This month’s open thread. Please stay on climate topics and try to be constructive.
Reader Interactions
20 Responses to "Unforced variations: Jun 2025"
Comment Policy:Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.
Final hours: 100 Hours to Save America’s Forecasts, Weather and Climate
https://www.youtube.com/@wclivestream/live
– 2:30pm ET/11:30am PT: Jhordanne Jones
– 3:15 ET/12:15pm PT: Marshall Shepherd
– 4:15 ET/1:15pm PT: Zack Labe
Re my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833994
Oops!
1. Some of that was re some of what William & Thessalonia have said.
2. “ and at least then we can then have some energy sources that don’t (on their own) add to the problems” – admittedly too strong of a statement; there are some environmental impacts eg. birds, bats, fish, scenery, mining – but some of that might be mitigatable, there may be some positive side effects in some cases (solar agrivoltaics, and solar panels reducing evaporation from canals – I think I saw that somewhere, pollinators…), and of course this has to be weighed against trade-offs of other options, etc. CO2 and fugitive CH4 are not the only problems with fossil fuels, for that matter.
Also, clarification: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833986 : AIUI, Jerry Falwell was a segregationist.
in Re to Paul Pukite, 14 May 2025 at 11:26 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833252
Dear Paul,
As you might have missed my post of 23 May 2025 at 11:43 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833676
I would like to repeat my question regarding the planned PubPeer thread on the 6-year paper herein:
It appears that you could convince broader scientific public about your theory if you showed that in the frequency spectrum, the respective signals are not only present but have also sufficient strength.
Do I understand correctly that these signals are indeed well-known (due to their amplitudes that make them remarkable), however, they were still omitted for some reason as possible modulators of the ENSO / QBO / AMOC oscillations?
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
The 6-year cycle is a bit of a canard. The frequency spectrum of an ENSO time-series such as NINO4 is loaded with tidal artifacts, it’s just that no one seems to have a deep understanding of how frequency modulation works. Here’s a clue: spectral components in NINO4 are found close to 0.42, 0.58, 1.42, 1.58, 2.42 (in 1/yr units) — not hard to figure out what’s happening.
In Re to Paul Pukite, 2 Jun 2025 at 2:24 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/06/unforced-variations-jun-2025/#comment-834070
Dear Paul,
Thank you very much for your prompt response.
As a layman, I am, however, somewhat confused thereby. It was my understanding to your post of 14 May 2025 at 11:26 AM, reading
“because of the symmetry above and below the equator, the first transform that must take place is at least some rectification in the signal so that the 6 year signal will likely appear as a 3 year result”
that there should be a 3 year period (instead of the 6 year one) in the frequency spectrum.
Do I guess correctly that the respective spectral component in NINO4 should be 0.33?
If so, is it or is it not present (as a sufficiently strong signal) in the spectrum?
Please consider that I may not be the single reader for whom it is, in fact, really difficult to “figure out what’s happening”. I will be very grateful if you could explain in more detail.
Greetings
Tomáš
When it comes to applying a tidal analysis to a problem, one must apply all the appropriate tidal factors collectively. The 6 year and 3 year tidal factors are known but they should be evaluated in the context of the other strong factors. It’s a mistake to just point out one tidal factor when the known stronger factors are also already there.
People tend to get worked up about LLM, and yes they are a bit sloppy, but they do work in explaining what is being observed — This is a prompt I gave ChatGPT:
” A temporal signal processing problem, applying the strength of AI deduction. In a frequency spectrum, peaks are observed in an ocean cycle at near 0.42, 0.58, 1.42, 1.58, 2.42 (in 1/yr units). Also at 0.37, 0.73, 1.37. Also between 0 and 1, peaks are symmetric with I(f) matching I(0.5-f).”
response:
https://chatgpt.com/share/683dbae5-5828-8010-b414-0b4284d57c5a
Read the whole thread and see if it makes sense.
The beauty of an LLM is that it has the subject domain insight of someone conversant in tidal analysis, but then it can come in from left field and drop some signal processing bombs that the same domain expert may not know about.
I thought David Rind’s guileless account of how climate modeling’ ascended from one to three dimensions wonderfully lucid, but the indoctrination in the art of story telling of many of the speakers was all too apparent.
In Re to Russell Seitz, 1 Jun 2025 at 9:51 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/06/unforced-variations-jun-2025/#comment-834054
Dear Russell,
May I ask if you refer to the livestream announced by Ms. Anderson?
What kind of indoctrination have you noticed / could you offer a specific example?
Best regards
Tomáš
A Review of the Recent “Conversation” on RealClimate — May 2025
(ref: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/the-most-recent-climate-status/#comments)
What began as a reasonable and important question from Ken Towe quickly spiraled into an increasingly hostile and intellectually dishonest exchange. The constant denial of what was actually said and meant, combined with a barrage of insults posing as debate, made for a disturbing spectacle.
Here’s the timeline in brief:
Ken Towe began with a sober and technically sound comment on 15 May:
“What realistic actions can be taken that would not otherwise create difficulties for all economies? Conventional vehicles do all of the transportation to feed billions of people as well as making the energy transition to renewables and EVs possible. Rapid reductions in CO₂ emissions takes none of the CO₂ already added out of the atmosphere to lower global temperatures. Carbon capture technologies are costly and energy intensive. Scaled up globally they can’t even store one part-per-million of CO₂ by 2050. The real enemy… root cause is population growth.”
Piotr responded the next day, but notably clipped out the rest of Ken’s argument. When Ken pointed this out and reiterated the physical reality that GHG emission reductions don’t remove legacy CO₂ already in the system, Piotr and others began misrepresenting both his statements and the fundamental science behind them.
Let’s clarify, point by point:
1 Transportation Reality
“Conventional vehicles do all of the transportation to feed billions…”
✅ Correct. This remains a fact of global logistics. The energy transition cannot occur without fossil-fueled machinery — at least for now.
2 Legacy CO₂ Remains in the Atmosphere
“Reducing emissions does not remove past emissions.”
✅ Correct. That’s basic physics. Only active carbon removal (via sinks or DAC) can do that.
3 Limits of Carbon Capture
“Scaled up globally, DAC can’t even remove one ppm by 2050.”
✅ Correct. Piotr and nigelj themselves admitted this in other comments. DAC is nascent and barely scratches the surface.
4 Sink Stability Is Assumed — Without Proof
No one has offered evidence that Earth’s natural sinks — already under stress — will remain effective in drawing down CO₂, especially as climate feedbacks worsen. This undermines the foundation of most “Net Zero” assumptions.
4 Insults in Lieu of Arguments
Repeated personal attacks (notably from nigelj) replaced thoughtful engagement. Dismissing Ken as a “denialist” — despite his fact-based concerns — shows the deterioration of debate into tribal performance.
5 Energy Transition Is Energy-Intensive
Ken pointed out that fossil fuels are ironically required to build the infrastructure for an energy transition. This is rarely acknowledged, let alone addressed in strategy documents.
6 Population Growth as the Core Issue
Ken correctly identified population growth as the engine behind emissions, resource depletion, and ecological stress. This point was ignored — likely because it’s politically inconvenient, despite being ecologically central.
Conclusion: In Defense of Reason — and Physics
Ken Towe is not a climate denier, science denier, or troll. He is one of the few who raised foundational questions based on physical limits and known realities. Disagreeing with political orthodoxy or marketing slogans like “Net Zero by 2050” does not make one a denier — it makes one honest.
Over the past 15+ years, global warming has accelerated. Atmospheric CO₂ levels are increasing faster than ever, not only from fossil fuel emissions — which haven’t meaningfully declined — but increasingly due to amplifying feedbacks like permafrost melt, soil respiration, and forest degradation. Peer-reviewed work by scientists such as James Hansen now suggests climate sensitivity may be 4–5°C, not the 2–3°C once assumed. Meanwhile, declining aerosol levels and Earth’s albedo further reduce natural cooling.
Against this backdrop, the idea that we are “on track” for Net Zero by 2050 is not just optimistic — it borders on fantasy. Many credible voices have pointed out that this narrative leans heavily on speculative carbon removal technologies and evasive carbon accounting. The numbers don’t add up — and pretending they do helps no one.
Ken Towe asked the right questions. The reaction he received tells us more about the state of public climate discourse than it does about the substance of his arguments.
Troll impersonating Pedro Prieto: “ Ken Towe began with a sober and technically sound comment
Compliments coming from you – mean so much …:-) . Talk about the kiss of death.
TiPP: “ Piotr responded the next day, but notably clipped out the rest of Ken’s argument.”
1. That’s how discussions work, Genius – you are supposed to respond to the specific points you are addressing, and NOT litter your answer with the rest of text you are NOT commenting – if anybody is interested in that “rest” – they are in the Ken’s original.
2. I didn’t have to address EVERY point of your Ken – it was enough to falsify two major ASSUMPTIONS on which he built his attack on renewables and reductions in GHG emissions:
===
Ken Towe: “GHG reductions, reducing emissions, will take none of the CO2 already added out of the atmosphere”
Piotr 18 May: “First – if large enough – they WILL result in the taking down CO2 already in the atmosphere – as natural uptake will no longer be overpowered by the new human emissions – currently only half of the emitted CO2 stays in the air the reset is absorbed by the natural sinks.
Second – yours is a typical denier/doomer all-or-nothing argument – if we can’t reduce the current levels of CO2 then let’s do nothing and keep increasing atm. Co2. The obvious and fallacy here is that the world at 425ppm won’t be as hellish as the world at 850 ppm.
==================== end of quote =============
See? You remove two pillars supporting the house that Ken built, and the house crumbles like a house of cards. No need to describe and discuss details of every shingle.
Incidentally, the second point – not only collapses Denier Ken argument above but ALSO destroys the all-or-nothing fallacy at the basis of the doomers attacks on renewables, EVs, and other technologies and mechanisms (carbon pricing) of GHG reductions.
=======
P.S. Your insinuations – quite rich coming from you:
– I QUOTED the Towe’s sentence I was challenging –
– while YOU “clipped” EVERY SINGLE word in Nigel’s and my arguments, and REPLACED them with … your “description” of our arguments. as …. supporting Ken’s claims.
But please do lecture OTHERS on their intellectual dishonesty. ;-)
Piotr says
2 Jun 2025 at 11:45 AM
……… if anybody is interested in that “rest” – they are in the Ken’s original.
Reply to Piotr
TPP: Would that be “in the Ken’s original” you couldn’t find?
I’m inclined to imagine there are several dozen layers of aluminium foil hidden under that fur cap. But I cannot know for certain.
Handle: “Pedro Prieto”:
Here’s the timeline in brief: […]
6. Ken correctly identified population growth as the engine behind emissions, resource depletion, and ecological stress.
Hmm, I thought it was correctly identified by “William” and “the Prieto Principle” (the same one who claimed that whoever posts as Pedro Prieto is an imposter). No? Could you provide then a link to Ken’s post to which you refer in your “timeline” ?
I am asking because when I searched for the word “population” in recent discussions – the only Ken’s post I found was this:
====== Ken Towe 16 May =============
“The 20th century average temperature for the US 48 states at ~40°N. is 52° F. The same value for the globe at the Equator? is 57° F. Five degrees F warmer. Where is global population’s energy use centered?”
=============================
which is … not only a perfect example of your Ken’s Towe “ sober and technically sound” thinking, but also, since he believes that “the global population’s energy use” is NOT correlated with the Earth temperature thus reducing the population would achieve NOTHING climatewise!
Thus blowing the argument by “William”, “the Prieto Principle who Says that troll” Pedro Prieto” is an Imposter”, and of the said “Pedro Prieto” – out of the water.
So – to which OTHER words of Ken have you referred in your timeline?
Pedro Prieto says 1 Jun 2025 at 11:15 PM above:
@ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/06/unforced-variations-jun-2025/#comment-834058
The Prieto Principle (TPP) says:
(Replying to Piotr, June 2 @ 1:02 PM)
P: “The Prieto Principle” (the same one who claimed that whoever posts as Pedro Prieto is an imposter). No?
TPP: Climate science’s answer to the Energizer Bunny — Piotr’s Persecution Patrol. Oh dear, where to begin? Maybe start with the simple question: Is anyone home?
As for the “imposter” nonsense — yeah, no. If memory serves (and no guarantees there), someone noted that the handle “Pedro Prieto” was probably a tribute account, not the real Pedro P., referencing the Spanish grid expert. That was clear at the time. No one — aside from the usual peanut gallery — seriously accused the commenter of impersonation. And “The Prieto Principle” was transparently an homage as well, not a sock. Only Piotr could pretend this is a Cold War mole hunt. Sí?
P: Could you provide then a link to Ken’s post to which you refer in your “timeline” ?
TPP: What, no please? Your father must have been a Baltic fishmonger, eh?
Here you go:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/the-most-recent-climate-status/#comment-833305
Sometimes it feels like every hour is amateur hour around here — especially when Piotr shows up. Nigel’s not much better, but hey, one slow car at a time.
P: Thus blowing the argument by “William”, “the Prieto Principle who Says that troll” Pedro Prieto” is an Imposter”, and of the said “Pedro Prieto” – out of the water.
TPP: Please stop! My brain hurts. I’m begging you — diagram that sentence before using it on the open internet. It’s like watching a word salad get run over by an electric freight train of misplaced vendettas.
P: to which OTHER words of Ken have you referred in your timeline?
TPP: Wow. You’re really chasing ghosts in the data fog, aren’t you? I’d tell you, but I think you already believe you know the answer. That’s the thing with Piotr — he seeks them here, he seeks them there, those dastardly sockpuppets hiding everywhere.
Pedro Prieto.
Why do you persist with this farsical nonsense? Is it an act of continuing trolling, sock-puppeteering, or do you enjoy displaying your stupidity to the world?
Firsetly, what began with what-you-call a Ken Towe’s “reasonable and important question” was provided with an answer by Ken Towe himself.
Question – “What realistic actions can be taken that would not otherwise create difficulties for all economies?”
Answer – “The real enemy/root cause is population growth. The correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population numbers is almost perfect.”
That said, I’m not sure what to make of this idea that some “almost perfect … correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population numbers” makes global population the “real enemy/root cause” of the rising atmospheric CO2 levels. And were it the case, given that world population is accelerating while CO2 levels are decelerating, presumably the way to cut CO2 is to quickly increase poulation which will then quickly reduce CO2 levels. Thus, using these numbers below, a rapid doubling of population would return CO2 to pre-industrial levels.
Five-year percentage increases in world population & MLO CO2
1965 – 1969 … 11.0% … 1.2%
1970 – 1974 … 10.6% … 1.7%
1975 – 1979 ….. 9.7% … 1.8%
1980 – 1984 ….. 9.4% … 2.3%
1985 – 1989 ….. 9.5% … 2.3%
1990 – 1994 ….. 9.0% … 2.0%
1995 – 1999 ….. 7.6% … 2.2%
2000 – 2004 ….. 7.0% … 2.5%
2005 – 2009 ….. 6.6% … 2.8%
2010 – 2014 ….. 6.6% … 2.7%
2015 – 2019 ….. 6.1% … 3.1%
2020 – 2024 ….. 5.0% … 3.1%
Secondly, your attempted “timeline in brief” of the comment thread interchange failed to relate details of the response to Ken Towe’s “reasonable and important question” that immediately followed it in the thread. This pointed to the obsurdity of the repeatingly-proposed “almost perfect … correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population numbers”.
So there is really no need whatever to continue this CO2/population farce, unless you wish to explain why you feel the need to defend the undefensible?
MA Rodger, the godfather to mediocrity says:
2 Jun 2025 at 2:45 PM
MAR: That said, I’m not sure what to make of this idea that some “almost perfect … correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population numbers” makes global population the “real enemy/root cause” of the rising atmospheric CO2 levels.
TPP: Did I mention that correlation? No. Solves that issue immediately. Next?
MAR: Secondly, your attempted “timeline in brief” of the comment thread interchange failed to relate details of the response to Ken Towe’s “reasonable and important question” that …….
TPP: Gee, that’s a tough one MA. “Here’s the timeline in brief:” I wonder what ‘brief’ means?
Solves the second issue nicely. The brevity looks quite successful from here. Will there be anything else my dear fellow? I hope not.
MA Rodger says
2 Jun 2025 at 2:45 PM
Just quickly — I don’t have much time — but this post warrants a response.
To be clear, none of this is “about me.” I summarized a timeline of what has been a lengthy and often circular exchange. I stand by what I said. I could easily list the timestamps of each comment I referenced — but what would be the point? It seems unlikely to matter to those like Piotr or MA Rodger, who appear allergic to straightforward human conversation by default. I have no idea why that is — and I don’t particularly care to know.
The point remains: beneath all the rhetoric, uncertainty, personal digs, and overconfident declarations lies one basic fact — a global population of 8 billion people, growing toward 9 billion by around 2040. That’s the central, often-ignored driver behind nearly every pressure placed on ecosystems, the climate, energy demand, and emissions — exactly what Ken Towe highlighted at the outset.
Whether some correlation is “perfect” or not isn’t the issue. It as not ‘my’ correlation anyway. The scale of human activity — economic, industrial, and biological — is the context in which all these numbers, including CO₂, exist and evolve. Ignoring that bigger picture in favor of semantic nitpicking or gotcha graphs feels like deliberate avoidance.
You’re welcome to call that “farcical nonsense” if you like. But I’ll keep calling it reality.
I have get back to my question on lapse rate feedback from april..
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/04/unforced-variations-apr-2025/#comment-832376
Barrry E Finch was so kind to answer..
“For a Forcing of 3.7 w/m**2 the climate scientists’ assessment of Lapse Rate change -ve Feedback is -4.1 w/m**2 from a plot I saw presented on UTube either by Jennifer Francis or (more likely) by Mark Zelinka, not https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1VBCt8GLc evidently,”
I looked up the video and there we have a “temperature feedback” (?) of -4.02W/m2 around the 11:20 mark. While the graph shows different kinds of feedbacks, it does not mention lapse rate feedback at all. I assume their “temperature feedback” will account for planck feedback (making up the bulk of it) plus lapse rate feedback. Their total feedback of -0.98W/m2 would then equate to an ECS of say 3.7/0.98 = 3.77K, or something like it. Anyhow, it does not address my issue.
The fundamental problem I have is still the same and simple: If the troposphere warms significantly faster than the surface, then the emission temperature (Te) will do so as well and you get a very large LRF. For instance, even if Te would only increase a 50% more than Ts (it should be more in theory!), it would go from 255K to 256.5K per K in Ts. And so we can do a little calculation…
255^4*5.67e-8 = 239.74
256.5^4*5.67e-8 = 245.43
245.43 – 239.74 = 5.69W/m2
Accounting for a planck feedback of 3.3W/m2 we get..
5.69 – 3.3 = 2.39W/m2 for LRF
That is a huge negative feedback of 2.39W/m2, kind of dominating positive feedbacks. Striktly following the theory (as in the emagram) you will get even larger figures above 3W/m2.
An LRF of a mere -0.5W/m2, as is the central estimate in AR6, is only compatible with a minimal lapse rate shrink, where Te outpaces Ts by only ~13%, or 0.13K per K in Ts. But that is not the theory, nor what we have in the models.
So that is the mistery. How can we have a strong tropospheric warming, as compared to Ts, including the “tropical hot spot” and so on, while not having this large negative LRF. It made no sense. But then I found this quote in AR6:
“Feedback parameters in climate models are calculated assuming that they are independent of each other, except for a well-known co-dependency between the water vapour (WV) and lapse rate (LR) feedbacks”
Given the problem, what this suggests is, LRF will not depend on the change in the lapse rate, which logically it has to, but instead would be coupled with WV and their sum then be a hard coded positive feedback of ~1W/m2. But that is not very elegant, to say at least. Also it would violate logic and physics..
Pedro quote on Jun 1:
“6 Population Growth as the Core Issue
Ken correctly identified population growth as the engine behind emissions, resource depletion, and ecological stress…….”
That is not true. The engine behind emissions IS USING FOSSIL FUELS. Nearly all of those who are screaming about the evils of FFs are using them just like everyone else. They don’ t have to. There is A LOT each of us can do to reduce our use of FFs, but the vast majority will do very little. Many of those folks are content to yell and scream about the evil “other side”, the MAGA’s, Trump, Republicans, etc, but do almost nothing to seriously reduce their own FF use.
Please describe how YOU have achieved ZERO FF usage? NOT NET ZERO FF usage – but ACTUAL ZERO FF usage.
Mr. Know It All says
2 Jun 2025 at 6:55 PM
Can I answer too?
I see Mr. Know It All often provokes for effect — but not entirely unreasonably. He raises a valid challenge (about personal hypocrisy and behavioral consistency), even if it comes wrapped in judgmental dismissiveness.
KIA — your point about people still using fossil fuels while attacking others is fair in spirit, even if it’s framed to needle. Many of us do struggle with our dependence on the very system we criticize. And most people — on both sides of the emissions debate — are still trying to “save the system” as if it’s sacred. They won’t go near systemic critique. It’s always the evil fossil fuel companies or Donald Trump’s fault. While apparently, manufacturing millions of BEVs every year forever will somehow “save the planet.” It’s nuts. (smile)
But let’s be clear: the engine behind emissions isn’t just fossil fuels — it’s the scale and structure of the human enterprise that demands them. It’s not just semantics; it’s framing. Fossil fuels weren’t burned by penguins — they were burned to expand human societies. That’s population, chum.
Also, not all emissions come from fossil fuels. Land use change, agriculture, cement, melting permafrost, degraded soils and wetlands — these all emit GHGs too, often with no fossil fuels involved. Ecosystem breakdown is already on autopilot. Even if we cut emissions, most of the cascading feedbacks are already baked in. It’s likely too late to avoid the iceberg — but yeah, we still ought to steer.
You’re right to challenge personal complacency. But calling for “actual zero fossil fuel use” from individuals is asking them to opt out of industrial civilization entirely. That’s not a reasonable bar. The real task is systemic transition — not lifestyle purism. And that transition? Still entirely out of reach. The ship will sink, I expect. Then we’ll see what gives. But it won’t look anything like today, when we’re still burning 100 million barrels of oil every single day.
“Please describe how YOU have achieved ZERO FF usage?”
Me? I haven’t. I won’t. And I’m not pretending I will. I live responsibly, creatively, ethically, and without waste. That’s my baseline. That’s enough. I’m not the problem here. Demanding individual purity is irrelevant to climate change, ecological collapse, or sustainability. It’s not how this works.
Systemic problems require systemic shifts. This whole “gotcha” game — demanding total purity from individuals while the system runs on rails — is a deflection. It’s not hypocrisy to live in the world while trying to change it. That’s always been the human condition.
Still, I get where you’re coming from. Honestly. I really do.
When Science Gets Framed Out of the Conversation
Getting Net Zero Right: What “Actual” Actually Means
MA Rodger says 30 May 2025 at 4:37 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833899
Speaking to and about William, MA Rodger says:
However, let me be helpful and provide a bit of learning.
Within the “dismissals, insults, (and) false accusations” of your recent serving of comments here at RC, you tell us “atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will continue to rise each year until we achieve actual net zero.”
That is untrue.
There is an army of sciency folk involved in the Global Carbon Project and their primary objective is to fully quantify the carbon cycle. Each year they publish a Carbon Budget.
and
So once the world gets CO2 emissions down below the capacity of the ocean/land/concrete sinks and keeps down below, atmospheric CO2 will decline. [NOTE -insert- and not before then] (The sinks will also slowly decline as well.)
Thus it is entirely untrue to assert that “atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will continue to rise each year until we achieve actual net zero.”
Thessalonia: My view is William is right and Rodger is wrong to say it is untrue. William tells the truth, Rodger does not-he distorts it. I’ll let William explain it–I was following this and it’s disappointing to see it being swept under the carpet–and ignored by MA Rodger in his next reply.
What a pity there is no neutral umpire to make a judgement about science matters here on Real Climate. No wonder it’s a dog fight. Please bear with me here:
William says
31 May 2025 at 6:51 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833995
To Thessalonia – 30 May 2025 at 6:39 PM
Yes it is all very strange isn’t it?
Rodger smugly opines above:Thus it is entirely untrue to assert that “atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will continue to rise each year until we achieve actual net zero.” Hopefully that will be useful learning for you.
William continues:
Rodger is wrong — again. What I said — “atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will continue to rise each year until we achieve actual net zero” — is 100% scientifically true.
Right now, if we emit around 11.3 GtC, while natural sinks (oceans, forests, land, etc.) absorb only about 5.4 GtC. The result? Atmospheric CO₂ continues to rise. That’s what I said — and exactly what both the data and the science confirm.
The facts aren’t complicated — but ignoring them and twisting them beyond recognition to try to win “debating points” is beyond the pale. [Ken Towe has said the same things]
and still now MA Rodger crows
31 May 2025 at 4:23 AM
“This William commenter get (sic) so annoyed —-” [end quotes]
Thessalonia:
William proceeded to explain how the framing he uses places the focus upon now, today. Which is far better communication than presenting future timeframes when the climate problem is supposed to be solved IF programs like Net Zero by 2050 work as promised.
Surely no one still needs the science refs that show William is correct, do you? https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition for back up then.
William already stated the scientifically obvious — that CO₂ concentrations continue to rise until actual net zero is achieved, meaning until emissions drop below the capacity of natural sinks. That’s not controversial. It’s not controversial. It’s not misleading. It’s not in dispute. It’s just true.
So when MA Rodger confidently declares that this is “entirely untrue,” he’s not just wrong — his statement is itself untrue. That’s a fact.
William explained it with clarity and data. Rodger simply dismissed it. Which tells you everything.
Importantly, William’s narrative framing instead rightly places the focus on right now, but even if some regions or nations reduce their own ghg emissions it does not stop CO2 ppm from increasing every year–because excess ghg emissions are still put into the atmosphere. iow atmospheric CO2 ppm continues to increase; and that atmosphere continues to increase it’s forcing of global temperatures and an unstable climate.
To only future frame it, once we get to net zero in 2050, we must assume all will be well because then the “sinks” will start to bring down that atmospheric GHG levels–and stop further warming. That remains only a theory, a plan, a goal–one that has not and may not ever be achieved with the intent as described by the dominant climate consensus narrative.
First, the energy and emissions already show 2050 is unachievable–short of a global civilization collapse beforehand. What’s your best guess when it might be achieved? And what will the global mean CO2 ppm be then? Can you provide your calculations and your data based energy transition work?
MA Rodger is telling everyone here (who might believe his commentary without thinking) that what William said is not true. But it is true. It is 100% solid climate science. The manner in which William (and others) choose to describe it is not the point. Rodger should pay better attention to what was said and what it means scientifically.
When MA Rodger again replies to William in the very next comment, Rodger ignores it all — skips it — not a word — and instead comes back at William about some other issue Rodger finds fault in. Here look for yourself:
MA Rodger says 31 May 2025 at 4:23 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833947
William,
Golly!! So you are actually saying that your comment of May 8 doesn’t equate to saying “‘Forget AGW!! Our problem is there are too many humans!!!’”?
and
This William commenter get so annoyed when the obvious meaning of his comment is pointed out to him. He get so annoyed that he even feel the need to set a gaslighting sock puppet on me. William, you’re in a worse state than I thought. Like that bigly-famous president of the good ol’ US of A I paraphrased up-thread, you really need help, chum. You’re losing your grip on reality, getting sucked in some fantasy existence. Maybe it’s that one where “In Springfield, they’re eating the dawgs!!”
Oh really, how nice. What projection! This strikes me as one of the more disingenuous responses I’ve seen here. What do William’s comments have to do with Trump? Nothing.
If someone else already exposed this, I apologise, but I haven’t seen it mentioned. It needs to be. imho the dominant climate consensus narrative is fatally flawed–and unreliable. The world deserves the unvarnished objective truth, not the PR spin of future glory on the never never. Which suggests something indefinitely postponed — possibly forever.
Would you like some climate science sources to support all these “opinions”? I have a net zero narrative I’d like to share which supports William’s and others positions with dozens of useful sources to share. Later.
To recap:
William said:
“CO₂ will keep going up each year until we hit actual net zero.”
Rodger said:
“That’s entirely untrue.”
But here’s the truth:
✅ William is right.
✅ Rodger is wrong.
Because:
➡️ If we’re still emitting more than the planet can absorb, CO₂ goes up.
➡️ It only stops going up when emissions drop below sink capacity.
➡️ That is what “actual net zero” means. That’s the point William was making.
So Rodger calling it “untrue” is… well, objectively untrue.
[Response: As a matter of definition, this is not correct. Stable CO2 levels will be achieved at ~70% of current emissions but will entail continued temperature rises as the planet moves towards equilibrium energy balance. Net zero is achieved at ~100% emission cuts which will lead to falling CO2 levels and (roughly) stable temperatures. These are not the same thing. – Gavin]