Simon Morley

Follow the Science & Understand the Oceans are Warming from Rising CO2 Hoax Governments and alarmist researchers and thus all AI, claim ocean warming is due to absorbing ~90–91% of the “excess” heat trapped in Earth's climate system by greenhouse gases since the 1970s. But how do they calculate CO2 ocean warming and how do they separate natural warming from solar heating and decreasing cloud cover??? Only one research paper has attempted to provide actual evidence to support the CO2 warming narrative: Wong & Minnett(2018) The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation (W&M 2018). Their bias is seen in their introduction stating: “The objective of this study is therefore to provide an explanation of how increasing levels of anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere causes the upper Ocean Heat Content to rise.” Still, without reliable evidence ( their graphics B & C), they too had to retreat to just pushing a bogus narrative. First, all scientists agree the upper few meters of the ocean consists of 1) a cool surface Skin layer that overlays 2) a Sub surface solar heated diurnal layer, which overlays 3) a much cooler Mixed layer (graphic A). Critically, CO2 infrared only penetrates into the ocean’s skin surface by a few microns (less than the width of a human hair) while solar energy penetrates 100 meters depth. Thus CO2 longwave infrared (LW) absorbed in the skin surface can radiate away immediately, in contrast to deeper penetrating solar heated water that accumulates and takes days to years to ventilate. Heat only ventilates from the ocean via the cool Skin surface layer via longwave radiation (LWout), laten heat of evaporation (LH) or conductive cooling via contact with the air above (SH) . The direction of flow of heat is almost always from the ocean to the atmosphere. To determine the oceans’ LWin downwelling from the atmosphere vs LWout from the ocean surface requires a research cruise with instruments situated very near the ocean surface that can detect LWout without contamination from the atmospheres’ downwelling LWin. To their credit Wong and Minnett (2018)’s research did this. However, because the increase in CO2 (2 W/m2) has been too little to enable an accurate detection of a CO2 warming effect, W&M (2018) compared clear sky CO2 effects vs cloudy skies effects. The advantage in using cloud cover as a surrogate of GHG’s is the large signal in incoming longwave, (about an increase of 200 W m22) produced in short time intervals. Physics’ Stefan–Boltzmann law states “ the total energy (E) radiated per unit surface area per unit time is directly proportional to the fourth power of the temperature; E 📷📷 Despite great differences between energy for Lwin vs LW out, Wong & Minnett measured no change in the LWout (470 W/m2); graphics B & C), That indicates LWin had no warming effect on the skin layer. Neither did they detect any changes in LH or SH. Based on the laws of physics logic would suggest that increased LWin from clouds had NO EFFECT on the oceans’ surface temperature. But that did not “provide an explanation for how increasing levels of anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere is causing the upper Ocean Heat Content to rise.” So Wong & Minnett created an alarmist narrative. So W & M (2018) pushed the narrative that heat ventilation depends on the temperature difference between the Subsurface and the Skin surface. Because Increased LWin from increased CO2 “would” warm the skin layer and thus reduce the temperature difference between the skin layer and subsurface layer. Thus CO2 ventilation of subsurface heat is reduced because CO2 warms the skin surface. The problem is, their evidence never showed the skin surface layer’s temperature ever increased.

Vox with a BOMBSHELL admission in the wake of the demise of RCP8.5. “Those numbers shaped a decade and a half of climate journalism, including a lot of my own when I covered climate change at Time magazine. I didn’t always know — and didn’t always communicate — that the scenario behind the most apocalyptic, attention-getting findings was largely an attempt to imagine how bad things could get, not a true forecast. But I wasn’t alone. RCP 8.5 was a frequent background presence in climate journalism.” vox.com/future-perfect…

In my @DailyMail essay on the @theCCCuk's new report, I point out that they have a vested interest in exaggeration. "Between the moment when these climatecrats wake in the morning and the moment they lay their overworked brains to rest on feather pillows at night, they have one all-consuming ambition: to maximise their own budget. They achieve this goal by being as alarmist as possible. Imagine if they found evidence that climate change was no big deal or even good news: would they want to publish this? Of course not. It would be disastrous for their (taxpayer-funded) income. The committee has never produced a report on global greening: the remarkable 15-20 per cent increase in green vegetation on the planet over the past four decades, caused mostly by carbon dioxide emissions. Nor do its members talk about falling deaths from cold weather anywhere near as much as they do about the smaller number of deaths from hot weather. Good news for us, in short, is no news for them.

International bureaucracies are retreating from their formerly 'iron-clad' fixation on immediate global climate collapse. As their worst-case computer models evaporate under the weight of real-world data, the goalposts are shifting. Realising they can no longer defend the rigid targets used to drive public anxiety, institutions like the IPCC are quietly pivoting to 'overshoot' mode to manage the damage. This retreat is happening because empirical data from NASA satellites is telling a vastly different story of planetary resilience. The Sahara Desert, of all places, has shrunk by roughly 8% since the 1980s. This isn't a computer model simulation, it's the visible reality captured by NASA’s AVHRR and MODIS satellite instruments. Satellite data reveals that 25% to 50% of Earth’s vegetated lands have shown significant greening. This is an expansion of biomass equivalent to twice the continental United States. Carbon dioxide fertilisation is responsible for roughly 70% of this growth. Higher atmospheric CO₂ is also allowing marginal plants to use water more efficiently. Leaf pores (stomata) don't need to stay open as long to take in carbon, drastically cutting water loss and boosting natural drought resistance. This biological efficiency is allowing vegetation to march back into the world’s most hostile environments. Green cover has been actively reclaiming the arid fringes of the Sahel (the Sahara’s southern edge), the Middle East and Australian Outback. An 8% reduction in the Sahara's desert expanse means over 700,000 square kilometres of formerly barren sand wastes have transitioned to green cover. With CO₂ now hovering around 430 ppm, nature is using this extra airborne fuel to thrive in regions once completely inhospitable. Centralised policy platforms remain focused on worst-case scenarios and economic penalties. But the biosphere is quietly demonstrating a profound, measurable benefit from higher CO₂. Earth is becoming greener and more water-efficient - where it matters most. No one expected this.

They do not even believe their own fantasy. On the left - a flood map forecast by Climate Central for 2030 On the right a 2,700 acre solar farm being planned. If it’s going to be under water in 3.5 years the location seems somewhat unwise. Or they know the flooding fears are codswallop. 💩 (Arrow on flood map shows approx location of solar farm)

The latest report from the Climate Change Committee claims Britain is set to see soaring temperatures and sharp rises in flooding and storms by 2050. There's just one problem, says Paul Homewood in the Climate Skeptic: none of it is plausible. climateskeptic.org/p/fact-checkin…

Links to my you-tube climate change series videos; youtube.com/watch?v=4ZKI40… youtube.com/watch?v=3biTbg… youtube.com/watch?v=1Y_n28… youtube.com/watch?v=WNEQo6… youtube.com/watch?v=wbQ-Kv… youtube.com/watch?v=9EkKsu… youtube.com/watch?v=p8-MY4…

@BBCr4today You'd rather we return to the Little Ice Age of the C17th...when the Thames froze over regularly. Mad. Cold kills more than warmth.

"Heat is the most deadly of the risks that climate change is bringing." Baroness Brown, from the Climate Change Committee, argues the UK must bring in measures like more air conditioning and a new legal maximum workplace temperatures in response to climate change.

New Study: Ice Core Data Shows Modern Warming Is Statistically Unremarkable climatechangedispatch.com/ice-core-data-… via @ccdeditor

“Every single Net Zero policy will be reversed!" 🚨 At the 16th International Conference on Climate Change, @LoisPerry26 exposed the £1T scam. @HeartlandInst research is guiding the fight to crush green mandates and unleash energy dominance. Climate grifters, find a new job! Link below for full video👇

The Party That Profited From The Crisis It Refuses To Solve. There is a multi billion pound industry built on the continuation of mass illegal immigration into Britain. It requires the boats to keep coming. It requires the asylum claims to keep flowing. It requires the hotels to stay full. It requires the legal challenges to keep blocking removals. Remove the crisis and the industry collapses. Which is why the industry has every incentive to ensure the crisis never ends and every incentive to fund the political parties that guarantee it will not. The Liberal Democrats are that party. Ed Davey campaigns for open borders, opposes every serious enforcement measure and demands Britain rejoin the EU customs union that would deepen its exposure to the same migration crisis now tearing the continent apart. His party has opposed the Rwanda scheme, opposed detention, opposed accelerated removals and opposed every legislative attempt to create a credible deterrent. The policy position is consistent. So is the funding. Safwan Adam was the Liberal Democrats' biggest election donor. He gave the party nearly £500,000 before the July 2024 election and over £750,000 across that year, confirmed by Electoral Commission records. Adam was a director of Stay Belvedere Hotels Limited, a company appointed in April 2021 with no prior track record in immigration accommodation. Within months it was running 51 hotels housing asylum seekers across England and Wales, providing approximately a quarter of all Home Office asylum places under a contract worth billions of pounds of taxpayer money. In the year to September 2022 SBHL reported nearly £705 million in income, almost entirely from government contracts. The company paid out £45 million in dividends. Adam and his co-director each received at least £7.8 million. Between 2020 and 2022 the company reported pre-tax profits of £75.7 million on a turnover of £888 million. The contract was subsequently stripped after the Home Office found significant elements of the company's behaviour fell short of what we would expect from a government supplier. Staff were reportedly paid as little as £5.60 an hour, below the legal minimum wage. The mechanism is not complicated. More crossings mean more asylum claims. More asylum claims mean more accommodation contracts. More accommodation contracts mean more dividends. More dividends mean more political donations. More political donations fund the party that opposes every measure that would reduce the crossings. The Liberal Democrats do not want to solve the small boats crisis. Their donor base depends on it continuing. This is not an isolated arrangement. It is the visible tip of an industrial complex that includes NGOs paid to process claims, human rights lawyers paid to challenge removals, accommodation providers paid to house arrivals and people trafficking networks paid to deliver them. Each component of that system profits from the continuation of the crisis. Each has a financial interest in open borders. Each opposes enforcement. And each, in one form or another, funds or lobbies the political parties that deliver the policy environment they require. The British public is told the small boats crisis is a humanitarian emergency requiring compassionate solutions. What it actually is, is a supply chain. People are the product. Taxpayer money is the revenue. Political donations are the return on investment. And the Liberal Democrats, the party of compassion and human rights, were a shareholder. Ed Davey wants to talk about foreign money in politics. He is right to raise it. The money that flowed from the asylum accommodation industry into his party's election fund is a reasonable place to start. "Safwan Adam was the Liberal Democrats' biggest election donor. He gave the party nearly £500,000 before the July 2024 election and over £750,000 across that year"

THE IPCC DUMPS RCP8.5 AND RCP7.0 SCENARIOS. Most doom-and-gloom projections for 2100 you’ve heard were based on RCP8.5. It featured in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies and countless media articles. RCP8.5 was presented as a business-as-usual scenario. That was clearly untrue. It's now time for the IPCC to come clean, and dump ALL of it's ridiculous RCP models, which are ALL based on a lie; - that CO2 drives climate change. At least this is a small step in the right direction; that of science instead of politics.

Paul Homewood: Attenborough’s “Facts” Seven Years On | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2026/05/17/att…

The Great British net zero con-trick of Drax. The Labour government is trying to force through an extension that would give Drax an estimated £1.8bn in taxpayer funded subsidies on top of the £11bn it has already received. Drax has burned an amount of wood equivalent to 300 million trees. Burning wood creates 18% more CO2 emissions than coal. And here’s the con trick: Drax is a sneaky way of exporting our CO2 emissions. We pay billions of pounds to cut down ancient forests in the US and Canada, ship the wood across the Atlantic in diesel tankers, then burn it in a Yorkshire-based power station. And here’s the kicker - the CO2 emissions tally is not counted against the country that burns it, but the country that grows it. So Drax emissions are counted against the countries who grow and export the wood for Drax - like Canada and USA…not UK who burn it. So the UK can reduce CO2 figures by importing the burning wood grown elsewhere. A gigantic net zero con-trick.

Climate models predict rising CO2 will reduce the heat escaping into space. The IPCC expected outgoing long-wave radiation to fall by about 0.8 W/m² since 2000. However, satellite data show the opposite has actually occurred. Using NASA observations, a 2025 study finds outgoing long-wave radiation increased, not decreased. At the same time, absorbed solar radiation rose sharply, about 0.8 W/m². That increase in incoming sunlight explains nearly all of the rise in Earth's energy imbalance. The expected CO2-driven reduction in heat loss was not detected. The main driver here is clouds. Changes in cloud cover strongly track both absorbed sunlight and outgoing heat. Fewer or thinner clouds reflect less sunlight back to space. More solar energy enters. The surface warms. And heat loss increases. After accounting for clouds, temperature, and water vapor, the remaining greenhouse contribution is statistically insignificant. Since 2000, Earth has warmed slightly. But because more sunlight is getting in, not because less heat is getting out.

Reaching Net Zero by 2050 would require mining 4.5 million tons of copper, 940 million tons of nickel, 9 billion tons of graphite, and 4 million tons of germanium. At current global mining rates, that scale of extraction would take more than 1,000 years. Mining capacity cannot be multiplied by orders of magnitude in just 24 years. Permitting timelines alone are measured in decades, and energy inputs rise as deposits degrade. Most constraints are physical, not political. Net Zero targets violate material reality. They're never going to happen.

@matthewgburgess @jritch "Climate change is real". You missed a bit "..and natural as we move out of the Little Ice Age". There, fixed it for you. Btw Earth now greener because of (mostly natural) increase in CO2. Hurrah!!

- RCP8.5 is indeed dead and that's a good thing for climate science. - Technological improvements, and to some extent climate policies, have made RCP8.5 even less plausible, but it was always implausible, for reasons we knew (thanks to @jritch) for a decade and have been widely known since 2020. - Climate impact research continued to heavily rely on RCP8.5 for years after we knew better, and there are still too many papers making it into top journals with headline findings based on RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 (or, worse, SSP3-8.5). Reviewers and editors are not pushing back hard enough. - Many journalists and policymakers have stuck their heads in the sand about RCP8.5 and continue to do so. But there have also been some notable exceptions. E.g., @dwallacewells was one of the first to cover the changing scenario understanding, something I've always admired him for. - The scientific community *is* gradually correcting course, as evidenced by RCP8.5 being discontinued for AR7, and by all the papers and other materials that led them to that decision. - Climate change is real and IPCC's Working Group I reports (The Physical Science Basis) are solid. Their conclusions have high overlap with the DOE CWG report, as @RogerPielkeJr has noted. - Large majorities of Americans want the President and Congress to do more to address global warming, according to consistent polling for the past two election cycles at least. - There are some bastions of alarmism/bias within climate change academia, but they are largely *not* in the federal civil service. In my experience, most federal climate scientists are hard-working, rigorous (mostly physical) scientists who take their Hatch Act responsibilities for non-partisanship seriously. Gutting NOAA and other federal science is bad for the country (as @RyanWeather and others have argued) and won't save us from alarmism. - A great way to get to the bottom of how deep the RCP8.5 effect on climate impact science goes and create a more balanced picture would be to convene a new National Climate Assessment, with a broad and viewpoint-diverse author team. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

After decades of pushing the man-made climate change is going to destroy the planet the top UN science committee admits finally they got it wrong. Don’t worry about the generations of young people guilt tripped to the point where they don’t want to have children to ‘save the planet’. Why doesn’t someone put a claim for damages against them ? Alarm and distress ?? @realDonaldTrump/116586488927495029" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTru…

@Dan4Barnet Answer: more tax. Now, what was the question?

The Overnight Visitor Levy is a big moment in the history of devolution in England. Opponents would prefer we stuck in the past - with Mayors denied the choice to raise revenue to invest locally, supporting growth, tourism & raising the economic potential of their areas.

The 500 year long Little Ice Age was the coldest period on the planet for 10,000 years. In February 1814 there was a Frost Fair held on the frozen Thames. The ice was so thick that an elephant was paraded on the river near Blackfriars Bridge. The cold was caused by a quiescent Sun - a grand solar minimum. In contrast there was a grand solar maximum in the later half of the 20th century. The most active period of sunspot activity for 11,000 years. It should be of no surprise that the planet has warmed. (Grok created image)