There is no "Global average temperature." The Northern Hemisphere & its urban heat islands are overrepresented.

Too many SWAGs are used for moved & nonexistent stations. The oceans are 71-73% of the Global surface, yet few historical records exist for ocean temperature.

This is the first in a series of presentations to examine and discuss the frequency of tropical disturbances.  Then there will be a discussion of the impacts of the disturbances.

Source Data:

List of Atlantic hurricane seasons - Wikipedia

Pacific hurricane - Wikipedia

Note 1: the data sets were cross-referenced against the NHIC and some minor differences were corrected with the NHIC being the preferred data sets

Definition: tropical disturbance is classified as a tropical storm, hurricane, major hurricane, typhoon or super typhoon. 

Note 2: tropical depressions were excluded as the records are not of sufficient length to be of use and only available in the Atlantic basin from the data sets used.

Constraint 1: The numerical observation and analysis of the data sets has been set to 1960 in this study to correspond with the advent weather satellites.

Observations:

1.      From Figures 1a, 2a, 3a and 4a we can see that there is a marked increase in storm counts near 1940. 

a.      Could be due to more traffic due to WWII?

2.      From Figure 1b we can see that the incident rates per year are:

a.      Total decreases from 64.4 to 50.6 storms per year (13.8 storms, -21.5%)

b.     Pacific decreases from 48.6 to 33.8 storms per year (14.8 storms, -30.5%)

c.      Atlantic increases from 16.1 to 16.4 storms per year (0.3 storms, +2.1%)

3.      From Figure 2b we can see that the incident rates per year are:

a.      Total decreases from 40.3 to 32.1 (-8.2 storms, -20.3%)

b.     Pacific decreases from 19.6 to 13.1 (-6.4 storms, -33.0%)

c.      Atlantic decreases from 10.8 to 9.0 (-1.8 storms, -16.6%)

4.      From Figure 3b we can see that the incident rates per year are:

a.      Total decreases from 21.4 to 18.4 (-5.7 storms, -23.5%)

b.     Pacific decreases from 18.9 to 10.5 (-8.4 storms, -44.5%)

c.      Atlantic increases from 5.4 to 7.6 (+2.1 storms, +39.3%)

5.      From Figure 4b we can see that the incident per year rates are:

a.      Total increases from 5.9 to 8.1 (+2.3 storms, +38.7%)

b.     Pacific increases from 4.4 to 4.5 (0.1 storms, +1.2%)

c.      Atlantic increases from 1.6 to 3.5 (+2.0 storms, +126.2%)

6.      From Figure 5b we can see that the incidence rate per year are:

a.      Total decreases from 30.1 to 26.7 (-3.4 storms, -11.3%)

b.     Pacific decreases from 23.3 to 15.0 (-8.3 storms, -35.8%)

c.      Atlantic increases from 6.6 to 11.6 (+4.9 storms, +74.5%)

This is the end of the first post.  Tune in for a discussion of the data and further analysis in later episodes.

Hello! I am a Social Science Research student in high school. I would like to study climatic messaging perceptions. I really need more participants for my survey, and would be so grateful if you would be able to take this quick 5-10 minute survey to help me out with my project! It would be super helpful and I would be able to discover more about climate change messaging. This is the link: https://pobcsd.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_b8CsHrsgoAbzXDM

I would be happy to do yours in exchange, just comment it!

Air-conditioning (A/C) would have fixed it all. The 50k number is bogus as is the 22k they say died prematurely in Southern Europe.

Spain is supposed to be a high- renewable nation. Why don't they have A/C, or Italy, France, or UK? You know they have heat for the bigger killer...cold.

Reuters is INVENTING a new term "Heat Storms". The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has no such definition of heat storm, never has.

They have assigned an arbitrary 1% area as the threshold to become a Heat Storm. By their own analysis, 1% isn't extremely abnormal. Checking with AI, 1% is a low threshold in historical terms.

They are attempting to create a new Meteorological term, with no WMO backing, including a low threshold that would be routinely exceeded.

Get ready for "Heat Storms"....

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-heatstorms-science/

[Experiment Debunks Climate Claims of Greenhouse Effect ‘Back Radiation’](https://principia-scientific.com/experiment-debunks-climate-claims-of-greenhouse-effect-back-radiation/)

I've seen this argument before, alarmists once again are moving the goalpost because their theory simply sucks. And we're told the "science is settled".

One of them argued that, according to this new definition, the "greenhouse" effect does not warm the surface at all. This new approach makes the IPCC definition, "radiative forcing" basically obsolete because here the surface warming is the result of the supposed effect.

Greenhouse effect, p. 2232 [IPCC AR6](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf)

The infrared radiative effect of all infrared absorbing constituents in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases (GHGs), clouds, and some aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere.

These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.

An increase in the concentrationof GHGs increases the magnitude of this effect; the difference is sometimes called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The change in a GHG concentration because of anthropogenic emissions contributes to an instantaneous radiative forcing. Earth’s surface temperature and troposphere warm in response to this forcing, gradually restoring the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere.

[The Changing Definitions of the Greenhouse Effect or GHE](file:///C:/Users/Kaiser/Downloads/The%20Changing%20Definitions%20of%20the%20Greenhouse%20Effect%20or%20GHE.pdf)

It’s been claimed now for the past 36 to 40 years that there is a Greenhouse Effect or GHE that warms Earth and it’s atmosphere, but it has never been clearly defined as to what this GHE idea is. Ideas have been put forward but no sooner are they put forward they are altered and/or changed. The GHE idea is forever morphing into something different. This paper documents all the different GHE ideas that have been advanced in the scientific community and to the general public.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The current sciences is that more CO2 in the air raises the effective emission altitude of IR to outer space"

Here they demonstrate that they can't think straight forward, keeping it simple. The (imaginary) effective emission altitude is said to be where surface and this layer are in radiation equilibrium of the Earth without "greenhouse" gases; the EEH with 255K is at 5.1km (we know this from the Standard Atmosphere table). So what happens? The best way to explain what happens is the supposed cooling of the lower stratosphere as a consequence of "greenhouse" gas warming. Keep the atmospheric temperature profile in mind.

We can measure the temperature at a specific, fixed height. When the troposhere warms it will expand, this will push the tropopause a little higher. The stratosphere has a inverted lapse rate, it's becoming warmer the higher one gets. This means the new temperature measured at the fixed height will be a little bit colder., we're now measuring the temperature of a colder layer that's pushed up. And that's what we would also expect in the troposphere, the layer is a little higher, but with the "old" temperature.

Once again we have a simple mechanism where alarmists confuse cause and effect. The common pattern in "climate science".

Gotta love it when The Guardian joins alarmists in protesting a smart decision.

A blow to the climate zealots. The new Prime minister Andy Burnham has given the go-ahead for extraction of gas from the North Sea.

Amazingly, even the Guardian seems to approve:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2026/oct/21/jackdaw-approval-step-towards-grownup-north-sea-policy

LA Times investigated California's $1B+ electric truck and bus subsidy program and found serious oversight problems:

- 64% of vehicles lacked required mileage reports.

- 80% of EV/hydrogen vehicles with available records fell short of state mileage benchmarks.

- Some subsidized vehicles barely ran or sat unused.

- About 25% of participating manufacturers stopped production or exited the market.

- Authorities are investigating allegations of fraud and duplicate subsidy claims.

California claims the program reduced emissions, but incomplete data makes those claims difficult to verify.

**Bottom line:** Taxpayers spent over $1 billion, but the state often can't prove the vehicles are actually being used or delivering the promised environmental benefits.

[LA Times article](https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2026-10-18/accusations-of-fraud-waste-roil-california-ev-truck-bus-subsidy-program)

Climate devotees always talk about consensus but let's not forget that there used to be consensus that sun rotates around the earth until one guy came and proved otherwise. I'm writing this because of John Clauser the Nobel Prize winner, who isn't even saying that earth is not warming he merely suggested that it's not mostly due to humans but because of cloud cover, he couldn't even present his theory because his speech was canceled. I'm sorry but that is not science, it is religion.