At https://notrickszone.com/2025/12/30/new-study-finds-a-higher-rate-of-global-warming-from-1899-1940-than-from-1983-2024/ … the very warm 1920s/1930s are suddenly appearing back in the data. The hottest years of the 20th century were recorded in the 1930s. Global warming activists had to bury this inconvenient fact – and over the years this was achieved by a simple algorithym. This was done incrementally, over a period of time from 1850 to the present, by gradually cooling temperatures. It was such a slow process it did not come up as an anomaly – unless you actually went back and looked at temperature data from the 20th century. This of course could possibly be classed as criminal activity – but is presented as modifying and updating old data which was deemed not as reliable. In other words, they made the inconvenient temperatures disappear. Like magic.
In the new study on this German web site they reconstructed 60 million max/min temperatures from 1600 global weather stations across 29 countries. That is pretty comprehensive. Not the sort of extensive research you would associate with alarmist climate scientists. They divided the period into 3 42 year sections. From 1899 to 1940 there was a much greater rate than recent warming trends – when co2 emissions were much lower. In the next 42 years global temperatures fell, from 1941 to 1983 – even though co2 levels were rising. Finally, over the last 4 years, from 1983-2024, the warming returned – but at a lower rate than in the first 42 years – coinciding in time with further increases in c02 levels in the atmosphere.
At https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/12/30/the-2023-climate-event-revealed-the-greatest-failure-of-climate-science/ … which is a post by somebody called Javier Vinos. Not a climate scientist by calling but a scientist who set out to investigate the facts behind the climate hype. He had, initially, expected climate science to perform like normal science – bulked up by solid facts. He found it was not. It was incredibly shallow – leading to a change of mind. He used this scepticism to explore the reason why the Hunga Tonga submarine volcano had been marginalised by climate scientists. He claimed it was perhaps the most powerful explosion since Tambora back in 1816. It was huge, and In the News has explored some of the results. However, as it was submarine the comparison with Tambora may be misleading. Mainstream sources, in the media and in science journals, have been at pains to downplay the role the volcanic eruption might have played. Even though it moved huge quantities of water vapour into the stratosphere and produced an underwater burst of energy that was detected, at the time, in oceans around the world. The following year, 2023, climate hype was baying about the unusual heat in the Atlantic, and other oceans, and decided it was due to an El Nino event. A weak and short lived El Nino on the scale of these things. An El Nino that was obviously compromised by the Hunga Tonga event. Eventually, the Atlantic temperatures receded and this was attributed to a forming La Nina event in the central Pacific, the efects of which are just becoming apparent. Javier Vinos thought this was odd and set out to try and find what else the submarine volcano may have caused – but is attributed in mainstream to other forces at work, such as ENSO. The idea the volcano may have caused ENSO changes is conveniently overlooked so he had plenty of material to trawl through – over the course of his research period. Mainly 2023. Interestingly, there were also changes in the course of the Intertropical Convergence Stream, the equatorial jet stream, one might say, as well as a well recorded melt in Antarcitic sea ice. Presumbaly as a result of hot ocean water travelling between the Pacific and Indian oceans into the South Atlantic. Not everything he links to Hunga Tonag may be valid and critics may connect to these uncertainties in order to rubbish his claims. We can expect this sort of thing if the study becomes known to a wider public. Meanwhile, the comments following the post are also interesting as they include people supportive of his ideas and a considerable number sceptical of them.