New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation

Newly published research identifies convective heat transfer and the consequent lapse rate, and not radiation, CO2 concentration, or the so-called greenhouse effect, as the predominant mechanisms warming Earth from its effective radiating temperature, ~255 K, to ~288 K. 

Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative necessarily believe (1) CO2 is the Earth’s temperature “control knob,” (2) longwave (LW) radiation from greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapor is what keeps the Earth’s surface ~33 K warmer than it would otherwise be in an imaginary world with no CO2 or water vapor.

This thought-experiment-based position relies on the presumption that LW radiation is the main heat transfer mechanism in the Earth’s lower atmosphere, or troposphere. It is not.

Convection, not radiation, dominates heat transfer near the surface. And convection sets the lapse rate, which means that as the density of the atmosphere falls the temperature drops 6.5°C for every km of altitude above the surface. This is why the snow-covered summit of Mt. Kilimanjaro is, for example, about -29°C colder than its base.

“The warming (from ~255 K to ~288 K) is a necessary consequence of the lapse rate, which in turn appears because of convection. Indeed, there would not be a lapse rate without convection.”

“Because the dominant mechanisms operating in the atmosphere are in several respects opposite to that of a greenhouse, the traditional label ‘greenhouse effect’ is arguably inaccurate. … [T]he expression ‘anti-greenhouse effect’ would be more accurate in describing the behavior of the atmosphere, namely the fact that the convection establishes a lapse rate and thereby a surface temperature above the column-mean temperature, while a greenhouse warms mainly by suppressing convection.”

Not only that, but the variations in LW radiation (attributed to variations in CO2 and water vapor) cannot explain either the lapse rate nor the temperature. Instead, it is the temperature variation that determines the variation in LW radiation, and not the other way around.

“The temperature variation full explains and predicts the variation in the LW radiation.”

“The small changes in the lapse rate cannot be attributed to changes in any component related to radiation. … [T]he lapse rate is invariant with respect to changes in LW radiation.”

Over the tallest mountain range on Venus, Maxwell Montes, the atmospheric pressure drops from around 92 bars to roughly 45 bars, and the temperature consequently drops about 82°C compared to the average Venus surface temperature. So convection and lapse rate, not CO2 or radiation, dominate heat transfer in the Venus atmosphere too.

“The proposed explanation of surface warming due to convection and the implied lapse rate extends beyond Earth, most notably to Venus. … The very high temperature of Venus’s surface, of more than 700 K, is usually attributed to the abundance of CO2. … [T]he actual lapse rate in the entire troposphere [60 km altitude] is very close the dry adiabatic, which suggests an isotropic profile…convection with cellular structures dominates in the atmosphere [of Venus].”

Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2026

2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed

A study by Gebrechorkos et al. (published in Nature in 2025) claiming climate change is worsening global drought severity has been retracted, reports ScienceFiles here (Das nÃĪchste Klimawandel-Junk-Paper wurde zurÞckgezogen). 

Gross errors throughout…

The ScienceFiles article reports that the study was heavily flawed, citing errors in calculations, miscoded data, misaligned comparison periods, and flawed weightings.

The now retracted paper claimed that drought severity had increased significantly since 1981, that “atmospheric evaporative demand” (PET/AED) had worsened droughts by 40% from 2018–2022 compared to previous decades, and that 30% of global land area had suffered moderate-to-extreme drought since 2022. It now appears all these findings were incorrect and based on shoddy methodology.

Reality: no detectable global drought acceleration

The ScienceFiles article highlights a follow-up study by Xu et al. (2026, published in Communications Earth & Environment), which challenged the original study. The main issue revolves around how Potential Evapotranspiration (PET) was calculated: In the retracted paper, soil dryness was overstated by assuming uniform moisture dynamics based on air dryness. When re-calculated by Xu et al., the drought severity ended up being less than one sixth of that reported in the retracted paper, and found no detectable recent acceleration in global drought.

The ScienceFiles author accuses major mainstream media outlets (such as Die Zeit and The New York Times) of uncritically spreading alarmist “climate apocalypse” headlines based on flawed science without issuing corrections after retractions.

ScienceFiles criticizes the journal Nature and peer reviewers for allowing low-quality science to be published in the first place.





New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’

Another climate-related “crisis” narrative is sapped by observational evidence.

A new study published in a Nature journal finds no acceleration (even a slightly negative acceleration, -0.0003 to -0.00005 yrâŧÂē) in global-scale drought trends in the modern era of “global warming”.

The zero-acceleration (or slightly declining) trend in global drought appears in Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) observations across 125-year (1900-2024), 75-year (1950-2024), and even the most recent 43-year (1981-2024) records.

Scientists who prefer to advance the narrative that human activity is driving warming, and climate warming accelerates global drought, have historically used negligent statistical methods to “artificially inflate” drying trends six-fold.

Image Source: Wu et al., 2026

A 2022 study that analyzed global annual precipitation trends from 1900 to 2020 also found “no evidence…to show that there has been any increase in precipitation deficits in recent decades that might be attributable to global warming.”

Image Source: O’Connell et al., 2022

Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI

German socialists keep thinking up creative ways to drive companies out and run the economy into the ground.

Online German BlackoutNews here reports on details of a proposal by the SPD Socialists Party parliamentary group (SPD-Bundestagsfraktion) to tax productivity gains resulting from the deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to fund bleeding social programs.

Image by NTZ using Grok AI

The extreme left SPD socialists aim to secure new revenue streams (such as a potential “AI dividend”) for the welfare state to offset anticipated losses in payroll taxes and social security contributions if AI replaces human labor.

Although no specific tax rate has been set yet, the plan targets the extra revenue generated through automation, digitalization, and increased process efficiency.

How incompetent can policymaking get?

The initiative creates a conflict with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s economic strategy, which claims to prioritize boosting competitiveness, encouraging investments, and accelerating productivity before discussing redistribution (“growth first, then redistribution”).

German corporate tax rates remain high internationally (at around 30.13% for corporations in 2025). While the federal government aims to reduce corporate burdens to attract investment, the proposed tax works in the opposite direction.

5 reasons it’s a bad idea

Opponents and economic critics argue that taxing AI-driven productivity gains presents several major drawbacks:

1. Implementing a tax specifically on productivity gains penalizes companies for improving efficiency. Businesses bear all upfront financial risks—purchasing AI infrastructure, data pipelines, computing power, and retraining staff—with no government support if the initiative fails. Taxing the returns when projects succeed distorts the risk-to-reward ratio.

2. Capital and tech investments are highly mobile. In a globalized market, companies choose locations based on energy costs, tax burdens, and overall return on investment. Given Germany’s existing high tax environment, introducing an extra levy on technological adoption could push domestic companies to relocate AI R&D or deter foreign investment altogether.

3. Taxing productivity gains before they materialize prioritizes revenue distribution over economic growth. By dampening the incentive to automate, the policy risks slowing total output—which ultimately limits the future tax base for standard corporate profits, wages, and consumption.

4. From a practical standpoint, defining and measuring “productivity gains purely derived from AI” is extremely difficult, How do we know if the productivity gains arise from AI or from better management, standard software updates, market shifts, or hardware upgrades creates immense administrative complexity?

Moreover, compliance costs for tracking AI-specific gains could burden small and medium enterprises (SMEs) far more than large corporations.

5. Many developed economies facing demographic shifts rely on AI and automation to maintain economic output despite a shrinking labor force. Taxing AI adoption disincentivizes technology that resolves labor shortages, risking structural stagnation.





The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative

According to a new study, coral proxy sea surface temperature (SST) evidence suggests the northern South China Sea (nSCS) naturally warmed and cooled at rates of 1 to 1.5°C per decade from about ~5300-5100 years ago.

Image Source: Wu et al., 2026

In contrast, the nSCS temperature record has been flat to slightly declining in recent decades (Ma et al., 2021).

Image Source: Ma et al., 2021

A 2021 coral proxy study indicates from ~6000 to 2000 years ago nSCS annual SSTs were 3-4°C warmer than they were from 1994 to 2004, with the modern SSTs the coldest of the last ~6000 years.

Image Source: Zhou et al., 2021

Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels

Looming crisis…

Experts are warning that Germany is heading into the heating season with dangerously low natural gas reserve fill levels. Currently, Germany’s gas reserve fill level stands at only 55%!

Normal for this time of year is 90%.

Last February, Germany’s natural gas reserve fill level dipped to a worrisome 20%, but late February warmth saved the day. In September, 2025, Germany the fill level had been 73%, — a level considered too low for mid September — yet still far above this year’s measly 55%.

Under average winter temperatures, a 77% starting level is projected to be enough to keep heating running and leave around 38% in storage by spring. So currently, with only 55%, a prolonged, a severe cold spell would mean daily withdrawal demands could outpace delivery capacity, creating potential shortfalls of up to 25% on peak days in January.

The concern surrounding Germany’s current 55% gas reserve fill level stems from a combination of strict operational constraints, market incentives, and the risk of severe weather. Due to slow injection speeds over the summer, operators have consistently failed to meet that daily rate. If current filling trends continue through autumn, analysts estimate reserves will peak at onl

In response to the warnings, Germany’s Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur) insists that supplies remain secure. Total gas currently stored ~136 TWh still exceeds the total volume withdrawn across the entire previous winter (~134 TWh).

Failed government green energy policy

Alice Weidel, co-leader of the opposition Alternative for Germany (AfD), has framed the low gas reserve fill levels as a direct failure of the government’s green energy policy.

Weidel argues that the depletion of reserves and current low storage levels leave German industry vulnerable and increase energy prices. She contends that cutting off long-term reliance on cheap Russian pipeline imports—and relying instead on expensive LNG or renewable structures—has systematically weakened the nation’s infrastructure and economic stability.

“The so-called energy transition is the biggest millstone crushing our economy and dragging it into the abyss,” Weidel said. “Expensive, dysfunctional parallel structures are being subsidized while proven and cost-effective infrastructure is being systematically destroyed.”





New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation

Antarctica as a whole has only contributed 0.35 cm to sea level rise since 2003.

According to a new study published in a Nature journal, from 2020 to 2024 the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) gained mass at a rate of +67.5 Gt/yr, reversing the modest 2003 to 2019 mass loss (-100.6 Gt/yr) trend.

This recent 5-year mass gain trend was driven by a massive increase in snow and ice accumulation (SMB).

Combining the mass loss (2003-2019) and mass gain (2020-2024) trends, Antarctica as a whole contributed a grand total of just 0.35 cm to sea levels over this 21-year period.

Image Source: Kolbe et al., 2026

A Google search of NOAA’s Arctic Report Card record since 2020 indicates that over this same 5-year period (2020-2024) the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) mass loss rate slowed to -147 Gt/yr.  This is a substantial deceleration when compared to the –267 Gt/yr mass loss trend from 2002-2019.

Image Source: Google searches for 2020-2024 NOAA Arctic Report Card

Together with the AIS 2020-2024 mass gain trend of +67.5 Gt/yr and GIS mass loss trend of -147 Gt/yr, we learn that GIS and AIS combined lost -79 Gt/yr over this 5-year period.

A total AIS and GIS mass loss rate of -79 Gt/yr translates to just +0.22 mm/yr of meltwater sea level rise equivalent from 2020-2024.

This would serve to undermine claims of a recent acceleration in the rates of sea level rise.

Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates

Deglaciation periods, such as the one occurring from about 14,000 to 6000 years ago, are estimated to have had ocean heat uptake rates of 12,000-20,000 ZJ (zettajoules). This range of excess energy absorption is 20-30 times greater than the rate of global ocean heat uptake that exists today (Gebbie, 2021).

During the Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), the ocean heat uptake rates had dipped to about 1500 ZJ.

Today (2000 CE), the global ocean heat uptake has fallen to just 500 ZJ. In other words, even with the warming since 1750, we are still only about one-third of the way back to the ocean heat content values achieved 1000 years ago, when CO2 was 275 ppm.

“…the ~500 ZJ of heat uptake during the modern warming era is just one-third of what is required to reach MCA levels.”

Image Source: Gebbie, 2021

Image Source: Gebbie and Huybers, 2019

Putting ocean heat uptake rates in a temperature context, the top-to-bottom ocean is today (1994-2013) warming at a rate of just 0.0011°C per year (Wunsch, 2018). This is an annual warming rate slightly more than one one-thousandths of a degree.

We are supposed to believe this rate is both alarming and unprecedented. It is neither.

Image Source: Wunsch, 2018

Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!

German authorities suspect climate extremists behind wave of attacks on major power grid infrastructure

There’s been a series of coordinated sabotage incidents targeting the German power grid infrastructure over recent weeks and months. The media initially reacted by pointing the finger at Russian involvement, but the evidence is pointing to another source.

Leftists suspected of committing rash of major attacks on Germany’s power grid infrastructure. Symbol image generated by Grok AI. 

“Climate extremism”

The hard evidence indicates no Russian involvement. Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt characterizes the new attacks as acts of “climate extremism,” citing confessory letters sent by a 48-year-old suspect claiming responsibility to protest fossil fuel use.

Attack 1. Turnow-Preilack substation / JÃĪnschwalde (Brandenburg)

On Tuesday morning, September 1, high-voltage lines connected to the Turnow-Preilack substation—servicing the JÃĪnschwalde (Brandenburg) power station region—were targeted using homemade launch devices. Authorities reported that the launch mechanisms used fireworks-style devices to shoot conductive wires into overhead power lines.

Attack 2. Bergheim substation (North Rhine-Westphalia)

Also on Tuesday evening, an attack occurred at a substation in Bergheim, near Cologne. Conductive materials were launched onto high-voltage lines, triggering a short circuit that forced five power generation units to shut down. Investigators recovered several launch devices and pyrotechnics near the scene. A 48-year-old suspect has explicitly claimed responsibility for this site in confession letters sent to authorities and news outlets. German security agencies highlighted key structural parallels between this device setup and the Turnow-Preilack substation incident, leading state security forces to probe links between the two.

Attack 3. Dormagen substation (North Rhine-Westphalia)

In another incident occurring last Thursday evening, a passerby alerted police after spotting suspicious device components aimed at a substation in Dormagen, south of DÞsseldorf. Responding officers discovered pipes fitted with cables, timers, and launch mechanisms targeted directly at the high-voltage equipment. The attempt was thwarted before the mechanisms detonated or caused an outage.

During a joint briefing, Interior Minister Dobrindt and North Rhine Westphalia Interior Minister Herbert Reul confirmed that a manhunt was underway for the suspect following the discovery of suspected explosive materials at his residence and the seizure of his truck near the Hambacher Forst.

Major Berlin attack last January

On January, 2026, a major arson attack targeted the electricity infrastructure in southwest Berlin, resulting in one of the city’s longest and most severe power outages in decades. The fire destroyed five 110-kV high-voltage lines and ten 10-kV medium-voltage lines supplying several key substations across the region.

The sabotage cut off power and heating to roughly 45,000 to 50,000 households and over 2,000 businesses in the region. The loss of electrical heating created a major mid-winter public safety emergency. Hospitals and care homes were forced to switch to emergency generators and schools were closed for days while repair crews worked in frozen soil to rebuild the severed lines. Full power was not restored until January 7.

A confession letter posted on the far left-wing platform Indymedia claimed responsibility on behalf of theAntifa-friendly Vulkangruppe (Volcano Group). The letter framed the sabotage as a protest against fossil fuel consumption, corporate power use, and AI data centers. Berlin Mayor and Federal prosecutors designated the event as an act of political terrorism.

Police have little success

The ecoterrorist groups are difficult, to monitor, according to authorities. They operate via small, autonomous, clandestine cell structures without centralized leadership. They publish post-attack manifestos anonymously online, leaving little to no digital footprint prior to an incident. While German federal and state governments are treating the threat with urgency, critics say authorities are not taking the left-wing threat seriously enough.

In response to the January blackout in Berlin and prior high-profile grid sabotage, around 500 police officers raided 17 to 19 locations across Berlin, Hamburg, Brandenburg, and North Rhine-Westphalia. Sites searched included radical meeting spaces, such as the Kalabal!k anarchist library in Berlin, as well as residences linked to key suspects aged 28 to 36.

No arrests!

Police seized dozens of laptops, phones, encrypted storage drives, and timers. However, no arrests were made during or immediately after the operation because prosecutors lacked sufficient direct, physical proof linking specific individuals to the active crime scenes.

Double standard

Federal prosecutors claim they need concrete evidence that a suspect was physically at the site or directly participated in constructing the device—mere association with radical spaces or possession of extremist literature is insufficient under German law – a standard that is rarely applied, however, when it comes to rightwing radicals.

Worse, even vocal conservative voices see their homes raided by the police before dawn for just making critical comments (all protected by “freedom of speech”) on social media. Here, German police and prosecutors are especially quick to raid homes, detain individuals indefinitely, confiscate property, close bank accounts and seize mobile devices.





New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years

A new study reports Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) glacier melt has added a grand total of just 0.74 cm to sea levels from 1992-2020. The authors apparently consider this amount − +0.26 mm/yr of meltwater equivalent − highly alarming.

The study assesses 203 glaciers in the AIS Western Peninsula and documents a statistically significant rising surface mass balance (SMB) trend since 1980 and stable to slightly positive glacier elevation change (+0.02 m per year) from 1989 to 2020.

A 40-year positive SMB trend suggests the region is storing more water as snow and ice on land rather than releasing it into the ocean.

Image Source: Thota et al., 2026

Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices

In an interview published by the German public broadcaster MDR (Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk) on September 1, 2026—titled “Es gibt einen Markt fÞr Desinformation” (“There is a Market for Disinformation”)—prominent alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf spoke with MDR Wissen to address the tactics of climate change skepticism, which he says of course is funded by evil special business interests, and how communication to the public must evolve.

In the MDR interview and his broader public communication strategy, Stefan Rahmstorf addresses the rise of alternative, populist, and fringe media platforms.

Exclude skeptics from debate

He suggests that rather than trying to engage them in debate or change their minds directly, he calls on mainstream journalists and established media outlets to strictly avoid giving a platform to skeptic voices from alternative channels.

Investigate skeptics

According to Rahmstorf, alternative media channels often frame their content as independent, “free speech,” or grassroots skepticism, and calls on the established media institutions and investigative journalists to trace where these channels get their material, who funds them, and how political or economic interest groups amplify them.

“We scientists explain the data and facts of climate change, but journalists need to investigate who is serving the market for disinformation and where the money is coming from,” says Rahmstorf. “”It is the job of journalism to uncover who is behind these campaigns, who is funding them, and what interests are being pursued.”

Avoid debating skeptics

Rahmstorf says that it is ineffective to try to debate or convince dedicated alternative media creators or their hardcore audiences in comment sections. It’s a debate that alarmist climate scientists cannot win. The Potsdam Climate Institute researcher thinks communication efforts should focus on the broader public—those who are exposed to alternative media snippets via social media or messaging apps. Clear, accessible explanations using real-world data and verifiable facts help build immunity against misleading claims before they take root.

Rahmstorf tells MDR that science communicators and mainstream journalists need to anticipate the false arguments likely to emerge from alternative outlets and pre-bunk them.

 

End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!

No late summer Arctic ice melting in 20 years!

Why are the climate ambulance chasers now way out in Nepal, grabbing at straws? The reason is because there’s little weather action anywhere else that would support the alarmist climate narrative – not even the Arctic.

Typically this time of the year you’ll find them chasing huirricanes in the Atlantic basin, or hollering doomsday warnings way up in the Arctic.

August 27 Arctic sea ice extent

Strangely, the alarmists have been mysteriously abesent from the North Pole region for many years now. Al Gore’s warning (citing experts) of an ice free Arctic by 2013 never materialized. Here’s the August 27 Arctic sea ice extent since 1990:

Chart by NTZ. Data source: Meereisportal

The data show that late-summer Arctic sea ice (August 27) has remained stable over the past two decades!

The post-2007 trend slope is only -0.01 million kmÂē/year, a significant deceleration compared to the rapid loss rate of -0.105 million kmÂē per year observed between 1990 and 2006. In a nutshell, Arctic sea ice late summer minimum has been stable for 20 years!

Record low burned area in Europe 

And espite all the screaming from the media about Europe’s hot and dry summer, and raging forest fires, the data show very calm and encouraging conditions in terms of burned area for 2026 over Europe:

Source: GWIS

The reality is that burned area across Europe this summer has remained at a record low, and will likely remain on track to finish far below normal as rain sweeps over Europe again. These are inconvenient news for climate alarmists.

Low Atlantic cyclone activity this year

Also the hurricane season isn’t cooperating.

The next chart depicts the comparison of the 2026 Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) –which tells us how frequent and strong hurricanes have been– against historical averages and notable El NiÃąo analog years through late August.

Chart by NTZ. Data source: https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?loc=northatlantic

2026 Atlantic cyclone energy has been only 11% of normal activity.

Now you know why the climate ambulance-chasers have all gone to Nepal.





By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close