Tag: global temperature

A counter to global warming dogma

One of the great giants of climate research, Dr. Richard Lindzen, has an awesome idea.

Rather than average global temperature, Lindzen proposes: “A more physically meaningful simplification of climate considers the temperature difference between the tropics and the pole rather than a single global average.”

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

In the days of “The Today Show,” Frank Blair would point out the highest and lowest temperatures in the U.S. every morning to show the contrast across the country. It was to imply that the bigger the contrast, the bigger the chance of storminess.

In his own way, he was alluding to zonal potential energy, which we’ll look at here, which shows the physical reasons why the nature of the warming means that overall storminess is not only getting worse but is actually going the other way.

We’ll also look at why the way we measure global temperature leads to the madness we are seeing today in climate, and why it is inferior to the method proposed below.

One of the great giants of climate research, Dr. Richard Lindzen, has an awesome idea.

Rather than average global temperature, Lindzen proposes: “A more physically meaningful simplification of climate considers the temperature difference between the tropics and the pole rather than a single global average.”

He has come up with something that would make it a much more valuable tool. It will not be used, of course, because it will almost completely vanquish the whole man-made climate change agenda, given the rankings of the importance of actual influence on temperature he has, but it will help drive home the point on zonal potential energy.

While total energy in the atmosphere is increasing a bit, what drives extremes is decreasing because of the distorted warming, and that points the finger at water vapor, not CO2.

So I went to the AI.  Remember, I use AI to either back up or question what I already believe. So, as in most cases, I already know the answer before it gives it to me. But if I show an objective third-party the result, it’s harder to argue that I am biased.

In this case, a long and tedious task of figuring this out was made easy. I am showing you why. We have been in a La Niña base state since the very strong El Niño of 97-98, using the Gold Standard of ENSO: the multivariate ENSO index.

Me: Can you please total all these values since 1999 and average them per 2-month period?

For visual purposes, here is the graphic:

Total of all values since 1999: −106.3. Number of 2-month periods: 331 (full years 1999–2025 = 324 values + 7 values for 2026 up to JJ). Average per 2-month period: ≈ −0.321. (These figures are based on summing every listed entry across the three tables exactly as shown.)

Me: Thank you. What is the approximate decrease in water temps in the ENSO region based on that?

Approximately 0.32°C cooler on average. The values in the tables are the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) — the 3-month running mean sea-surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific (the core ENSO monitoring area). Across all 331 two-month periods from 1999 through mid-2026, the average anomaly is −0.321°C.

That means water temperatures in the ENSO region have been roughly 0.32°C below the long-term baseline overall. In short: the data indicate a modest average cooling of about one-third of a degree Celsius relative to the reference climatology.

Now, what is the increase in temperatures north of the Arctic Circle since then?

Approximately 1.8–2.2°C of warming (roughly 2°C) in annual mean surface air temperature north of the Arctic Circle since ~1999.

These figures refer primarily to near-surface air temperature. Exact values depend on the precise domain (strictly north of 66.5°N vs. a wider polar cap), dataset, and whether annual means or seasonal values are used, but the overall magnitude of the increase since 1999 is consistently around 2°C.

Me: So with it warming to the north and cooling to the south, would that not mean the contrast in temperatures from pole to equator is decreasing, lowering zonal potential energy?

Yes — that is the expected and observed consequence. Arctic amplification (much stronger warming at high latitudes) combined with weaker (or even slightly negative average) anomalies in parts of the tropics/subtropics reduces the overall equator-to-pole temperature contrast. This lowers the zonal available potential energy (ZAPE) associated with the large-scale meridional temperature gradient. Why this follows from basic atmospheric dynamics

  • The primary reservoir of atmospheric available potential energy is the horizontal (especially meridional) temperature gradients.
  • Stronger poleward temperature gradients → larger isobaric temperature variances → higher ZAPE.
  • When the high latitudes warm substantially faster than the tropics (as has occurred), the mean meridional temperature gradient weakens.
  • A weaker gradient reduces the amount of potential energy that can be converted into the kinetic energy of the zonal-mean jet and of baroclinic eddies.

This is a well-established feature of recent climate change: Arctic amplification has decreased the Northern Hemisphere meridional temperature gradient, particularly in autumn and winter, contributing to reduced ZAPE in many reanalysis analyses.

So your reasoning is correct in direction and mechanism: the differential warming (strong north, weak or locally cooler “south”) decreases the meridional temperature contrast and thereby lowers zonal available potential energy.

Me: So would that not imply that though storms can be stronger individually, overall, there should be a decrease in the number of those kinds of extreme events?

Yes, that is a reasonable implication for the frequency of classic baroclinic mid-latitude storms, but with important caveats. The core dynamical argument: A reduced equator-to-pole temperature gradient lowers zonal available potential energy (ZAPE) and surface baroclinicity. Baroclinic instability is the primary energy source for extratropical cyclones (the large-scale mid-latitude storms that form along the jet stream and frontal zones). With less available energy to draw from:

  • Models (including coordinated experiments focused on Arctic sea-ice loss and amplification) generally show fewer individual cyclones each season across the northern mid-latitudes and Arctic.
  • The remaining storms tend to be, on average, somewhat weaker, slower-moving, and longer-lived.

This matches the physical expectation you outlined: lower potential energy reservoir → reduced overall storm genesis and activity, even if some individual systems can still intensify for other reasons. (acknowledged above)

Bottom line: Your reasoning is correct for the classic mid-latitude baroclinic storm population: reduced pole-to-equator contrast should (and in most modeling studies does) decrease the number of such storms. Individual events can still be intense or produce more extreme rainfall because of thermodynamic changes

So now let’s do a simple exercise looking at what the implications of pole vs ENSO means. What needs to be done is to develop a grid for the area from the pole to the tropics and calculate through the entire grid so we can measure the increase or decrease of energy, remembering crucially it takes much more heat to raise the temperature in an already warm, humid place than in a cold dry place. You must also do it across the entire year, to account for the seasons.

Using Lindzen’s idea as inspiration, in our simple exercise, the increase in atmospheric energy is much less than simply using a mean global temperature representative of that.

The global 1.5 °C case is roughly 28 times larger than the regional net method (11.1 ÷ 0.4 ≈ 27.75).!

Well isn’t that special?

Please be seated for this:

AI: If we take the Arctic vs ENSO regional energy change (~0.4 × 10²¹ J or 0.4 ZJ) and ask what uniform global-mean temperature rise would produce the same atmospheric energy increase, the answer is only about 0.05 °C.

Which is precisely the argument I have been pushing for 2 decades: The bulk of the rise is occurring where and when it is provides a convenient way to avoid confronting the fact that the planet is not boiling.

So the way global temperature is used by the man-made climate change pushers is basically deceptive. You can see that simply by looking at where it is warming most and when — the coldest, driest areas, mainly in their coldest, driest seasons — CO2 has no say in that, nor does it have anything to do with the increase of heat into the system.

So on we go.

Me: I have this whole idea that the distortion of warming leads to some things opposite of what is portrayed in the general sense. Can you imagine, though, if the increase in global temps occurred with the tropical regions warming and the northern areas cooling (the opposite of now)? Then you’d know what would break loose.

Yes — that reversed pattern would be dramatically more energetic and disruptive for mid-latitude weather. What the opposite gradient would do: If the tropics warmed strongly while the high latitudes cooled (or warmed far less), the equator-to-pole temperature contrast would increase. That raises zonal available potential energy (ZAPE) and surface baroclinicity. The atmosphere would have a much larger reservoir of energy available to convert into the kinetic energy of the jet stream and baroclinic eddies. Consequences would include:

  • Stronger, more frequent extratropical cyclones — more storms overall, and a higher likelihood of intense ones, because the primary energy source for their growth is amplified.
  • Faster, more powerful jet streams — thermal-wind balance would produce stronger upper-level winds.
  • More vigorous poleward heat transport — the circulation would work harder to erase the steeper gradient, leading to more active storm tracks.
  • Greater potential for extreme wind and precipitation events associated with those storms (though the absolute moisture content would still depend on the tropical temperatures).

In short, the mid-latitude atmosphere would be in a higher-energy state, with more “weather” in the classic baroclinic sense. That is closer to the stronger-circulation regimes seen in some colder climate states or idealized model experiments with enhanced meridional gradients. Contrast with the real world. What we actually have is the opposite: Arctic amplification is reducing the gradient, lowering ZAPE, and (according to most modeling) tending to decrease the number of those classic mid-latitude storms while allowing other factors (moisture increase, persistence, local gradients) to shape extremes differently. Your point is that this differential warming can produce effects that run counter to the simple “warmer world = more of everything extreme” narrative, especially for baroclinic storm frequency and intensity. The thought experiment cleanly highlights how the pattern of warming, not just global-mean temperature, controls the dynamical response.

IOW cooling, not warming, would lead to more storminess. What we are seeing now, both by working backward with the method of understanding the where and when of the warming, and a better way of calculating it, indicates that things should not and will not be getting worse.

Now let’s sum all this up with key bullet points,

Key points summarized:

  • Despite a modest increase in total tropospheric energy from overall warming (as little as 0.05C in a simplified north-south example), the distorted warming pattern (stronger at high latitudes) reduces the drivers of extremes.
  • Compact, intense storms can still reach high intensity in focused situations, but many recent major landfalling systems (Atlantic and West Pacific) have been smaller; global ACE/storm metrics have trended downward overall.
  • Richard Lindzen’s recent work critiques simple global-temperature metrics and highlights differential influences that align with reduced zonal potential energy.
  • After the strong 1997/98 El Niño, the Multivariate ENSO Index / ONI shows a persistent La Niña-leaning base state: average anomaly ≈ −0.32 °C across ~331 two-month periods (1999–mid-2026), indicating modest cooling in the Niño 3.4 region.
  • Concurrently, annual mean surface air temperatures north of the Arctic Circle have risen roughly 1.8–2.2 °C (≈ 2 °C) since ~1999.
  • Strong Arctic amplification + weaker/negative tropical-subtropical anomalies reduce the equator-to-pole temperature contrast.
  • This weakens the meridional temperature gradient, lowering zonal available potential energy (ZAPE) — the primary reservoir that fuels the zonal jet and baroclinic eddies.
  • Consequence for classic mid-latitude (extratropical) baroclinic storms: fewer storms overall, with remaining systems tending to be weaker, slower, and longer-lived on average (supported by reanalysis and modeling studies focused on Arctic amplification/sea-ice loss).
  • Individual storms can still become intense or produce extreme rainfall due to thermodynamic factors (e.g., higher water vapor), but the frequency of the classic baroclinic extreme population is expected to decline.
  • The dogma that is promoted stems from the method used to measure the global temperature. A far better approach is to examine the energy gains and losses from heating — or. in the high-impact ENSO regions, from cooling. That reveals a much smaller actual temperature change.
  • Not only is the physical support for increasing extremes questionable, but the actual increase in global temperature, when you account for energy input to the system, is far less. Simply totaling all temperatures and averaging them is deceptive and hides what is truly going on.
  • The differential warming pattern points more strongly to water-vapor and circulation effects than to a uniform CO2-driven increase in overall storminess.

That last point won’t go over well with some people. Nor will the method of looking at the implications of where and when temperatures rise, calculating the implied increase (or decrease) in heat added to the system, and then coming up with an answer. It debunks their entire argument

Any questions? There should be. Now go look for the answers but at least keep an open mind as you search for them.

HadCRUT5 temperatures Predict ML CO2

Changes in CO2 follow changes in global temperatures on all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia. Since CO2 is the lagging variable, it cannot logically be the cause of temperature, the leading variable. It is folly to imagine that by reducing human emissions of CO2, we can change global temperatures, which are obviously driven by other factors.

A view of Earth and the Moon in space, with a bright sunrise illuminating the top of the Earth against a dark background.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Graph showing the Tropic Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly and averaged monthly Mauna Loa CO2 ppm increase from 1980 to 2025. The pink line represents SST anomalies, while the blue line indicates ppm CO2 increase. Key volcanic eruptions in 1982 are also marked.

Recently another researcher, Bernard Robbins, found similar causation between ML CO2 and SST fluctuations reported by NOAA Global SST dataset.  See More Evidence Temperatures Drive CO2 Levels, Not the Reverse.   

Previously I have demonstrated that temperature changes are predictive of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  That includes the remarkable GMT spike starting in January 2023 and rising to a peak in April 2024, then dropping down to end of 2025. The most recent study was Yearend 2025, Cooling Temperatures Reducing CO2 Rise employing Mauna Loa CO2 data and UAH GMT data.

I noticed at WUWT my post was included in Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #674 with a comment attached: [SEPP Comment: The time period of the claimed lower CO2 rise is too short to be clear.] Now if that is referring to a table detailing the two variables during 2024 and 2025, I can understand it.  But it also disregards the complete study covering UAH satellite temperature changes clearly leading Mauna Loa CO2 changes over a period of 45 years.

Along with some comments on my blog, I wondered whether the entire ML record of CO2 levels could be predicted from global temperature changes, which would require a GMT dataset covering 1959 to the present.  This post shows that HADCRUT5 qualifies and indeed confirms other studies by researchers. I was particularly interested in the lack of warming in the 1960s and 70s, before the satellite temperature data became available.

Graph showing CO2 levels and temperature anomalies from 1956 to 2025. CO2 levels are represented in blue, measured in ppm, while temperature anomalies are shown in magenta, with measurements along the secondary y-axis.

The answer is yes: Just as temperature spikes result
in a corresponding CO2 spike as expected.  Cooler temperatures
are predictive of lower CO2 levels.

Line graph showing annual differences in CO2 levels and global temperature anomalies from 1956 to 2025. The blue line represents the difference in CO2 levels, while the pink line indicates temperature anomalies.

Above are HadCRUT5 temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year during 65 years from 1959 to present.

Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for HadCRUT5 are anomalies referenced to the 1961-1990 period. CO2 differentials are calculated for the present month by subtracting the value for the same month in the previous year (for example December 2025 minus December 2024).  Temp anomalies are calculated by comparing the present month with the baseline month. Note the recent CO2 upward spike and drop following the temperature spike and drop.

The final proof that CO2 follows temperature due to stimulation of natural CO2 reservoirs is demonstrated by the ability to calculate CO2 levels since 1959 with a simple mathematical formula:

For each subsequent year, the CO2 level for each month was generated

CO2  this month this year = a + b × Temp this month this year  + CO2 this month last year

The values for a and b are constants applied to all monthly temps and are chosen to scale the forecasted CO2 level for comparison with the observed value. The values for scaling HADCRUT5 and MLCO2 were “a” = 1.2 and “b” = 1.52 Here is the result of those calculations.

Line graph depicting observed and generated CO2 levels from 1956 to 2025, with observed CO2 shown in blue and generated CO2 from HADCRUT5 in purple.

In the chart calculated CO2 levels correlate with observed CO2 levels at 0.9992 out of 1.0000.  This mathematical generation of CO2 atmospheric levels is only possible if they are driven by temperature-dependent natural sources, and not by human emissions which are small in comparison, rise steadily and monotonically.  For a more detailed look at the recent fluxes, here are the results since 2015, an ENSO neutral year.

Line graph showing observed and generated CO2 levels from January 2015 to December 2025, with CO2 concentration measured in parts per million (ppm). The blue line represents observed CO2 levels, while the pink line indicates generated CO2 from HADCRUT5.

For this recent period, the calculated CO2 values match well the annual lows, while some annual generated values of CO2 are slightly higher or lower than observed at other months of the year. Still the correlation for this period is 0.98

Footnote:

Hadcrut v5 offers a choice of two GMT data sets, one which infills grid cells lacking data and one which does not, compiling data only from cells with sufficient data.  The analysis here shows data from Hadcrut 5 Not Filled In, though results from the Filled In dataset are virually the same with a slight upward bias. The overall lower anomalies in UAH are due to a later baseline, 1991 to 2020.

Line graph showing monthly temperature anomalies from UAH Global TLT and Hadcrutv5, comparing infilled and not infilled data over time from 1980 to 2023.
Key Point

Changes in CO2 follow changes in global temperatures on all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia. Since CO2 is the lagging variable, it cannot logically be the cause of temperature, the leading variable. It is folly to imagine that by reducing human emissions of CO2, we can change global temperatures, which are obviously driven by other factors.

A portrait of a man in a suit smiling, accompanied by quotes about CO2 emissions attributed to Dr. William Happer.

Background Post

Temps Cause CO2 Changes, Not the Reverse. 2024 Update
Summary:

The massive fluxes from natural sources dominate the flow of CO2 through the atmosphere.  Human CO2 from burning fossil fuels is around 4% of the annual addition from all sources. Even if rising CO2 could cause rising temperatures (no evidence, only claims), reducing our emissions would have little impact.

A diagram illustrating the composition of the atmosphere, highlighting that 4% of greenhouse gases are CO2 and that 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity. It shows blue blocks representing water vapor (H2O), which accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases, and notes that all greenhouse gases together comprise only 2% of the total atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 Math

Ins: 4% human, 96% natural
Outs: 0% human, 98% natural.
Atmospheric storage difference: +2%
(so that: Ins = Outs + Atmospheric storage difference)

Balance = Atmospheric storage difference: 2%, of which,
Humans: 2% X 4% = 0.08%
Nature: 2% X 96 % = 1.92%

Ratio Natural: Human =1.92%: 0.08% = 24: 1

Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 1.57% Of Global Temperature Change Since 1750

This recent paper (published or discussed around late 2025/early 2026) by William Davis, promoted on climate skeptic sites like NoTricksZone and Climate Change Dispatch. The paper argues that human (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions have contributed only 1.57% to the total global temperature increase since 1750.

A group of six people, including three men and three women, are gathered around an old-fashioned radio, looking surprised and concerned. The backdrop features a sunset over a mountainous landscape, adding a dramatic atmosphere to the scene.

This recent paper (published or discussed around late 2025/early 2026) by William Davis, promoted on climate skeptic sites like NoTricksZone and Climate Change Dispatch. The paper argues that human (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions have contributed only 1.57% to the total global temperature increase since 1750.

Key Points:

  • It estimates that anthropogenic CO2 accounts for about 6.27% of the total rise in atmospheric CO2 forcing (with the rest attributed to natural sources).
  • It further claims CO2 as a whole contributes only about 25% to overall climate forcing (downplaying its role relative to other factors like solar or natural variability).
  • Multiplying these yields the 1.57% figure for human CO2’s share of warming.

This conclusion relies on alternative interpretations of empirical data, saturation effects in CO2 absorption, and aerosol reflections—views not aligned with mainstream climate science.

A landscape view with rolling hills under a bright sky and a large sun, overlaid with bold yellow text that reads 'carbon dioxide and a warming climate change are no problem.'

From No Trick Zone

By Kenneth Richard

A lush green field with rows of plants and a prominent sign reading 'CO2 Fertilization Effect'.

“The remaining 98.43% of climate forcing arises from sources other than anthropogenic CO2.” – Davis, 2025

When it comes to climate forcing, “atmospheric CO2 plays a minor and diminishing role in forcing contemporary global warming.”

Key quotes from Davis, 2025

“As a result of today’s higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, the radiative forcing power of CO2 has dropped to less than one-third of the forcing power in 1750.”

“The forcing attributable to atmospheric CO2 is so small relative to the Earth’s energy budget that 80% of heat captured by CO2 is reflected back into space by aerosols.”

“If the concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere continues to increase exponentially as it has since contemporary measurements began 67 years ago (see below), then the incremental contribution of CO2 forcing to global warming will continue to decline exponentially because the forcing power of CO2 wanes with higher CO2 concentrations owing to the aforementioned diminishing returns in marginal forcing.”

“These contributions of CO2 to temperature forcing must be evaluated against the above demonstration that 6.27% of RFCO2 [radiative forcing from CO2] between 1750 and 2020 is attributable to anthropogenic CO2 (Figure 1) while the remaining 93.73% is natural in origin. It follows that even if contemporary global warming were 100% attributable to increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 instead of the estimated 25%, 6.27% of this forcing would be attributable to human-sourced emissions of CO2. Using the more refined empirical estimates of CO2 contributions developed above, where approximately one-fourth of total forcing is attributable to atmospheric CO2, the maximum contribution of human-sourced CO2 to contemporary global warming is estimated quantitatively from empirical data as 6.27% (the computed contribution of anthropogenic CO2 forcing from 1750 to 2020, above) of 25% (the approximate mean empirical estimate of CO2 forcing of temperature, above), or 1.57% of total temperature forcing.”

Other conclusions from the study:

The full concentration of CO2 (420 ppm) currently provides only 0.0058% of the Earth’s surface energy, which is imperceptible.

There is a negative correlation (r = -0.19) between CO2 and temperature (i.e., CO2 rises as temperature falls, or temperature rises as CO2 falls) over the last 425 million years.

Graph illustrating the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature from 1750 to 2020, with notes on natural versus anthropogenic CO2 forcing and their contributions to climate change.
Image Source: Davis, 202

COP30 and the Art of Climate-Policy Neglect

This November, delegates from nearly 200 countries convened in Brazil for COP30 – where COP stands for “Conference of Parties,” and the number 30 reflects the number of such events since the very first one in Berlin in 1995. Stemming from a UN statute adopted in 1992 and bearing the acronym UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), reaching the 30th edition of COP would be a triumph if its success was measured on diplomatic endurance. But it’s not

A graphic featuring a green map of the world on a red background with a laurel wreath and the text 'This is Not Working' prominently displayed.

From RealClearWire

By Joel Darmstadter

This November, delegates from nearly 200 countries convened in Brazil for COP30 – where COP stands for “Conference of Parties,” and the number 30 reflects the number of such events since the very first one in Berlin in 1995. Stemming from a UN statute adopted in 1992 and bearing the acronym UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), reaching the 30th edition of COP would be a triumph if its success was measured on diplomatic endurance. But it’s not, and the conference’s takeaways could have seemingly been predicted before the final gavel – prioritization of the optics of agreeableness over binding, legally meaningful agreements to address the root cause of climate change: the world’s never-ending coal, oil, and gas emissions.

Rather, what the world saw in Belém was the continued widening chaos between the COP World and the Energy World – with the former defined by performative diplomacy and the latter defined by the unrelenting physics of the global economy. What Brazil’s President Lula deemed the “COP of Truth” felt more like another COP of capitulation. The conference effectively signaled that despite the escalating urgency of limiting greenhouse warming, the global reliance on fossil fuels will continue “until further notice.”

It is tempting to pin the outcome of COP30 on the glaring absence of the United States, led by an administration which has pompously relegated the country’s critical role in the fight against climate change both at home and abroad. Look no further than the administration’s recurrent announcements on unleashing American coal and stopping clean energy projects in their tracks. But the outcome of a United States-less COP30 – with lots of rhetoric and pacts but little needle-moving action – was not new, nor partisan. It was emblematic of a world’s unserious approach to the climate policy plans outlined in COP21’s “Paris Accords,” which yielded steadfast, collective commitments to limit the increase in global temperature to under 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Or, yet another fossil fuel fakeout. In 2023, I wrote in the Washington Post in “The great fossil fuel phaseout fakeout” about the Biden administration’s hypocrisy in approving the Alaskan oil-producing Willow Project – projected to yield 180,000 barrels of oil per day for 30 years – even as the U.S. delegation to COP28, headed by Vice President Kamala Harris, joined the majority’s resolve to transition away from fossil fuels. Heaven forbid the Biden administration should use political capital to lead on the global stage for a carbon tax – which meta-analyses find are widely successful in slowing emissions – or on the domestic stage for an increase of the gas tax, also proven effective. These two measures would have required meaningful political will from the leader of the free world but would have successfully incentivized decarbonization around the world and encouraged an actual transition away from fossil fuels, very much critical for the safety and well-being of future humans.

The cost of this fakeout’s inaction is no longer theoretical. The current global temperature is already hovering around 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, with no sign of abating, paralleled by an ever-rising atmospheric carbon concentration, which now stands at a historic high of roughly 430 parts per million. And with these come the never-ending streamers of record-breaking wildfires, heat waves, flooding, hurricanes, and more, all with much of the world’s most vulnerable populations in the crosshairs of sea-level rise. This is a problem that, in the absence of groundbreaking technology, will get much worse before it gets better – if it gets better.

But none of this is surprising. Many delegates leaving Brazil may have felt disappointment, but once again, it was victory for the status quo. It was a confirmation that the world is unwilling to revisit, relitigate, and reimplement the action plan outlined in Paris 10 years ago, despite this plan never being more urgent or paramount for the future of mankind.

And while, of course, the United States’ presence was sorely missed – with COP30’s fossil fuel interests emboldened, allowing them to dig in their heels – it feels almost repetitive to recent COP conferences with the country’s leadership.

Once again, the world stands unmoved by the wrath of climate change. The United States’ chair was empty, but even when full, the drilling continued. 

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for November 2025: +0.43 deg. C

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November 2025 was +0.43 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the October 2025 value of +0.53 deg. C.

Line graph depicting the UAH satellite-based temperature anomaly of the global lower atmosphere from 1979 to November 2025, showing a trend of temperature departures from the 1991-2020 average, with blue data points and a red trend line.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

December 2nd, 2025 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November 2025 was +0.43 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the October 2025 value of +0.53 deg. C.

Graph showing the UAH satellite-based global lower atmosphere temperature anomalies from 1991-2020, indicating a +0.43°C increase for November 2025.

The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through November 2025) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).

The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 23 months (record highs are in red).

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2024Jan+0.80+1.02+0.58+1.20-0.19+0.40+1.12
2024Feb+0.88+0.95+0.81+1.17+1.31+0.86+1.16
2024Mar+0.88+0.96+0.80+1.26+0.22+1.05+1.34
2024Apr+0.94+1.12+0.76+1.15+0.86+0.88+0.54
2024May+0.78+0.77+0.78+1.20+0.05+0.20+0.53
2024June+0.69+0.78+0.60+0.85+1.37+0.64+0.91
2024July+0.74+0.86+0.61+0.97+0.44+0.56-0.07
2024Aug+0.76+0.82+0.69+0.74+0.40+0.88+1.75
2024Sep+0.81+1.04+0.58+0.82+1.31+1.48+0.98
2024Oct+0.75+0.89+0.60+0.63+1.90+0.81+1.09
2024Nov+0.64+0.87+0.41+0.53+1.12+0.79+1.00
2024Dec+0.62+0.76+0.48+0.52+1.42+1.12+1.54
2025Jan+0.45+0.70+0.21+0.24-1.06+0.74+0.48
2025Feb+0.50+0.55+0.45+0.26+1.04+2.10+0.87
2025Mar+0.57+0.74+0.41+0.40+1.24+1.23+1.20
2025Apr+0.61+0.77+0.46+0.37+0.82+0.85+1.21
2025May+0.50+0.45+0.55+0.30+0.15+0.75+0.99
2025June+0.48+0.48+0.47+0.30+0.81+0.05+0.39
2025July+0.36+0.49+0.23+0.45+0.32+0.40+0.53
2025Aug+0.39+0.39+0.39+0.16-0.06+0.69+0.11
2025Sep+0.53+0.56+0.49+0.35+0.38+0.77+0.32
2025Oct+0.53+0.52+0.55+0.24+1.12+1.42+1.67
2025Nov+0.43+0.59+0.27+0.24+1.32+0.78+0.37

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.

The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere

Mid-Troposphere

Tropopause

Lower Stratosphere

Why the CO2 hysteria? Because that’s where the money is

AT THE summit of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, the most recent measurement of atmospheric CO2 is 425 parts per million. If you happen not to live on Mauna Loa you can get a CO2 monitor from Amazon for £9.99, but the reviews are mixed so you might prefer something a bit more five-star.

A graphic of the Earth with a bright sun in the background and the text 'CO2 Does Not Precede Temperature, Nor Does It Control Temperature' displayed prominently.

From The Conservative Woman

By Robin Fellow

AT THE summit of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, the most recent measurement of atmospheric CO2 is 425 parts per million. If you happen not to live on Mauna Loa you can get a CO2 monitor from Amazon for £9.99, but the reviews are mixed so you might prefer something a bit more five-star.

What would your new monitor tell you if you set it up at home or took it to the park? Indoors, it will probably show in the range of 600 to 800 ppm. If you bake bread or cook for a family, it will often show in excess of 1,000 ppm. A city park might be around 500, depending on wind and weather. If you work in a particularly airless office, you might find yourself getting a bit sweaty or headachy as the proportion climbs above 2,500, but in that event, you are more at risk of spores from mould than you are from the gas.

It is a feature of modern life that we have governments who are obsessed with the dangers of a trace gas but recently forced everyone to stay in a CO2-enhanced environment for 23 hours a day, and to wear a mask to ensure even higher inhalation levels when out and about.

Contrary to the narrative that ’97 per cent of scientists agree’, the role of CO2 in climate change is hotly debated among those who know something about it. Ice cores and other ways of looking into the distant past show that CO2 levels alter after changes in global temperature, not before. If it doesn’t lead, it can’t cause. Actual temperature readings have contradicted the modelled predictions for decades, showing barely any increase. An average global temperature is a meaningless statistic.

Climate models predict disaster, but the clock has stopped at two minutes to midnight for half a century. The Greenland ice sheet has not melted, no crude oil tankers have collided with Antarctic icebergs, the Northwest Passage is still mostly impassable, tropical islands have not sunk below the waves, coral is abundant and healthy and my central heating bills have risen only because of Ed Miliband. Private jets still deliver bigwigs to climate conferences. Polar bears are enjoying a population boom, fewer people die of cold, typhoons and hurricanes have not become more severe.

If rising emissions are responsible for climate change, the effects appear mostly benign. Above all, more CO2 means more plant growth (aided by a small increase in rain in arid areas). Crop yields are optimised above 1,000 ppm, a lot higher than current levels. Given advances in agricultural technology and demographic trends it is unlikely that humans will ever again experience famine outside a war zone.

So you would imagine that climate scientists would park the CO2 theory and look for something else to account for climate variations. Changes in ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, sunspots, the earth’s rather wobbly course around the sun, that we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age, the length of ladies’ skirts – practically anything might be a better field of investigation. They don’t, for the simple reason that CO2 is where the money is, and more hysteria means more money.

Conveniently there are some countries which can be blamed for climate change and they also have lots of money, the UK and US in particular. The UK’s crime was to launch the industrial revolution, which allowed life expectancy to double worldwide and infant mortality to decline by 95 per cent. Due to the earth’s rotation prevailing winds are almost always west to east. Only one large country absorbs more CO2 than it produces, and that is the US. (There’s an awful lot of vegetation in flyover country.)

It’s an odd situation. You can deny historical facts such as the Holocaust and Mao’s famine deaths of millions with only a raised eyebrow in response but as soon as you question a speculative prediction about the future you will be investigated by Ofcom, cancelled by your school or university and made a pariah in polite society.

Yet judging by actions, not words, most of the world isn’t buying the narrative that CO2 is poison. China opens a coal-fired generator nearly every week, India nearly every fortnight and Indonesia develops coal mines like billy-o to supply them.

The explanation for this divergence may lie in a simple matter of dates. In the Christian West round numbers seem important, for other nations they are just a count. In his classic text The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, Norman Cohn described the hysteria last time a thousand years rolled round. It’s been in print for 50 years and is by turns astonishing and darkly comic.

It is also noticeable that in AD 1000 there weren’t any Protestants, officially. Protestant countries (Germany, Britain, Canada) are notably more worked up about climate doom than Catholic countries (Latin America). This may be due to a lizard memory among Catholic institutions of the idiocies that Cohn describes.

Cohn’s tale of vigils, pogroms, self-flagellation etc. peters out in about 1037. The world went mad for 50 years, but one by one men recovered their wits. History does not repeat itself, but maybe it rhymes. If so, we can expect climate hysteria to die out on the same timescale. Cheer up! Only another 11 years to go!

Is Arctic Amplification an Averaging Error?

“Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1983. This cooling trend is referred to as the global ‘warming hiatus’.”

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen

Looking over one of my earlier essays, I found a note pointing to a very interesting journal paper whose findings raised an important question.  The paper is not new, it is almost a  decade old:  “Spatiotemporal Divergence of the Warming Hiatus over Land Based on Different Definitions of Mean Temperature”; Zhou & Wang (2016) [ pdf here ].

The paper was looking into this issue, as stated in the introduction:

“Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1983. This cooling trend is referred to as the global ‘warming hiatus’.”

We can see what they were concerned about with in this graph:

That is not the issue I am discussing in this essay, but I am basing this on the same study by Zhou and Wang.

In their discussion,  Zhou and Wang say this:

“Most of the existing studies were based on global analyses of Ta [elsewhere referred to as Tavg – kh], including those performed by several groups, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) with the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and a joint effort between the Met Office Hadley Center and the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit with Temperature, version 4 (CRUTEM4).  All of the global temperature analyses for climate detection and attribution over land performed by the aforementioned groups relied heavily on T2.”

T2 is defined as “the average of daily minimum and maximum temperatures”.    To be clear, virtually all the global temperature analyses rely on that metric  T2  [ sometimes called Tavg].

An alternate to T2 is T24  — “T24 was calculated from the integral [meaning, arithmetic average – kh] of the continuous temperature measurements, i.e., 24 hourly temperature measurements from midnight to midnight local time.”

The author’s find that:

“However, the warming rates of T2 and T24 are significantly different at regional and seasonal scales because T2 only samples air temperature twice daily and cannot accurately reflect land-atmosphere and incoming radiation variations in the temperature diurnal cycle.”

Warming rates were found to be significantly different, regionally  and seasonally, based on the method of determining the Daily Average Temperature for each weather station, further blended in by whatever processes to achieve a metric called Global Mean Surface Temperature (many different versions:  Land, Land and Sea, various gridding, etc)   or any of its regional siblings. 

Now, regular readers will recall that I have mentioned before that Tavg  (called T2  in this paper because  it is the average daily temperature  found by averaging only 2 temperatures, the daily high, Tmax, and the daily low, Tmin) is not really the daily average temperature at all.  Strictly it can be considered the Daily Median Temperature (considering the available data set as having only the two values, Max (high)  and Min (low))  or the “Mean of the High and Low for the day” – neither of those are a proper average of the temperatures for a location (say, a weather station) for a 24 hour period.

Zhou and Wang correctly state that T2 or Tavg “cannot accurately reflect land-atmosphere and incoming radiation variations in the temperature diurnal cycle.”

So what is the difference that Zhou and Wang found? 

“The trend has a standard deviation of 0.43 °C/decade for T2 and 0.41 °C/decade for T24, and 0.38 °C/decade for their trend difference in 5° × 5° grids. The use of T2 amplifies the regional contrasts of the warming rate, i.e., the trend underestimation in the US and overestimation at high latitudes by T2.”

The method for determining Daily Average Temperatures in all the major GMST data sets has always generally been T2, mostly to maintain consistency with older records, which are available only as Tmin and Tmax.

From the paper:

“For a global average (with incomplete coverage), T2 has an important error of annual trend (0.027 °C/decade) with respect to T24 (0.002 °C/decade) during the period 1998–2013 (Table 1).”

That comes out to be a 0.025°C/decade difference. 

That may not be a lot – but in 50 years, that’s 0.125°C.

But Zhou and Wang definitely find that the averaging method used for Daily Average Temperature,  and thus all GSMT(land), may be responsible for some of the seemingly higher rates of warming seen in our GSMT(land) graphs from the various groups. 

They find specifically that warming rate suffers an “overestimation at high latitudes by T2.”

This is what we often see from NASA:

Let’s see what Zhou and Wang found:

The above shows temperature trends per decade, warming and cooling by colored dots. I have put yellow boxes around the higher latitudes in the north.  Using T2  is on the left, and T24 on the right.  Far fewer red dots show when using T24.   What is missing is the great Polar or Arctic Amplification.  There are warming spots in the north using T24 but not nearly as many, as clearly shown in the following which shows Annual Trends under T2 and T24.

The green boxes are the areas more closely investigated by Zhou and Wang.

So, What?

I don’t know – what you see above and what you read in Zhou and Wang (2016) is what you get here (in very truncated form).

The the area denoted by green box A1 (Eastern Europe), the use of T2 instead of T24 increases the decadal trend by 0.14°C. But in A3, the higher latitudes of the South America, the increase in decadal trend is a whopping 0.53°C . 

But what is blazeingly obvious is that using (Tmin + Tmax)/2 [the mean between the daily high and the daily low] as the Daily Average Temperatures [Tavg or T2] for individual stations led to a magnification of the decadal temperature trend between 1998 and 2013;  increasing the global land decadal trend by 0.0125°C/decade.   Not that much – but for five decades, that comes up to an increase in GMST(land) of 0.0625, six one-hundredths of a degree C.

And that is merely  interesting. 

But even more interesting is that “the T2 trend shows a markedly higher overestimation in warm seasons (by ~57%) than in cold seasons (by ~3%) both regionally and globally”.  And the sharp faster warming in the highest northern latitudes is greatly reduced when Daily Average Temperature is calculated using T24:  “the continuous temperature measurements, i.e., 24 hourly temperature measurements from midnight to midnight local time.”

Bottom Line:

1.  Methods and definitions matter and can change our understanding of claimed rates of change of Global Mean Temperature. As covered in my series “The Laws of Averages”, not all averages give the same result or the same meaning.  Some averages obscure the physical facts.

2.  “…the use of T2 may bias the temperature trend over globe and regions” and “the sharp faster warming in the highest northern latitudes is greatly reduced” by using T24  to calculate warming trends.

3.  Zhou and Wang recommend using the Integrated Surface Database-Hourly (ISD-H, [T24]) available from NOAA.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

I am not entirely sure about the impact of Zhou and Wang (2016) except the fact that I have not seen, in any of the NOAA and NASA global warming/climate change material,  any hint that this important paper made any difference in their approaches to calculating warming trends.

Zhou and Wang validates those of us who have railed against the T2 approach to daily temperatures and puts to rest the insistence of some that “it doesn’t make any difference” because “we are looking at trends” or “anomalies” or “trends of anomalies”.   

Does it mean that the massive polar amplification seen in all the warming maps – that dark red swath across the top of the northern hemisphere – is an averaging method artifact?  

Just maybe….some of it at least.

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

Climate Scientists “Failure to Tell the Truth” Is why Net Zero was Abandoned?

“… they worry that if the true nightmare was revealed, … everybody … would … just give up …”

Alan Kohler. Source The New Daily

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… they worry that if the true nightmare was revealed, … everybody … would … just give up …”

Trump’s America is abandoning climate action and the fight just got harder

By Alan Kohler

…

Bulldozing the Amazon rainforest is a fitting way to mark 30 years of failure of annual gabfests that have released colossal amounts of carbon dioxide from the mouths of the well-meaning and burned tonnes of aviation fuel to get them there, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions not one bit.

…

Energy scientist, Vaclav Smil puts the total cost of achieving net zero by 2050 at $US444 trillion, or $US17 trillion a year for 25 years, “requiring affluent economies to spend 20 to 25 per cent of their annual GDP on the transition”. 

…

So net zero by 2050 won’t happen and the increase in global temperature will not be limited to the 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels that was agreed as preferred at Paris in 2015 – nowhere near it.

…

There has been systemic reticence on the part of scientists to spell out what’s actually going on, first because science is inherently uncertain, so they are always reluctant to be definitive, and second because they worry that if the true nightmare was revealed, politicians and everybody else would either refuse to believe it or just give up.

…Read more: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-17/climate-change-religion-trump-zeldin-epa-wind-back-rules/105057538

The average temperature difference between the Aussie state capitals Melbourne and Brisbane is around 4ºC, so why isn’t everyone in Brisbane dying from climate change? How could global warming of 4ºC make Melbourne uninhabitable?

Cairns is about as much warmer than Brisbane as Brisbane is warmer than Melbourne. 4ºC warming wouldn’t even make Brisbane uninhabitable.

And of course you have prosperous and high population tropical cities like Jakarta and Singapore even closer to the equator than Cairns.

If all this isn’t enough, we have evidence from the distant past that warming is not a problem.

Our monkey ancestors also did well in a much hotter world. The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 5-8C hotter than today, was the age of monkeys. Our monkey ancestors thrived on the abundance of the hothouse PETM, and colonised much of the world, only retreating when the encroaching cold drove them from their new homes.

Fish also did pretty well during the PETM.

Study: Ancient Fish Thrived During PETM Extreme Global Warming

As for climate scientists failing to tell the truth to prevent Net Zero being abandoned, surely the time has come to stop hiding the truth and let it all out, and tell it how it is?

Net Zero is being abandoned anyway, so what do you have to lose? Please entertain us, don’t hold back – let’s hear your nightmare, let’s hear and read the predictions of your dying climate doomsday cult in all their glorious detail. Go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for January 2025: +0.46 deg. C

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2025 was +0.46 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down substantially from the December, 2024 anomaly of +0.62 deg. Most of this cooling was over the global oceans.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2025 was +0.46 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down substantially from the December, 2024 anomaly of +0.62 deg. Most of this cooling was over the global oceans.

The Version 6.1 global area-averaged temperature trend (January 1979 through January 2025) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).

The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 13 months (record highs are in red).

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2024Jan+0.80+1.02+0.58+1.20-0.19+0.40+1.12
2024Feb+0.88+0.95+0.81+1.17+1.31+0.86+1.16
2024Mar+0.88+0.96+0.80+1.26+0.22+1.05+1.34
2024Apr+0.94+1.12+0.77+1.15+0.86+0.88+0.54
2024May+0.78+0.77+0.78+1.20+0.05+0.20+0.53
2024June+0.69+0.78+0.60+0.85+1.37+0.64+0.91
2024July+0.74+0.86+0.61+0.97+0.44+0.56-0.07
2024Aug+0.76+0.82+0.70+0.75+0.41+0.88+1.75
2024Sep+0.81+1.04+0.58+0.82+1.31+1.48+0.98
2024Oct+0.75+0.89+0.61+0.64+1.90+0.81+1.09
2024Nov+0.64+0.88+0.41+0.53+1.12+0.79+1.00
2024Dec+0.62+0.76+0.48+0.53+1.42+1.12+1.54
2025Jan+0.46+0.70+0.21+0.24-1.06+0.74+0.48

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for January, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.

The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere

Mid-Troposphere

Tropopause

Lower Stratosphere†

The Saturation effect questions the prevailing narrative on CO2

The assertion that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” has been the centerpiece of public policy on climate for the developed world in recent years.

From CFACT

By Collister Johnson

The assertion that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” has been the centerpiece of public policy on climate for the developed world in recent years.

Demonizing CO2 has impacted virtually every aspect of modern Western civilization. It condemns the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, the use of combustion engines for transportation, and the employment of carbon fuels for virtually everything supporting modern civilization – even down to the kind of washing machines and kitchen stoves that are deemed acceptable. It forms the basis for the most grotesque of all the alarmist shibboleths – the “social cost of carbon”.

The theory that CO2 is malevolent was enshrined in the so-called “Endangerment Finding” issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009, which held that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that “threatens public health and safety”.

CO2 radicalism rests on one main assumption – that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause a linear and dangerous increase in global temperature. The belief that more CO2 emitted equals significantly more heat and higher temperature is a cornerstone of the ruling scientific paradigm.

But what if this assumption – the most ubiquitous of all modern conventional wisdoms – turns out to be mistaken?

This conventional wisdom has been questioned over the last decade by impeccably credentialed scientists who have undertaken actual science – not political science – to contradict this primary assumption underlying the AGW belief system.

Case in point is the peer-reviewed analysis completed in June 2020 by eminent physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden. Mr. Happer is Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and van Wijngaarden is a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York University in Toronto, both men are accomplished and renowned physicists with over 500 published papers to their credit. Mr. Happer is best known as the brilliant scientist whose insight into the physics of the atmosphere empowered the success of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

They applied highly detailed mathematical analytics to the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere and raised serious doubts about CO2’s ability to absorb heat after becoming “saturated” at current levels of 400 parts per million, and therefore unable to absorb significanty more heat from the Sun. Thus, any further increases in atmospheric CO2 – even doubling that amount to 800 parts per million – would only result in minimal increases in atmospheric temperature of 0.5C, or 1degree Fahrenheit.

This mathematically rigorous finding was validated through a controlled laboratory experiment conducted by a team of seven Viennese researchers in 2024. They measured the back infrared radiation of CO2 in a test chamber with increasing CO2 concentrations emulating realistic atmospheric conditions. They concluded that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels from 400 to 800 ppm “shows no measurable increase in infrared radiation absorption, and thus can lead to just 0.5C warming increase at most”.

This conclusion illustrates the reason why climate alarmists have never been able to explain the reason why the Earth has never experienced runaway warming in the past when CO2 levels were 5-10 times more concentrated than today, nor why the UN climate models based on linear warming theory have been proven to be so terribly wrong.

If the CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere is well beyond the level where increases are causing additional radiation to be absorbed, then all the government policies intended to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions in order to stop climate change are just as effective as King Canute’s efforts to control the tides.

In short, these saturation analyses thoroughly refute the conventional wisdom that increasing levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.

And they are not alone.

For example, in 2020 German chemist Michael Schnell published his study “Experimental Verification of the CO2 Greenhouse Effect” which also confirmed that the saturation effect of CO2 results in minimal warming. In addition, Franz-Karl Reinhardt, a professor with the leading Swiss research facility EPF, undertook another study in 2017 which demonstrated that a doubling of the current level of atmospheric CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm would produce only be one quarter of 1 degree Celsius – too small to even be accurately measured.

The impact of all these recent studies – and there are many more than just the ones mentioned above – is clear: the conventional wisdom regarding CO2 warming is unraveling. The demonization of CO2 – one of the greatest popular delusions in modern human history – may finally be coming to an end.

It may well not be not true that an increase in CO2 causes a linear and catastrophic increase in atmospheric temperature.

The implication of CO2 saturation is a game changer, and should provide the Trump Administration with a substantial line of questioning of EPA’s Endangerment Finding.