Highly Touted Alarmist Hurricane ‘Study’ Sets New Low for Misleading Deception

The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of quite normal short-term trends to support its false claim.

The study, published by government-employed and government-funded researchers whose jobs and income depend on perpetuation of the alarmist Climate Delusion, has been reported – without any critical examination – by the New York TimesWashington Post, The Weather Channel, and others. The Environmental Defense Fund is even using the new study to raise money for itself.

The headline for the Washington Post article tells us what the alarmists are peddling in this new study: “The strongest, most dangerous hurricanes are now far more likely because of climate change, study shows.” The truth, as shown by objective scientific facts, is quite different.

The study’s authors report that an examination of tropical storms that formed between 1979 and 2017 indicates that after the first half of the 39-year time period, the chance of a given tropical storm growing to become a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) rose by 8 percent in each of the latter two decades.

As an initial matter, the authors are dubiously claiming that merely 20 years of a minor variation in hurricane numbers is sufficient to prove a substantial long-term trend and a definitive link to climate change as the causal factor. This is a preposterous claim to make over such a short period. For example, objective data – as shown in the graph below (see climatlas.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png) – show that over a 25-year period from 1992 through 2014, the frequency of hurricanes declined significantly and the frequency of major hurricanes did not increase at all. This was also during a period of global warming. Why is that 25-year period irrelevant when it is so similar in time and length to the authors’ cherry-picked 29-year period? The fact is, there will always be natural and largely random variation in the frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, etc., within periods of just a few decades.

Second, the data show essentially no change in the frequency of major hurricanes since the early 1990s. Any claim of more frequent recent hurricanes requires cherry-picking the abnormally quiet 1980s as the baseline for comparison rather than the past 30 years, during which there has been no trend. The fact that the 1980s were quieter than the 1990s is largely r relevant to the assertion that global warming is currently causing an increase in strong hurricanes. To the contrary, the lack of any increase during the past 30 years is much more relevant.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authors and their media sock-puppets bury the fact that the authors are reporting on the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes rather than the raw number of major hurricanes. Objective data – as shown in the chart below (see climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png), show that the number of tropical storms has been declining throughout the time period of the authors’ study. So, the authors and the media can technically claim that the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is growing, even while there is no increase in the overall number major hurricanes. The percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is largely irrelevant if the overall number of major hurricanes stays the same. If anything, the new study simply illustrates that fewer tropical storms are forming, which would largely be seen as a beneficial climate development.

Fourth and finally, media outlets like the Washington Post even misrepresent the misleading and cherry-picked conclusions of the authors’ study. As noted, the authors note a very minor increase in the percentage of tropical storms that become hurricanes, even while the overall frequency of major hurricanes has not increased during the past 30 years. In fact landfalling major hurricanes has decreased for over 70 years.

Screen Shot 2020-05-23 at 1.56.11 PM

Compare that to the Washington Post’s headline assertion that “The strongest, most dangerous hurricanes are now far more likely.” Strong hurricanes are not more likely at all, let alone “far” more likely.

The new study, and its accompanying media coverage, represent a perfect example of the horse-dung sensationalism that climate alarmists tell us is “settled science.” The only settled science is that alarmists will go to incredible lengths to manipulate and misrepresent objective scientific facts for the cause of promoting their alarmist Climate Delusion.

James Taylor is Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute. Taylor is the former managing editor (2001-2014) of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism.
See this Hurricane fact-check that shows variability but NO UPWARD TREND.

Naomi Seibt, the anti-Greta, needs your financial support now

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Naomi Seibt, the 19-year-old anti-Greta from Germany whose climate-skeptical Youtube videos have gone viral, needs your urgent financial help. Without a hearing, German officials have fined her and demanded costs on the ground that in her devastatingly effective videos she has dared to question the Party Line about what officialdom profiteers by presenting as “dangerous” manmade global warming.


Greta (Far Left) vs. Anti-Greta (Center-Right)

As a result of this arbitrary and capricious prosecution and conviction without trial, Naomi has had her earnings cut off. Please donate securely and directly to her Patreon account at https://www.patreon.com/naomiseibtmy. May I suggest at least $10 per month? That would be a real life-saver, and would enable Naomi to continue her valuable work.

Naomi was the star of the show at last year’s climate conference held in Munich by EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy. She is an internet influencer with her own popular YouTube channel – so popular, in fact, that the totalitarian censors at YouTube have shadow-banned her channel, cutting her potential income from it by nine-tenths.

James Taylor of the Heartland Institute met Naomi in Munich and invited her to speak at the Heartland Conference in in December 2019 during the U.N. Gaia-worship haj in Madrid. Her five-minute speech attracted ten times as many YouTube hits as mine. Naomi has since been showing the Heartland Institute how to increase its internet presence.


Naomi Seibt speaking at the 2019 Heartland conference in Madrid

Naomi recently received a letter from a functionary at the State Media Authority for North Rhine Westphalia, the region where she lives. The letter informed her peremptorily that, without a hearing, she has been found guilty of the alleged offence of exercising her right of free speech about the climate on YouTube in a manner that the letter described as not being “climate-friendly”.

What was such a value-laden term doing in an official letter from a public authority to its teenage victim?

In a subsequent letter, the Authority demanded a fine of about $400 and costs on top, and instructed Naomi that she must not mention the Heartland Institute in her videos. The insubstantial ground for this attempt at silencing Naomi was that such mentions constituted unlawful product placement under a recently-enacted law of the North-Rhine Westphalia region.

However the letter makes it clear that a video is held to contravene the new law if it does two things at the same time: it advocates any policy position unacceptable to the Gau (such as opposition to Germany’s crippling Energiewende) and, in the same video, to mention a named product or entity associated with that position (such as the Heartland Institute).

The Authority listed three videos by Naomi that it considered unlawful. In fact, the list demonstrates that the charges against her are false. The Authority trumped them up, inferentially at the behest of “climate-friendly” activists.

In the first of the three specific videos of which the Authority complains, Naomi made plain her opposition the Party Line, but did not break the law because she did not mention the Heartland Institute. At the time she made that video she had not even heard of it.

In the second video Naomi announced to her followers that she was collaborating with Heartland, but did not break the law because in that video she did not advocate any policy position, whether on climate or anything else.

In the third video, Naomi again expressed opposition to the official position on climate, but did not break the law because she did not mention Heartland.

On the facts, not one of these three videos offended against the law as the correspondence from the Authority chartacterises it. The prosecution had no rational basis in fact or in law.

This is yet another instance of a traditional totalitarian tactic: to enmesh all who have publicly and effectively challenged the Party Line on climate in complex and costly legal wrangles, however ill founded, in the hope of muzzling them and cowing everyone else into silence.

Just ask Professor Peter Ridd or Dr Susan Crockford or Dr Tim Ball or Mark Steyn or countless others thus harried and bullied by the lavishly-funded watermelons.


The process is the punishment

Naomi has engaged a lawyer pro bono. She has splendidly demanded that the Authority produce its entire file on this matter, including the identities of those who complained to the Authority about her. She has also demanded copies of all correspondence or conversations between the Authority and such questionable third parties as these.

The Authority has responded by sending a file that has been obviously, in-your-face redacted. It is manifestly reluctant to admit its unsavory links with whatever totalitarian groups had asked its fellow true-believers there to silence Naomi.

The Authority’s notice of prosecution culpably fails either to spell out or in any material respect to comply with Naomi’s right to a fair trial as laid down in the European Human Rights Convention, to which Germany is a signatory.

Naomi would be well within her rights to counterclaim against the Authority for damages for abuse of its power, for contravention of the Convention (which grants her the right to a remedy) and for causing her distress, alarm and offense without the slightest legitimate or reasonable justification.

The Authority’s motto is “Committed to freedom of expression”. Try to keep a straight face.

Bizarrely, the Authority’s motto is “Der Meinungsfreiheit verpflichtet”, i.e., “Committed to Freedom of Expression”. Yeah, right. I have seldom come across so striking an example of Orwellian Newspeak. To Orwell’s “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength” we can now add “Silence is Free Speech”.

Naturally, this ghastly Authority belongs to the European Regulators’ Group for Media Services” (AARGH). It is not only Germany that is regulating freedom of speech once more. The European tyranny-by-clerk is at it as well – which is no small part of the reason why Britain has left.

GWPF has called on responsible educators and journalists to stop terrifying children with exaggerated claims about the impact of global warming.

As part of Mental Health Awareness Week, the GWPF has released a short video today to raise awareness of the growing mental health crisis among young children as a result of irresponsible climate scare-mongering.

According to a recent UK survey, 20% of British children are suffering from nightmares about global warming. One of the main reasons for this deplorable development are scare tactics adopted by green campaigners, educators, commentators and broadcasters to exaggerate the impact of global warming by emphasising worst-case catastrophising.

Relentless attempts to link every extreme weather event to climate change, and dire warnings about looming mass extinctions and the end of civilisation are highly contentious but are presented to even very young children as facts.

In their enthusiasm to advance their political agenda, green campaigners have deliberately and cynically used children’s fears as a political weapon that has been turned against them and their well-being.

“Anyone who cares about the mental health of children should demand that they are protected from apocalyptic doom-mongers and their political agenda,” GWPF Director Benny Peiser said.

Video: The Real Climate Health Crisis

2019-2020 South Pacific Blob and Antarctica Warming in February 2020

By Alvin Wong and Wyss Yim
Volcanoes Study Group, Hong Kong

Hot blobs beneath the sea surface formed by the release of geothermal heat through submarine volcanic eruptions and/or sub-aerially erupted hot volcanic materials including lava flows into the sea are an underestimated natural cause of ocean heat waves 1. Recent examples include the 2013-2016 North Pacific Blob 2,3and the 2018-2019 Southwest Indian Ocean Blob 4. The present study on the development of a blob in the South Pacific Ocean referred to as the 2019-2020 South Pacific Blob 5 has provided evidence to account for the observed recent warming in Antarctica including a new hottest temperature record on February 6, 2020 6 and heat wave conditions dramatically changing Antarctica in just 9 days 7.

At least three volcanic eruptions (Figure 1) have been identified to contribute geothermal heat during August to December 2019 (spring and early summer in the southern hemisphere) to create the South Pacific Blob with an ocean surface temperature maximum attained on December 30, 2019 (Figure 2). Out of these, two were initially submarine volcanoes located in the territorial waters of Tonga and one was an island volcano with a crater just above sea level off the North Island coast in New Zealand waters.

Figure 1 Volcanoes contributing geothermal heat to the 2019-2020 South Pacific Blob.

In August 6-8, 2019 submarine volcano F in the Tofua Arc, Tonga located about 40 kilometers south of Fonualie Island had a major eruption 8. The detection of this large explosive eruption was assisted by a pumice raft greater than 136.7 km2 in area on the ocean surface captured by imagery from ESA’s Sentinel-2 satellite. In October 13-22, 2019 another submarine volcano erupted destroying Lateiki Island in the Tongan archipelago followed by the birth of a new island 100 m wide and 400 m long in October 30, 2019 which subsequently disappeared beneath the waves in mid-January 2020 9. Meanwhile in December 9, 2019 the White Island volcano in the Bay of Plenty erupted with a 3.7 km ash plume and hot materials was discharged into the ocean through the eruption cloud.

An examination of NOAA satellite sea surface anomalies map archives has revealed that the South Pacific Blob located about 800 kilometres east of New Zealand attained maximum temperature and largest areal extent in December 30, 2019 (Figure 2). The sea surface temperature was more than 5oC above normal while the total surface area of the Blob was approximately 1 million square kilometres 10.

Figure 2 Sea surface temperature anomalies showing the development of the South Pacific Blob east of New Zealand on December 30, 2019. Source: NOAA.

Figure 3 shows a comparison of Argo ocean temperature profiles recorded on data buoys in the vicinity of White Island during the months of December in 2017, 2018, 2019 and the 2005-2016 monthly mean. The anomalous temperature changes with depth observed during December 2019 is best explained by the release of geothermal heat caused by submarine volcanism. A maximum temperature of 20.25 degrees Celsius is observed at the surface and the elevated temperatures down to 50 m confirms the thickness of the warm layer. At greater depths below, elevated temperatures observed between 75 m to 500 m is explained by the release of geothermal heat caused by submarine volcanism on the sea floor.

Figure 3 Comparison of Argo ocean temperature profiles in the vicinity of White Island during December in 2017, 2018, 2019 and the 2005-2016 monthly mean. Source: IPRC Argo.

An important climatic impact of the 2019-2020 South Pacific Blob at a latitude of 40-50oS is the weakening of the Roaring Forties changing the ‘normal’ ocean circulation. Under the sun’s influence near the peak of the southern hemisphere summer, stable anticyclonic conditions favorable for heat wave development were generated. A ridge of high pressure centered over Cape Horn appeared at the beginning of February, and this allowed warm temperatures to build 7. A new record in hottest temperature of 18.3oC was established on February 6, 2020 at the Esperanza Base on the northern tip of the Antarctica Peninsula and a hot spell lasting nine days was responsible for accelerated ice melting of glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice.

The heat is apparent on the map shown in Figure 4 which shows temperature across Antarctica on February 9, 2020. The darkest red areas are where temperatures at 2 m above the ground exceeded 10oC.

Figure 4 Map derived from the Goddard Earth Observing System model representing air temperatures at 2 m above the ground on February 9, 2020. Source: NASA.

Figure 5 shows a comparison of Argo ocean profiles in the channel between Cape Horn and Eagle Island, Antarctica during January in 2017, 2019, 2020 and the 2005-2016 monthly mean. Because of the easterly drift of the warm seawater from the South Pacific Blob caused by the earth’s rotation, the sea surface temperature at Eagle Island was impacted the greatest. January 2020 sea surface temperature was 4.7oC at the sea surface (about 2.6oC above the 2005-2016 monthly mean) decreasing to 1.8oC at a depth of 100 m (about 3.6oC above the 2005-2016 monthly mean). At a depth below 250 m the seawater temperature differences between January 2020 and all other years are relatively small. This is consistent with heat dispersion from the White Island region where the heat source originated from the sea floor from greater depths through submarine volcanism. The warmer seawater being less dense would in time accumulate as a surface layer.

Figure 5 Comparison of Argo ocean temperature profiles in the channel between Cape Horn and Eagle Island during January in 2017, 2019, 2020 and the 2005-2016 monthly mean. Source: IPRC Argo.

Under the influence of warm spell for 9 days from February 4-13, 2020, there was widespread accelerated melting of nearby glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice in the Antarctica Peninsula region. Dramatic changes can be observed in Landsat 8 images taken 9 days apart during the period February 4-13, 2020 in the Eagle Island region (Figure 6).

Figure 6 (a) Landsat images showing the conditions in the Eagle Island region of Antarctica on February 4, 2020
Figure 6 (b) In comparison, the Landsat image on February 13, 2020 showing the dramatic melting over the 9-day period. Source: NASA.

In conclusion, ocean heat waves caused by blobs formed by the natural release of geothermal heat through submarine volcanic eruptions acted, in combination with the sun, to warm the surface waters of regional oceans. The 2019-2020 South Pacific Blob not only impacted the proximal seawater in the Pacific Ocean east of New Zealand but also impact the channel region between Cape Horn and Antarctica Peninsula. Such warming may account for a significant proportion of missing heat in oceans claimed by proponents of anthropogenic global warming.


  1. Yim, W. 2018. Geothermal heat and climate variability. Imperial Engineer, Autumn 2018, 21-23.
  2. Yim, W. 2016. Explanation for the northern Pacific Blob. Imperial Engineer, Autumn 2016, 15.
  3. Yim, W. 2017. Geothermal heat: an episodic heat source in oceans. Imperial Engineer, Spring 2017, 14-15.
  4. Yim, W. 2019. Climatic impacts of the SW Indian Ocean Blob. Imperial Engineer, Autumn 2019, 24-25.
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxBEIsvlKGo
  6. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146322/antarctica-melts-under-its-hottest-days-on-record
  7. https://www.skeptical-science.com/science/heatwave-changed-antarctica-in-just-9-days/
  8. https://eos.org/science-updates/satellite-sleuthing-detects-underwater-eruptions
  9. https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=243070
  10. https://www.sciencealert.com/a-giant-blob-of-ocean-near-new-zealand-is-more-than-five-degrees-warmer-than-usual

Alvin Chung graduated with an MSc Earth Systems Science degree in 2018 at the Institute of Space and Earth Information Science, Chinese University of Hong Kong. He was awarded the Dean’s Honours list.

Professor Wyss Yim spent 35 years until retirement at the University of Hong Kong where he founded the Department of Earth Sciences. He has served as the Deputy Chairman of the Climate Change Science Implementation Team of UNESCO’s International Year of Planet Earth 2007-2009.

A diseased progressive dream

Progressive ideas and global pandemics go together like a strain of COVID-19 and a mucous membrane.

The media tries to look the other way, but one progressive policy after another has been found to be a major cause of the spread of the coronavirus.

For decades, left-wing city planning experts have told us that sprawl is a bad thing. It’d be better for society, they insisted, if we all lived in high-density cities. Then the virus hit. Which area suffered more? Manhattan, New York, or Manhattan, Kansas?

One of the main reasons dense cities have suffered so much is their reliance on public transportation. Is there a pet project that gets liberal local politicians more excited than public transportation? Rail systems let politicians literally choose where you can travel. The politically connected get train stations right by their stores. The businessmen who donate to opposition candidates get screwed. Meanwhile, public transit systems increase public sector employment and fill union coffers, all in the name of saving the environment.

But a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “New York City’s multi-tentacled subway system was a major disseminator — if not the principal transmission vehicle — of coronavirus infection.” In fact, 79 transit workers thus far have reportedly died of COVID-19.

MTA President Pat Foye summed it up this way: “Most people should stay off mass transit.”

After the study was released, progressive city planners tried to find new methods to keep public transportation safe. No — just kidding! They actually denied science, wrote articles panning the study, and patted themselves on the back for being so wise about smart growth and dense city centers.

Another progressive idea that has fallen apart amid the pandemic is the obsession with banning single-use plastic bags and embracing reusable bags at the grocery store. Reusable bags are the hipsters of COVID-19; they were carrying disease before it was cool. Study after study shows that E. coli, salmonella, and coliform bacteria are frequently spread by these virtue-signaling totes.

Now some cities that previously banned safe, single-use bags have actually reversed course and banned the reusable bags. Many stores that once encouraged reuse now forbid it.

The same progressives responsible for these disease-ridden failures mocked my town of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, for having a limited reopening of beaches last weekend. The reopening occurred because runners, walkers, and bicyclists have been packed into the two streets closest to the beach ever since we were blocked from setting foot on the sand. By allowing us back on the beaches, the local government made it easier to socially distance over a wider area.

The Northeastern know-it-alls were certain chaos would ensue. It didn’t. I was there most of the weekend and saw no beach chairs and no towels. The beaches were full of smiley people walking, running, exercising, and fishing, with appropriate distance between them. In the absence of evidence that our beaches were a chaotic mess, some news outlets literally shared old photos of the beach from when it was packed during an air show.

The notion that central planning experts know how to run cities is a symptom of the most dangerous disease spread by urban liberals — narcissism. Their so-called “progressive” proposals actually embrace century-old technology — densely-packed cities, trains, burlap sacks, and trolleys. This is a large part of what got New York City into this mess.

Conservatives and libertarians are mocked for glamorizing 1776, but is it any better to glamorize life in 1876?


This article was originally published by the Washington Examiner.

COVID19 models – a lesson for those who trust climate scientists

The models used to estimate U.S. deaths from COVID19 had projections that ranged from over 2 million a few weeks back to 100,000-240,000 a week ago down to 60,000 this week. Hopefully the projections and reality will converge on an even lower number.

The media seemed perplexed about the large changes in the models and questioned their concept and value. Welcome to the world of modeling (see this comparison).

We in the weather business use models as a tool and they present special challenges. We have a plethora of models to choose from which run 2 to 4 times a day or even on a smaller scale hourly. Operational model forecasts go out to as far 16 days into the future. The models are subject to large errors especially in the latter periods when storms are coming inland from data sparse regions like the Pacific. We have a favorite phrase – garbage in, garbage out.

The climate model story is even worse. The climate models overstate the warming from greenhouse gases by a factor of two or more.


Climate model forecasts versus the satellite and balloon observations

The models projected the greatest warming in the tropical high atmosphere (called the Tropical Hot Spot) where air in the mean rises due to convergence of air from both hemispheres. But the models warming results mostly from the release of heat from condensation of water vapor (95% of the greenhouse effect). CO2 is a trace gas, just 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume.

See no warming trend in the upper atmosphere since 1979 where models predict it.


The lack of warming also holds for the tropical Pacific ocean down to 300 meters depth from 160E to 80W.



The climate cabal portray the output from their models as gospel, and the believers confuse the model projections with measured data. The data centers make unsubstantiated claims that a given month or year is the warmest back to the beginning of the record (1880 or even 1850) often by the tiniest of margins (0.05C for example).

But the data is just not there to make those claims.

71% of the earth is oceans, and data before the satellite data became available 40 years ago, ocean data was reliant on ships which travelled along specific routes mainly in the northern hemisphere near the land.

A large percentage of land surface was erratically covered with observing sites and the data too often spare and intermittent.

To create an apparent agreement with their sacred models, the data centers manipulated real data or even generated with their models data for 95% of the planet that had poor coverage before the satellite era.

MIT’s climate scientist Dr. Mototaka here exposed the phoney claims that most years are the warmest ever since the 1850s of 1880s.

“The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”

The world’s greatest scientists in the 1970s knew that and created the first view of global trends by using land temperatures where available in the Northern Hemisphere. It showed a 2F warming from 1880s to around 1940 and then a cooling that by around 1970s cut that by more than half. Further cooling until the late 19870s virtually eliminated the rest.


These early measurements were erased when models and global land (and ocean) data was ‘created’ in the following decades. The models cooled the early data and enhanced the warming to create an apparent steady warming during the eras when fossil fuel use increased. Our conclusion is that there is man made global warming but the men are in NOAA, NASA and Hadley.NASA

By the way, the ocean data coverage and accuracy did not really become reliable until the implementation of the ARGO buoys in 2000 designed to accurately measure temperatures and ocean heat content. Like the satellite used to measure sea level changes (which showed no changes – until artificial adjustments were made), the early results were disappointing – showing no warming. The ARGO data supported the inconvenient near two decade pause in the warming that started in the late 1990s.



Eventually in desperation ahead of the Paris Accord, they made this go away by adjusting the buoy data to match to inferior ship data.


The models are tuned to manipulated (fraudulent) data. In addition to what we have shown above, this can be seen when you examine all the extremes of weather that these models and the theories predict. See here how each of the claims have failed.


COVID19 has shown how major the impact on the global population a pandemic can bring. A Green New Deal wasn’t developed in a lab, but is as bat shit crazy and would have a major impact on life as we know it. The effect on our economy would not be as sudden but just as serious. The government would not be sending you checks in the mail to help but driving up the cost of energy, and the cost of living and the choices you make (cars you drive, where you can live, how much you can make and keep). Because it is based on junk science, we need to dispatch it as quickly as we can the COVID19.

See much more on this issue in this presentation in front of New Hampshire Taxpayers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVWcdcORdes&t=122s

(See this comparison of climate models to COVID19 models).





Equal Warming, 1900 to 1950 versus 1950 to 2018: Why the UN Knows the First Half was Natural

Mathematics and Statistics Professor Caleb Stewart Rossiter Helps You “Do the Math” of Logarithms

CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. Using log math, CO2 levels from 1950 to 2018 have 5.23 times the impact of levels from 1900 to 1950. That means there was no measurable warming from industrial CO2 emissions in the earlier period. Recorded temperature rose the same amount in both periods, and rates of extreme weather and sea-level rise were also the same in both. Hence the data to date do not support claims of a CO2-caused “climate crisis.” 

The public often hears about a “consensus” of scientists on climate change. Studies making that claim all concern not the existence of a current or future “climate crisis,” but rather the cause of the half-degree Celsius rise in the average measured global surface temperature since 1950. Here is the key claim in the executive summary of the latest UN IPCC report: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” (GHG stands for greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is by far the most important human source.)

The IPCC is a political body of UN member governments. It bases its confidence on there being at least a quarter (its half of a half) degree of warming since 1950 on the expert opinion of the government-appointed scientists who draft IPCC reports. Interestingly, the IPCC maintains a deafening silence in its reports about the cause of the equal half degree of observed warming from 1900 to 1950. Why? Probably because that warming was almost entirely natural. UN member governments who promote a “climate crisis” narrative appear to be embarrassed by the UN data that show warming and rates of extreme weather and sea-level rise are the same in both periods, the all-natural earlier one and the latter one it claims was mostly man-made.

The reason the earlier period is almost entirely natural is that there was only a 15.6 parts per million increase in the share of the atmosphere that is CO2 from 1900 to 1950, compared to a six-times greater 96.1 ppm increase since 1950, as the world industrialized after World War II.

If the impact of CO2 on temperature were “linear,” meaning the same impact on temperature for every additional molecule, that would cause the latter period to have 6.16 times more warming than the earlier one. Since the IPCC is confident of only a quarter of a degree from industrial CO2 for the latter period, it could only attribute a four one-hundredths degree increase in the former period to CO2, an amount far too small to be measured within the error bands of its estimates.

But specialists agree that the CO2-temperature relationship is not linear. Like many physical relationships it is logarithmic, meaning that each added CO2 molecule causes a little less warming than the previous one.

Therefore, doubling CO2 concentrations from 200 ppm to 400 ppm produces the same surface-temperature increase as doubling again from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, even though the second doubling requires twice as much CO2 as the first. This is because CO2 molecules absorb and emit thermal radiation when the frequency with which they vibrate matches the frequency of infrared waves leaving the earth. These frequency bands become “saturated” because previous molecules have already produced close to the maximum possible change. The logarithmic relationship is non-controversial and well-documented with spectroscopy and measurements of radiative flux.

The table on page 3 shows why the warming impact of CO2 levels was 5.23 times greater from 1950 to 2018 than from 1900 to 1950. Here’s how:

Moving from the left-hand side, the table first finds the relative percentages of CO2 increase in the two periods and places those percentages on a doubling scale. Then it applies logarithms to these increases and takes the ratio of the logs for the two periods, finding 5.23. The table includes a simpler, more elegant form of this relationship: log (latter increase/earlier increase), which of course provides the same 5.23 result.

Finally, on the far right, the table illustrates the diminishing logarithmic return to the increase by tenths of the amount of CO2 during a doubling. For example, the first tenth of the way accounts for 13.8 percent of warming impact, and the last tenth only 7.4 percent, illustrating the logarithmic relationship.

The policy implication of this mathematical reality is that, indeed, the IPCC is right not to attribute to CO2 emissions any of the half degree of warming from 1900 to 1950, as the world came out of the Little Ice Age that ended in the 19th century. That warming was entirely natural. As I have testified before Congress, IPCC and U.S. Government data show no increase in rates of sea-level rise, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, and floods from the period of natural warming (1900 to 1950) to the period the IPCC claims is one of largely human-caused warming (1950 to 2018). This calls into question not just claims of current CO2-driven “climate crisis” but projections of future damage.

A PDF version of this article can be downloaded at CO2 Coalition Science & Policy Brief_EqualWarming

How the Despair of Humanism Leads to Climate Doom

How the Despair of Humanism Leads to Climate Doom

Those who sincerely believe in “anthropogenic” (formerly manmade) climate change are a hard bunch to understand. This excludes those who cynically use environmentalism to promote an overall leftist agenda or to sell books and turn a profit.

Millions of people really await an apocalypse that they see as imminent. They have a deep emotional connection to the movement as a defining part of themselves.

Enter Jem Bendell, climate change advocate extraordinaire. He argues that the end is near, very near. He is the author of Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy. According to BBC, it has been downloaded over half a million times.

Deep Adaptation argues that “climate-induced societal collapse is now inevitable in the near term.” The culprit is a gradually warming climate. Dr. Bendell cites the claim that “Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, and global temperatures have increased by 0.9°C since 1880.” He sees that extra degree in temperature as catastrophic because “we need to stay beneath 2 degrees warming of global ambient temperatures, to avoid dangerous and uncontrollable levels of climate change, with impacts such as mass starvation, disease, flooding, storm destruction, forced migration and war.” The only cure would be to expand current efforts, “by a factor of 2 million within two years.”

Since the paper is dated July 27, 2018, his two-year window has nearly expired.

The Academic Doomsayer

Dr. Bendell has some serious academic credentials. He graduated from Cambridge and is currently the Professor of Sustainability Leadership at the University of Cumbria (UK).

Unlike the alarmism of Deep Adaptation, his more recent writing is melancholic. Consider the first paragraph of the article “A Pandemic of Love – Deeply Adapting to Corona,” posted to his website on March 18, 2020:

“I’ve not been breathing so deeply recently… I’ve been wondering how best to protect myself, loved ones, and participate in wider efforts at change. I’ve felt anger as I witness slow and ethically dubious responses from people with the power to make decisions that matter… But rather than get stuck with blame, I am also hearing of heart-warming action from people all around the world.… we can become part of an exponential pandemic of love.”

These words appear to be the work of a man battling his anger and resignation. Dr. Bendell is not alone. He claims that his “Deep Adaptation Forum” has fifty volunteers and an audience of over 15,000 people around the world.

He sums up his strategy in three words, resilience, relinquishment, and restoration. Resilience refers to clinging to positive attitudes that might survive the collapse. Relinquishment is letting go of those aspects of life that only make the meltdown worse. Restoration is looking to the past to recover aspects of life that will assist us in creating a new society. Among other things, he mentions restoring landscapes to their wild state and changing diets to reflect the seasons of the year.

The Followers

The BBC refers to Dr. Bendell and his followers as “climate doomers.” It quotes one of his excursions into wishful thinking. “People are rising up in love in response to their despair and fear, [Deep Adaptation] seems to have reached people in all walks of life, at least in the West – heads of banks, UN agencies, European Commission divisions, political parties, religious leaders…”

The same article profiles two of Dr. Bendell’s British followers.

One is “Rachel,” who cultivates foodstuffs in the small yard behind her home. “I find the more I do it, the less anxious I am. It’s better than just sitting in the living room looking at the news and thinking, ‘Climate change is happening, what do we do?’” Every six weeks, she takes a 450-mile round trip with two of her daughters to an organic farm in Wales, where the children learn to forage. “I don’t say to them that in five years we won’t be here, but they do accept that food will be difficult to find.”

Another follower is Lionel Kirbyshire, who left his career as a chemical engineer and settled with his wife in a small town in Fife. Like Rachel, he cultivates small amounts of food in growing boxes. “We’re not stockpiling food but as the years go on, I can’t see us having much left.” Mr. Kirbyshire draws much of his emotional support from online forums like “Near-Term Human Extinction Group,” where he can share his thoughts with the like-minded. “Sometimes I say that I’m feeling quite low and someone will say they’re feeling the same, so you know you’re not in it alone.”

The Extinction Group’s Facebook cover page states its purpose. “The Near Term Human Extinction Support Group is for people who have accepted that HUMAN EXTINCTION IS INEVITABLE IN THE NEAR TERM due to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the consequences, based on trends determined by scientific research… This is a forum for friendly and non-threatening discussion… Discuss, laugh, cry, hold hands, share ideas, and know you are not alone.

The Despair of Humanism

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines despair as “the voluntary and complete abandonment of all hope of saving one’s soul and of having the means required for that end. It is not a passive state of mind: on the contrary, it involves a positive act of the will by which a person deliberately gives over any expectation of ever reaching eternal life.

The climate doomers seem to participate in this despair since they exclude any possibility of a Providential God who watches over humanity and guides them to eternal life.

These people are trapped in naturalistic humanism. Their science has no room for God. They only believe in what they see, and that view is bleak. They talk of love without knowing its source. Their naturalistic manner of understanding the universe excludes the Creator and therefore makes no sense. Despair is almost a logical consequence of their limited vision of the universe.

Escaping the Trap

These doomers entrap themselves by allowing the environmentalist cause to define their lives. Even if it leads to despair, they still see this skewed vision as preferable to a life without any meaning. Embracing true Christianity is a psychological risk that they are unwilling to take.

In Matthew 16:24, Our Lord said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” That denial of self is precisely the step that activists will not risk. Thus, everything takes on a sense of doom.

‘Ozone hole’ shenanigans were the warm-up act for ‘Global Warming’

The saga is told in four stories in 12 years. The world had already spent billions to change from CFCs like Freon based on flawed science rushed after newly available imagery from satellites showing the ozone hole developing at the peak of the Antarctic cold season. We start with a story in 2011, following a story in Nature ignored by scientists and the media from 2007 that the theory was flawed and one from Australia in 2008 suggesting in might be cosmic rays not CFCs. We end with a story from NASA in fall 2019 when a strong stratospheric warming event produced the smallest ozone hole in the satellite era. You see it is really the formation of ice in the very cold air that gobbles up ozone not CFCs.

Screen Shot 2020-01-08 at 7.34.37 AM

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

Friday, January 07, 2011 Icecap.us

Dr. Wil Happer of Princeton wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC.  Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the US Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” (President Bush Sr’s seaside residence in New England). The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like Dupont to market proprietary “ozone-friendly” refrigerants at much better prices than the conventional (and more easily used) freons that had long-since lost patent protection and were not a cheap commodity with little profit potential” (link).

Even James Lovelock agrees. James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment. He later became concerned that global warming would upset the balance and leave only the arctic as habitable. He began to move off this position in 2007 suggesting that the Earth itself is in “no danger” because it would stabilize in a new state.

James Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the leaked CRU emails in late 2009 was one of a true scientist. “I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.

I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.

Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”

On a March 2010 Guardian interview, Lovelock opined “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing…We do need skepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.”

Will Happer further elaborated “The Montreal Protocol may not have been necessary to save the ozone, but it had limited economic damage. It has caused much more damage in the way it has corrupted science. It showed how quickly a scientist or activist can gain fame and fortune by purporting to save planet earth.  We have the same situation with CO2 now, but CO2 is completely natural, unlike freons. Planet earth is quite happy to have lots more CO2 than current values, as the geological record clearly shows.  If the jihad against CO2 succeeds, there will be enormous economic damage, and even worse consequences for human liberty at the hands of the successful jihadists.”


The ozone hole has not closed off after we banned CFCs. See this story in Nature about how the Consensus about the Ozone Hole and Man’s Role (with CFCs) May Be Falling Apart.

The size of the hole has hardly changed since 1990 (enlarged here).

“As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change. Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. “Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”


Yet like the cultists whose spacecraft didn’t arrive on the announced date, the government scientists find ways to postpone it and save their reputations (examples “Increasing greenhouse gases could delay, or even postpone indefinitely the recovery of stratospheric ozone in some regions of the Earth, a Johns Hopkins earth scientist suggests” here and “Scientists Find Antarctic Ozone Hole to Recover Later than Expected” here.

“The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.” Dr. John Brignell, Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton, on Number Watch (May 1) PDF

Posted on 01/07 at 04:33 PM

Oct 03, 2007, Icecap.us

Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Ozone Hole May Be Coming Apart


As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.” Post is here.

Study: Solar Wind Influenced Cosmic Rays Not CFCs Produce Ozone Hole

Exchange Morning Post, 2008

New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month.

A University of Waterloo scientist says that cosmic rays are a key cause for expanding the hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole—and predicts the largest ozone hole will occur in one or two weeks. Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy who studies ozone depletion, says that it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer is depleted by chlorine atoms produced by sunlight-induced destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere. But more and more evidence now points to a new theory that the cosmic rays (energy particles that originate in space) play a major role. The ozone layer is a layer in Earth’s atmosphere that contains high concentrations of ozone. It absorbs almost all of the sun’s high-frequency ultraviolet light, which is potentially damaging to life on Earth and causes diseases such as skin cancer and cataracts. The Antarctic ozone hole can be larger than the size of North America.

Lu says that data from several sources, including NASA satellites, show a strong correlation between cosmic ray intensity and ozone depletion. Lab measurements demonstrate a mechanism by which cosmic rays cause drastic reactions of ozone-depleting chlorine inside polar clouds. Satellite data in the period of 1980-2007, covering two full 11-year solar cycles, demonstrate the significant correlation between cosmic rays and ozone depletion. “This finding, combined with laboratory measurements, provides strong evidence of the role of cosmic-ray driven reactions in causing the ozone hole and resolves the mystery why a large discrepancy between the sunlight-related photochemical model and the observed ozone depletion exists,” Lu says.

For example, the most recent scientific assessments of ozone depletion by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, which use photochemical models, predict ozone will increase by one to 2.5 per cent between 2000 and 2020 and Antarctic springtime ozone is projected to increase by five to 10 per cent between 2000 and 2020. In sharp contrast, Lu says his study predicts the severest ozone loss—resulting in the largest ozone hole—will occur over the South Pole this month. The study also predicts another large hole will probably occur around 2019. See story here.

Well the cosmic rays are are century high levels and the ozone hole set a new record low. So it is more likely the warming in the Antarctic stratosphere is to blame.

Screen Shot 2020-03-06 at 5.26.56 PM

Tho other hemisphere:

Meanwhile in the arctic a deep cold stratosphere developed with temperatures as low as -97C in January, coldest in 40 years.

t_in_323-1 (1)

Incredible ice clouds formed in the frigid air. In the antarctic they would have feasted on ozone.


NASA,Oct. 21, 2019

2019 Ozone Hole is the Smallest on Record Since Its Discovery

Scientists from NASA and NOAA work together to track the ozone layer throughout the year and determine when the hole reaches its annual maximum extent. This year, unusually strong weather patterns caused warm temperatures in the upper atmosphere above the South Pole region of Antarctic, which resulted in a small ozone hole.
Credits: NASA Goddard/ Katy Mersmann

The annual ozone hole reached its peak extent of 6.3 million square miles (16. 4 million square kilometers) on Sept. 8, and then shrank to less than 3.9 million square miles (10 million square kilometers) for the remainder of September and October, according to NASA and NOAA satellite measurements. During years with normal weather conditions, the ozone hole typically grows to a maximum area of about 8 million square miles in late September or early October.

“It’s great news for ozone in the Southern Hemisphere,” said Paul Newman, chief scientist for Earth Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “But it’s important to recognize that what we’re seeing this year is due to warmer stratospheric temperatures. It’s not a sign that atmospheric ozone is suddenly on a fast track to recovery.”

Ozone is a highly reactive molecule comprised of three oxygen atoms that occurs naturally in small amounts. Roughly seven to 25 miles above Earth’s surface, in a layer of the atmosphere called the stratosphere, the ozone layer is a sunscreen, shielding the planet from potentially harmful ultraviolet radiation that can cause skin cancer and cataracts, suppress immune systems and also damage plants.

The Antarctic ozone hole forms during the Southern Hemisphere’s late winter as the returning Sun’s rays start ozone-depleting reactions. These reactions involve chemically active forms of chlorine and bromine derived from man-made compounds. The chemistry that leads to their formation involves chemical reactions that occur on the surfaces of cloud particles that form in cold stratospheric layers, leading ultimately to runaway reactions that destroy ozone molecules. In warmer temperatures fewer polar stratospheric clouds form and they don’t persist as long, limiting the ozone-depletion process.

NASA and NOAA monitor the ozone hole via complementary instrumental methods.

Satellites, including NASA’s Aura satellite, the NASA-NOAA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite and NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System NOAA-20 satellite, measure ozone from space. The Aura satellite’s Microwave Limb Sounder also estimates levels of ozone-destroying chlorine in the stratosphere.

At the South Pole, NOAA staff launch weather balloons carrying ozone-measuring “sondes” which directly sample ozone levels vertically through the atmosphere. Most years, at least some levels of the stratosphere, the region of the upper atmosphere where the largest amounts of ozone are normally found, are found to be completely devoid of ozone.

“This year, ozonesonde measurements at the South Pole did not show any portions of the atmosphere where ozone was completely depleted,” said atmospheric scientist Bryan Johnson at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.

Uncommon but not unprecedented

This is the third time in the last 40 years that weather systems have caused warm temperatures that limit ozone depletion, said Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist with Universities Space Research Association, who works at NASA Goddard. Similar weather patterns in the Antarctic stratosphere in September 1988 and 2002 also produced atypically small ozone holes, she said.

“It’s a rare event that we’re still trying to understand,” said Strahan. “If the warming hadn’t happened, we’d likely be looking at a much more typical ozone hole.”

There is no identified connection between the occurrence of these unique patterns and changes in climate.

The weather systems that disrupted the 2019 ozone hole are typically modest in September, but this year they were unusually strong, dramatically warming the Antarctic’s stratosphere during the pivotal time for ozone destruction. At an altitude of about 12 miles (20 kilometers), temperatures during September were 29 degrees F (16˚C) warmer than average, the warmest in the 40-year historical record for September by a wide margin. In addition, these weather systems also weakened the Antarctic polar vortex, knocking it off its normal center over the South Pole and reducing the strong September jet stream around Antarctica from a mean speed of 161 miles per hour to a speed of 67 miles per hour. This slowing vortex rotation allowed air to sink in the lower stratosphere where ozone depletion occurs, where it had two impacts.

First, the sinking warmed the Antarctic lower stratosphere, minimizing the formation and persistence of the polar stratospheric clouds that are a main ingredient in the ozone-destroying process. Second, the strong weather systems brought ozone-rich air from higher latitudes elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere to the area above the Antarctic ozone hole. These two effects led to much higher than normal ozone levels over Antarctica compared to ozone hole conditions usually present since the mid 1980s.

As of October 16, the ozone hole above Antarctica remained small but stable and is expected to gradually dissipate in the coming weeks.

Robert Schwarz/University of Minnesota
This time-lapse photo from Sept. 9, 2019, shows the flight path of an ozonesonde as it rises into the atmosphere over the South Pole from the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. Scientists release these balloon-borne sensors to measure the thickness of the protective ozone layer high up in the atmosphere.
Credits: Robert Schwarz/University of Minnesota

Antarctic ozone slowly decreased in the 1970s, with large seasonal ozone deficits appearing in the early 1980s. Researchers at the British Antarctic Survey discovered the ozone hole in 1985, and NASA’s satellite estimates of total column ozone from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer confirmed the 1985 event, revealing the ozone hole’s continental scale.

Thirty-two years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This agreement regulated the consumption and production of ozone-depleting compounds. Atmospheric levels of man-made ozone depleting substances increased up to the year 2000. Since then, they have slowly declined but remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons— banned chlorine-containing synthetic compounds that were once frequently used as coolants—continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone to recover back to the 1980 level around 2070.

To learn more about NOAA and NASA efforts to monitor the ozone and ozone-depleting gases, visit:




Banner Image: The 2019 ozone hole reached its peak extent of 6.3 million square miles (16. 4 million square kilometers) on Sept. 8. Abnormal weather patterns in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica dramatically limited ozone depletion this year. Credit: NASA

One in five UK children report nightmares about climate change


  /  Tue, March 3, 2020  /  07:07 pm
One in five UK children report nightmares about climate change

One in five children are having nightmares about climate change, according to a British survey on Tuesday, as students globally stage protests over a lack of action to curb global warming.

About 17 percent of children in Britain said worries about climate change were disturbing their sleep while 19 percent said these fears were giving them nightmares.

The survey of 2,000 children aged eight to 16, conducted by pollster Savanta-ComRes for BBC Newsround, also found that two in five, or 41 percent, did not trust adults to tackle the climate crisis.

Over the past year, millions of young people have flooded the streets of cities around the world demanding political leaders take urgent steps to stop climate change, inspired by 17-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg.

Emma Citron, a consultant clinical child psychologist based in London, said young people were clearly fearful about climate change with the survey finding 58 percent were worried about the impact that climate change will have on their lives.

Read also: Eco-anxiety: Managing mental health amid climate change impacts

“Public figures like David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg have helped young people to voice their worries and we have to make sure that we as adults listen to them and … help them become involved in positive change,” she said in a statement.

“We all need to support them not to feel hopeless but rather to present to them hopeful and balanced messages about their futures and ensure that they get the right professional help if their anxiety is unduly high.”

The American Psychological Association has said it was aware of reports of growing “eco-anxiety” in children, but research was needed to establish how common it was.

Britain’s Oxford Dictionaries recorded a 4,290 percent increase in the term “eco-anxiety” in 2019, particularly among young people.