025, SMARD, Wholesale Price Germany/Luxembourg). Accordingly, there is currently a veritable gold rush for approvals for such large-scale storage facilities.

Line graph displaying electricity prices in Germany from May 27 to June 6, 2025, showing fluctuations in price per megawatt-hour.

In addition to the restriction that battery storage systems must be operated in a grid-friendly manner, there is a risk that too much expansion can become economically problematic. Due to the high proportion of large-scale battery storage systems, the daily cycle of electricity supply would be smoothed out more and more, which would also lead to a smoothing of wholesale prices. The large-scale battery storage systems would then cannibalize their profitability themselves due to a lack of price differences. The battery storage systems, which will then be systemically relevant with such a large expansion, will then have to be subsidized. Since they cannot bridge dark doldrums lasting several days, they do not replace controllable power plants, such as gas-fired power plants. So not only would the costs of maintaining quickly controllable gas-fired power plants be incurred, but also the costs of subsidizing battery storage systems, which would have to be absorbed by the electricity price or government subsidies.

“Network charges are the costs for the expansion and maintenance of the network”: 

Behind this widely used abbreviated definition of grid charges is a complex, non-transparent cost structure. The costs for expansion and maintenance of the network are only one part. A significant share of the costs of the grid fees for households, which have risen to approx. 11 ct/kWh, are running costs for necessary grid stabilisation measures due to the expansion of solar and wind. A good 4 cents/kWh alone are incurred for redispatch measures (compensation for necessary shutdowns in the event of too much electricity in the grid), i.e. converted to the proportion of non-controllable renewables that cause the electricity, which is about 6 cents/kWh. In addition, there are costs for the provision of balancing energy or reserve power plants. If you add the state subsidies to producers through price guarantees (former EEG levy), then there are further approx. 9 ct/kWh costs for solar, wind and biogas electricity, which are borne by the taxpayer. Taking into account the prices paid on the stock exchange, the system generation costs attributable to renewables are therefore already likely to be around 20 cents/kWh today! With the further expansion of the grid (the high amortization and maintenance costs for the HVDC lines will hardly be able to be compensated for by lower redispatch costs) and the addition of balancing energy (gas-fired power plants), grid fees/costs will rise even further. Well-founded reporting on the energy transition also includes such critical aspects.

“In 2024, 60% of electricity generation in Germany consisted of renewable energies”: 

Again and again, generation figures are cited as proof of progress in CO2 savings (recently also mentioned in Belem by the Federal Minister for the Environment), although it is not generation but consumption that is decisive for this. Renewables will only account for 54% of electricity consumption in Germany in 2024 (according to the Working Group on Renewable Energy Statistics at the Federal Environment Agency). The difference to generation results from the high import of electricity from controllable power plants at times of low wind and solar power and the non-controllable electricity at times of high wind and solar power, which has to be sold abroad at dumping prices or even against payment. The import surplus currently amounts to about 5.7% on balance.

“China is leading the way in the expansion of renewables”: 

Just in time for the UN climate summit in Belem, such a report came onto the market and was mostly spread uncritically via the media. The message: Even China does more than we do!. This is a completely misleading half-truth! China as a role model? China now has a higher per capita CO2 (8.35 t/a) than Germany (7.2 t/a). The expansion of the electricity supply there is carried out completely differently than in Germany according to economic and supply independence criteria. With 60% of the electricity supply currently being supplied by coal, this will be further expanded in China (94.5 GW of new coal-fired power plant capacity in 2024 alone!!) and by 2040, the number of nuclear power plants will be doubled by 44 plants! Such power plants are built for at least 50 years! The load requirement is covered by controllable power plants. The parallel expansion of wind and solar serves, as originally in Germany, for “fuel saving”. The fact that this economically based concept, i.e. partial utilization of coal-fired and nuclear power plants when renewables are available, also leads to limited savings in CO2 emission is logical. In China, research and testing in the hydrogen sector serve more to prepare for the world market in the event that global demand actually arises in the hydrogen sector. Anyone who sees China as a role model should logically support the approach of “coal + nuclear + complementary renewables” in our country as well!

The fact that interest groups such as associations, parties, certain NGOs or even individual research institutions, …. spreading such half-truths or misinformation out of self-interest is understandable. It would be all the more important that the media, starting with the ÖR, always question such information critically and competently. Ideally, there should be specialist journalists with knowledge of physics in order to distinguish between power supply (load) and energy, for example, and to know the basics of grid stability and grid control requirements, or to understand something about theoretical meteorology (atmospheric physics) in climate topics in order to be able to deal with the complexity of their topics to some extent. Quality control in the media as well as in industry would be appropriate.

Monmouth Floods–Then & Now

Further to last week’s flooding in Monmouth. Dennis drew my attention to this Journal Article by Keith Kissack, which was published in 2001

Aerial view of a town with a mix of colorful buildings and greenery, showcasing areas of flooding in the landscape.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dennis Ambler

Further to last week’s flooding in Monmouth. Dennis drew my attention to this Journal Article by Keith Kissack, which was published in 2001:

A historical journal article titled 'Monmouth and the Floods' by Keith Kissack, discussing flooding events in Monmouth, accompanied by a detailed account of past floods and their impact on the town.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1568771

It’s also worth highlighting this comment in my article by Simon Browne:

Yesterday I asked Grok if the Wye and the Monnow were dredged in the past at Monmouth. This is his reply:

‘Historical Evidence of Dredging:

Pre-20th Century: The Wye was regularly dredged for navigation (to maintain depths for boats and trade), which had a secondary flood-prevention benefit. Monmouth was a port town until the 19th century, and dredging removed silt to keep the river navigable.

Mid-20th Century (1940s–1960s): After severe floods (e.g., 1947), the Wye River Board (predecessor to the EA) carried out mechanical dredging near Monmouth Bridge and downstream to clear gravel bars and improve flow. This was explicitly to reduce flood risk to the town center and low-lying areas like Chippenham and Wyesham.

1970s–1980s: Smaller-scale dredging occurred, particularly after the 1979 flood, to remove accumulated sediment at the Monnow-Wye confluence.

Key Source:

“Dredging operations were undertaken by the Wye River Board in the 1950s and 1960s to maintain channel capacity and reduce flood risk in Monmouth.”

— Monmouth Flood Alleviation Strategy Review (Environment Agency Wales, 2009)

2. River Monnow Dredging in Monmouth

Historical Evidence:

1950s–1970s: The Monnow was dredged upstream and at the confluence with the Wye to remove silt and gravel that restricted flow during high rainfall. This was part of joint operations with the Wye River Board.

Post-1998 Flood Response: After major flooding in 1998, limited dredging was carried out near Vauxhall Fields and the Monnow Bridge to improve conveyance.

Monmouth Town Council records confirm dredging in the early 2000s to clear blockages at the weir and sluice gates.

Key Source:

“Desilting and selective dredging of the River Monnow has been undertaken in the past, particularly in the reach through Monmouth, to maintain hydraulic capacity.”

— Monmouthshire County Council Flood Risk Management Plan (2016)

3. Why Dredging Stopped (or Reduced)

Environmental Regulations: From the 1990s onward, dredging became heavily restricted due to:

EU Habitats Directive and Water Framework Directive (2000) – the Wye is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) due to salmon, otter, and lamprey populations.

Dredging disturbs riverbed habitats and increases downstream sedimentation.

Modern Alternatives: The EA now uses:

Natural flood management (tree planting, leaky dams upstream)

Flood walls and embankments (e.g., the Monmouth Flood Alleviation Scheme, completed 2015)

Gravel management (selective removal, not full dredging)

4. Recent Position (2020s)

No routine dredging occurs in Monmouth for flood prevention.

The Environment Agency (2023) states:

“Dredging is not a sustainable or environmentally acceptable solution for flood risk management on the Wye or Monnow in Monmouth.”

Instead, annual maintenance includes weed cutting, debris removal, and targeted gravel extraction where it poses a clear hydraulic risk.’

Storm Claudia

There has been minor flooding elsewhere, but I am not aware of anything else major.

A coastal town with a stone clock tower facing turbulent ocean waves crashing against the shore, while colorful houses stand perilously close to the water.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

 There has been some bad flooding in Monmouth, following Storm Claudia:

There has been minor flooding elsewhere, but I am not aware of anything else major.

Rainfall totals were not unusually excessive in South Wales, 71mm in Gwent, for instance, over the day and a half of the storm:

Rainfall totals for various locations in the UK after Storm Claudia, showing measurements in millimeters.
https://x.com/metoffice/status/1989619387171524996

Across SW England & S Wales, an average of 22.09mm fell on Friday, which was when nearly all of the rain fell:

Map of the United Kingdom showing different regions and their divisions.
Table showing daily rainfall amounts in millimeters from November 5 to November 14, 2025, indicating varying levels of precipitation.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/daily/HadSWEP_daily_totals.txt

And it was plainly widespread across the whole of the Southwest, not just South Wales:

Weather map showing rainfall distribution and temperature data for regions in the UK on Friday, 14 November 2025, highlighting areas affected by heavy rain.
https://x.com/metoffice/status/1989483716243001405

Yet 22mm in a day is not in the least bit unusual in the region:

Graph showing daily precipitation data in Southwestern England from 1930 to 2020, displaying variation in rainfall amounts.
KNMI Climate Explorer

KNMI data ends in 2022, but I have updated it to include Claudia, with the chart below showing all days over 20mm:

Graph showing daily rainfall over 20mm for South West England and South Wales from 1931 to November 2025, with a marker indicating the rainfall from Storm Claudia.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/daily/HadSWEP_daily_totals.txt

On average, it happens four times a year on average.

The highest daily rainfall occurred in July 1969. But the autumn storm in November 1931 is directly comparable with Claudia. On that day, 50.55 mm fell, more than double Friday’s rainfall.

The numbers themselves don’t tell the real story, which the Met Office Monthly Weather report at the time revealed:

Historical weather report detailing rainfall totals in November, highlighting heavy rain in various locations in western England.
https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/IO_ce3083d7-e430-49a0-9de7-20d26098091e/

Totals of 244mm at Trecastle make Claudia appear just another, run of the mill storm, which of course it was.

Rainfall was almost as bad in 3rd December 1960:

A historical document titled 'Monthly Weather Report of the Meteorological Office,' published in December 1960, featuring observations from official stations.
A historical weather report discussing heavy rainfall and flooding in South Wales during early December, including specific measurements and impacts on local areas.

7 inches is 178mm and 5.5 inches in the Rhondda in just 20 hours works out at 140mm.

Floods were widespread and serious in Glamorgan.

So why was flooding so bad in Monmouth this week?

Grok has the answer:

History of Flooding in Monmouth, Wales

Monmouth, located at the confluence of the Rivers Wye, Monnow, and Trothy in Monmouthshire, Wales, has a long history of flooding dating back centuries. The town’s position in a river valley makes it particularly vulnerable to riverine flooding from heavy rainfall, thunderstorms, and storms, often exacerbated by rapid snowmelt or overflow from tributaries like the Norton Brook. Historical records show events ranging from flash floods causing localized damage to widespread inundations affecting homes, businesses, and infrastructure. Below is a chronological summary of key flooding incidents in Monmouth before 2025, drawn from official reports and historical archives. This focuses on major events impacting the town itself, though Monmouthshire-wide context is noted where relevant.

9 June 1754
Severe hailstorm with stones up to six inches in diameter caused the River Monnow to overflow rapidly within an hour, depositing fish on streets.
Damage to crops, windows, and homes in Monmouth and nearby Colford; widespread property destruction.

21 November 1766
Violent thunderstorm led to the River Wye rising several feet higher than previously recorded near Monmouth.
Loss of lives and large quantities of goods; meadows and low-lying areas submerged.

20 June 1839
Intense thunderstorm caused the Rivers Wye and Monnow to overflow.
Premises near Wye Bridge inundated; Monnow Street flooded to several feet deep.

2 April 1848
Prolonged thunderstorm with heavy hail and rain (over 1 hour 20 minutes) overwhelmed drainage.
Many houses in central Monmouth flooded; streets turned into torrents.

31 May 1859
Heavy rains swelled the River Trothy, leading to overflow into Monmouth meadows.
Walls washed away in nearby Skenfrith; houses drenched and stones carried downstream in Rockfield.

22 July 1907
Thunderstorm with marble-sized hail turned streets into rushing rivers.
Significant flash flooding in town center; damage to gardens and minor structures (also severe in nearby Cwmyoy on River Monnow).

10 June 1912
Lightning storm during heavy rain implied widespread waterlogging.
One man killed by lightning; roads and low areas flooded.

27 May 1931
Rapid rise of the River Monnow due to thunderstorms across Monmouthshire.
Floodwaters reached bedrooms in houses; Drybridge Street submerged to several feet (boats used for rescues); cattle and sheep washed away in The Forge district; worst flood in living memory at nearby Skenfrith; racecourse and military huts affected.

April 1947
Nationwide flooding event triggered by heavy snowfall followed by rapid thaw; Rivers Trothy and Monnow overflowed into Monmouth.
Severe inundation in Drybridge Street (water to upper bedrooms, evacuations); widespread damage across town and upstream villages.

December 1979
Rivers Wye, Monnow, and Usk burst banks after prolonged heavy rain.
Significant property flooding in lower Monmouth and Mayhill areas; multiple locations affected along riverbanks.

October 1998
Storm-driven rise in River Wye levels.
Peak level of 17.19 m AOD; homes and roads in low-lying areas flooded.

October 2000
Autumn storms caused River Wye overflow.
Peak level of 17.59 m AOD; internal flooding in several properties.

December 2000
Two separate events from winter storms.
River Wye peaks at 17.58 m and 17.61 m AOD; over 50 residential properties reported flooded in Monmouth (including Blake Street and Wyesham).

February 2002
Multiple storms led to two floods.
River Wye peaks at 17.59 m and 17.67 m AOD (latter was previous record); extensive evacuations and damage in Mayhill and town center.

July 2005
Summer deluge overwhelmed rivers.
River Wye at 16.37 m AOD; localized flooding in meadows and streets.

January 2008
Winter storms caused moderate overflow.
River Wye at 16.42 m AOD; some properties affected in lower town.

Monmouth has always been particularly vulnerable to flooding, because it sits at the confluence of three rivers, the Wye, Monnow, and Trothy. Its history is littered with floods every bit as bad as this week’s.

It might seem a daft place to build a town, but the Normans built the castle and town specifically because of those three rivers, allowing them to exert control over the river crossings. Since then, it continued to thrive because of its communication links.

Head For The Hills! Aviva Warn Britain Will Be Flooded By 2050

Aviva smell higher premiums here, with the help of fictional scare stories.

A dark, flooded cityscape depicting iconic landmarks submerged underwater, showcasing rising water levels and overcast skies.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Oh dear! What a load of rubbish, Aviva!

News article header from Aviva, discussing UK's iconic landmarks at risk from climate change by 2050.
Infographic discussing the impacts of climate change on UK landmarks, highlighting risks of flooding and subsidence by 2050.

Some of the UK’s most well-known landmarks could be at risk from the impacts of extreme weather in future unless action is taken, according to a new report by leading insurer, Aviva.

Aviva’s third Building Future Communities report brings together the latest data to outline the risks that homes could face from multiple climate threats by 2050 and beyond, including flooding, subsidence and extreme heat. The report also highlights the importance of preventative measures to help protect homes, businesses and communities across the UK.

According to the report, some of the UK’s most well-known landmarks, including Cardiff Bay, York city centre and Liverpool waterfront, could be vulnerable to flooding because of rising sea levels, heavier rainfall and more frequent weather events. Even Edinburgh Castle, a hilltop landmark, could be at risk from surface water flooding from increased rainfall overwhelming drainage systems. The Giant’s Causeway, an iconic landmark in Northern Ireland, is likely to be increasingly exposed to coastal erosion and instability.

Our Building Future Communities report lays bare the risks that homes and businesses could experience by 2050. The findings are stark. Millions more properties could be at risk from flooding, with rising temperatures, increased urbanisation and inadequate drainage exacerbating the risks in future.

Jason Storah, CEO UK & Ireland General Insurance, Aviva

Rising temperatures could put other popular well-known attractions at risk. The arts and crafts Red House in south London is already suffering from subsidence linked to the prevalence of clay soils, which swell and shrink during wet and dry weather. Ongoing maintenance will be required to protect its facades as temperatures increase. Plans are already underway to protect these important sights from the impacts of extreme weather, but, like many properties across the UK, further adaptations will be needed to help them get ready for the future.

https://www.aviva.com/newsroom/news-releases/2025/10/uks-iconic-landmarks-at-risk-from-climate-change-by-2050-according-to-new-report

Aviva smell higher premiums here, with the help of fictional scare stories.

This is the basis of their scare:

Executive summary highlighting the impacts of climate change on homes and communities in the UK, mentioning risks of flooding and subsidence by 2050.

The claim about homes at risk from flooding is directly lifted from the Environment Agency, who already laughably maintain that 7 million properties are at risk of flooding:

Table displaying annual likelihood of flooding percentages and total number of properties at risk from rivers and surface water.

The EA then proceeded to add 27% to the river and sea numbers, and hey presto, a third of the country is now going to flood!

Table showing properties at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea due to climate change between 2036 and 2069, including risk bands and corresponding statistics.
Table displaying properties at risk of flooding from surface water, with columns for risk band, number of properties, percentage of total, and percentage change compared to previous assessment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-assessment-of-flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-in-england-2024/national-assessment-of-flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-in-england-2024

The EA has been working this con for years now. Dream an impossibly big number, then double it. Feed it out top a gullible media and then use it as a basis to forecast ever bigger numbers.

The media gets its scary headlines, insurance sharks put their premiums up and the government gets cover for its ruinous Net Zero agenda.

The whole system is corrupt.

Meanwhile, back in the real world the number of properties flooded each year is in the low thousands.

Bar chart showing the number of properties flooded in England from April 1998 to March 2025, with a significant peak in 2007.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-50.png

Climate Fact-Check May 2025 Edition

Climate claims go bananas! Debunking claims that global warming is impacting crop yields,
wildfires, hurricanes, droughts & floods.

From ClimateRealism

By Steve Milloy

Guest Post by: The Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the International Climate Science Coalition, and Truth in Energy and Climate.

Editor’s note: This summary serves as a fact check on the top false claims made about climate change by the media in May 2025. 

Climate claims go bananas! Debunking claims that global warming is impacting crop yields,
wildfires, hurricanes, droughts & floods.

Links: The Guardian article, Food and Agricultural Organization link, Costa Rica link, Guatemala link, Columbia bananas link.

Links: The New York Times article, NICC data.

Links: Carbon Brief post, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, FAO link, wheat yields.

Links: CNN article, satellite data, research link.

Links: The Guardian post, Southern Annular Mode, March data.

ClimateDepot.com

ClimateRealism.com

See you in July for the June Fact Check! 

Originally published at Junkscience.com, reposted with permission.