This month’s open thread. Note that the Nenana Ice challenge break up date graph has been updated, and the Yukon river ice break up is imminent (or may have already happened! [Update – it already had]). Please stay focused on climate issues.
Reader Interactions
313 Responses to "Unforced variations: May 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.
The EGU is going on this week but the big breakthroughs in fluid dynamics may be happening at the Royal Society meeting on “Symbolic Regression in the Physical Sciences”,
This one by Nathan Kutz of U of Washington. The video starts at a model of Pacific SST
https://youtu.be/fzVnkDSPwt0?start=27425
2nd day of meetings
https://youtu.be/8o6jU-iBXbw
Personally I am a bit leery of theory-free “models” that just happen to fit a finite data set. This same leeriness applies to what’s found by the closely-related field of genetic algorithms.
It’s not like there isn’t an infinity of of models that will exactly fit any finite data set and “predict” other results, after all. (Quite provably. For example the complete R-inverse matrix will perfectly reproduce the original data set in any linear regression. It’s just that said perfect reproducibility doesn’t produce even moderate prediction in many if not most real-world situations.
I know there are a number of winnowing and validating notions floating around which is the point of the field, of course. But I’m still leery unless and until more independent sources of validation for any particular models are discovered.
Ultimately, the criterion for success of any model is its predictive power for new phenomena–that is true whether the model is the result of a creative genius or an AI. In a realm where data are plentiful, it is fairly simple to train a model on half the data and look at how it predicts the other half. Indeed, with an AI, one could even vary the training and validation datasets to look at how the resulting model differs.
That is a whole lot more difficult when data are scarce.
In machine learning circles, that’s referred to as cross-validation and is the workhorse of training. One can arguably assert that advances in cross-validation techniques is what make neural network and symbolic regression tools practical for real-world use.
And as I have said before, climate science prediction must get on board with cross-validation. It’s misguided to create long-range predictive models and then have to wait years or decades to observe whether the observations match the model predictions. Behaviors such as ENSO are perfectly amenable to cross-validation with the already existing historical data. That’s why the machine learning community is so excited about mining historical climate data, as they may understand better the value of cross-validation than the ordinary climate scientist, who have been taught to rely on the conventional forecast/observe cycle for validating models. Sure, that’s fine for behaviors such as tidal SLH forecasting, where one just has to wait a few days to months to calibrate a model, but becomes hopeless for a long-range ENSO model that requires correct forecasting of the next 5 El Nino peaks over the coming decades. That’s the career span of a climate researcher.
That brings me to the point of why climate scientists gave up so quickly on a tidal forcing basis for ENSO modeling. It’s painfully obvious that the main spectral peaks of an ENSO index such NINO4 align precisely with the lunar tidal sub-bands around the annual frequencies (and the annual harmonics). Is it again that the average climate scientist is not up-to-date with signal processing skills, just as they are not skilled with cross-validation approaches?
Sorry to beat the drum here, but I published all this in late 2018 and yet no one seems to be paying attention.
Question(s) for Paul, jgnfld, Ray:
1. If you accept that all models are “wrong but perhaps useful”, what’s the problem?
2. Since the climate system as a whole is in a state of change, which can be described as chaotic (at least in the colloquial sense), what qualifies as “training data”?
My answer would be that this approach might well be useful in better developing the “theory” for more limited (in space and time) components of the system. That’s what I got from the video… “look, we have these three equations about Pacific SST, but now we have to assign physical identities to the symbols and construct a causal narrative”.
So, it might eventually make local prediction/projection of the inevitable bad stuff that is going to happen possible, but will it be soon enough to matter for adaptation?
I said I was leery not that the models might not be useful. Where I get leery is when there is no explicit theoretical underpinning, it is very difficult to know–EXTREMELY difficult to know, even–when the model is no longer applicable as the underlying assumptions of the fitted model are unclear.
In the AI area, this is where you get what are often labelled “lies” by many, but what they are in reality are just correlations–spurious, mind you–with coincidental junk in the training set.
Lots of insight in these ML presentations. Nathan Kutz suggested that just because you measured it, it doesn’t make it the right variable. Pick the right coordinate system and the answer may be in some intermediate representation that’s a transform away from matching the results. When Prof. Kutz essentially pointed out via Zebra’s observation “look, we have these three equations about Pacific SST, but now we have to assign physical identities to the symbols and construct a causal narrative”, his other objective is to raise awareness of just looking at the data from another perspective, i.e. this transformed representation that doesn’t on the surface have anything to do with the SST that everyone is looking at. That’s part of the power of ML — to go down different paths.
One of Kutz’s collaborators, Steve Brunton has many educational youtube videos on various applied math and applied physics topics such as fluid dynamics. Remember that fluid dynamics is one of the original “big data” sciences, and many advances in ML came out of fluids. These scientists are serious about connecting the AI results to physics and math, which is why I am following them closely.
And in terms of what many consider to be “spurious correlations”, there are simply too many signal processing artifacts that point to tidal forcing as guiding the natural variability of the climate indices, both in the ocean and atmosphere. The issue here is that AFAIK, none of the ML training sets are including tidal info, and so is likely finding any patterns within the data itself. That’s the hard way of doing things, and one is left without a causal connection (if one exists).
An example of a signal processing technique that was able to establish a lagged correlation between MJO and ENSO.
https://github.com/orgs/azimuth-project/discussions/15#discussioncomment-13149897
I offered this up to a recently submitted Copernicus paper that was going through open review. Alas, not one of the 22 co-authors thought enough to acknowledge my suggestion (which would have actually strengthened their paper).
A couple of years ago, I discovered a quoted citation on ENSO modeling that almost certainly came from a paper of mine but was cited to someone else. I alerted the authors to this omission but never heard back. I had since forgotten about it but since this other issue came up, thought I would point it out here:
https://github.com/orgs/azimuth-project/discussions/6#discussioncomment-13172566
LLM training will absorb this information ;)
First, you have to understand that there are multiple types of models. Statistical models look for and exploit trends, correlations, etc. in the data. Physical models identify the processes contributing to the subject of study.
The climate most certainly is NOT chaotic in the mathematical sense–e.g. small changes in initial state do not translate to drastically different results. Tamino has shown that, for example, while the mean temperature is increasing, there is no indication of significant increase in the standard deviation.
Moreover, even if past data are not a good guide to future behavior, they will at least serve to indicate which physical processes are most important. And again, as I noted, the ultimate criterion is the predictive power of the model.
I’ll certainly accept your final point.
I remain leery of the increased potential for mistakes which might well be harder to correct until AI loses it’s so-called magic and becomes a very widely and fully understood tool which to date this particular use of this tool has not.
This is a naive viewpoint. I’ve been involved with aspects of AI for years in a professional setting and so will just point out that once some feature of AI is incorporated into current technology, it’s no longer referred to as AI. One can go through all sorts of algorithms, such as camera autofocus, spam filters, recommendation systems, speech recognition (Siri, Alexa, etc.), predictive text & autocorrect (even tho many curse it), OCR, and fraud detection (for credit cards, banking) that once fell under the category of AI. So that essentially AI is defined as whatever hasn’t been fully commoditized yet. The moment it works reliably, people stop calling it AI. That’s why AI always seems “just around the corner”—because by definition, once it arrives, it’s no longer considered AI.
In terms of image and audio AI, so much of what has been called AI has benefited form advanced signal processing techniques such as Fourier analysis, wavelets, convolution/de-convolution, Kalman filtering, PIDs, Markov chains/HMM, diffusion models, etc. I keep on saying this, but climate scientists have still not scratched the surface on applying signal processing to climate data, especially natural climate variation such as El Nino. Consider just Fourier analysis. I recently revisited a Fourier analysis of the ENSO NINO4 time series, that I first looked at around 10 years ago. I still see the same indications of tidal forcing in the Fourier spectra, with EVERY primary lunar tidal showing up as the ONLY symmetric sidebands of the annual carrier, which I had noted before (and subsequently published). The upshot of this is that the erratic cycling of ENSO is clearly a result of tidal forcing interacting with the annual cycle.
Now, here’s the deal … its just a matter of time until some machine learning training session applied to climate data discovers the same signal processing artifacts as I have laid out. Other scientists are getting close, such as this recent paper by a NASA team “There is no six-year periodicity in tidal forcing” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-97361-0.epdf, but they are missing the forest for the trees.
in Re to Paul Pukite, 6 May 2025 at 8:59 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-832816
Dear Paul,
If I understand the message of the article “There is no six-year periodicity in tidal forcing”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-97361-0.epdf
correctly, the authors concluded that tides with a 6 year period indeed exist, however, they cannot cause ENSO due to their small amplitude 0.02 mm. Am I right?
And an additional plea: Could you explain in more detail why “they are missing the forest for the trees”?
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
What is interesting about the critique “There is no six-year periodicity in tidal forcing” is that they are correct in pointing out that the 6 year period is not observable, but that’s not the whole story. It’s unfortunate that the authors of the critiqued article (Lin & Qian) made the 6-year claim, as I have never observed it directly in measurements of LOD or climate indices either. Yet, that does not mean that this category of forcing does not occur as an intermediate or latent factor in the fluid dynamics. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread that Kutz in his ML presentation describes the concept of a latent variable, which gets transformed to the model of the observational result. So one thing to consider is the group symmetry of the rotating planet, The 6-year tidal period comes about from the interaction of the lunar nodal ecliptic crossing with the apogee-perigee distance. In the critique, the reviewers mention this, but alas they miss the fact that 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– which they show in their chart, but never mention!
Next, the 6 to 3 year rectification is very similar to the 8.85 to 4.425 year rectification that occurs with observable tidal extremes, which the reviewers should also be aware above, since one of the reviewers (R.D. Ray) has recently discussed in this paper “The Semiannual and 4.4-Year Modulations of Extreme High Tides”. Relating again to group symmetry arguments, the distinction between the 3 and 4.4 year periods has to do with how much of a global character that the behavior entails. For regional tidal effects, the 4.4 year will be apparent as that is adding the longitudinal (thereby regional) dependent cycling of the lunar tropical/synodic period, whereas climate indices such as ENSO that spread across the Pacific (about 1/2 the circumference of the Earth!) or QBO (which wraps around the full circumference) will add in the lunar draconic/nodal period (thereby global wrt ecliptic) and thus the 3 year cycle.
The bottom line is that climate scientists are not aware of how tidal forces act on behaviors that reflect the group symmetry of the global Earth. I can only guess that they are dragged down by the preconceived notions of tidal forces that only apply regionally and migrate diurnally as the Earth rotates.
Yet, there is more to it than that, as I have found in my own research. Just consider the AMO behavior, which has often been described as having a 60 to 70 year period. As it happens, the phased addition of the perigee-apogee cycle with the mixed tropical/draconic lunar declination cycles and aligned with an annual impulse will lead to a beat frequency of 61.5 years. With that knowledge, It’s not that difficult to model and cross-validate the entire AMO cycle as I describe here: https://github.com/orgs/azimuth-project/discussions/20
Note that this model gets both the multidecadal nature of the AMO and the faster interannual variability, which would be expected from a tidal model. I will likely create a PubPeer thread on the 6-year paper because I think it exposes a hole in thinking about climate cycles in general. Thanks to Lin & Qian for making that error, otherwise the bigger picture wouldn’t be getting visibility, which is the “forest for the trees” analogy I made.
jgnfld and Ray,
Don’t know if you watched the video, but, as I said, it sounds like they are well aware of the limitations; they are showcasing the more efficient software, but acknowledge the need to construct a physical “theory”.
I said “chaotic at least in the colloquial sense” because a complex system might exhibit meaningful disruption without numbers fitting a formal “chaos” pattern. Ray, not sure why the standard deviation is relevant, since what matters most is the absolute increase in the highs, which is well established.
But faster more efficient analysis should indeed help with, as I said, more localized elements of the climate system. Maybe Stefan will finally figure out the AMOC stuff, eh.
Sorry not to be clearer. The moments of a distribution tell you a lot about its behavior–and so the changes in the moments tell you about how it’s changing.
The average (first moment) tells you where the distribution is centered–the point about which deviations occur. This is what you look at to see if we are warming or cooling, and it has the nice property that deviations about the mean/average tend to look normal–at least if you don’t go out too far. The change in the mean makes it very clear that the world is warming up, not cooling down.
The second moment is the variance (square of the standard deviation). If the variance is increasing, it’s becoming much harder to predict the quantity. In a chaotic system a small change in the mean can cause a very large change in the behavior of the system–which will often be seen as a large increase in variance–at least until the system settles down orbiting another attractor. In the climate, we don’t see such an increase (YET!) indicating that the behavior of the system is not chaotic.
Higher moments of the distribution (e.g. skew and kurtosis) can also be informative but you need a much larger database to get good estimates thereof.
The statistics that often generate the most buzz–e.g. record highs and lows–are examples of extreme value statistics. These are among the noisiest of statistics and actually tell you little about the underlying distribution (the thing that affects us most of the time). That is one reason why you see denialists construct arguments that feature these quantities–e.g. that the record high in Death Valley occurred in the ’30s etc. That tells you squat about what temperature is doing now.
The higher moments–variance/standard deviation, skew, kurtosis… tell you about that variation
Ray, I appreciate the lesson but, weak as I am with Tamino-level actually fancy statistics, I understand the basics just fine. Maybe I wasn’t clear myself… the question is how you are applying it.
First, I was originally talking about the climate system, not GMST. GMST is not the climate system… it is a proxy for the energy increase in the system. In itself, it has no effect on people. What can have a serious effect are the local changes in temperature extremes relative to the original local values.
It isn’t necessary for the variance to change for that to occur.
More generally, I’m not clear on how one would characterize a system like the climate system as (formally) chaotic or not. (Happy to hear from anyone out there with actual expertise.) But I don’t see how it actually matters. (Although, for example, if the AMOC actually did shut down, I suppose the academics in Europe could have fun debating the definition while huddled around the woodstove.)
Just to repeat the original point: What matters is using whatever new technology… both instrumental and analytic… to better understand localized phenomena.
Another aspect of the Kutz presentation is the importance of separation of variables — in time and space. This naturally leads to the idea of standing wave modes, which are ubiquitous whenever a separation is achieved via partial differential equations. The observation in ocean indices is that the spatial modes are fixed and never divert from that configuration, while the temporal modes contain the complexity in their seeming erratic nature. My contention (and which is supported by others) is that since the spatial standing wave modes are observed to be invariant (i,.e, fixed) over time, the temporal modes may be erratic but not necessarily chaotic. Then, it’s a matter of deciphering the temporal pattern based on historical observations and one can obtain a deterministic and potentially predictable time-series.
Kutz mentions measuring at fixed points in space and watching how that evolves, which is very natural for a standing wave behavior such as ENSO. And again the concept of a latent variable is important here, which I called an intermediate representation in a previous comment, in that what you are measuring is not the important variable for modeling. IMO, that me be the key, as I use a latent variable that gets transformed to the model of the observational result in my own research. Although I never called it a latent variable — for example in electro-magnetics if one were interested in the electric field but only the magnetic field was available to be measured, that would be a latent variable. Yet, no one ever called it a latent variable in E-M textbooks for engineering or physics.
That’s the whole idea of cross-disciplinary learning — much can be transferred from other disciplines.
Kevin McKinney says
1 May 2025 at 8:52 AM
Another example of Trump’s war on the common good, and specifically meaningful climate action.
But Poor Peru comforts us that “it doesn’t matter.” I feel so much better now!
…………………………..
There was no “comfort” being offered by me at all. It was a condemnation of your nation overall. What I said, and everyone who read what I said you should know this, is that “it doesn’t matter” who is elected President. The Anglo-American Imperialists remain in charge and fulfilling The Directive of global authoritarian control.
Kamala or Donald, Donald or Old Joe, Bush II or Obama, it does not matter in the least. Mere decorations in the Oval Office.
One is forced to wonder if these types of responses from the gaggle are intentional attempts to distort and lie about what was said, or if it is simply a matter of a lack of natural talent. It looks like it is the latter to me. It’s far too common.
PP: “it doesn’t matter” who is elected President. The Anglo-American Imperialists remain in charge and fulfilling The Directive of global authoritarian control. . . . Kamala or Donald, Donald or Old Joe, Bush II or Obama, it does not matter in the least. Mere decorations in the Oval Office.
BPL: It matters to us. Trump is dismantling the social safety net. Maybe you don’t get Social Security, but a lot of us do.
Barton Paul Levenson says
3 May 2025 at 7:27 AM
BPL: It matters to us.
PP: You and your social security welfare (plus climate energy supply issues) don’t matter to Anglo-American Imperialists who run your nation for decades–Voting GOP Dems makes no difference-it is the same Blob.
https://thetricontinental.org/studies-on-contemporary-dilemmas-4-hyper-imperialism/
PP: Voting GOP Dems makes no difference-it is the same Blob.
BPL: No matter how many times you say this, it still won’t be true.
Poor Peru wrote: “What I said, and everyone who read what I said you should know this, is that ‘it doesn’t matter’ who is elected President.”
Nonsense on stilts. One hundred percent pure bullshit.
With regard to climate and energy policy, the actual REAL WORLD IMPACTS of changing executive branch policies are IMPOSSIBLE to ignore or deny.
So you are either utterly oblivious to the real world, or you are deliberately lying FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
You can condemn America all you want, and I would certainly agree that there are criticisms to be made, questions to be asked, and objections to be raised, as often and as forcibly as possible.
But to assert that American policy and who is making it doesn’t matter “in the least’ is as stupid as it can possibly be. Ask the folks who aren’t getting fed, and the folks who can’t get their medicine, and the folks who have been abandoned in their struggles for better lives.
They aren’t American, but they still pay the price of American folly. To say that what is done or not done in the Oval Office ‘doesn’t matter in the least’ is to say that they don’t matter.
Politics
Trump administration dismisses nearly 400 scientists working on congressionally mandated national climate report
By Tracy Wholf
Updated on: April 29, 2025 / 9:43 PM EDT / CBS News
Nearly 400 scientists across the United States were informed Monday afternoon that their services were no longer needed to help write a major report on climate change for the federal government.
The report, known as the National Climate Assessment, is a major publication produced every four years that summarizes the impacts of climate change in the United States, and it is congressionally mandated under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The sixth edition is scheduled for publication in 2027 and preparations have been underway for months to meet that deadline.
The National Climate Assessment is the basis for which federal, state, and local governments, as well as private companies, can prepare for climate change impacts, understand future projections of climate risk, as well as learn to adapt and mitigate those challenges.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-climate-assessment-report-scientists-fired/
——-
This was already reported on by SA here, but I thought this was worth repeating.
It’s no great loss. Better to save that money than waste their time as no one pays these assessments any heed anyway. Congress, business and people will not. The same as the IPCC reports are useless and a waste of time and effort. Besides which the National Climate Assessment data and models all this material would have been based on are flawed and error prone anyway. Not fit for purpose. No one knows what happened in 2023-24 results yet nor why it happened.
Meanwhile global ff consumption and ghg emissions continue to rise unabated-everyone knows why that’s a problem-and still nothing gets down. So there is no point to any of this navel gazing given nothing is or will be ever done about it. It is pointless theorizing of unverified data models and computations to no useful end.
PP: Trump administration dismisses nearly 400 scientists working on congressionally mandated national climate report . . . It’s no great loss.
BPL: Why don’t you apply to work in the Trump administration? You seem to share their point of view.
PP: Trump administration dismisses nearly 400 scientists working on congressionally mandated national climate report . . . It’s no great loss.
BPL: Why don’t you apply to work in the Trump administration? You seem to share their point of view.
PP: I share nothing of values ethics political ideology or points of view with DJT or his pathetic Administration.
But do I understand why get so much wrong about other people and what they say. DJT and his illiterate idiocies is as much a reflection of your cohorts failures to “understand” much of anything in the USA especially your failed state status.
“PP: Trump administration dismisses nearly 400 scientists working on congressionally mandated national climate report . . . It’s no great loss.”
That is an astoundingly ignorant statement if ever there was. Those 400 scientists consist of the world’s experts in the field. Literally decades of experience and knowledge. Many of whom are the ones who collected and analyzed the core data to help compile the climate report.
Stop flaunting your science ignorance and learn the scientific method which you ought to have learned in grade school. You truly have no clue what you are talking about. Seriously.
Poor Peru wrote: “It’s no great loss.”
Thanks for making it crystal clear that you are a shameless stooge for Trump.
Secular Animist says
3 May 2025 at 3:17 PM
Poor Peru wrote: “It’s no great loss.”
Thanks for making it crystal clear that you are a shameless stooge for Trump.
………………………………………….
There is nothing I nor anyone could do which could ever help you and all the people just like you. It’s a choice not to understand anything. Enjoy your end times.
Poor Peru wrote: “There is nothing I nor anyone could do which could ever help you”
Nothing that YOU do has any effect on anything at all. You are just another self-infatuated bloviating bullshit artist who loves to hear himself talk and has done nothing but praise himself and insult everyone else since he got here. You are a boor and a bore and your comments are worthless and empty.
Poor Peru wrote: “There is nothing I nor anyone could do which could ever help you”
I did not need any confirmation. But thanks anyway.
Wrong again. If it didn’t matter, Trumpies’ wouldn’t bother to suppress it.
https://youtu.be/fUmDAHVilnQ
She is a conservative Libertarian.
Scott Nudds (video: “Danielle Smith says Alberta won’t accept Ottawa’s “unconstitutional” net-zero regulations”)
She also went to the States to plead with Trump to lay off the tariffs against Canada, as well as the talk about the annexation of Canada UNTIL the last Monday’s Canadian elections, arguing that each time Trumps opens his mouth on Canada, an angel dies, I mean a Conservative is losing his seat. To convince Trump, she promoted the Conservative federal leader. Pierre Poilievre, on Breibart- as the most aligned with Trumps objectives. So in effect – she commited a form of treason – asking the leader of an enemy state that threatens the annexation of Canada to …intervene in the Canadian elections in support of the candidate whom she promised would be most aligned with the goals of the said foreign power.
And Trump indeed eased off his attacks on Canada and tried reverse psychology by declaring that Conservative leader is NOT his favourite – so in the last few weeks the Conservative support gained a little, not enough to deny the Liberals the win, but enough to hold them to a minority government.
Climate change was very important subject of the campaign – the original rise of the Conservatives popularity was based on their central lie – on claiming that the revenue-NEUTRAL consumer carbon tax, in which all the money collected is paid back to citizens – is a …tax grab and the REASON for the COVID-caused inflation. For some reasons, Justin Trudeau didn’t call this a cynical lie – and paid dearly for it, having to resign in view of his party dropping more than 20% below Conservatives, who in December were still poised to get a massive majority government. Then a replacement Liberal leader arrived, dropped the carbon tax rather than calling the misinformation about it a lie, and on the other side of the border – Trump opened his mouth …
The Liberals still plan to keep limits for carbon emissions from the industry – as opposed to Conservatives for whom climate change does not exist – their “plan” is limited mainly to some taxpayer-funded getting the oil and gas industry off the hook by funding carbon capture of their emissions, all the while promising gutting the environmental protection, and the government agencies enforcing it, and using the taxpayer funds to promote building pipelines to increase the production of oil and gas (which now is limited by the ability to ship it abroad).
And as the link points out – Conservative stronghold – the tar-sand capital of the world – Alberta, is ruled by the said Danielle Smith – who is currently taking the federal government to court claiming that the feds have no constitutional right to limit GHGs emissions by the provinces, and already blackmails the rest of Canada – that if she does not get her way, she may try to take Alberta out of Canada,
So, I guess, she wasn’t lying when telling Trump that she and Conservatives are aligned with Trump, and even if she can’t deliver entire Canada as the 51st state – she may hope to deliver its most oil-rich province. To this end – she has just lowered the threshold for making a referendum, say on separation from Canada, or on banning abortions, much easier.
Incidentally, this is a deja-vu of an old conservative politician leader Stockwell Day, who proposed a referendum on any issue, if 3% of the electorate, or about 350,000 people, signed a petition. The challenge was accepted – by a satirical program on the public broadcaster CBC – that promptly got more than 575,000 Canadians to sign their petition to force Stockwell Day to change his name to “Doris”.
No wonder that the current day conservatives want to defund the public broadcaster ;-) This, along with his Trumpian politics of polarization and appealing to the lowest common denominator (pun’s from his opponents name at his rallies) have led to their loss.
Piotr says
3 May 2025 at 10:14 PM
What’s with all this long winded biased ideological political advertising / promotion going on at RC?
We need more Bible ideology and quotes. Or at least an acknowledgement that Chicago-born Cardinal Robert Prevost is Making America Great Again as the New Pope.
“Thessalonia”: “What’s with all this long winded biased ideological political advertising / promotion going on at RC?”
Projections of your own ideological political advertising onto others, my dear Darma/Darmah/Dharma /Poor Peru / Darma / Darmah /Dharma /Philly / Compliciated / Complicius / Sabine / Escobar / Ned Kelly etc ?
Mine was a reply to the previous poster’ s video: “Danielle Smith says Alberta won’t accept Ottawa’s “unconstitutional” net-zero regulations” and about the implications of the right-wing politics on Canada’s response to climate change. Ergo – rather relevant to the area of interests of RC.
In contrast to your oh so witty attempt to divert the climate politics discussion onto an irrelevant tangent (the Pope).
So go away, Dharma, or we will mock you a second time. Fetchez la vache!
Pretty much all of Alberta is treaty territory (Treaty 6, 7, and 8 lands) as well. And in Canada, First Nations actually do have some moderate measure of political, legal, and economic clout having been military allies, after all, against the Americans last time they came around. (Oh…and is this the time to mention that the battle flags for the Newfoundland Regiment which wasn’t in Upper or Lower Canada but separate at that time include ribbons for the capture of Detroit–with an inferior force, no less–and 2 Great Lakes cruisers.
Smith is posturing. She also says that when Alberta separates it will be due a 53% share of federal monies! Ballsy, certainly. But really just more posturing.
Earth science societies take on US climate report after Trump administration dismisses researchers
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/climate/agu-ams-national-climate-assessment-trump
SA: Earth science societies take on US climate report after Trump administration dismisses researchers
BPL: Yay!
FYI: Some people say it makes no difference who is president. Some people are willfully ignorant and stupid. Others have POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS for downplaying the Trump administration’s catastrophic policy changes.
Revealed: Forecasts of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels soar in Trump’s first 100 days
“The US was already the world’s leading oil and gas power, producing more of the fossil fuels than any country in history during Joe Biden’s administration. But Trump has sought to escalate this further, declaring an ‘energy emergency’ to open up more land and ocean for drilling … the expected amount of greenhouse gas emissions from active and planned projects in US oil and gas fields has jumped under Trump, after previously dropping under Biden, forecasts shared with the Guardian show.
“Despite awarding more drilling leases than Trump in his first 100 days, Biden also pursued policies to combat the climate crisis that saw oil and gas companies revise down their production estimates. That situation has now reversed, threatening a pulse of new pollution that will further add to the fever of a planet already suffering from heatwaves, floods, droughts and other disasters accelerated by global heating.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/02/trump-drill-baby-drill-tariffs
Ladies and gentlemen
I would like to ask those of you who have a scientific qualification for a kind assessment how relevant are serious objections raised by Dr. Makarieva in her postst
https://bioticregulation.substack.com/p/we-are-losing-soil-moisture-why
and
https://bioticregulation.substack.com/p/why-it-is-important-to-read-scientific
against general framing of climate science in terms of radiative energy transfer.
It is my understanding that her examples in said posts suggest that this framing may seriously distort the message that is actually comprised in scientific articles cited by her.
Many thanks in advance and best regards
Tomáš
[Response: The whole discussion rests on a assumption that the ERA5 reanalysis is truth, but for variables like soil moisture, the reanalysis trends are going to be highly influenced by whatever datastreams are available – which change over time. I am not persuaded (as yet) that this is not just a data source switch as opposed to a real phenomena. = gavin]
Article says:
Let us compare this with the predictions of global climate models that focus on CO₂ accumulation and the associated rise in temperature.
[ PP: seriously, why bother with gcms? The hypothetical error filled map is not the territory. Is not reality. ]
We can see that almost everywhere on land—excluding the western U.S. and Europe—there is an increase in atmospheric moisture convergence, especially pronounced in the tropics. This stands in sharp contrast to the soil moisture trends shown in Fig. S4 of Seo et al. 2025. In that figure, large regions of South America, Africa, and Eurasia—where climate models consistently predict increased moisture convergence—are instead experiencing soil moisture loss. Globally, land shows a decline in imported atmospheric moisture, while the climate models in the graph above suggest that a warming land should, on the contrary, receive more atmospheric moisture (and thus gain moisture overall).
OK. Then go to Africa and south America and other regions of the world and tell them they are not in a decades long drought, all their livestock has been sold or died, and their crops are failing.
WTF is wrong with this picture and conversational comments such as ERA5 assumptions or that any other DATA SET or GCM holds an answer to anything here?
“assumption that the ERA5 reanalysis is truth”? No that is not the problem here. The problem is all the assumption that Climate Scientists using their “science” offers the Truth. Whereas the reality is they do not have a clue about REALITY.
Countries Experiencing Severe Long-Term Drought:
Southern Africa:
Zambia: Declared a national disaster in February 2024 due to the worst drought in two decades, with nearly half of its planted area destroyed.
Zimbabwe: Facing its worst drought in a century, leading to widespread crop failure and food insecurity.
Malawi: Declared a state of emergency as drought conditions have devastated agriculture and livelihoods.
Namibia: Experiencing severe drought, prompting the government to cull wildlife to feed the hungry.
Botswana: Declared a state of emergency due to prolonged drought conditions.
Lesotho: Declared a state of emergency, with significant impacts on agriculture and food security.
Mozambique: Suffering from severe drought, leading to food shortages and economic hardship.
South Africa: Experiencing heightened drought risk, with significant impacts on agriculture and water resources.
Wikipedia
The Guardian
Latest news & breaking headlines+2WSJ+2Le Monde.fr+2
OCHA
#Asakhe – CITE
East Africa:
Somalia: Facing severe drought conditions, with millions at risk of hunger due to prolonged dry spells.
Ethiopia: Experiencing ongoing drought, leading to food insecurity and displacement.
Kenya: Parts of the country are facing severe drought, impacting agriculture and water availability.
Al Jazeera
Central and West Africa:
Chad: Experiencing drought conditions that threaten food security and livelihoods.
Mauritania: Facing severe drought, impacting agriculture and water resources.
Senegal: Experiencing drought conditions affecting food production and water availability.
These droughts have led to significant challenges, including crop failures, livestock deaths, and increased food insecurity. The situation underscores the urgent need for climate adaptation strategies and international support to mitigate the impacts of prolonged drought in these regions.
PP: why bother with gcms? The hypothetical error filled map is not the territory. Is not reality.
BPL: How many denier tropes is this guy going to post while claiming not to be a denier?
PS — Why it is important to read scientific papers beyond their abstracts
especially when it is about the role of CO2 in climate
Anastassia Makarieva
Jan 10, 2025
https://bioticregulation.substack.com/p/why-it-is-important-to-read-scientific
I knew that and have practiced that for 30 years since the mid-1990s. Intelligent thoughtful rational people such as Killian have too. While remaining mindful that real life Observations trump hypothetical assumptions, leading to unsubstantiated theories and mathematical climate models with faulty input assumptions hands down. 30 years of climate science and public policy makers education is a sad joke on humanity. NASAs Climate Scientists, Date Sets and GCMs will not save a single child or cow from dying of drought or starvation. Nor will they stop one wildfire from destroying another town or city.
Poor NASA
PP: Intelligent thoughtful rational people such as Killian
BPL: Now I’m wondering if PP is a sock puppet for Killian…
gavin: “ I have no clue what point she is trying to make – while accusing me of ignoring deforestation?”
Hmm, sounds surprisingly …familiar. See for instance the seething criticism of climate modellers for “artificial fixation” on some “trace gas” instead of deforestation:
“ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas and aerosol forced model estimates ” JCM, June 2024.
If “M” in “JCM” stood for “Makarieva” – this would explain Tomas’ enthusiasm for the latter.
“It’s not all obvious that ~6 data points 10 Ma apart, 300 Ma ago, are particularly informative of climate change and the carbon cycle on an annual basis today.”
;-). Then again – understatement and irony are not the strongest suit of our water boys.
In Re to Piotr, 4 MAY 2025 AT 6:13 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-832758
and 5 MAY 2025 AT 12:49 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-832788
Hallo Piotr,
Although the identity of s person posting on social media under a nick offers opportunities for speculations, I am sure that JCM is not identical with Dr. Anastassia Makarieva. JCM is an American, a man, passionate about ecosystem function, emphasizing the importance of soil conservation for climate stability.
Anastassia Makarieva is a Russian living snd working abroad, a woman, a physicist passionate about the importance of ecosystems and particularly forests for climate stability.
I do not think that JCM intends or ever suggested that climate science and/or climate policies focuse(s) on the role of forests INSTEAD of greenhouse gases. I understand his contributions the way that besides greenhouse gases, energy transport by latent heat flux is another key feature of Earth climate. JCM emphasizes that healthy soils and terrestrial vegetation may stabilize land hydrology and thus support conditions favourable for human civilization.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz “ JCM is not identical with Dr. Anastassia Makarieva. JCM”
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Nobody seriously suggested otherwise.
TK: “JCM is an American, a man”
And how would you know that?
TK: “ passionate about ecosystem function ”
As a classic “anything-but-GHGs” denier, he systematically tries to minimize the effects of GHGs on world ecosystems and tries to discredit the most effective way to mitigate ecosystem-disastrous AGW in favour of the least effective one. I wouldn’t call it being passionate “about ecosystem function”.
If your JCM is passionate about something – it would be his ego – sharing the same traits as flat earthers, anti-vaxers and other anti-scientists – if the best scientists in the world couldn’t see, or didn’t want to see, what I see- then I must be a person of a superior intellect and/or ethical integrity.
TK: I do not think that JCM intends or ever suggested that climate science and/or climate policies focuse(s) on the role of forests INSTEAD of greenhouse gases.
Explain then JCM words:
It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas and aerosol forced model estimates. ” JCM, June 2024.
i.e. – WHAT ELSE was he implying when he linked “up to 40 % of the planet’s land being degraded” to the climate scientists’ “ artificial fixation and overemphasis on GHGs?
– WHAT ELSE did want to achieve when he tried discredit the most effective and the most complete way to mitigate AGW – reduction in GHGs – lecturing on “ an artificial fixation and overemphasis on a trace gas^*”
====
^* when a denier calls GHGs “a trace gas” then he/she implies that “a trace gas” can have only “trace effects” on climate, therefore we should NOT “ artificially fixate on it ” nor overemphasize the importance of GHGs mitigation.
yes a regular-emphasis on GHG mitigation is justified. An over-emphasis suggests an imbalance. It is well established that trace gases are a significant factor in climate. And yet, it has become a fixation of the hate-filled mob – those who pride themselves in the overemphasis – those who are fervent promoters of an over-emphasized and therefore imbalanced perspective.
This may partly stem from the influence of model-based counterfactuals. That creates quite dramatic differences in simulations, tuned by design. In principle, the same applies to profound catchment deterioration, such that a counterfactual is associated with greater stability in terms of hydrological and temperature extremes. Fire, drought, flood, heat – the hallmarks of perceived realclimate hazards.
Old wisdom isn’t generally found at the cutting edge of research. The decreasing effectiveness of institutional guidance on such matters is associated with an attendant loss of trust – this is certain. As a consequence, there is unavoidable gravity in conservation stewardship to the cornerstones of community development, towards peer-to-peer, place-based, participatory local learning groups. I encourage everyone: get involved.
I suspect on some level that living in drained urban concreted catchments, those which dominate influential academic and political landscapes, results in the misapprehension that environmental change could therefore only relate to air and water pollution. It is a natural psychological osmosis from daily lived experiences. In such places there is really nothing else left to modify or control in the environment, and so dominant perspectives reflect that. Functional ecologies are something abstract, to be experienced through our windows 11 desktop wallpaper reel. Any practical notion of functional ecosystems is erased, dismissed as idealized, and replaced with an artificial fixation on trace gas.
Nevertheless, concreted and unnaturally desiccated catchments represent the ultimate counterfactual against stability. The experiment is ongoing right under your feet wherever you are. Universalized policy prescriptions may be appealing in global governance, but they do become counterproductive when displacing core environmental educational programming about your place.
When a citizen of Peru is convinced to litigate for damages on his fields in Germany, or when suggesting that draining the central valley in California could be compensated by spreading enhanced rock weathering stones in Kenya, the de-coupling of place and environment is complete, and we are all exposed to greater risk as a consequence. It really is the stuff of make-believe and quackery when you think about it. A return to regular-emphasis on things and shaking-off conceptual imbalances is worthy of consideration – even if the model-based storylines developed for targeted courtroom litigation, event attribution counterfactuals, and public persuasion campaigns will required a bit more nuance.
JCM says
10 May 2025 at 12:03 PM
Thoughtful raising of the bar there. Quite out of place (unfortunately). We do what we can while we can.
PP: Intelligent thoughtful rational people such as Killian
BPL: Now I’m wondering if PP is a sock puppet for Killian…
I doubt – the original Killian never suffered from the Troll Multiple Handle Disorder as does our Poor Peru / Darma / Darmah /Dharma /Philly / Compliciated / Complicius / Sabine / Escobar / Ned Kelly etc. etc etc.
That the Troll praises his fellow anti-scientific traveller, Killiam – not surprising. The like like the like.
In some ways the re-framing of environment and realclimates through a narrow lens of net zero emission could be net harmful. Recently I participated in a conference of conservation professionals where a series of sponsoring vendors were given five-minute slots to introduce themselves and invite attendees to their booths.
Despite the event’s grounded, practical focus on environmental stewardship, three out of five vendors led with their net zero pledges, as if this was supposed to be impressive. Needless to say the messages fell flat. Quiet murmurs spread through the crowd where the disconnect was palpable. Such messaging has been obstructive to practical conservation – a consequence of muting the signals of profound catchment deterioration in global change research. Instead of amplifying the signal, research is creating a friction where we need alignment. There can be little doubt these are real phenomena.
In training sales and marketing staff for public outreach, know thy audience. The default glossy brochures and canned talking points of so-called green initiatives might work in certain contexts, but in this field, it reeks of performative virtue. Such rhetoric isn’t just hollow, it’s creating barriers in our work. A re-balancing of perspective in restoring realclimate stability overdue, including from our allies in academia, IPCC, and their influential “global army of disciples”. The narrative, while well-intentioned, is seeping into domains where it hinders more than helps the work at hand.
JCM “ In some ways the re-framing of environment and realclimates through a narrow lens of net zero emission could be net harmful.”
as opposed to the …. “net positive” continuation of the GHG increases by redirecting the resources and research away from GHGs and toward the completely infeasible schemes of increasing water evaporation? And before you say that you never supported Tomas’ absurd Sahara irrigation scheme – you haven’t offer ANY better alternative – so Tomas’ proposal is so far the waterboys’ best offer on the table.
Until you can propose evaporative scheme that is a more cost-effective way to counter AGW – – your continuous attacks on the credibility of the climate science and your trying to discredit the need for sharp reductions in GHG emissions – condemning:
“artificial fixation and overemphasis [on] a trace gas^*” (c) JCM
you are a net “anything-but-GHGs” denier. By their fruits, not their protestations, you shall know them.
——–
footnote: ^* deniers call CO2 and other GHGs – a “trace gas” to divert from the need to reduce their conc. – with the implied logic that a “trace gas” could possibly cause only a tiny (“trace”) warming – ergo only ignorant and/or corrupt climate scientists would “artificially fixate” on CO2 and “overestimate” its influence
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
Thank you very much for your feedback. As the second post by Dr. Makarieva does nor refer to ERA5 reanalysis, could you add also a comment thereon?
I cannot assess if she interprets the cited article correctly, or if her objections may be flawed in this case as well.
Best regards
Tomáš
[Response: I have no clue what point she is trying to make – while accusing me of ignoring deforestation? It’s not all obvious that ~6 data points 10 Ma apart, 300 Ma ago, are particularly informative of climate change and the carbon cycle on an annual basis today. – gavin]
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
Thank you again for your kind reply.
Dr. Makarieva asserts that, basically, two stable states of a landscape may exist: a wet and a dry one. She and her colleagues suggest that the respective ecosystem stabilizes each of these states, so that it is not easy to switch from on state to another. They assume, however, that anthropogenic disruptions inflicted to ecosystems of many originally wet landscapes might have caused their switch to the dry mode, and that this transformation might have contributed to the recently observed climate change.
See e.g. her comments regarding the Science paper by Johnson et al. (1999), “65,000 years of vegetation change in central Australia and the Australian summer monsoon.”,
https://www.ipm.cz/group/fracture/vyuka/doc/P12.pdf ,
at the end of her first post.
On one hand, there are indeed some hints, see e.g.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226176777_Direct_influence_of_irrigation_on_atmospheric_water_vapour_and_climate
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae018/pdf
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1
that water availability for evaporation from the land may have a measurable influence on global climate.
On the other hand, many participants in Real Climate discussion on these articles rightly pointed out that changes in global mean surface temperature that might be directly attributed to anthropogenic “land use” during the industrial era according to estimates published in these articles appear to be small.
In this respect, I would like to ask if the direct climate effects of these anthropogenic changes are indeed the sole aspect that deserves climate science attention. As a layman, I would expect that if there indeed are such direct effects of water availability for evaporation from the land on global climate, then we can (and perhaps should) ask also if anthropogenic disruptions to terrestrial ecosystems that possibly took place during the entire holocene might have changed global climate sensitivity to other forcings, such as atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases.
In other words, I wonder if climate science already resolved the simple question if am Earth with drier continents may be more sensitive to the observed warming caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions in comparison with a hypothetically wetter Earth with unperturbed ecosystems. I have not found an answer yet, and I therefore suppose that this question might be unresolved yet. Is a such study still beyond capabilities of present climate models?
Thank you in advance for a third comment in the row and best regards
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz “ Dr. Makarieva asserts that
Who cares, when she asserts it on the basis of … “ ~6 data points 10 Ma apart, 300 Ma ago“. Garbage dataset in, garbage assertions out.
Errata to my previous post of 4 May 2025 at 5:56 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-832753
The correct link to the the Science paper by Johnson et al. (1999), “65,000 years of vegetation change in central Australia and the Australian summer monsoon.” is
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.284.5417.1150
Apologies for the mistake as well as for several unpleasant typos.
An addition to my post of 4 MAY 2025 AT 5:56 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-832753
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
It appears that the vast majority of commenters on this website has no doubt that climate change has a single and simple cause and that this cause are anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.
I still think that there are questions that could be answered by climate scientists, and believe that there may be also other readers who are not particularly impressed by discussions who should be blamed for climate change, if fossil fuel industry, or rather “American imperialists”.
In this respect, I would like to ask again: Are state-of-art climate models suitable for resolving the question if climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration may depend on water availability for evaporation from the land?
Best regards
Tomáš
The way forward isn’t domination, despair or escape. What’s needed isn’t more control or cleverness, but deeper presence and relationship—with ourselves, with each other, with the Earth. Not to fix the world like a machine, but to live in it more naturally. The way out is in.
TK: Are state-of-art climate models suitable for resolving the question if climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration may depend on water availability for evaporation from the land?
BPL: Probably, since they represent convection, evapotranspiration, and the hydrological cycle numerically.
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 9 MAY 2025 AT 7:50 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-832948
Hallo Barton,
Thank you for your kind comment. Would you also appreciate if the proposed study resolved my question?
Greetings
Tomáš
Trump budget proposes $1 trillion for defense, slashes education, foreign aid, environment, health and public assistance
…
Climate research
The budget would slash Earth science research at NASA, including eliminating what it says are “low-priority climate monitoring satellites.” It would also cut funding for climate research at the National Science Foundation and make sweeping reductions to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s climate monitoring and research functions. At NOAA this would include focusing next-generation satellites more on weather than climate. The budget also proposes cutting $235 million from EPA’s climate and environmental justice research.
Science research
The budget proposes a large reduction in funding to the National Science Foundation, which would see a 56% reduction from fiscal year 2025 enacted levels. That includes climate and clean energy research funding but also what the proposal describes as “woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science.” It would also end funding to programs categorized as DEI-related.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/politics/trump-budget-proposal-defense-spending
Have you decided to join the moral majority yet or are you going to sit at your desk cowering until you are fired?
regarding Scott Nudds and Poor Peru
If the Wikipedia article about “Moral Majority”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
is correct, then I think that “Scott Nudds” may be quite likely another nick for “Don Williams”, and that this entity is closely related to Poor Peru aka Dharma, Sabine, Escobar, Ned Kelly etc.
Greetings
Tomáš
I don’t know, a short time ago there was a left-leaning meme seeking to appropriate the term “moral majority” from the now antiquated Falwell campaign of yore. It clearly didn’t catch on. I think the idea was that the anti-trump camp has the moral high ground and is in the majority,
In any case, exhortations and calls to arms require some rhetorical art to be effective.
Radge Havers: “In any case, exhortations and calls to arms require some rhetorical art to be effective.”
… and the willingness to support your words with actions. While our RC doomers have words instead of action.
In Re to Radge Havers, 4 MAY 2025 AT 3:02 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-832746
Hallo Radge,
I have not searched thoroughly enough, I see. Many thanks for your explanation.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
Irrespective who he/she/it actually is, I do not think that the mantra-like calls by Scott Nudds are helpful, anyway.
Scott Nudds: “ Have you decided to join the moral majority yet or are you going to sit at your desk cowering until you are fired?”
Do tell us the inspiring stories of your exploits, O Brave Scott Nudds Who Cowers to Nobody.
You may start from the job you have been fired from for your Tremendous Outspokenness on the climate change. You are leading by an example, right?
Most of my comments here are being deleted.
Radge Havers: “In any case, exhortations and calls to arms require some rhetorical art to be effective.”
… and the willingness to support your words with actions. RC doomers have words instead of action.
Indeed.
Scott Nudds: “Most of my comments here are being deleted.”
Are you saying that your answer to my question:
—
Scott Nudds: “ Are you going to sit at your desk cowering until you are fired?”
Piotr: “ Do tell us the inspiring stories of your exploits, O Brave Scott Nudds Who Cowers to Nobody. You may start from the job you have been fired from for your Tremendous Outspokenness on the climate change. You are leading by an example, right?
—
has been deleted? What have you wrote there ???
Overriding Response to All:
It’s telling how quickly this forum devolves into personal insinuations, name-calling, and pseudo-psychoanalysis the moment someone like Scott dares issue a moral challenge to inaction.
Rather than engage with his point — that scientists, academics, and informed citizens must act with integrity in the face of escalating climate denial and political sabotage — we get distractions:
– Obsessing over capital letters in the phrase “Moral Majority,”
– Bizarre paranoid attempts to unmask posters like it’s some Cold War spy novel,
– And tired mockery posing as wit.
Here’s what none of the critics have done: respond honestly to the substance of Scott’s challenge. Namely:
Are you willing to take a moral stand when it counts, or are you too afraid of professional consequences to speak the truth plainly?
That’s what the “moral majority” phrase was clearly about: reclaiming ethics, not religion. The attempt to twist it into a Jerry Falwell tribute act is either willfully obtuse or just trolling dressed up in sarcasm.
It’s easier to mock, misrepresent, and psychoanalyze someone like Scott than confront the deeper discomfort:
That your passivity — or performative cynicism — is part of the problem.
Some of us refuse to hide behind academic detachment or nostalgia for the Cold War. The planet is burning, and people are dying. If all you can offer is tone-policing and half-baked smears, maybe look in the mirror before accusing others of bad faith.
The most obvious thing of all is how many here are endlessly POLITICAL and that’s not a problem.
But dare to reply and you’re either silenced or banned for being an off-topic troll or something.
No one knows the reason of course. A dozen here can insult and belittle whoever they wish as often as they want. Not a problem at all.
It’s like being forced to deal with someone silently ensconced in an underground bunker somewhere yet all Powerful. They alone control the Power Switch but are incapable of normal human speech.
Why? How childish.
Trump admin plans to shut down money-saving Energy Star program soon, sources say
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-admin-plans-to-shut-down-money-saving-energy-star-program-soon-sources-say/ar-AA1Eg74N?cvid=d0fad0306aa24babbea670246007091a&ocid=mailsignout
Next order. Car manufacturers are ordered to start polluting more
Ron R, agree removing the requirements for energy efficiency ratings is very childish. I suspect the idea is it will reduce the motivation for companies to make appliances energy efficient thus increasing their profits and profits of fossil fuels companies at a guess. Just another dreadful Trump policy hard to find the right words other than expletives.
Just another dreadful Trump policy hard to find the right words other than expletives.
Funny.
I wonder if environmentalism itself will be outlawed.
Why? How childish.
Trump admin plans to shut down money-saving Energy Star program soon, sources say
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-admin-plans-to-shut-down-money-saving-energy-star-program-soon-sources-say/ar-AA1Eg74N?cvid=d0fad0306aa24babbea670246007091a&ocid=mailsignout
Next order. Car manufacturers are ordered to start polluting more
On another subject, can Real Science make an easy way for people to upload photos?
Myself, JCM and Paul Pukite (and Killian when he reappears) are the last ones here still grounded in unbiased reason and scientific fundamentals.
There’s no pursuit of truth when you start by assuming you already have it—true in politics, climate science, and energy alike.
Unbiased?
That’s a joke. And an unsuccessful one at that.
I don’t know why my name is included here, but it may not be a joke. I would suggest that the bias that exists is in relation to not paying enough attention to the No Regrets strategy as a way to promote the energy transition that’s occurring.
How many people have even heard of the No Regrets strategy? Even if climate change was not a concern, we would be going though this transition. If you want to discuss this, take it over to the Azimuth Project forum, where I describe the decline.
https://github.com/orgs/azimuth-project/discussions/21
I’d rather that the Real Climate blog concentrate on climate science, as that is where the blog maintainers’ expertise resides.
Uh, just like all other models and for the very same reasons the “rational reason” model your brain is providing you of the outside world is biased if by nothing else by the limitations of human biology.
Like all models some are quite useful. Others are rancid junk. As for the foundations of “unbiased reason”, propaganda spewment is an especially poor foundation.
There’s no pursuit of truth when you start by assuming you already have it—true in politics, climate science, and energy alike.
Well I thought that was very well put. And quite true. So many people, the intelligent included, know so little.
Bwaaaahaaaaaahaaaaaaaa! Thanks, I needed a good laugh!
It seems that only a few of us — myself, JCM, Paul Pukite, and occasionally Killian — still attempt to approach these discussions with scientific fundamentals and unbiased reasoning intact. Thinking that transcends acquired ideology.
Real science requires openness and discipline. But in this forum, too often what passes for “science” is just emotional rhetoric, groupthink, or ideology dressed up as a science based consensus. There’s no honest pursuit of truth when you begin by assuming you already possess it — whether in climate policy, political analysis, or energy systems.
Serious inquiry demands more than applause lines and tribal alignment. It demands a willingness to test assumptions, not just reinforce them with cheap rhetoric. Though I must acknowledge it is only a forum intended for such rhetoric. So be it.
PP: It seems that only a few of us — myself, JCM, Paul Pukite, and occasionally Killian — still attempt to approach these discussions with scientific fundamentals and unbiased reasoning intact. Thinking that transcends acquired ideology. Blah blah blah rhetoric blah blah blah groupthink blah blah blah blah blah blah consensus blah blah blah
BPL: A troll by any other name… and there is indeed a long list of names involved. I wish Gavin et al. would ban the sock puppets. Does anybody know if you can spoof an IP address? If not, we can weed them out that way.
Poor Peru says
1 May 2025 at 10:03 PM
Trump administration dismisses nearly 400 scientists working on congressionally mandated national climate report . . . It’s no great loss. Better to save that money than waste their time as no one pays these assessments any heed anyway. Congress, business and people will not. The same as the IPCC reports are useless and a waste of time and effort. Besides which the National Climate Assessment data and models all this material would have been based on are flawed and error prone anyway. Not fit for purpose. No one knows what happened in 2023-24 results yet nor why it happened.
BPL: Why don’t you apply to work in the Trump administration? You seem to share their point of view.
PP: I share nothing of values ethics political ideology or points of view with DJT or his pathetic Administration.
But do I understand why get so much wrong about other people and what they say. DJT and his illiterate idiocies is as much a reflection of your cohorts failures to “understand” much of anything in the USA especially your failed state status.
Now Dan says
4 May 2025 at 7:31 AM
“Stop flaunting your science ignorance and learn the scientific method which you ought to have learned in grade school. You truly have no clue what you are talking about. Seriously. “
Poor Peru replies:
Dan, before flaunting your own misplaced certainty, perhaps take a moment to actually grasp the point being made. Go back and read it—carefully. Understand it, or consider stepping back.
Now, since it’s clear that you, along with Barton Paul Levenson, Tomáš Kalisz, Secular Animist, and others, are confused or misrepresenting what’s been said, let me spell it out more clearly.
Cancelling a federal climate report that consumes significant government resources and involves 400 U.S. scientists to produce yet another unread, unacted-upon document is no great loss. If we’re honest, it’s a rational decision—harsh but true.
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of climate science today appears to serve more as an academic echo chamber than a practical tool for driving policy. The response to new research is often immediate infighting—other scientists pile on with criticisms, public disputes, and outright dismissals, broadcasting their disagreements via RealClimate, The Guardian, Copernicus, BlueSky, and beyond. This cycle repeats endlessly.
That lack of coherence—and the widespread denial of this dysfunction—shows just how far off track the climate science field has gone. It’s no wonder the broader public and political systems tune it out.
But here’s the core truth: the only scientifically urgent message worth global attention has long been known—stop burning fossil fuels and curb emissions, especially CO₂, SO₂, and aerosols. But the well known science is not the barrier to action. The real culprits are economic inertia, failed global leadership, weak pro-socialist policies that lack traction, and a 100 year legacy of Anglo-American imperialist greed and dominance.
More reports won’t change that. Facing reality might.
Which will not happen among those present here.
Firstly climate research is still very important. We don’t have perfect knowledge of the climate yet. It may not provide anything that motivates more urgent mitigation but understanding is important for other reasons and just for the sake of understanding. Secondly scientists disagreeing is no bad thing. It’s happened frequently in the history of all branches of science and is an important part of identifying mistakes. Of course it’s unpleasant but I have learned not to take criticism too personally. It’s for the greater good as long as it doesn’t become nasty. Not a scientist myself but I did consider doing a chemistry degree.
A militarized conspiracy theorist group believes radars are ‘weather weapons’ and is trying to destroy them.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/05/weather/weather-weapons-nws-radar-attack
Thinking of Leaving America?
Think faster.
The TLT anomalies for April are posted by STAR & UAH. April’s anomalies continue a small increase seen since January with STAR & UAH roughly back to the December level but still well down on April 2024.
Prior to Dec24, the TLT anomaly had been dropping through most of 2024, a drop of some -0.2ºC in the last half of the year.
A comparison of the start of 2024 (STAR +0.84ºC, UAH +0.88ºC) with 2025 (STAR & UAH both +0.53ºC) yields a cooling of STAR -0.31ºC & UAH -0.35ºC.
While we await the measured SAT numbers, the ERA5 reanalysis numbers at Climate Pulse shows April with perhaps what will be the first signs of a dropping anomaly in 2025. (ERA5 has been a bit more ‘peaky’ than the measured SAT numbers and had already shown a drop.)
SAT had seen the peak “bananas” in Sept23 and a drop of some -0.15ºC by May24 followed by a smaller increase which the ERA5 numbers suggest will now be reversing into a dropping anomaly. (These multi-month SAT up-down wobbles are due to seasons in the Northern Hemisphere warming under AGW at different rates.)
A comparison of the start of 2024 (ERA5 +0.73ºC) with 2025 (ERA5 +0.67ºC) yields a cooling in ERA5 of just -0.06ºC.
STAR & UAH TLT (& ERA5 SAT)
Apr24 … … +0.89ºC … … +0.94ºC … … (+ 0.67ºC)
… …
Dec24 … … +0.61ºC … … +0.62ºC … … (+ 0.76ºC)
Jan25 … … +0.48ºC … … +0.45ºC … … (+ 0.79ºC)
Feb25 … … +0.53ºC … … +0.50ºC … … (+ 0.63ºC)
Mar25 … … +0.53ºC … … +0.57ºC … … (+ 0.65ºC)
Apr25 … … +0.58ºC … … +0.61ºC … … (+ 0.60ºC)
A graphic of TLT & SAT global anomalies over the last 3 years is posted HERE – first posted 11th April 2025 and an ERA5 global SAT showing the wobbles in more detail (first posted 17th March 2025).
Trump administration cuts off all future federal funding to Harvard
The ongoing war between the Trump administration and Harvard University has taken a new twist, with the government sending Harvard a letter that, amid what appears to be a stream-of-consciousness culture war rant, announces that the university will not be receiving any further research grants.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/05/trump-administration-cuts-off-all-future-federal-funding-to-harvard/
Your next.
Haven’t joined the Moral Majority yet?
Do you fear losing your job?
I have news for you. It’s as good as gone if you continue to deny your fate.
They are reported to have a $53,200,000,000 endowment fund, so they’ll be just fine for a very, very, very long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University_endowment
That’s basically an open-and-shut legal case for YUUUGGGE civil damages. And do remember much of the top appeals judiciary graduated from Harvard!
jgnfld says
8 May 2025 at 7:37 AM
And do remember much of the top appeals judiciary graduated from Harvard!
Righto. So your are suggesting in a Harvard court case the ex-Harvard Judiciary would be Biased.
Great objectivity ethical standards (not) produced by Harvard. Maybe they should be shut down completely if their product output (graduates) are this weak.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1kgflsy/white_house_announces_plans_to_shut_down_the/?share_id=GkyhaesszmmZIcC8WZ933&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=2
White House announces plans to shut down the Energy Star program | It has helped Americans save more than $500 billion since 1992.
Havent joined the Moral Majority yet?
What’s keeping you? Fear of unemployment or fear for your life?
Will make ZERO difference. Americans are knowledgeable about buying energy efficient appliances. The program served it’s purpose – manufacturer’s are now actively pursuing more efficient appliances as a selling point. Free markets work. That is why Trump is attempting to use tariffs to get more free trade between the US and our trading partners. The smart ones are agreeing with him and making deals.
KIA: Will make ZERO difference. Americans are knowledgeable about buying energy efficient appliances.
BPL: Without the Energy Star label, and the tests which bring it about, they won’t know which appliances are energy efficient and which are not. Energy Star is reputed to have saved consumers $40 billion for a reason.
Zero difference? Manufacturers may be selling efficiency, but without a standard testing methodology, what’s to stop them fudging the numbers? You just identified a big incentive for them to do just that.
SN: Havent joined the Moral Majority yet?
What’s keeping you? Fear of unemployment or fear for your life?
BPL: The Moral Majority was a right-wing 1980s organization with the prominent leader the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Why are you bringing it up, and why would anybody now join it?
Concur. I have no idea what point Scott thinks he’s making.
Been away a month-ish only to find the same Peanut Gallery wasting of everyone’s time as ever.
Here’s some science for you: AMOC slowing due to degeneration (<–my term, not the researcher's) of the Gyre.
https://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/seahawks/2025/05/07/2025-nfl-offseason-seahawks-named-nfc-wests-biggest-loser/83492399007/
Previous post was in error. Here is the link for a new paper on AMOC slowing due to dusruption of the Gyre (IYKYK).
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JC021873
Suggests significant disruption of the BG end of century (good luck with it lasting that long…) resulting in slowing of the AMOC.
Are we having fun yet? Sigh.,,, (<– Added for the addled Peanut Gallerians.)
Killian: “ Previous post was in error.
I have thought as much – “ the same Peanut Gallery wasting of everyone’s time as ever ” – does not sound like you whatsoever! ;-)
K: Here is the link for a new paper
Before we go there – can we learn something … about you from your original link (an online version of Freudian slip?): “ Seahawks named NFC West’s offseason loser“.
Does it mean that you are dividing your time between being a prophet of the impending global doom, and …. cheering for a struggling American football team?
K: “Suggests significant disruption of the BG [Beaufort Gyre – P] resulting in slowing of the AMOC.”
The actual authors less … certain about it than you:
“A potential subsequent reduction in deep water formation in the Nordic Seas could contribute to a slowdown or a northward shift of the Atlantic-Arctic meridional overturning circulation.
Not exactly yours “Are we having fun yet?“.
Last week, Europe experienced its worst blackout in living memory, which plunged tens of millions of people across Spain and Portugal into darkness for up to 18 hours. Life screeched to a halt, with trains, traffic lights, ATMs, phone connections, and internet access failing. In the aftermath, many important questions have arisen, including: what caused such a widespread grid failure, and how can Europe and other nations prepare for the next time an event like this happens?
In today’s episode, Nate is joined by Pedro Prieto to discuss the recent blackout in the Iberian Peninsula, exploring its causes, impacts, and the role of renewable energy in the stability of the electric grid. Prieto highlights the societal and infrastructural challenges that his home country faced, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to energy management, as well as the interconnectedness of energy systems and societal resilience
Prieto wrote a book on EROI and solar voltaic and energy systems almost 15 years ago, kind of predicting that this would be one possible outcome of overly scaling intermittent energy technology.
remember very much the phrase of Upton Sinclair when he said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
This is what is happening now. I mean the ministry is trying to say that they were the operators. The operators, they say they were complying with the regulations. Some other people say it’s the excess of renewables, that they could not manage to balance the excess of inputs with respect to the consumption. I mean there are still many speculations.
But the fact is that some others they say that it was over 500 megawatts solar photovoltaic plant in the southern part of Spain which went down suddenly and they could not recover immediately. In that moment,
we were exporting energy to France, to Portugal, and to Morocco and then suddenly we went off.
Did Renewables Cause the Blackout in Spain? with Pedro Prieto
what is certain is that we have one of the biggest penetrations of renewable energies in the world.
In solar photovoltaics we have, the total network has 130 gigawatts of installed power. I mean this is just to give you an idea, we are in the size of California for US viewers. I mean the size of California in inhabitants,
the size of California in space, and the size of California in energy and electricity consumption.
But we have a lot of renewals, as in California as well. This represents 65% 85 gigawatts of the total national
capacity of installed power. However, when we consume now, we are consuming only the maximum
peak. I mean when the blackout happened, we were consuming just 25, 27 gigawatts. So we have much
more capacity. We never reached the peak. The maximum peak in 2024 in consumption was
about 40 and we have 130 gigawatts installed. Okay. So the most demand ever last year of the 130
of potential was 40. Yeah. And earlier this week we reached 23, which is only half of the maximum.
If you add up solar photovoltaic and wind, it was about 70%. 70, 75% of all RE when it collapsed. So it’s a lot. It’s a lot. And then the problem is that they are, as you know, intermittent energies.
I mean they talk also hydro as renewable energy and it’s a renewable energy, but the difference with solar and wind is that hydro is not intermittent. It’s predictable. It’s a predictable- It’s like a combined cycle natural gas plant kind of. That’s it. You can turn it on and off when you need it. They are much prepared to be smooth, reliable, and supporting the whole system. This year we have had a lot of rain in Spain. All the dams were full and they were able to turbine and to generate electricity as much as they have in the installed power.
They were not generating the maximum, but there was a lot of renewable energy and there was a lot of intermittent energy given to the network. So that’s why we were exporting to the three countries with which we have interconnections, international connections. And this is what happens. I mean something has happened that has unbalanced the network.
And the problem of the networks is that we need a very tiny deviation in frequency or in voltage to
have a huge problem. Like a Houston, we have a problem. We are working here in 50 hertz or 50
cycles per second. In the US you are in 60, but here in 50, in all Europe, we have 50 cycles per
second. If you deviate plus minus 0.1%, this is a problem. If you deviate plus minus 0.2%, this is
a big problem and the system starts warning what happens. If it is plus minus 0.3%, then you have
to switch off many, many elements for security reasons. Among them, nuclear power plants.
……………………………..
They keep on saying that RE wind and solar is the cheapest form of energy. Some even say you can run a whole country on it, even the whole world on Renewables energy buy the truth is you can not. No one can.
Cheap does not equal reliable or safe and secure energy. Far from it. So Cheap really does means CHEAP and nasty. Because cheap RE electricity is in fact a lie it is propaganda spin. So is Net Zero emissions by 2050.
Spain have installed 85 gigawatts of RE plant but never uses more than 40 gigawatts at ant one time. The true infrastructure cost for building RE IS more than double than the $$$ figures they use == then add-in battery needs and grid interconnectors and network wiring needs on top of that.
THE QUOTED COST OF RENEWABLES and the LCOE too IS A LIE
………………………………………..
And was it a decision to shut it down or the 49.85 cycles per second (o.04%) variation
actually caused something physical to- Many systems are automatically programmed
to defend themselves because if they deviate in frequency and they deviate in voltage or
something drops simultaneously because other source is prepared to, I mean it’s generating
more than they can drop and it’s giving energy more than it can deliver to the network,
it could explode. It could have a problem. So they are prepared to disconnect themselves.
It literally could explode? Yes, of course. Very heavy systems,
they may explode when they have a lot of inertia and they have machines that,
I mean they have motors engines, that they may weigh tens of tons and this is a huge weight
turning very fast in the power plants. And then if something happens and they cannot control it,
it could burn, even the high power cables could burn.
Cheap?
Renewable Energies magazine this month, days before the blackout, they said the last piece of the electricity system that still remains in the network. And the last piece is a full number dedicated to massive storage for the renewables. So that means that they already knew that without massive storage for renewables, they may have a problem of reliability and they may have a problem of security.
And didn’t I read somewhere that you said that there’s 130 gigawatts of installed capacity in Spain, but that there’s another 50 gigawatts. or some huge amount, a number of proposed solar projects.
50. Is that right? 50 gigawatts are still in the queue of promoters that they are still trying to inject into the
network. This has already created a huge problem to the government because first
they need to study carefully in which nodes they could inject that huge amount of energy. I mean,
if we have 130 gigawatts, we are consuming average 28 and maximum 40
. So that means that we have a lot of installed power that is idle most of the day. Among that, for instance, one of the problems we had is that almost all the combined cycle, gas fired plants, they were off, I mean not off even in pre-warming, they were off in cold off. So I also wrote about this 15 years ago. This Variability
was one of my chapters of my Ph.D. thesis is applying variability to energy returns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX815YnSt0k
……………………………….
iow we have a nation of 60 million people needed 24-7 electricity supply operating on the precipice of collapse 24 hours per day–especially during day times and peak times–and that network is directly connected into the European network and every nation there is confronting the same problems as Spain.
Insecure electricity supply and it is getting worse the more RE supply is being built to an overcapacity level. It’s really nuts and a disgrace. while electricity prices for consumers goes through the roof everywhere nowadays. It’s disgusting. It is insane.
Pedro Prieto So that means that they already knew that without massive storage for renewables, they may have a problem of reliability and they may have a problem of security.
One swallow does not a summer make. Given that this seems to be the first such a scale problem in …. many years, and the one from what I read started not within Spain, but at the interexchange between Spain and France – I would say that the renewables have performed remarkably well.
So that means that we have a lot of installed power that is idle most of the day.
Duh, that’s called overbuilt. And need it less the needed depends on the mix of renewables (so they can fill in for each other) and the grid connection ( so you can import energy from other jurisdictions). See the Jacobson et al paper https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf
Furthermore, with 15% of installed generation in Spain being hydro – you already have quite a bit short term storage to compensate for day-night differences in solar – when supply is less than demand you run the water over the turbines, when is more – you let the water accumulate (or even use the surplus energy to pump the water up (pumped hydrostorage)).
Sure, having more storage would be nice – but it is not a do or die situation – other avenues like
– the mentioning use of hydro to step in when needed
– smart grid, matching better supply and demand,
– having dispersed energy storage – in form of the increasing fleet of electrical vehicles – you charge them when supply is larger than demand (an electric F-150 can run avg. American house for 3 days)
– or even having a quick ramp-up gas turbines
may be more cost-effective and is definitely better for the climate than throwing the baby with bathwater by stopping installation of new renewable generation UNTIL we have a massive storage. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
Piotr says
9 May 2025 at 12:05 AM
Being unaware of the ground covered already in that blackout review is the enemy of the good. You did that perfectly well showing how a lack of knowledge creates disinformation and errors of thinking.
One simple example is the fact presented about the gas turbines being on a cold shutdown. They were unable to “spin them up” with a seconds notice. The causes are manifold. They only get worse the higher the penetration of variable RE electricity supply that can bring down a grid is milliseconds. As discussed in this and many other discussions, panels, forums and published papers articles and books (as mentioned in this one off video)
Many things I was long aware of and you are clearly not knowledgeable about. Like Spain is already overbuilt in RE and it did not does not help — further more they have plans projects for another 50 GW of RE supply overbuilding to do …. a supply that will possibly never ever be used. That does not equal “cheap renewable energy supply” but the opposite.
Another 50GW is total grid of 130GW and yet I am being spoken to as if I didn’t even know what “overbuilt” means? Weird illogical response.
Without the massive as yet unavailable storage required (Spain’s pumped hydro is only 4 GW and that only lasts short term for a couple hours if it is ready to go when needed ) every RE grid supply system in the world is unreliable and unsustainable no matter what readers here and everywhere do not know and don’t believe.
Meaning: Not fit for purpose. The enemy of the good. Thanks anyway.
Pedro Prieto: You did that perfectly well showing how a lack of knowledge creates disinformation and errors of thinking. and “ Not fit for purpose. The enemy of the good.
You may understand individual words – but have no idea what the entire phrase
“ the perfect is the enemy of the good” means. Consequently, you have no idea what my counter-argument was about,
PP: “The gas turbines being on a cold shutdown. They were unable to “spin them up” with a seconds notice.”
NOBODY claimed or needed, the gas turbines to ramp up “with a seconds notice ” In fact – you yourself unwittingly admitted it when you wrote
Spain’s pumped hydro is only 4 GW [in 2022-23 it was 6GW – P.] that only lasts short term for a couple HOURS
See? A “couple of HOURS” is NOT “with a seconds notice”.
PP: “ They only get worse the higher the penetration of variable RE electricity supply that can bring down a grid is milliseconds.
The proof is in the pudding – if the sensitivity of the Spain grid to RE was so great why don’t you have massive power outages on a regular basis? When was the previous comparable one?
PP: Many things I was long aware of and you are clearly not knowledgeable about.
Your self-declared knowledgeability unfortunately does not translate into the ability to respond to the points raised by opponents.
PP:” yet I am being spoken to as if I didn’t even know what “overbuilt” means?”
Again, you know the words, but you didn’t know how it applied to your argument. Thus you are spoken to – exactly as you deserved.
PP: “That does not equal “cheap renewable energy supply”
Your criterion of cheapness would be a valid in a shareholder meeting. On this group
we discuss the mitigation of the climate change and it in this context that RE overbuilt is discussed – NOT to reduce costs of electricity, but to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
PP: “they have plans projects for another 50 GW of RE supply overbuilding to do …. a supply that will possibly never ever be used.”
you are making self-confident predictions of the future on the assumption … of a status quo in the demand for electricity. But unless EU went Trump – it’s a false assumption – in the next decades EU will have much larger demand for electricity and a more flexible one – each EV can become an energy storage – charging up its battery when there is energy surplus and not charging it when the supply is tight.
And the larger future demand for electricity and the more flexible it is (i.e. hence requiring less overbuild) – the bigger the use of the proposed RE facilities. I.e., the very opposite to your self-confident pronouncements on how this capacity “ will possibly never ever be used.“. Plus batteries retired from EVs can be assembled into grid energy storage sites, thus providing storage you declared unavailable.
And after all that, you lecture …. OTHERS on their ignorance and their beliefs clouding their judgement??? People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Piotr says
12 May 2025 at 2:07 AM
You flat-out denied something that was clearly stated in the video I cited: that gas turbines weren’t available fast enough to prevent the collapse. That’s exactly what “unable to spin up with a second’s notice” means — and it was a key factor.
They were on cold shutdown. And this has nothing to do with what the Pumped Hydro capacity is. Besides which that wasn’t deployed either. You really do talk rubbish not science nor even get the basic facts correct.
You also pretend I claimed Spain’s grid fails regularly — I didn’t. One major failure is enough to expose serious vulnerability. The rest of your reply misrepresents what I said, dodges the core points, and substitutes smug condescension for substance.
Next time, watch the material before you start lecturing. You’re rebutting things I never said and ignoring what I actually did.
Piotr says: “And after all that, you lecture …. OTHERS on their ignorance and their beliefs clouding their judgement???”
Pedro Prieto: Yes. You got that part correct at least. Might be a good time to quit.
Pedro Prieto: You flat-out denied something that was clearly stated in the video I cited
You sound as it …. was something bad ?…;-) Since you are new here, you may be unfamiliar with the format of this forum – discussions here are self-contained: you comment on the points other people MADE in their POSTS, not on what somebody said or didn’t say, in some youtube or tik-tok video.
Now, if you think your video clip was so tremendous – then select only those pointsthat directly answer points raised here, and write them as a part of your post. And if you can’t – then either the video you promote is not as brilliant/relevant to the discussion thread, as you think.
Then again – judging from your posts, how would you even know what’s relevant to a discussion, if you don’t understand what other people say:
PP gas turbines weren’t available fast enough to prevent the collapse. That’s exactly what “unable to spin up with a second’s notice” means”
You are conflating two different arguments
– the one I made – gas turbines as a way to match supply and demand for the times of the day (e.g. early evening) or time of a year (winter in colder countries, summer in warmer) when storage, RE overbuild, picking up the slack by wind and hydro, import of electricity, and reducing the demand via smart grid, were all not enough, so in those time we may to gas turbines. But those periods don’t sneak up on us in “mili-seconds” – we know in advance at when the sun would set and the winter would come
– with the argument I didn’t make: I didn’t propose gas turbines as the solution to the mili-second fluctuations that (MAY) have triggered recent blackout in Spain – that’s another discussion – my ONLY point was these mili-second fluctuations may not be as massive a problem as to justify …. the abandoning of the renewables I quote:
Piotr: “The proof is in the pudding – if the sensitivity of the Spain grid to RE was so great why don’t you have massive power outages on a regular basis? ”
which Pedro P. “understood” as…:
PP: “You also pretend I claimed Spain’s grid fails regularly — I didn’t.”
[Epic face-slap emoji here ….]
Last I looked, cited often means “quoted from”
Piotr says
14 May 2025 at 1:48 PM
Pedro Prieto: You flat-out denied something that was clearly stated in the video I cited
You sound as it …. was something bad ?…;-) Since you are new here, you may be unfamiliar with the format of this forum – discussions here are self-contained: you comment on the points other people MADE in their POSTS, not on what somebody said or didn’t say, in some youtube or tik-tok video.
OK let’s show just that :>>>
Pedro Prieto says in original comment above that started this thread commentary:
7 May 2025 at 10:38 PM
So that means that we have a lot of installed power that is idle most of the day. Among that, for instance, one of the problems we had is that almost all the combined cycle, gas fired plants, they were off, I mean not off even in pre-warming, they were off in cold off. So I also wrote about this 15 years ago. This Variability was one of my chapters of my Ph.D. thesis is applying variability to energy returns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX815YnSt0k
Proving incompetence or worse lying once is enough. Nothing more need be said nor will be said about the dishevelled incoherent and hostile commentary by Piotr.
Pedro Prieto: “ Last I looked, cited often means “quoted from”
NOBODY argued here claimed “citing” differed from “quoting from”, Genius.
Further, I have not criticized you for NOT citing some youtube or tik-tok video, I criticized for CITING it – i.e. for thinking that a mere link to some obscure youtube or tik-tok video do would INSTEAD of your own statement on the matter:
====
Piotr, 14 May: ” Since you are new here, you may be unfamiliar with the format of this forum – discussions here are self-contained: you comment on the points other people MADE in their POSTS, not on what somebody said or didn’t say, in some youtube or tik-tok video.”
====
See? On RC, even a link to peer-review paper does not get a free ride – have to
Piotr 15 May: “select only those points that directly answer points raised here, and write them as a part of your post. And if you can’t – then either [the video] you promote is not as brilliant or not as relevant to the discussion thread, as you think.”
SInce you didn’t get the first time around, let me simplify it for you:
– author A: “2+2=4”,
– author B: “how a lack of knowledge creates disinformation and errors of thinking. In reality: 2+2= 5.63, which was one of my chapters of my Ph.D. thesis – see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?AuthorB_proving_2+2=5.63”
If still too complicated – then I’ll try in the open text:
a URL of an external source is not a SUBSTITUTE for making a cogent self-contained argument here – the citing person still has to explain which findings of their external source support his/her claim here. And since this applies to the best peer-review papers, it must apply even more so to a self-promotional youtube or a tik-tok video clips.
To sum up, the above together with your conflating two different issues (see examples in the post you “reply” to) and your inability to understand what you read . e.g.:
=========
Piotr: “The proof is in the pudding – if the sensitivity of the Spain grid to RE was so great why don’t you have massive power outages on a regular basis? ”
Pedro P. “understood” it as… “You also pretend I claimed Spain’s grid fails regularly — I didn’t.”
========
makes your patronizing comments toward OTHERS:
– “how a lack of knowledge creates disinformation and errors of thinking”
-“proving incompetence or worse lying once is enough.”
– “the dishevelled incoherent and hostile commentary”
proving only the depths of your self-delusions. The arrogance goeth before the (self-inflicted) destruction.
25:01 – Pro Renewable Energy*
Pedro is not only brilliant, but his humility and humor are delightful. Renewables with an asterisk, is a wonderful framing. The idea that renewables must be combined with an appropriate backup system, with the total cost of all extra new infrastructure interconnectors base load power included, makes so much sense to me. But then I’m not biased noir a fanatic chasing rainbows instead of real energy and biosphere solutions.
Remember the phrase of Upton Sinclair when he said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
Did Renewables Cause the Blackout in Spain? with Pedro Prieto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX815YnSt0k
Last week, Europe experienced its worst blackout in living memory, which plunged tens of millions of people across Spain and Portugal into darkness for up to 18 hours. Life screeched to a halt, with trains, traffic lights, ATMs, phone connections, and internet access failing. In the aftermath, many important questions have arisen, including: what caused such a widespread grid failure, and how can Europe and other nations prepare for the next time an event like this happens?
In today’s episode, Nate is joined by Pedro Prieto to discuss the recent blackout in the Iberian Peninsula, exploring its causes, impacts, and the role of renewable energy in the stability of the electric grid. Prieto highlights the societal and infrastructural challenges that his home country faced, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to energy management, as well as the interconnectedness of energy systems and societal resilience. The discussion delves into the complexities of energy demand and supply, the importance of backup systems, and the future of renewable energy in Spain.
Are developed countries more vulnerable to blackouts than those that are still developing? Yes
How does renewable energy act as a double-edged sword, adding stability or fragility to energy infrastructure, depending on how it’s used? Easily. It is built into the system that ensures it will fail.
before having installed all these photovoltaic plants
or the wind power plants, we should have asked in parallel, “Why don’t we put massive storage
with them to give them stability and to avoid that the system could stabilize when we reach
a certain level of penetration of renewables?” And they didn’t do that because the government
was only interested, the government and the promoters of course and the solar PV sellers or something like that, they were only interested in installing more and more and more
without backup. And this is something which is not rational, but this has happened not only in Spain,
it has happened everywhere in the world. I mean, they have installed and they have made the prices, I mean, when we calculated the EROI, I mean energy return on energy investing,
they never, I mean even the most world recognized experts in EROI for photovoltaics, they always
took out the massive storage as a cost of the renewables and this is a mistake. I mean,
they have to be integrated and then see if it is worth the overall cost to make
this source stable. Let’s see if it is worth. So the focus was on the exciting new technology
of the solar or whatever, which was the chariot, neglecting the fact that we need horses to pull
the chariot, which is either complementary energy sources like natural gas at the same
time or batteries or storage. And if you integrate all that, the full chariot and horses together,
it’s a different cost structure for society.
The world is mad. Mad and corrupt to the core. People are stupid. Except the legalized ‘criminals’.
I must really enjoy wasting my time. But if that is my mission in life there’s nothing I can do to stop it.
With storage it should be known that hydro storage is great but extremely limited everywhere. Only 4 gigawatts available in Spain is a good example which cannot balance 80-100 GW of RE supply. Building double the maximum required output of solar/wind is also not enough to meet the non-stop stable demand levels either. Building Triple the demand of RE plant is still not enough.
Q: What can be done? This may have been a big learning experience for Spain, for Europe, for everyone because of what you said. If it’s likely that the little bit of variation between how many cycles per second occur being the reason why this happened, more backup batteries and interconnectors to other provider options, and/or a higher percentage of fully on or fully dispatchable combined cycle plants or nuclear or hydro, but what’s the broader answer here, looking ahead decades?
41:45
When you do the math, you realize that you need such an amount of lithium ion batteries that it will
be brutally costly to have renewables. Now we are presuming, now in Spain many people from
the renewable world they are saying, “We have the cheapest form of energy nowadays.” But this is a trick because they are not calculating, they are excluding that from the required massive storage to make this system absolutely stable.
And this is what I was telling with Charlie Hall (EROI) in the book in 2013 and nobody listened. Nobody
listened. This is exactly what we need, a massive storage, but massive storage is brutally expensive. Brutally expensive today to cover the needs of a country like ours, which is ultra-consumerist.
Even batteries are still not enough — stable baseload supply is critical everywhere – from nuclear, combined cycle gas, or coal or hydro power stations is equally critical to extra RE Storage capacity.
But no body listens. Because people are this stupid. A University degree is no help where stupidity and a lack of any common sense is concerned. The really smart people will be those who can live without being connected to any future grid — no one is building a reliable grid. They will not exist n the west in the near future.
But if you own and use a solar stove then you can cook and feed yourself when others cannot. Being armed to protect that and yourself will be essential when people get desperate. Or emigrate to China or Russia or SE Asia where you’ll be safer and much more secure.
VB: With storage it should be known that hydro storage is great but extremely limited everywhere.
BPL: Look again.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-to-meet-all-our-renewable-energy-needs
Barton Paul Levenson says
10 May 2025 at 8:23 AM
From 29 March 2019 Denial can last forever. I get that. But How’s the Saudis doing with all that Pumped Hydro so far? Reminds me of the phrase ‘people, in glass houses’
jgnfld says
10 May 2025 at 9:00 AM
All areas well known for 100% reliable electric power.
Captain Jean Luc Picard would always say: “Make it so.”
That’s science fiction for you.
Piedro Prieto, your response is pointless cynicism. Nobody said it would be easy.
PP: Denial can last forever. I get that. But How’s the Saudis doing with all that Pumped Hydro so far? Reminds me of the phrase ‘people, in glass houses’
BPL: And your posts reminds me of the phrase, “pointless trolling.”
All areas well known for 100% reliable electric power.
OTHER CLIMATE AND SCIENCE NEWS:
Last month on RC, some were concerned about a spike in CO2 concentrations (and perhaps temperature?) measured at the Hawaii observatory. I have discovered the cause of the spike. In December 2021 and January 2022, a YUGE volcanic eruption occurred in the South Pacific. It emitted unprecedented quantities of H2O vapor and CO2 into the atmosphere. From Wikipedia:
“It is thought that in recent centuries, only the Krakatoa eruption of 1883 rivalled the atmospheric disturbance produced.” The predicted climate effects per Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami#Climate_and_atmospheric_impact
Per NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/news/21/nasajpl-satellite-captures-co2-data-from-tonga-volcano/
The gases emitted in the eruption were a point source and it took a while to diffuse throughout the atmosphere. Now you know why the numbers increased suddenly.
IN ANTARCTIC NEWS ICE ACCUMULATION IS AT A RECORD-BREAKING PACE:
“However, a recent study led by Dr. Wang and Prof. Shen at Tongji University has found a surprising shift: between 2021 and 2023, the AIS experienced a record-breaking increase in overall mass.”
Source:
https://scitechdaily.com/antarcticas-astonishing-rebound-ice-sheet-grows-for-the-first-time-in-decades/
My guess for the Nobel Prize is that the increased H2O vapor from the volcano may have made a contribution.
SCIENCE AND RELIGION:
Remember that time when GOD used Daniel to save the behinds of the men of science? It’s in the KJV Bible – Daniel chapters 1 and 2 – gotta read both to hear the story. Those who understand science are first mentioned in chapter 1, verse 4:
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-1/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-2/
Again, science as we know it did not exist in the 6th century BCE. C.f., the New Standard translation: “showing intelligence in every branch of wisdom.”
BPLs Bible reminds us:
“While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape”
(1 Thessalonians 5:3).
“machine learning … ENSO” stuff. I’ll not be studying that. I did primitive “machine learning” in 1975 (Fairchild F8). Fun times. Altering parameters for equipment “closed-loop negative feedback” after measuring the resultant effect of the prior parameters. I’ll just cut’n’paste my ENSO post-1995 anomaly what PP says is negligible drivel because I’m assigning 15 minutes/week now.
Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus
Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014
Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso
“Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.”
———-
In early 2013 when my studying started a Skeptical Science (SKS) bloke suggested working out ENSO adjustments to GMST for a few decades but instead I plotted GMST annual points 1966-2013 with separate symbols for El Nino, La Nina & ENSO-neutral with big volcanoes to exclude them and ran 3 separate trends by eye ball through those 3 ENSO types. There was no doubt that La Nina & ENSO-neutral were warming at the same rate but El Nino was “pulling away”, warming faster, than La Nina & ENSO-neutral and this “pulling away” maybe increased in 1995 but El Ninos come in too much variation and not enough years sampled to be certain. My trends eye balled from 1995 are at the end of this comment. The +0.23 for El Ninos 1995-2013 has low accuracy confidence. The +0.165 degrees / decade for La Nina & ENSO-neutral years have high accuracy confidence, good clean fits. 12 months later I came across a wind speed plot for Pacific Equatorial easterly trade winds showing that they’d increased a huge 30% (1 metre / second faster) from 1995 to 2014 though they’d been non varying for many decades before that, so now I knew why my El Nino “pulling away” from 12 months earlier was almost certainly correct but not the underlying cause. Some months later I came across the underlying cause from scientists above and their new published paper. I say it’s a classic Power Amplifier and it all started 1995. Equatorial Pacific Ocean is 2.8 times as wide as Equatorial Atlantic Ocean and that’s practically the definition of the basis of a Power Amplifier —- apply a relatively small signal (Atlantic) to the base and get a huger signal (Pacific) through the collector-emitter pair. Circa 2015 I saw a Kevin Trenberth talk about warming with GMST global pictorial and it clearly showed the vast eastern tropical Pacific Ocean having COOLED from 1982 to 2014 while practically everywhere else except 2 small Cold Blobs had warmed. That clinched it. It’s obvious what has happened. Pacific Equatorial Ocean easterly trade winds had increased a huge 30% (1 metre / second faster) from 1995 to 2014 due to warming Atlantic Ocean surface, a Power Amplifier.
———–
Quote: “The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says.”.
Barry Finch said:
This is all qualitative analysis and narrative not really worthwhile to respond to. If you want to make a difference, the only progress will come from quantitative cross-validation of the hundreds of peaks and valleys of ENSO and other climate indices measured over the past 100+ years.
I offer up again that if anyone wants to contribute, join the Azimuth Project discussion forum, where anyone with a GitHub login has free reign to post detailed analysis and charts
https://github.com/orgs/azimuth-project/discussions
The Trump regime is trashing all federal science funding so even though this is not a replacement, at some point individuals may have to take collaborations into their own hands — which is what a NSF grant essentially is, a collaboration between a selection panel + funding managers with members of a research team. We can do collaborations in climate science on our own. Of course, one can continue to do hand-wavy arguments and claim that you did AI on an 8-bit CPU in 1975, or you can roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty.
FYI:
High-income groups disproportionately contribute to climate extremes worldwide
“Climate injustice persists as those least responsible often bear the greatest impacts, both between and within countries. Here we show how GHG emissions from consumption and investments attributable to the wealthiest population groups have disproportionately influenced present-day climate change. We link emissions inequality over the period 1990–2020 to regional climate extremes using an emulator-based framework. We find that two-thirds (one-fifth) of warming is attributable to the wealthiest 10% (1%), meaning that individual contributions are 6.5 (20) times the average per capita contribution. For extreme events, the top 10% (1%) contributed 7 (26) times the average to increases in monthly 1-in-100-year heat extremes globally and 6 (17) times more to Amazon droughts. Emissions from the wealthiest 10% in the United States and China led to a two- to threefold increase in heat extremes across vulnerable regions. Quantifying the link between wealth disparities and climate impacts can assist in the discourse on climate equity and justice.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/07/two-thirds-of-global-heating-caused-by-richest-study-suggests
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02325-x
Secular Animist says
8 May 2025 at 3:16 PM
High-income groups disproportionately contribute to climate extremes worldwide
That is not useful news. This fact was known 20 years ago and more. In fact it is as obvious as nose on anyone’s face.
What would news worthy is why no one noticed and why tptb failed to do anything about it.
While that too is obvious as hell, it would be a good opportunity to seek some funding to waste on producing another study about such obvious matters–which will also be ignored and never acted upon.
Which is how 99.99% of all climate science research papers and the IPCC and US National Climate assessment are always handled–that is ignored.
Interesting. In developed nations with mostly working class populations where even poor people have cars and modern conveniences, hundreds of millions of working class folks commuting to work, going on vacations, ordering stuff online and having it delivered, running their TVs and computers, heating and cooling their homes, and living their lives, all add up to a YUGE carbon footprint. Those hundreds of millions (perhaps billions if counting all developed nations) have a FAR greater CO2 footprint than the 1% or the 10%. Any study that says otherwise is wrong.
Worldwide, because there are so many people in 3rd world nations in extreme poverty who have almost no CO2 footprint, the study numbers MAY be in the ballpark.
But none of that matters because all of us, rich and poor, get to experience the heat. Any talk about “discourse on climate equity and justice” will just be laughed at by the vast majority of the world and for the next 4 years in the US federal government there will not be any such discourse at all, and that’s the way it should be. The US system is fashioned to give us all equal opportunity to achieve our dreams, but talk about forcing equal outcomes is un-American. The rest of the world can set up their systems to force such outcomes if they want. We will not.
KIA: Those hundreds of millions (perhaps billions if counting all developed nations) have a FAR greater CO2 footprint than the 1% or the 10%. Any study that says otherwise is wrong.
BPL: And there you have the denier mindset (or, more generally, the pseudoscience mindset) in a nutshell. They KNOW the truth, so evidence doesn’t matter.
Mr. Know It All says
9 May 2025 at 3:18 AM
The US system is fashioned to give us all equal opportunity to achieve our dreams, but talk about forcing equal outcomes is un-American. The rest of the world can set up their systems to force such outcomes if they want. We will not.
That was very funny. Because Mr. Know It All appears to actually believe it is true. So many do.
I once asked one of those “everyone has the same chance” types if he’d be willing to abolish inheritance taxes for a scheme where everyone’s estate at death reverted to a fund which paid out equally to all the next generation at, say, age 19 and let everyone compete on the “merit” from there.
He actually said that didn’t seem fair!!! Turns out he rather LIKED the head start on “merit” his family had given him.
That is not great reading. The question is, what can any one individual (e.g. me) do about it? My carbon footprint is going to be orders of magnitude greater than one of the poorest people in the world simply due to my existance in a developed country, even if I busted a gut to minimise it. Committing suicide would eliminate my carbon footprint but it is not reasonable to ask me to do that. It doesn’t surprise me at all that some people feel despair and hopelessness about climate change and its destructive effects.
My opinion: You’re not responsible. This is the system we are forced to live in. If we had our way it wouldn’t be this way. Why should the good go while the trouble makers stay? What good would that do?
Ron R. says
10 May 2025 at 11:00 AM
Why should the good go while the trouble makers stay? What good would that do?
Because the good love living in the world created by those dastardly ‘trouble makers’ who keep the economic wealth going the shops filled with goods and the lights turned on.
PP: the good love living in the world created by those dastardly ‘trouble makers’ who keep the economic wealth going the shops filled with goods and the lights turned on.
BPL: Yes, folks, the billionaires are the true wealth creators, and we are ungrateful bastards when we criticize them just because they’re poisoning the environment we all need to keep living.
BPL: Yes, folks, the billionaires are the true wealth creators, and we are ungrateful bastards when we criticize them just because they’re poisoning the environment we all need to keep living.
Sorry, no folks. You missed the point. I won’t repeat it.
As I’ve said many times over many years:
“Climate change is indeed a “scam”–one in which the rich steal from the poor, and the old steal from the young.”
I trust I don’t have to elaborate here on how that applies.
I’ll elaborate on how that applies:
The rich enable the poor to exist. Without developed nations feeding and providing medical help to the people in the poorest nations, most of them would likely be dead. They also have better lives because of the occasional modern inventions they get from the developed world.
The old do not steal from the young. The old are the ones who nurtured the young to adulthood and paid for their education, food, clothing, medical, entertainment, etc. When the old die, many times they leave their children some wealth.
Wow, that is some Galactic-level delusion there. I’m surprised you haven’t found a job in the administration!. Have you ever even been to a third-world country?
Well, when I wrote “I trust I don’t have to elaborate here on how that applies,” I might have known that it would be KIA to whom I’d have to explain.
“The rich enable the poor to exist.”
The reverse would be much closer to the truth. You can have cooks, cleaners, and carpenters without millionaires or billionaires–but the reverse, not so much. Your statements about the developed/developing world are equally off-base, though perhaps in a more complex manner. While the developed world has certainly brought things the global south wants, they have also extracted a whole lot of “stuff,” often at bargain basement prices–be it Chilean lithium, Honduran bananas, or Congolese blood diamonds. It’s a very, very long list.
“The old do not steal from the young. The old are the ones who nurtured the young to adulthood and paid for their education, food, clothing, medical, entertainment, etc. When the old die, many times they leave their children some wealth.”
Yes, that happens, and that’s what the old want to have happen.
But in today’s society, the old perforce steal from the young because we–almost all of us, albeit quite unequally–profit from the processes carbonizing the atmosphere. But our descendants/successors will pay the price in a degraded climate, biosphere, and economy.
So, yes, our benevolent actions–feeding, teaching, nurturing, bequeathing–are each and every one undercut by our failure to take adequate action to stop climate change, biodiversity loss, and toxic pollution.
“But in today’s society, the old perforce steal from the young because we–almost all of us, albeit quite unequally–profit from the processes carbonizing the atmosphere. But our descendants/successors will pay the price in a degraded climate, biosphere, and economy.”
Or alternatively, in the case of the UK, the old vote in Brexit based on populism and fluffy feelings which puts another nail in the coffin of the economy, shafting young people in the process whilst they avoid any negative consequences. Politicians don’t care about young people because their votes do not swing elections. They also benefitted from massive house price inflation whilst young people cannot afford a home of their own because of the ridiculous house price to salary ratio in many areas.
Externalised costs really suck if you are on the receiving end.
FYI:
The Trump regime continues to play “Let’s Pretend Global Warming Isn’t Happening”.
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) will no longer track the cost of climate crisis-fueled weather disasters, including floods, heatwaves, wildfires and more. It is the latest example of changes to the agency and the Trump administration limiting federal government resources on climate change … The agency said its National Centers for Environmental Information would no longer update its Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database beyond 2024, and that its information – going as far back as 1980 – would be archived.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/08/noaa-climate-crisis-extreme-weather-disasters-trump
Secular Animist says
8 May 2025 at 3:20 PM
The Trump regime continues to play “Let’s Pretend Global Warming Isn’t Happening”.
While pro-climate action fanatics pushing Renewables only can pretend that RE Electricity is a) a solution and b) renewable wind and solar are actually reliable and fit for purpose, when they are not.
This too has been known for over 20 years at least. It is what cognitive dissonance and denial looks like in the real world–that is outside climate science and statistical modelling labs and blogs plus The Guardian newsroom
The Prieto Principle wrote: “pro-climate action fanatics”
Your statements about renewable energy are LAUGHABLY FALSE and amount to the same old, same old “solar power cannot do what it is already doing” bumper sticker slogan.
You are just spouting ignorant nonsense.
And I would add that your reply has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with my comment, which was a news item regarding the Trump administration’s termination of NOAA’s program to track the cost of climate and weather disasters, and said nothing at all about renewable energy.
So, not only are you copying and pasting banal nonsense and childish name-calling, you are copying and pasting IRRELEVANT banal nonsense and childish name-calling.
That’s some pretty clownish trolling.
Yes, well, they SAID they were no longer based in reality.
And just about every day brings a new illustration of how true that actually is.
Like the article said, much of that data is available from insurance companies, and from FEMA. The article did not say how many jobs were involved with tracking the costs of weather events. I’d think a few people – perhaps 5 or 10 – could gather the data and put it in a database. I suspect insurance companies already do it – that’s their business.
There are a PILE of Trump-hating bazillionaires in the USA. Why don’t some of them do this work, and also fund more renewable energy projects? One billion from each of the wealthiest would not be missed and they’d get some good press.
Dude, you could fire every civil servant, and the savings would be less than a few percent of the budget. This was never about saving money. It’s about getting rid of dedicated civil servants who take their oath to the Constitution seriously and replacing them with MAGA lickspittles.
Exactly right, Ray. Every authoritarian or totalitarian government, early on, gets rid of the professional civil service and replaces the employees with people chosen for political loyalty rather than for competence.
Plus 10!
KIA, the reason The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) track the cost of climate crisis-fueled weather disasters, is because a government agency doing this work is the IDEAL way to do it in a practical sense. Dont try to fix what isnt broken. The people in the Whitehouse either don’t understand this or don’t care as long as they can grab money for tax cuts for millionaires and promote their impractical very small government ideology. Either way they are delusional , and they are wrecking your country big time. Watching you try to desperately justify their actions is pathetic.
KIA: I’d think a few people – perhaps 5 or 10 – could gather the data and put it in a database. I suspect insurance companies already do it – that’s their business.
BPL: They do do it, and it takes a hell of a lot more than 5 or 10 people. But they confine their work to the accounting aspect, and a disaster has a lot more to it than that.
Trying to fix climate and collapse with facts alone doesn’t work. People aren’t moved by data—they’re moved by belonging. If someone doesn’t feel rooted in something meaningful, asking them to cut back or accept limits won’t work. What we need is community. Most people in the global north don’t have places to go and talk about how they feel and what hurts. So they look for that sacred space online, in ideologies or identity tribes that function like religions. That doesn’t fix anything either.
The EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2025 provides a solid baseline for understanding U.S. energy trends, but it’s built on a business-as-usual framework that filters out geopolitical, financial, governance, and ecological risks. It’s a conversation starter—not a roadmap. And a roadmap isn’t the real territory either. It’s only a “model”.
Models are useful because they anchor discussion in current assumptions. “Model Land” has its flaws, but they’re more manageable than the chaos of “Opinion Land.”
One of the key updates in this year’s AEO is the outlook for U.S. crude and condensate production. The 2023 report projected a long, flat “peak plateau” around 13 million b/d through 2050. AEO 2025 shifts to a sharper peak at 13.9 million b/d in 2027 followed by a gradual decline to 11.2 million b/d by 2050. Even so, 2050 output still exceeds pre-2019 levels. So much for a theoretical collapse in fossil fuel energy production and use.
A bigger change is on the demand side. The EIA now sees U.S. energy consumption peaking in 2026 and declining 8% by 2040—a reversal from the upward trajectory in its previous report. But it’s still marginal not a collapse of consumption-so transports reliance of Oil remains significant all the way out to the 2050s and beyond.
Oil consumption only drops 20% by 2050-that’s still +2010s level consumption, with natural gas taking the top energy spot after 2042. Wind and solar theoretically rise to ONLY 16% of total energy use. Coal collapses. Nuclear drops 7%, while geothermal and hydrogen barely register. Hydropower remains unchanged.
Electric power forecasts are particularly dramatic. Wind and solar generation are expected to increase 3.5 times from 2024 levels (Figure 4). Coal is eliminated. Natural gas drops 39%. Nuclear declines 5%. But these forecasts don’t align with growing demand from data centers that require round-the-clock power—not intermittent renewables. See the Spanish reports on that unreliability variability issue.
The EIA does an admirable job of collecting actual data, but an abysmal record of prediction–and particularly WRT the adoption of renewables.
I don’t understand why people think a full switch to electricity is either feasible or wise. Without the pressure of climate change, no one would be pushing for this in any alternative universe. We’re treating symptoms, not causes.
The real issue is massive industrial scale consumption and population overshoot—crossing planetary boundaries toward extinction. The issue is how we power the same energy draining growth machine to produce ever more products and services. I’ve written endlessly about this, but the conversation always goes back to “solutions.”
What we need is less solving of the putting GHGs into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and more genuine understanding of our current reality and it’s entrenched trajectory. Switching to electricity for all energy demand just shifts the the same problem into a different domain construct.
This is a classic whack-a-mole way of life. That is what is unsustainable. Because it is madness. Renewable energy sources are not a solution for anything. Least of all climate change or creating a sustainable healthy lifestyle and economy.
Making hyper-theoretical questions about the temperature spikes of 2023-2024 a complete waste of people’s time and resources.
William, you aren’t making much sense here. Why do you think renewable energy sources are not a solution to climate change?? Why isn’t switching to electricity for transportation??
There are certainly benefits to reducing population overall, but that needs to happen in conjunction with the reduction of FF use.
Hard to understand how you think going electric isn’t a healthier lifestyle and economy, if it is done properly with distributed generation and consumption matching.
William wrote: “Renewable energy sources are not a solution for anything.”
You are copying and pasting fossil fuel industry propaganda and you are fooling no one but yourself.
You are (1) ignoring and denying the readily available, empirically obvious and widely known facts about renewable energy and (2) arguing that we must “see the big picture” and not actually do anything specific.
Another tiresome troll.
Why is this an “either or” proposition? To get out the pressure of climate change, we’d have to be living in a different world – one not based on fossil fuel consumption. Electric generation from renewables is one pathway toward that.
However, that’s far from sufficient to avoid massive environmental damage, even if it’s achievable. As you and others have pointed out in various ways, our spiraling consumption is unsustainable. “The Limits to Growth” famously pointed this out in 1972, well before concerns about rising CO2 came to the forefront.
How about electrification of our energy system using renewables AND reducing consumption?
William “We’re treating symptoms, not causes
Increase in GHG concentrations is the CAUSE, NOT merely a symptom of AGW. Moving toward renewable electricity thus affect the cause, not the symptoms of AGW.
Whoever convinced you that INSTEAD of moving toward non-fossil energy, we should abandon all industrialization and reduce the Earth population by several billions, that to be done in the next few decades could be done by mass genocide) – wasn’t your friend, and tried to manipulate you. Judging by your post – with success.
But that does not have to be a complete loss, if you learn from it – e.g. by asking yourself what has made you such an easy mark. Being honest to yourself about it could make you less likely to be used by deniers in the future.
Zebra: Why do you think renewable energy sources are not a solution to climate change??
William: Because I’ve studied the facts. I apply critical reasoning, not hype or wishful thinking. Emotional narratives don’t sway me — that’s a key difference.
Zebra: Hard to understand how you think going electric isn’t a healthier lifestyle and economy, if it is done properly with distributed generation and consumption matching.
William: That would indeed be a positive outcome — if it were actually happening. But it’s not. Not at scale, not reliably, and not in line with physical or economic constraints. Please re-read what I wrote — I was already quite clear.
Secular Animist: You are copying and pasting fossil fuel industry propaganda.
William: Not remotely. I speak from my own research and conclusions, formed independently. There’s too much complexity for a comment box, but my reasoning is rooted in systems analysis, not slogans.
Secular Animist: Another tiresome troll.
William: That label applies better to those who dismiss opposing views with reflexive name-calling. I’ve proposed specific actions and laid out core problems. That’s more than you’ve offered.
John Pollack: Why is this an “either or” proposition? How about electrification of our energy system using renewables AND reducing consumption?
William: I never proposed “either-or.” I pointed out the difference between addressing causes versus clinging to false “solutions.” Electrification through renewables is not currently viable at global scale — it’s a comforting illusion, not a serious plan.
Piotr: Increase in GHG concentrations is the CAUSE, NOT merely a symptom of AGW.
William: No — it’s more accurate to call it a proximate cause. The root drivers lie deeper: overconsumption, industrial expansion, narcissistic social norms, and the ideological machinery of imperial capitalism. CO₂ is the exhaust of a deeper psychological and civilizational malfunction.
Piotr: So we should abandon all industrialization and reduce the global population by several billion?
William: That outcome is coming — one way or another. The rational path is managed decline and rethinking civilization itself. Or we can let collapse handle it for us — brutally and fast. We need to replace imperial mythologies with self-aware adaptation.
Piotr: Being honest with yourself might help you avoid being used by deniers in future.
William: I’m not a denier — I’m a realist. If anyone here is being used, it’s those defending status-quo delusions dressed up as progress. Clinging to fantasy solutions enables more damage, not less.
W: I’ve studied the facts. I apply critical reasoning, not hype or wishful thinking. Emotional narratives don’t sway me — that’s a key difference.
BPL: You’re a legend in your own mind.
Some suggested I was not clear made no sense before @ William 8 May 2025 at 9:43 PM. I will clarify my main points.
I don’t understand why people think a full switch to electricity is either feasible or wise. Without the pressure of climate change, no one would be pushing for this in any alternative universe. We’re treating symptoms, not causes.
The real issue is massive industrial scale consumption and population overshoot—crossing planetary boundaries toward extinction. The issue is how we power the same energy draining growth machine to produce ever more products and services. I’ve written endlessly about this, but the conversation always goes back to “solutions.”
What we need is less solving of the putting GHGs into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and more genuine understanding of our current reality and it’s entrenched trajectory. Switching to electricity for all energy demand just shifts the the same problem into a different domain construct.
This is a classic whack-a-mole way of life. That is what is unsustainable. Because it is madness. Renewable energy sources are not a solution for anything. Least of all climate change or creating a sustainable healthy lifestyle and economy.
Making hyper-theoretical questions about the temperature spikes of 2023-2024 a complete waste of people’s time and resources. It fails to aid decision making nor addresses the primary cause/s of our global human predicament. A waste of time resources and more wasted energy.
W: What we need is less solving of the putting GHGs into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and more genuine understanding of our current reality and it’s entrenched trajectory.
BPL: No, what we need is more solving of the putting GHGs into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (and deforestation, and cement manufacturing). Revamping the entire economic system can wait. Global warming is happening (and killing people) right now.
Reply to BPL:
It’s a fool’s errand to tackle global warming in isolation when the entire corrupt, imperialist economic system is the root cause of not just climate destruction but widespread human suffering, oppression and outright theft.
Sure, addressing GHGs is crucial yet only partially so, but let’s not pretend that the fossil-fuel-driven economy, with its endless exploitation, isn’t fueling the very problems you’re concerned about. If we don’t address the systemic forces that perpetuate this cycle – ENERGY DEMAND and OVERCONSUMPTION and OVERPOPULATION and GREED [Distorted Human Psychology iow] we’re just putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.
No, we’re closing torn arteries, debriding the wound, disinfecting, and suturing. That’s not to say that we don’t need to address the other traumas, do post-op care and maybe further surgery–and at a higher structural level, end the stupid damn war. We do.
But fail the first task and there’s no patient to save.
The bullet wound you talk of is perhaps the single most difficult problem facing humanity and will likely take a long time to solve. Personally I doubt consumption will fall unless we start running out of resources. So all we have is a bandaid.
I presume everyone has heard the Parable of the Babies by now? (If not, here’s an essay which tells it, and which is worth reading on its own merits. https://newhopelafayette.org/parable-of-the-river-babies/)
Someone needs to rescue the babies, and somebody else needs to go find out why they are in the river in the first place. Both are necessary–and ain’t life a bitch that way?
“Renewable energy sources are not a solution for anything. Least of all climate change or creating a sustainable healthy lifestyle and economy.”
Bull crap.
It is true that the problem goes beyond simply substituting electric devices for fossil-fuel powered ones. However, while replacing FF with RE may not be sufficient, it is both necessary and feasible. You say we must manage a decline. Well, we’re not going to do it well if we fail to mitigate carbon emissions, and we’re not going to do it well if we simply abandon modern technology holus-bolus, because if we do that we’re going to have a catastrophic crash in multiple dimensions. So the adoption of RE is both a legitimate good news story, and a trend that needs further accelerating.
Now, let’s have a real conversation about what the future ought to look like. How do we make sure that people have livelihoods? Quality of life? How do we manage population decline? How do we run an economy that is NOT based on overconsumption? Heck, how do we get to that economy in the first place, never mind “running it?”
These are questions I’ve asked here before, albeit in different words. What should the future look like, and what might be a path to get there, or at least closer to there?
Kevin McKinney says
13 May 2025 at 4:12 PM
You say we must manage a decline. Well, we’re not going to do it well if we fail to mitigate carbon emissions, [ critical fact-we have failed to mitigate carbon emissions for 30+ years ]
Now, let’s have a real conversation about what the future ought to look like. How do we make sure that people have livelihoods? Quality of life? How do we manage population decline? How do we run an economy that is NOT based on overconsumption? Heck, how do we get to that economy in the first place, never mind “running it?”
These are questions I’ve asked here before, albeit in different words. What should the future look like, and what might be a path to get there, or at least closer to there?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
There are many ways to address those questions. And they have been addresses. Problems arise being understood. Semantics and ideology make people angry, deaf and blind.
Conclusion:
To address climate change seriously, we need a shift in values and structures. Economic democracy—where people, not profit, shape our future—is a necessary critical step forward.
Key point:
The path out of capitalism is through economic democracy—a system where production, investment, and social priorities are determined by democratic means, not corporate boardrooms.
Under capitalism, production and surplus reinvestment are not geared toward meeting human needs, achieving social progress, or solving existential crises like climate change. The overriding objective is to maximize profit and power—often at the expense of people and the planet. These decisions are made in the narrow interests of capital, not the broader public. Workers, who actually carry out the production, have almost no voice.
This is not democracy—it’s plutocracy. And it consistently leads to distorted and harmful outcomes.
Example comparison the past 20 years:
In China, stock market indices have doubled, while average workers’ wages have increased more than fivefold.
In contrast, in the United States, stock indices have risen fivefold, but worker wages have stagnated or declined, falling back to 1970s levels in real terms. The benefits have overwhelmingly gone to the wealthiest elites.
Both outcomes are intentional not accidental.
Whether one agrees with China’s political system or not, it’s clear they prioritize national planning, methodical climate action, and results that benefit the population broadly. Their climate strategies are systematic and goal-oriented, contrasting sharply with the dysfunction and delay of Western nations.
Excellent article—well worth reading and sharing:
https://braveneweurope.com/jason-hickel-why-capitalism-is-fundamentally-undemocratic
Nothing will be done in the western world to correct the systemic issues that stop action in it’s tracks everywhere.
I asked you for a vision for the future, as basis for discussion. Unfortunately, your response mostly just reiterates that you think capitalism is the essential problem, adding in the “vision” category only a rather vague suggestion that China is doing better than “the West” in climate mitigation.
(I find that a rather dubious claim in some respects; while I’m enthusiastic about China’s policies, and particularly deployment of RE–which, by the way, would seem to put your expressed opinions on that rather in conflict with your apparent support of China as ‘mitigation model’–they have only just now MAYBE peaked emissions, whereas many Western nations did so decades ago, and have by now clocked significant reductions since 1990. Among major economies, the UK has done best by this metric, having cut emissions nearly in half–although Germany deserves honorable mention here, as it has cut emissions by over 40% despite remaining a notable manufacturing power.)
So, let’s posit that capitalism is the problem. (And while I’m not necessarily adopting that view more broadly, I do agree with many of the specific criticisms you level. The US in particular is clearly a dysfunctional authoritarian oligarchy today.) You propose:
OK. So, how do we get there from here, and how fast do you think we can do it? And I’d love for you to say more about how such a system might function.
PP “The path out of capitalism is through economic democracy—a system where production, investment, and social priorities are determined by democratic means, not corporate boardrooms.”
This would probably improve social outcomes and job satisfaction and maybe even personal productivity, (I recall studies on real world worker cooperatives showing this), but it might not improve environmental outcomes – because employees and the general public mostly want to maximise money in their pockets just as directors do. And it could reduce efficiency because the public lack expertise, and it would slow down decision making, because many more people would need to be consulted and informed of all the details. So it just seems like its not really achieving a better overall outcome than capitalism.
And the problems generated by capitalism can be largely solved by government regulations and legislation if people want. The whole issue being discussed comes down more to human nature and basic values and changing that is generally very difficult. The socialist countries and their failure showed this. Trumps America shows this.
Kevin McKinney says
OK. So, how do we get there from here, and how fast do you think we can do it? And I’d love for you to say more about how such a system might function.
I suggest you take the time to read what Poor Peru has already explained—repeatedly—over the past weeks and months. Start with the most recent comment. Then, explore the work of Jason Hickel quoted above and others advocating for systems like economic democracy—where production, investment, and social priorities are guided by democratic will, not corporate boardrooms.
Look into what China and Russia are proposing and implementing, and understand why they’re doing it. Read Xi Jinping’s and Vladimir Putin’s key speeches over the past few years, especially those tied to global development initiatives.
Educate yourself on the growing Global South consensus, the rise of BRICS, and the shift toward multipolarity. There’s a reason these ideas are resonating with much of the world—they reflect a real desire for structural change.
Break out of the stale, self-reinforcing echo chambers and start engaging with what’s actually happening globally. But please stop wasting other people’s time who have already provided the starting help you and others here are in desperate need of.
Kevin McKinney says
16 May 2025 at 11:13 AM
Maybe this could ease your way out of being stuck in a fraudulent mindset?
Keynes Was Right — and China Proves It
Keynes argued that speculative capital must be constrained, not indulged — and his warnings are more relevant today than ever. He believed that forcing national economies to serve the needs of mobile financial elites was a recipe for instability. Fast-forward to now: global markets are again on the brink, with debt levels beyond sustainability and speculative bubbles everywhere.
Keynes warned that once governments relinquish control over capital flows, they forfeit the tools needed to pursue full employment and long-term economic stability. His stance wasn’t ideological—it was pragmatic: economic policy should serve national priorities, not the shifting demands of global financial markets.
China gets this. Its “economic democracy” model actively reins in speculative finance that benefits elites at the cost of national well-being. It’s not about perfection, but about priorities — and unlike the West, China still remembers the basics of stability.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has gone the opposite route. Since dumping Bretton Woods, speculative capital has ruled. From the 2008 crisis to today’s fragile, debt-driven system, the symptoms have worsened. The 30-year Treasury yield just hit 4.94% — a signal that investors are losing faith. The U.S. deficit races past $2 trillion annually, while the Fed tries to hold up the sky with rate gimmicks and hope.
As early as 2005, Satyajit Das warned about the mortgage crisis. Today, he sees another storm: collapsing cash flows, debt traps, erratic geopolitics, speculative tech mania, and falling real incomes. Sound familiar?
At the center of this storm is the U.S. dollar. The global financial system is still built on demand for U.S. debt — but confidence is slipping. If foreign buyers — especially across the Global South — stop purchasing Treasuries, the U.S. faces two choices: default, or debase the currency.
This is the real driver behind Trump’s tariff-heavy “Maga-nomics.” The hope is that tariffs can generate $600B+ per year to offset ballooning deficits — without raising taxes or letting interest rates spiral. But it’s a fantasy. The bond market nearly imploded recently under pressure from rising yields and margin calls. Trump will find that tariffs can’t plug a $2 trillion deficit.
The whole system now hangs on the illusion of endless leverage. But when trust breaks — in Treasuries, in the dollar, in markets — collapse isn’t gradual. It’s sudden. Keynes wasn’t just writing for his time. He was warning ours in the 21st Century.
Prieto P
“Look into what China and Russia are proposing and implementing, and understand why they’re doing it. Read Xi Jinping’s and Vladimir Putin’s key speeches over the past few years, especially those tied to global development initiatives.”
All politicians make nice sounding speeches and have nice sounding development plans written by their spin doctors. Look at Russias and Chinas record both internally and externally globally and its not so great actually.
Americas not perfect either, but at least it has put some serious money into worthy international causes (Trump excepted) and has mostly promoted a good level of individual freedom and liberalism, and this is key to economic success, innovation etc,etc. With some appropriate state controls to limit certain destructive activities. China and Russia are essentially autocracies that severely limit individual freedom. Thats the problem.
“Keynes warned that once governments relinquish control over capital flows (eg America), they forfeit the tools needed to pursue full employment and long-term economic stability.”
Keynes was a good economist, but I disagree about capital. America has had very low unemployment in recent decades . This is what the ‘data’ shows if you get my message. America has higher wages and higher living standards across the board than China or Russia. Chinas governments directs capital flows but their own economy is rather unstable and has significant unemployment. Again this is what the data shows..
However I think governments in America have a case to ensure there is some wealth redistribution to ensure people aren’t living in tent cities working two jobs just to survive.
Re KVJ, BPL https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/the-most-recent-climate-status/#comment-833246 , Tomáš Kalisz, others…
If the essence of capitalism is investing, perhaps with a loan, and hoping to make a worthwhile return on investment …
(which doesn’t necessarily require total (monetized or wholistic?) economic growth if the growth is balancing decay; ie. I could work on a stone tool (investment) to make hunting or construction more efficient …
(or work on a toy to make playtime more productive of joy (toys are the capital goods of a fun factory; a painting is a machine that processes photons))
… to replace the one (stone tool) that broke; raising children is necessarily an investment (but not just that, of course; as Killian might say, work can be play…)
… And if socialism or communism is the equitable and/or fair distribution of wealth (or lack of private ownership?) (AND such distribution of power*?) …
Then:
The two concepts could form two orthogonal axes defining a subspace of political-economic-social systems/structures – ie one could not only have coexisting capitalism and socialism/communism in balance, one could have an entity which is ~ 100% both or ~100% neither.
also, (distribution of power*) socialism/communism would be democratic/anti-dictatorship – as opposed to a business in which the boss makes the decisions and the employed workers must follow. (see “Charles Darwin Vs Karl Marx | Philosophy Tube” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfYvLlbXj_8 – it’s in there somewhere… Note I believe in this video (or in earlier videos?) the presenter went by – I think it’s Oliver – but she is now known as Abigail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Thorn )
I suspect complaints about capitalism are based on the idea of a hierarchial form** in which the owners are separate from the laborers and use their power to extract what they can – and also the idea that it requires unending net (monetized?) growth. But consider firms where the workers are the owners, and corporations which have ESG+DEI commitments in their charters/constitutions (watch-out for greenwashing/etc. performative stuff, of course).
**of course it may make sense to an extent to have specialization, and that may have some people take more managerial positions, which, like some genes that control the expression of other genes, or functions that call other functions, may have some hierarchical relationship with other roles, but that’s not necessarily a bullying-extractive model(?).
(See also: “billionaires want you to know they could have done physics” Angela Collier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmJI6qIqURA )
As I learned in High School: Karl Marx posited/suggested/asserted? some number of stages of social/economic/political?? development – with nth being capitalism, and n+1 being socialism(/communism?)- the communism of the Soviet Union was n+ ½ – not Karl Marx’s vision. True? Wrong?
In college I learned about a village/town? In China under communism in which they decided to pay men more than women for some task because they figured men could accomplish more, but AIUI they did not pay according to what they actually accomplished – which seems to me like a combination of the bad side of capitalism/free market and the bad side of socialism/communism – it’s like, what’s even the point of (that sort of) communism? Also they decided the women should all wear their hair the same way or something like that. Such social conformity is a form of collectivism I detest, and one which some on the American Right like, I believe (maybe not so extreme – but … they seem to want all people to either be men or women… etc. and the whole school uniform thing…).
Also in college, I was employed for a couple years in a cafeteria – they required all employees to pick a certain combination of some number(s) of either late night or early morning shifts. Why not use a market and just pay more for the shifts that are harder to fill?
As I recall, the authors of “The Dawn of Everything” also (suggested/asserted?) that the modern communism of such nations was actually state capitalism, whereas (? a true communism was practiced to some extent by some/many/most/all? Indigenous/traditional/ancient societies?)
The concept of ownership – well it makes sense to me to think of something I’ve worked to create as being mine. If I exchange it for something, granting ownership of my creation to another, I suppose I would then think of what I receive in return as being mine. Of course the raw ingredients weren’t my creation, and neither am I* (*originally, at least) so it’ sort of a collaborative endeavor. I thought Crocodile Dundee’s take on it makes sense (ie./eg. it doesn’t make sense for a person to be able to own a mountain which has been around far longer.) (Ownership also may imply control, so if I’m not in control of the water cycle how could I own a lake… (and nobody controls the laws of Physics) but ownership is also used to refer to responsibility (stewardship)…)
In Re to patrick o twentyseven, 16 May 2025 at 5:55 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833387
Hallo Patrick,
Nice to hear from you again!
As regards me, I am not interested in discussions about societal arrangements, because I do not think it is the purpose of this forum.
I merely expressed my disappointment with repeated shameful attempts of some subjects to blame Ukraine, a victim of an aggressive war, as a perpetrator, and/or putting Russia, the actual perpetrator, on a pedestal as a country allegedly offering safety and a better living perspective than western democracies.
Greetings
Tomáš
… (see also “Einstein Was a Socialist; Should We Care?” Dr. Fatima https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mz41x_nc0o )
Of course a key aspect of ownership is exclusive access, or control thereof.
I like having some private property/spacetime (bodily autonomy is a part of that) – you can do what you want…
(within the laws of physics – and still respecting the rights of others (**?and your future self?**) because presumably you don’t live inside your own personal black hole)
… – in particular you don’t need to worry (in principle) about others messing up/damaging your stuff.
But public property /spacetime is also very important. Imagine if you had to pay a toll everytime you stepped outside; or pay a scenery toll for looking out a window at a rainbow or a flock of birds. (See also Fair Use Doctrine.)
…
Anyway – of course, even if individual businesses operate internally in a socialistic manner there may still be incentives to screw-over others.
But there is another solution. Indigenous/etc. societies had various forms of checks and balances to manage the distribution of power – eg. making fun of the best hunters; in Tlaxcala, qualification for public office required some type of public humiliation (I don’t know the details but I’m picturing SNL skits); often it was an impermanence of any hierarchy – with who’s in charge changing with eg. seasonal cycles (“The Dawn of Everything”).
In modern times we have voting, branches of government, freedom of the press, labor unions, etc. ‘The West’ has already taken steps to regulate the economy and its capitalistic?/market engine; there are protections for workers, consumers, the environment, the economy (eg. to prevent/mitigate crashes), and members of historically underprivileged/persecuted groups, etc. IMO perhaps even the protection of property rights is a public intervention – it’s not a free-for-all “state of nature”. (And there is public R&D funding and science funding, etc.***) There’re public schools. There are still problems that need to fixed (tying K-12 education funding to local property taxes is IMO not a great idea). But it’s an option in the ‘Western’ system. Eg. pollution taxes.
( https://scienceopinionsfunandotherthings.wordpress.com/2023/08/14/why-a-net-co2eq-tax-makes-sense-or-at-least-it-did-and-also-why-it-may-not-be-enough/ – note a link to one of my other posts on the science doesn’t work anymore because I took that one down until I could fix something in the way the figures are displayed.)
Now you might say, “the system isn’t working because we still don’t have a CO2eq. tax…” (and/or balanced policies to address emissions that are harder to tax (fossil fuels and cement should be relatively easy to assess, I think; agriculture is probably harder to deal with in that way).
… “and all the other problems we still have”
Well, if we haven’t been able to ‘evolve’ the system (obviously portions of the West are currently being dragged back down by oligarchic+religious+Nazi-like forces), why should we expect to be able to ‘revolve’ the system?
All I have right now is keep at it, either way.
Actually if we can bend the system toward environmental justice (and with the other issues…), I wonder if then it will naturally progress toward something structurally better.
(Of course the threat of revolution can sometimes make the powerful yield.)
Managing power perhaps may always be tricky because it’s automatically the case that whoever has power is, well, powerful, and hard to defeat.
Part of the problem that democracy alone can’t solve – peoples’ own immorality. Ditching democracy just doesn’t seem like a solution to me.
***
Geo Girl, Gutsick Gibbon, & Angela Collier :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Q07i1HSYc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6X-EbE_EGo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pl62kCBax4
Wait, what did I mean, there? Revolutions can be violent. I did not mean to endorse that possibility in “ keep at it, either way. ” (also I’m not endorsing dumping capitalism – it makes more sense to me to regulate it better and balance it with public sector goods/services …) revolution vs evolution – shades of gray – eg. amending the constitution to have a national popular vote (with instant runoff ballots) determine the President would be more revolutionary than Congress passing laws to limit CO2eq, limit the harm trade does in other countries, etc. Campaign finance laws might be in between (depending on how far they go).
Also, clarification: …“ dragged back down by oligarchic+[right-wing]religious+Nazi-like forces”…
patrick 027: “And if socialism or communism is the equitable and/or fair distribution of wealth (or lack of private ownership?) (AND such distribution of power*?
In utopian theory, sure; in real life not so much:
name one country ruled by Communists in which this was the case.
Marx provided very convenient theoretical justification of running a country by, and for, the ruling party/glorious leader – with the Marx theory used both to brainwash its own population, and enchant the naive or wishful thinkers outside. And if it snared the very smart (like Sartre) then it obviously works on those less so – like our Multi-Troll (Poor Peru/Prieto Principle/Dharma/Ned Kelly/Ecobar/etc. etc. etc.)
For those actively resisting brainwashing, Communism had murder or Gulag; for those who were not entirely brainwashed, but threatened into not doing much about it – had broken lives lived without hope, without prospects of career or advancement (you couldn’t achieve any significant position without being a member of the Party, and loudly repeating the propaganda orthodoxy).
I remember a Polish dissident Marcin Krol, who analyzed history by looking at the state monopoly in 3 areas: economy, ability to project force (army and police), and ideas/media/ideology:
– in Western democracies state had only one monopoly – monopoly on force.
– countries that had monopoly on two out of three – Krol called: Totalitarianism
(his example was the Third Reich – monopoly on ideas and on force, but although Nazi greatly influenced German economy, they didn’t nationalize it and didn’t run by the Nazi Party appointees).
– the end-point of the evolution of Totalitarianism was a state extending the monopoly on all three areas: and he called this system: Communism.
With each area assigned only 0 or 1 value, it is obviously a simplification (if we were allowed half-points – Hitler and Putin may have scored 2.5), still a useful way to look at the major differences between systems.
And with the monopoly in all three areas – Communism was able to kill more people, and destroy environment more intensively, than any Totalitarianism.
Try this phrasing instead, I believe you might find it is more accurate and truthful’
coexisting market economies and socialism/communism in balance,
patrick 027: “And if socialism or communism is the equitable and/or fair distribution of wealth (or lack of private ownership?) (AND such distribution of power*?
Piotr: “In utopian theory, sure; in real life not so much: name one country ruled by Communists in which this was the case.”
Prieto P.: “you might find it is more accurate and truthful’ coexisting market economies and socialism/communism in balance”
Give us, O MultiTroll, a few accurate and truthful EXAMPLES of Communism “co-existing in balance with market economies “.
Re Tomáš Kalisz https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833408 – yes, I did notice some red flags (dismissal of: clean energy transition, and of the differences between some Western or American left and right-leaning parties); prior to making those comments I hadn’t yet seen anything blatantly pro-Putin/anti-Ukraine, but then I saw https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833426 …
My comments could also be in re Scott Nudds & William…
Re Kevin McKinney https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833364 good point (…“and particularly deployment of RE–which, by the way, would seem to put your expressed opinions on that rather in conflict with your apparent support of China as ‘mitigation model’–”…).
re nigelj: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833414 …“And it could reduce efficiency because the public lack expertise, and it would slow down decision making, because many more people would need to be consulted and informed of all the details. So it just seems like its not really achieving a better overall outcome than capitalism. ”… Good point. It may make sense to let the market make decisions freely** in general (as a default) and then take public actions to regulate or compensate or incentivize for/as/when problems arise or are identified.
Re Piotr https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833419 : Good points.
Perhaps I’ve been playing too fast and loose with the terminology, using “communism” in an overly broad sense to refer to anything communal (eg. public parks, Medicare & Medicaid, a team of volunteers putting up sandbags to protect property in a flood).
“As I recall, the authors of “The Dawn of Everything” also (suggested/asserted?) that the modern communism of such nations was actually state capitalism, whereas (? a true communism was practiced to some extent by some/many/most/all? Indigenous/traditional/ancient societies?)” – I think they used an act of Good Samaritanism as an example of a bare-minimum level of communism.
I was operating in a similar way here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/back-to-basics/#comment-813101 – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/back-to-basics/#comment-813113 , and another place where I said (not exact quote) ~ there’s good capitalism and bad capitalism, good socialism and bad socialism, good communism and bad communism, good and bad individualism (eg. be yourself vs. every one for themself) , good and bad collectivism (eg. share and help each other vs. we dress alike and have the same hobbies) , etc.
So I looked up the difference between socialism & communism (I’m also aware there’s a difference between capitalism and a market economy, though I’m not sure what a market economy looks like without *?*capitalism*?*, though I may also have an overly broad sense of …), and
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp
apparently communism is defined to specifically exclude any capitalism (wheres socialism can coexist with (or even include??) capitalism (eg. “Nordic Model”) However, I can imagine internally-communist (or socialist) entities operating within a market system, as capitalists. (An individual person could be a ?communist? dictatorship – the mind rules – but that’s okay because that’s the only sentient part (it is the person, in the personhood sense (as opposed to the legal phrase ‘on your person’ which refers to the body)) – the body parts may sometimes threaten to rebel and then force the mind to sign a Magna Carta, saying it will not put such hot food in the mouth again.)
Teotihuacan may have been a cosmopolitan socialist utopia (aside from…) for a period of time (Teotihuacan and the Nordics could be a good band name).
I’ve also learned a bit more about Marxism and have some criticisms regarding the labor-value idea and something else but I don’t want to test the patience of the Hosts any further so I won’t do that here.
You may have noticed that Elmo and The Don are doing their utmost to decimate climate science?
The unfortunate side effects have now directly affected yours truly’s “Arctic “citizen science” here on the eastern seaboard of the North Atlantic. Hence earlier today I launched an “anti anti climate science” campaign over on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/soulsurfer_the-latest-episode-in-the-trump-administrations-activity-7326573840807981058-hzeQ
“According to a May 6th “Level of Service Update for Data Products” from the United States’ National Snow and Ice Data Center:
‘Effective May 5, 2025, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) will decommission its snow and ice data products from the Coasts, Oceans, and Geophysics Science Division (COGS).’…
You may have better things to do than study the decline of Arctic sea ice in detail. However if you and/or your organisation are based in the US and make use of National Weather Service forecasts of wind, rain, floods, tornadoes and hurricanes it may be prudent to email your support to one or more out of NWS, NOAA and NSIDC.
You may also wish to email your local friendly neighbourhood politician(s) about the matter?”
What information on Arctic sea ice are you not able to get? Is it not available on climate reanalyzer? What percentage of the data used by climate reanalyzer is obtained from satellites? Satellites don’t care what the Trump administration does, right?
https://climatereanalyzer.org/
I want Donny and Elon to focus on stopping the decline of our nation. Right now we are the best looking horse at the glue factory – that’s not good enough. We need to get control of the deficits, close the border (almost there, just need a wall), get criminals and fentanyl off the streets, secure our elections so everyone can believe the results, get men out of women’s lockers/showers/sports, get woke and DEI out of everything, strengthen SS, allow free-market medical insurance IN ADDITION to the ACA, strengthen families so kids have a better chance, teach kids the basics in school – not CRT and DEI nonsense – so they have a chance to be successful in the adult work world, etc.
Latest polls show Donny is gaining popularity with voters. HE DID almost take Jersey in the election!
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-new-jersey-poll-2073209
Trump arrived at work on Jan 20, to do just 2 things: kick ass and chew bubblegum, and he’s all out of bubblegum.
;)
“get men out of women’s lockers/showers/sports, get woke and DEI out of everything, ”
Way to show the world your obsession with others genitalia (that is not hyperbole either) that does not affect your life. And that you are against equality, facts, data, and science (anti “woke”). And that you are indeed supportive of racial discrimination, just too coward to straight out say it so you use anti-DEI verbiage. That is not hyperbole either because you do not have a clue what DEI is all about; just what someone told you it is to affirm your preconceived notions. Quite seriously.
KIA: get men out of women’s lockers/showers/sports
BPL: Transsexual women are women, not men. As technology improves (assuming global warming doesn’t kill civilization), transitioning to another sex will become easier and perhaps more common. To get used to what that sort of civilization would be like, I recommend ready the works of John Varley, and Ursula K. LeGuin’s “The Left Hand of Darkness.”
KIA: get woke and DEI out of everything
BPL: Unfortunately, the way the Trump administration is “get[ting] woke and DEI out of everything” has been to fire perfectly competent women and black men and to replace them with while, male ideologues who are often spectacularly incompetent. This is part of the administration’s plan to cripple the US government, including its military, in the process of making the US less threatening to Russia.
Mr. Know It All: “I want Donny and Elon to focus on stopping the decline of our nation.”
And I want these lead weights to stop my sinking to the bottom of the ocean.
Hi
Could Stefan or anyone else at RC comment on the recent news on the beaufont gyre and how it might affect the AMOC and does retreating sea ice volume also means impacts for the gyre and AMOC?
Regards
Pete
What “News on the Beaufont Gyre” are you thinking of Pete?
From here
https://youtu.be/qxyZmTrDNpY?si=LyHJIOrE8BCquiDX
Thanks,
A brief glimpse of “The Arctic Beaufort Gyre in CMIP6 Models: Present and Future” at the start:
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JC021873
It’s past my bedtime, but I’ll try take a closer look tomorrow (BST).
However, Paul Beckwith has a long history of making overly “alarmist” predictions.
He’s citing a paper and being over alarmist as you say isn’t helping us reduce emissions but there again neither is stating the facts.
PB I can inform in the 2 minutes I’m now assigning that I recall a few months back mention of a paper claiming that only ice discharge, not water, could slow AMOC with any significance owing to water mixing too readily before it reaches to the World’s Greatest Waterfall place south of the Greenland-Scotland ridge. I didn’t keep a reference for it. I can also point to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV-g4_2Xwn8 at 11:50 showing that 5.2 Sv of the AMOC 17 Sv is formed in that deep basin between Svalbard & Iceland.
I have for some reason this list in my notes of videos I’ve watched:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNQxw1EVYx4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea4S1fH8eBk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV-g4_2Xwn8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOAL6zAtlls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXW48zvKoTk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaG1q8-D28A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQdg6MyaVAE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCLjEElTcyU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmRCBFnIvdI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gNbx7GSaYg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3I6iqQ4g3w
In a US CLIVAR somewhere there’s a gyre discussion and a “Ms. cyclonic” and “Mr. cyclonic” but I’ve forgotten what was discussed.
In Re to Piotr, 7 MAY 2025 AT 10:28 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-832880
Dear Piotr,
My sentence regarding Dr. Makarieva’s hypothesis about the wet and dry mode of land hydrology had to shortly characterize the broader context of her post and the viewpoint from which she commented on the cited article.
She has not derived this hypothesis on the basis of the cited article, as you seem to suppose.
Best regards
Tomáš
TK: She has not derived this hypothesis on the basis of the cited article, as you seem to suppose.
My only supposition was that you know how a discussion works – that you comment what other people questioned, and not go on and on and on explaining what … nobody questioned.
You asked people for comments on Makarieva claims, and the answer to your post was Gavin’s:
“I have no clue what point she is trying to make – while accusing me of ignoring deforestation? It’s not all obvious that ~6 data points 10 Ma apart, 300 Ma ago, are particularly informative of climate change and the carbon cycle on an annual basis today.
So YOUR answer to his response should be to admit that “6 data points 10 Ma apart, 300 Ma ago” prove nothing, or prove the opposite., and thus maintaining Makarieva in play.
You didn’t do EITHER and instead you …. go on a tangent – explaining … some unrelated hypothesis that nobody had asked you to explain. You see the problem, right?
in Re to Piotr, 10 May 2025 at 4:36 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833002
Hallo Piotr,
in my post of 4 May 2025 at 5:56 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-832753 ,
I thanked Dr. Schmidt for his second comment on Makarieva’s Substack articles and asked my own additional question
“In other words, I wonder if climate science already resolved the simple question if am Earth with drier continents may be more sensitive to the observed warming caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions in comparison with a hypothetically wetter Earth with unperturbed ecosystems. I have not found an answer yet, and I therefore suppose that this question might be unresolved yet. Is a such study still beyond capabilities of present climate models?”
which has not been answered yet. I think that answering this question by a modelling study could be a more convincing way for practically showing if Makarieva’s objections are relevant or not than furher disputing details of her posts and/or articles cited therein.
If a such study may be feasible, as recently suggested by Barton Paul in his post of 9 May 2025 at 7:50 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-832948 ,
could you support a plea to Dr. Schmidt and his colleagues if they could arrange this study and thus resolve the dispute?
I think that if the proposed modelling study clarifies that water availability for evaporation from the land has in fact no influence on climate sensitivity, it will be the most convincing way for showing that we “water boys” were, actually, wrong when we assumed that human interferences with water cycle might have acted as a comparably important cause of the observed climate change as the notorious anthropogenic emissions of non-condensing greenhouse gases.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: “ If a such study may be feasible, as recently suggested by Barton Paul in his post of 9 May, could you support a plea to Dr. Schmidt and his colleagues if they could arrange this study and thus resolve the dispute?
No, I could not support you “plea” to Dr Schmidt to waste his time on running his “state-of- the-art” models to address …. irrelevant/ignorant questions and ideas of yours. He has already wasted enough time with in the inline responses by pointing to you to the problems with your Makarieva claims you have promoted here. i.e.:
– explaining to you that the supposed “change” in model outputs she “discovered” may well have been an artifact of switching to a different (sparse) data set (the onus of proof is on Makarieva, not on the reader)
– telling you that her claims and/or accusations toward others, are based on “ 6 data points 10 Ma apart, 300 Ma ag”, are not “particularly informative of climate change and the carbon cycle on an annual basis today.” – a remarkable understatement if there ever was one … ;-)
Nor do I read BPL’s reply to your questioning the suitability “of state-of-art climate models” as a ringing endorsement of …. your expectations that Dr. Schmidt uses “his state-of-art climate models” to study your ideas – since these models ALREADY “ represent convection, evapotranspiration, and the hydrological cycle numerically ” therefore, any explicit study of these would be justified ONLY IF there was a realistic way to significantly INCREASE that water availability.
But there isn’t one – neither you, JCM nor Makarieva have not been ABLE to come with anything even remotely close to “realistic” – not to look far – as I have shown that your own Sahara irrigation modest proposal would have cost $ TRIILIONS a year, required building and running SEVERAL MILLIONS of new industrial desalination plants, and pumping and spraying the resulting water over 5 mln km2. And ALL that – without any significant GHG emissions, and having to be sustained forever, for a hope of … a fraction of 0.3K reduction in AGW after many centuries of the operations.
Using the state-of-the-art-model and Dr. Schmidt’s expertise could make sense ONLY if you, or other waterboys (and watergirls), came up with a REALISTIC scheme to significantly increase the global fluxes of water. Until then – stop wasting Dr. Schmidt’s and everybody else’s time.
in Re to Piotr, 12 May 2025 at 9:49 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833120
Hallo Piotr,
Thank you for your comment.
I think that my question is not wasting Dr. Schmidt’s and everybody else’s time, because it could be good to know if we made Earth climate more vulnerable to industrial pollution by previous anthropogenic biosphere and hydrosphere changes. In such a case, we would be aware that we should avoid making things worse by stopping such activities or modifying them to less harmful wherever possible. Oppositely, should biosphere degradation and possible land desiccation have no amplifying effect on climate warming, a study showing it convincingly would have represented a further significant support for present mitigation policies focusing mostly on GHG emission reduction.
I therefore think the proposed modelling experiment might provide a first more-less reliable answer to a question that policy makers can ask any time soon. Why not to be prepared?
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: I think that my question is not wasting Dr. Schmidt’s and everybody else’s time, because it could be good to know if we made Earth climate more vulnerable to industrial pollution by previous anthropogenic biosphere and hydrosphere changes.
What “good” would it do to REDIRECT scientists time and use of the state-of-the-art models – from studying the ACTUAL Earth climate and forecasting its future evolution depending on the decisions we make – to … things we can’t do a thing about (past changes in hydrology) and the quantification of which won’t help with our models – since these effects are already implicitely included in the models – after all you wanted to use these models to calculate your thing, not the other way around.
And if you are so interested in studying things about which we can’t do anything about – then do it on your own time or on the time your fellow waterboys (JCM, Shurly) and watergirls (Makarieva). The onus of proof that it is indeed “good” to know – is on you, not on climate scientists.
in Re to Piotr, 16 May 2025 at 4:44 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833382
Hallo Piotr,
I think that the answer to my question may be valuable per se, due to the difference between a knowledge (possibly rather fundamental one) and an absence thereof.
I do not know if it could be possible, testing climate models more accurately (than so far) by modelling past climates constrained by “multidimensional” paleoclimate data (temperature and land hydrology) instead of “one-dimensional” data (temperature only). I do not insist that I am right, I just thought that at least this aspect might deserve a comment from the moderators or other experts visiting this forum.
As regards the practical importance for broad public and for policy makers, I still think that even though it may be difficult to improve land hydrology the way that it could somehow fix the global climate, it is not excluded that we are still capable to destroy the land hydrology further in an extent that might make things worse. If we were aware of this risk, we could perhaps prevent it.
Greetings
Tomáš
For 40+ years now, even since LTG came out 50 years ago now, the conversation has been we are so smart let’s invent some complimentary technologies to give us energy. Should be easy enough. Look at the big Sun in the sky. There’s that conversation, which is assuming everything else stays constant, how do we change our supply?
The other conversation is, do we really need all these energy services and all this stuff to live happy and healthy lives? Maybe we can, as Jean-Marc Jancovici would say in English could we ,live with restraint or sufficiency and actually reduce our demand. What are your thoughts on all this?
I think Jancovici is right and we have a problem ahead. Very, very big problem ahead because what happens now is that I would like to say that there is a better life ahead with much more sober people. I mean, we are now, as you very well know because we have been working with this data for years, you know that we are Humans working like a machine, a 4,000 watts machine or 5,000 watts machine here in Spain – And 10,000 watts machine in AMERICA – x 10,000 watts in the United States. So we are x 100 x 100 watt light bulbs, incandescent bulbs glowing nonstop on top of our our head 24 hours a day, every single day.
And this is too much. I mean, we don’t need that. I mean, our real human energy metabolism is just one bulb of 100 watts per day not 10,000 watts. This is the physical metabolism. But now we cannot return so easily to
these levels because we are naked apes and we cannot live in winter absolutely naked.
48 minutes – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX815YnSt0k
Re: LTG=Limits to Growth
Just posted this review of our past predictions to the Azimuth Projection discussion forum
https://github.com/orgs/azimuth-project/discussions/21
Consider how precisely spot on we were in predicting the limiting date. Agree that we must learn to adapt to sources of energy that nature provides us.
Trump has gutted funding for medical research in universities, hospitals and other scientific institutions, targeting Harvard in particular. In February, the National Institutes of Health said it would reduce the amount of “indirect” medical research funding by $4bn a year. Universities across the country have reduced their intake of PhD students, medical students and other graduate students, introduced hiring freezes and in some cases rescinded offers of admission.
This has created a “massive opportunity” for the UK to actively recruit American scientists, according to Sir John Bell, the renowned immunologist and president of Oxford’s Ellison Institute of Technology.
Speaking to the House of Lords science and technology committee last month, he said leaders in the biomedical research field in the US were already asking when they could move.
“Do the thought experiment: you are an outstanding scientist, you are sitting in an American institution, and things are not looking good,” he said. “You know for sure that they are going to be bad for four years, they are probably going to be bad for eight years, and it will take another four years to get the thing back on its feet again.
“If you are a great scientist in your late 40s or early 50s, there is no way you are going to sit it out.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/10/were-in-the-hamptons-of-england-trump-sends-wealthy-americans-fleeing-for-the-cotswolds
Havent joined the Moral Majority yet?
What’s keeping you? Fear of unemployment or fear for your life?
Great scientists will have no trouble finding work in the private sector in the USA. If, after Trump is gone, they want to go back to government funded work, they can probably do that.
75% of American scientists want to leave the country. Some of us are actively planning to do so. America is dead. It just hasn’t found a place to fall yet.
Nope. A quick google search shows government scientists fired by Trump are finding it hard to get jobs in the private sector. Many are going overseas. Their qualifications and experience tends to be in the pure sciences where governments are big employers, where the private sector is a big employer of the applied sciences.
Yes, you’ve already made it quite clear in many many posts, on many many subjects: The best way to deal with problems that we, as well as other civilized nations, have decided, and passed laws to fund government agencies in tandem with private businesses to solve is to simply not care about them. Every single post is “look at me”.
Really, it’s hard to imagine anyone who has ever worked for a living not understanding how the public sector and the private sector interact.
A statement written with all KIA’s “knowledge” about how modern science actually works.
I personally know of precisely zero persons with deep scientific training–some few of them well on the way to becoming great scientists–who have left pure research for the private sector because of layoffs who have returned to pure research after 5 or 10 years. It just doesn’t work that way. You just cannot schedule science on some sort of modern corporate just-in-time, “flexible” (where ‘flexible’ is defined as management convenience and profit) scheduling of part-time, relatively low paid and powerless worker bees.
Engineering can a bit different in ways more in line with his “knowledge” which may be the foundation of his misapprehension/ignorance/propaganda spew..
Boy, the trolls are really making a concerted effort to reduce the value of RC these days.
Science does not advance on predictable timescales. Advancements come from new thining and the application of new ideas.
You don’t just turn a crank and pop out ground breaking research or theory.
The fact that Mr. Know it All, directly implies that this is the case shows that he knows very little of how science actually works.
He suffers deeply from Dunning Kruger disease, as virtually all Libertarians do.
As to the rest of you…
American Libertarians have been whining for the destruction of the American state through the destruction of government. Since gaining some level of power under Ronald Reagan’s office in the 80’s they are now on the brink of realizing their century long struggle for corporate rule, and the Fascism of one dollar one vote, and where pro-corporate propaganda – alternative facts – replace truth.
I warned that this would come to pass 15 years ago, and warned that Scientists should start planning their escape routes as science began to be attacked by the Republican/Libertarian right.
It is sad that nearly all of those messages were deleted.
It was also amusing that the one or two that did make it through were met with ridicule and denialist anger.
My recommendation at the time was for a national strike by scientists to bring attention to the gravity of the Climate Change issue and the ongoing global extinction event – both of which are anthropogenic.
Now, 15 years later, you – through inaction – have not only lost the battle on those fronts, but have lost your country too.
And still you sit there doing nothing, saying nothing to counter the forces acting against you.
Have you joined the Moral Majority yet?
Your fear is part of their plan.
SN: Have you joined the Moral Majority yet?
BPL: However many times you post this, it will still sound stupid.
Article about nations that are now powered by 100% renewable energy. Sounds good, but as the comments point out, the article is false, and the comments explain why:
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/04/17/wind-energy-saw-record-growth-in-2023-which-countries-installed-the-most
Another similar article:
https://ratedpower.com/blog/renewable-success-stories/
The race to net-zero. Leaders are mostly tiny countries with huge forests to absorb the CO2, or abundant hydro or geothermal electric generation:
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/news/race-to-net-zero
You know, it’s not actually a great insight that the folks with the easiest route to a particular goal are likely to get there first.
It’s also not a viable argument for the proposition that it’s impossible for anyone else.
KIA: “hundreds of millions of working class folks commuting to work”
That’s like claiming that drunk driving is OK, because the total number of all deaths from causes OTHER than drunk driving is larger than the drunk-driving deaths. To compare individual behaviours, to assign the moral responsibility to them and to talk about “justice” – only the PER CAPITA data matter. Hence:the per capita numbers in the article you are “commenting” on:
“individual contributions of the wealthiest 10% (1%) [are] 6.5 (20) times the average per capita contribution [to AGW].” and “emissions from the wealthiest 10% in the United States and China led to a two- to threefold increase in heat extremes across vulnerable regions”
The only way to defend the above is to imply that the life of a rich person is 6.5 or 20 times MORE VALUABLE, MORE DESERVING, than that of an average person. And aren’t you, the MAGA types, having your mouths full of (Christian) VALUES^* and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY???
******************
^* P.S. Ever heard of Jesus? You know:” It is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle“? If Jesus lived today, he would have been derided by you and by the great majority of White evangelicals who got Trump to power ( ‘Anointed by God’: The Christians who see Trump as their saviour), as “woke”, “libtard”, and a “snowflake”.
Piotr says: the life of a rich person is 6.5 or 20 times MORE VALUABLE, MORE DESERVING, than that of an average person.
It’s true. Ask any rich person they’ll tell you by their actions. Including you not only Mr KIA and all those MAGA believers. Even people living on western welfare and pensions are in the wealthiest cohort of the worlds population – they too vote and act accordingly.
I oppose nearly everything Trump stood for — but I never saw Biden as a real solution either. He was just a more polite steward of the same decaying empire, continuing many of Trump’s worst policies, especially in foreign affairs and militarism. This isn’t about personalities. It’s about the system — and both men serve the same destructive capitalist-imperialist order.
The planet isn’t collapsing because of abstract “carbon” — it’s collapsing because the richest 10%, especially in the West, consume at obscene levels. In the U.S., average daily energy use is around 10,000 watts per person — orders of magnitude higher than the global majority. That’s the real inequality: not just wealth, but ecological impact. Rich lives are treated as 6, 10, even 20 times more “valuable” by the system. Their consumption patterns are killing the planet — and yet even those on Western welfare still vote to preserve this setup.
Trump isn’t an outsider. He was born into the billionaire class and serves it faithfully — just like Biden. There is no Deep State conspiracy here, just a very real and very entrenched global ruling class. And I’m not interested in defending a crumbling pseudo-democracy that feeds war, delusion, and climate collapse.
And no — I’m not an accelerationist either. Collapse won’t bring clarity or freedom; it’ll bring more chaos and suffering, especially to the already exploited majority. But neither am I a defender of this crumbling pseudo-democracy built on imperialism, exploitation, and mass delusion.
We don’t need more electoral illusions. We need to dismantle the dictatorship of capital and build something rooted in ecological survival and justice — a people-first system, maybe inspired by elements of what China attempts, flawed as it is. Because this current trajectory? It leads only to extinction.
W: We need to dismantle the dictatorship of capital and build something rooted in ecological survival and justice — a people-first system, maybe inspired by elements of what China attempts, flawed as it is.
BPL: And replace the dictatorship of capital with what? The dictatorship of the proletariat? That didn’t work out too well for the ecology, either.
William: We need to dismantle the dictatorship of capital and build something rooted in ecological survival and justice — a people-first system, maybe inspired by elements of what China attempts, flawed as it is.
BPL: And replace the dictatorship of capital with what? The dictatorship of the proletariat? That didn’t work out too well for the ecology, either.
Reply to BPL:
Yes — it’s called people-centered democracy. Where the wealth and benefits of a nation accrue to its citizens — the working class, the majority — rather than to a handful of ultra-rich oligarchs who operate above law, ethics, and consequence.
You sneer at the “dictatorship of the proletariat” while ignoring the very real and entrenched dictatorship of capital — an elite-controlled, corporate imperialist system that has pillaged the global South, driven up emissions, and laid waste to ecosystems in the name of endless profit.
Let’s be honest: your preferred model — the Anglo-American hyper-capitalist machine — is what got us here. It’s the system that made fossil fuel dependency foundational, that blocks meaningful change, and that treats the Earth and its people as disposable.
Good for you, then. When will you join the Moral Majority — not the Falwell cult, but the real ethical majority — those ready to act with conscience, humility, and solidarity? Or will you keep clinging to your privileged seat at the table of a collapsing empire that is directly responsible for destroying the world’s climate?
Yes you did that. You’re still doing it now and refuse to face the truth of it.
“And replace the dictatorship of capital with what? The dictatorship of the proletariat?” – Barton Paul
It has been clear for a very long time that humanity is not sufficiently intelligent to rule itself. This is especially evident in the U.S. who’s ongoing collapse is now self-evident to every person on Earth.
It is most likely that governance will be turned over to a national AI system which will provide rational governance rather than nonsese based on always a disaster Libertarian ideology or the ideology of goat herders who lived several thousand years ago.
Americans are not just facing the collapse of their society, they are facing the simultaneous problems of Climate Change, Desertification, Cultural Failure, Moral Failure, and very soon chronic mass unemployment and the associate economic issues of either mass poverty or mass starvation caused by AI automation.
You can either sit by with your thumbs up your backsides and whine about a dictatorship of the proletariat, or chart a path through the ever increasing turbulance that has your name on it’s extinction list.
Have you joined the Moral Majority yet?
Your fear and inaction is part of their plan.
SN: Have you joined the Moral Majority yet?
BPL: Have you stopped asking the same stupid question over and over and over and over and over again?
William, you mention China as a role model to an extent. China is a crony capitalist economy with some socialism added on, run by a dictatorial government seriously considering taking over Taiwan, and which severely restricts human rights. How that is a decent role model and better than America is a mystery to me..
Your trouble is you fixate on America. European countries like Sweden, Finland and Norway and even France to an extent have a nice combination of the best elements of capitalism, socialism, non predatory foreign affairs genuine democracy and human rights.
They are of course not perfect and are high consuming societies but it’s like a drug so you won’t change that anytime soon if ever. All we can do is try to mitigate the damage it can cause environmentally.
Scott Nudds: “Havent joined the Moral Majority yet? ”
Why do you insist we join .. a right-wing organization created by a tele-evangelist Jerry Falwell,
and disbanded by him in 1989?
SN: “What’s keeping you? ”
other than the lack of time machine – not subscribing to the Moral Majority goals: [Wikipedia]:
“ – Opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment
– Opposition to Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
– Opposition to state recognition or acceptance of homosexual acts
– Prohibition of abortion, including in cases involving incest or rape
– Proselytising to Jews and other non-Christians for conversion to Christianity
[etc. etc. ]”
You won’t will find too many converts to the goals of the long defunct organization you keep promoting here. (4 different post in this thread alone). Go forth and multiply …. somewhere else, Scott Nudds.
Piotr says
11 May 2025 at 9:28 AM
Scott Nudds: “Havent joined the Moral Majority yet? ”
Piotr: Why do you insist we join .. a right-wing organization created by a tele-evangelist Jerry Falwell,
and disbanded by him in 1989?
William: Too clever by half — meaning not clever at all, just intellectually sloppy.
I have a pet cockroach who reads RC comments with antennae twitching, and even she knows Scott Nudds has never been referencing Jerry Falwell’s Christian-right “Moral Majority” of the 1980s. From the beginning, he’s been calling on scientists and academics to act morally and publicly in response to climate denialism and political sabotage — being implemented now under Trump.
Scott has been as clear as sunlight what his intentions are by his comments.
The phrase “moral majority” predates Falwell and can apply generically to any perceived majority acting from ethical conviction. It’s not trademarked by the evangelical right. Pretending otherwise is either disingenuous or historically illiterate — take your pick.
What Scott’s doing is challenging readers, scientists and academics to stop hiding behind institutional inertia and speak with moral clarity. If that triggers you, maybe ask yourself why.
PP: Scott has been as clear as sunlight what his intentions are by his comments.
BPL: Funny that we all get them wrong, then. You’d almost think the problem was with the writer rather than the readers.
I am not responsible for your failure.
Hear Hear
William: “ I have a pet cockroach who reads RC comments with antennae twitching, and even she knows Scott Nudds has never been referencing Jerry Falwell’s Christian-right “Moral Majority” of the 1980s.
Tell your chitin-wearing handler that we humans have such a thing like irony. An irony to let know your friend that he got his wires crossed – he capitalized words “Moral Majority” to add ethical gravitas to his appeals, “ Havent joined the Moral Majority yet? ”
I.e. unaware that there already WAS ultraconservative movement/organization that called itself Moral Majority. That’s like a teenager who never heard of Hitler – scorning antifascists: “Why haven’t you joined My Fight yet?”
And when Radge and BPL explained that to our your Scott Nudds – it obviously went over his head – since he …. continued with capitalizing: “ Havent joined the Moral Majority yet? ”
William: “The phrase “moral majority” predates Falwell
so is “making America great again”. But when one capitalizes it and asks: “ Havent joined the Making America Great Again yet” – defending it by saying that the author … never thought it would be understood as referring to the Trump’s movement – stretches the credibility of the defender.
And since your Scott Nudds, in his arrogance, ignored straightforward explanation from Radge – we are no longer trying to explain things to him – we use irony at him.
That neither he or you got that it was an irony – does not surprise – sense of irony and humour are not typical characteristics of fanatics and people with a chip on their shoulder.
That’s why Trump never laughs – he might smirk, scowl, and use derision toward others, but never really laughs, and in particular – never at his own expense, because to laugh at yourself you would have to admit being wrong or imperfect, and this is one thing that neither fanatics, nor people with fragile ego, can ever do.
Scott Nudds has mentioned elsewhere censorship that some of his comments weren’t being published. That raises an important question: why? If moderation is taking place, why is it seemingly so selectively applied? Why are serious, fact-based comments—urging ethical and moral responsibility against authoritarianism—being filtered out, while blatantly disingenuous, manipulative, or troll-like emotionally triggering replies from the likes of Piotr, Secular Animist, Barton, Kevin, Mr KIA and others are consistently allowed through?
If the goal is informed mature discourse, then the current moderation pattern seems to reward contrarian noise and discourage critical thinking. That’s not moderation—it’s distortion. But this all depends on the site operators own goals no doubt.
[Response: There are a few people who constantly post repetitive, boring, screeds on non-climate related stuff or who just attack other commenters. As stated many times, this will all get deleted. Frankly, the moderation is still too light for actual discourse to thrive. If you or they are unhappy with that, post your thoughts elsewhere. – gavin ]
In Re to Dr. Schmidt, 11 May 2025 at 9:10 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833058
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
I belong to people repeatedly trying to ask questions on your discussion forum. It has been often seen as a boring trolling by others, especially in cases that the question pertained to the idea that human interferences with terrestrial water cycle might and perhaps should be seen and treated as a genuine “forcing” and not a mere “feedback”.
I would like to apologize for this importunity and try to explain, again, the ground for my persistence.
Two and half years ago, I read a public polemic about the role of latent heat flux in global climate regulation, between three scientists considered by Czech media as leading Czech climatologists on one side and two Czech biologists on the other side. In this exchange, the climatologists used obviously incorrect arguments and assigned the biologists as pseudoscientists. Namely, they asserted that human interferences with water cycle cannot anyhow influence global climate in terms of global mean surface temperature, because latent heat flux allegedly merely transports energy from one place on Earth surface to another one.
I objected that such unphysical public statements mislead the public and may discredit the entire climate science if not corrected properly.
Sadly, a concluding statement published by the “Czech Globe” institute on their website more than a year later has not admitted any fault yet and basically insisted in the assertion that their public attacks on the two biologists were in any aspect correct and justified. I cannot find this final statement on the institute website anymore, however, anyone who is interested in details and understands Czech can inspect and read the entire exchange in a document collection made with my approval publicly accessible by one of the climatologists, under link
https://amper.ped.muni.cz/jenik/letters/kal/msg00017.html
I am aware that repeating attempts to formulate my question properly may have looked as a trolling. Unfortunately, I am a layman in climate science and simply tried to do my best.
After two years of trial and error, I arrived at a formulation of my question that could, hopefully, allow its resolving by a modelling experiment. As far as I know, you have already once accepted a plea for a modelling experiment and explained the published results on this forum.
For your convenience, my plea is as follows:
Could you design and arrange a modelling experiment that will analyse if Earth climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration may depend on water availability for evaporation from the land, by comparing extreme hypothetical Earth climate states with an unlimited water availability for evaporation from the land and with zero water availability on the land?
I hope that the proposed experiment could convincingly answer my question and prevent lot of further unnecessary arguments about it. If I could find a such study, I would have not repeated this question in various versions on your discussion forum again and again. Unfortunately, it appears that no such study has been published yet.
Thank you in advance at least for a short comment and best regards
Tomáš
In addition to Dr. Schmidt, 11 MAY 2025 AT 9:10 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833058
I must admit that I am grateful to Dr. Schmidt that he let my posts being published.
As regards post not complying with site rules, I already once proposed that a compromise between free speech principle on one hand and a responsibility for moderation on the other hand could be achieved by re-directing such contributions into a separate directory, clearly assigned as “unmoderated”.
I am curious if my posts would have landed in this directory, too.
A complementary way how the moderators could make the website more attractive for people seeking reliable climate science information in a form accessible for a broad public might consist in more frequent comments made by moderators in the moderated section. I think that regular correction of assertions that are in conflict with the wisdom collected by moderators could be quite instructive. I think that the expected strong reduction of the number of moderated posts, enabled by creation of the unmoderated section, could make such corrections of scientifically mislead posts manageable.
Greetings
Tomáš
William: Aside from KIA, your choice of people to complain indicates your bias. Piotr’s style is often sharp and sounds angry, but he’s usually correct. Secular Animist is impatient, but speaks for many of us. Barton and Kevin often provide reliable responses to real nonsense.
KIA is an unrestrained troll and imnsho should be banned, since he has nothing to contribute but efforts to derail honest conversation and advance his passion for the horrors being unleashed by liars and bullies who support the magamusk poisonous campaign against knowledge, wisdom, and freedom.
Gavin, thanks for explaining. This is an understatement: “moderation is still too light for actual discourse to thrive”
TK: Once again, you demand a personal tutorial from top scientists and all too often bypass any real information offered to you here. You are just one of many people taking advantage of our hosts and there are better ways to do your homework. Many of us are laypeople, but we don’t demand the level of personal attention you appear to regard as your right. The table is set, but you want them to start over with a different meal tailored to your specifications and altered at every step. This is not going to happen. Please try to appreciate what is on offer and find instruction elsewhere.
Susan: Piotr’s style is often sharp and sounds angry
Thank you, Susan, for “sharp”, but “angry” ? ;-) That connotes emotions over logic. I don’t think it applies. Would you call Hitchens (toutes proportions gardées) “angry”?
P.S. Your response to TK – spot on.
In Re to Susan Anderson, 13 May 2025 at 11:03 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833177
Hallo Susan,
As regards my question whether or not climate sensitivity depends on water availability for evaporation from the land, I am afraid that it may be still homework rather for climate scientists than for me. Should the answer be known, I believe that someone would have already posted it on this website, with the respective reference.
Frequent discussions about “hot” climate models on this forum suggest that climate sensitivity is a quite crucial parameter, relevant for climate policies. That is why I think that the answer to my question may be important as well. And, if an important question seems to be still an open problem, who else should be better to ask than the top experts in the field?
Greetings
Tomáš
You have a choice. Join and fight for sanity, morality and existence, or be wiped from existence by the ever increasing turbulance you are now coming to experience.
If non-existence is your choice, then I welcome you and your children to the hell of your own creation through inaction.
If you choose to support reason, logic and basic morality then you are going to have to engage in civil disobedience.
You need to wrap your head around that before your head gets wrapped around a club weilded by one of the Republican Party’s Neo-Brownshirts.
Hmm. 1. The trouble makers didn’t create the world necessarily. They’re just really good at profiting from it and denying that we need to change direction.
Anyway we can have our necessities on renewable power. That’s not saying that going shopping is a bad thing btw. I find that I have to eat and clothe myself too.
2. The economic “wealth” you describe is not for everybody. There’s nothing we should feel guilty about just being alive. We don’t owe anyone for that as you imply.
For people’s general historical education:
the term “moral majority” has historically been employed in various contexts to denote a collective ethical stance, well before its association with Jerry Falwell’s 1979 political organization.
Here’s a concise overview: Historical Uses of “Moral Majority”
Abolitionist Movement (19th Century): During the antebellum period, abolitionists invoked the concept of a “moral majority” to argue that the ethical imperative to end slavery was supported by the majority of morally conscious citizens. They contended that, despite political and economic interests upholding slavery, the prevailing moral sentiment opposed it.
Progressive Era Reforms (Late 19th to Early 20th Century): Reformers addressing issues like child labor, women’s suffrage, and temperance often appealed to the “moral majority” to garner support for legislative changes. They posited that ethical considerations, shared by the majority, necessitated reforms in business practices and government policies.
Civil Rights Movement (1950s–1960s): Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. framed civil rights as a moral issue, suggesting that the “moral majority” of Americans supported equality and justice, even if political systems lagged behind. This framing was instrumental in shifting public opinion and influencing policy changes.
These historical instances demonstrate that the phrase “moral majority” has been a rhetorical tool to mobilize public opinion around ethical imperatives, independent of any specific religious or political affiliation.
In the context of Scott Nudds’ comments, it is self-evident that his use of “moral majority” aligns with this broader historical usage, calling for ethical action and responsibility, rather than referencing Falwell’s organization.
W: In the context of Scott Nudds’ comments, it is self-evident that his use of “moral majority” aligns with this broader historical usage, calling for ethical action and responsibility, rather than referencing Falwell’s organization.
BPL: Then maybe he shouldn’t use a phrase that automatically triggers recall of Falwell’s organization in people of our generation. “Democracy” was in use in ancient Athens, but “democracy” doesn’t still mean an ethnic Greek assembly where only men could vote and the the currency came from slave-worked silver mines.
Reply to BPL:
That’s a laughably bad analogy. Nobody today hears the word democracy and thinks they’re being asked to vote in an Athenian slave-state. Likewise, Scott’s use of moral majority is clearly about ethical action—not televangelism.
If your generation is so easily triggered by capital letters that it overrides context, maybe the issue isn’t with the writer—but with fragile, self-important readers hunting for ways to feel superior.
You’re not debating—you’re deflecting with schoolyard-level semantics. Try engaging the actual content next time.
Sock Puppet “William” wrote: “it is self-evident that his use of ‘moral majority’ aligns with this broader historical usage”
Nonsense.
It is self-evident that Nudds’ use of “Moral Majority” — with the initial letters of each word capitalized — is a DELIBERATE, SPECIFIC and EXPLICIT reference to Falwell’s organization.
It is also self-evident that Nudds’ repetitious reference to the “Moral Majority” is an EVASION of saying anything whatsoever about what, specifically, he is asking anyone to do.
Nudds has been REPEATEDLY ASKED — politely and respectfully — to explain what exactly he is suggesting people should “join” or should do, and he has flatly refused to do so. He just keeps repeating his empty, vacuous bumper sticker slogan — which, in the end, says nothing but “I’m better than you”.
Reply to Secular Animist:
Your response seems less about engagement and more an out of control deflection through tone and ridicule. Whether or not Nudds capitalized “Moral Majority” is secondary to the substance of his broader point — one that you have consistently avoided addressing. Fixated in falsehoods as you are. Can’t you read what William said? I ask because you make no rational sense above.
It’s worth noting that when someone repeatedly asks for clarification, but then interprets any response as “vacuous bumper sticker slogans,” it raises the question of whether they’re truly interested in understanding or just eager to attack.
Nudds has made it clear — both directly and by implication — that he’s calling for a values-based political movement that challenges the status quo and confronts prevailing systems of moral and political decay. Whether or not you agree with that vision is beside the point. You do seem to understand what he means — you just don’t like it, and rather than engage on that level, you go after tone, punctuation, and supposed evasions.
And for the record, people having their comments “mysteriously” go missing on this forum is not exactly a rare occurrence. So when Nudds mentions that his posts are frequently not published, that’s not a conspiracy theory — it’s a lived experience shared by others.
In the absence of good faith debate, it’s easy to fall back on the claim that someone’s views are “idiocy” or empty, but that’s often projection. The refusal to engage with the actual ideas — even if they’re unpopular or challenging — says more about the critic, you, than the target.
How can anyone be accused of avoiding dialogue when over a dozen of my comments responding to comments directed at me personally have been blocked from publishing here the last 2 days alone.– the majority being to BPL who is some kind of special protected species in the place.
It is acceptable that BPL (and yourself) can abuse misrepresent and insult all he wants-be completely unhinged emotionally-yet no one is ever allowed to respond with facts. Very weird fundamentals for a “science” forum.
Let’s see if this one gets through the protective sieve. Who knows how many posts by William and Scott and others have been blocked here. But gaps in normal discussions catch the eye–normal conversations simply fall off a cliff repeatedly.
re Secular Animist, William – like an unmeasured quantum system, I agree with you both (on this point):
A possible interpretation of Scott Nudds’ “Moral Majority” was~: actually Moral, actual majority* (*hopefully), as opposed to the immoral minority* (*hopefully) of the Religious Right – ie a sincere declaration of his own position combined with a slam against a previously entity.
Meanwhile MAGA is a demonically-possessed Satanic cult (look at who they worship).
patrick o27: “A possible interpretation of Scott Nudds’ “Moral Majority” was~: actually Moral, actual majority* (*hopefully),”
This interpretation was possible only until he switched from writing “moral majority” to “Moral Majority”, and continues to capitalize in dozen(s)? of repetitive posts since then.
There is no point in trying to look for logic or interpret his writing – it’s a TROLL and his only raison d’être to troll.
And he is not new at this – he has been trolling environmental discussions for DECADES-
say – sci.environment 18 years ago – where “Scott Nudds” a.k.a. “ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans” aka aka Vendicar Decarian aka VD Scotty” was raging against “AmeriKKKan state”.
So no point trying to find “what the author wanted to say” – garbage in, garbage out.
A comment on William, Poor Peru, Scott Nudds, Prieto Principle and other entities
“inspired by elements of what China attempts”
Dear all,
As I have grown in Czechoslovakia occupied by Soviet troops and governed by their domestic collaborators, I do no way wish to experience once again that life. If the people posting under above mentioned nicks feel a need to promote totalitarian regimes and/or terrorist states like China or Russia as good places for a safe and happy life, I would like to ask them for settling in one of such countries themselves first.
Greetings
Tomáš
William, poor Peru, prieto principle, blackouts, Dharma, Ned Kelly, and back to Thomas and reality check several years ago all sound like the same person to me. All post anti American rhetoric and anti capitalist and anti renewable rhetoric. All write in the same style. Same opinions. Sock puppets.
In Re to Nigelj, 12 May 2025 at 6:56 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833099
Hallo Nigelj,
I agree and would like to add a short comment on the post of the said entity dated 12 May 2025 at 8:05 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833107
It represents a slight modification of previous attempts to support Russian hybrid war against the West, by praying Russia as an “alternative”, while pretending that there is no war in which Russia already more than three years strives to erase Ukraine as a state and Ukrainians as a nation (what was, by the way, Russian goal during the entire existence of Russian empire which the present Russian government strives to restore).
I would like to repeat my plea to all commenters who do not share this shameful goal and do not wish that Real Climate website turns into a further platform for spreading Russian war propaganda:
Could you kindly show your disagreement, ideally by avoiding further direct interaction with these malevolent trolls?
Many thanks in advance and greetings
Tomáš
I recommend counselling.
Nigel: William, poor Peru, prieto principle, blackouts, Dharma, Ned Kelly, and back to Thomas and reality check several years ago all sound like the same person to me.
as well as “Scott Nudds”,”ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans, ***@AngryMob.com, Vendicar Decarian VD Scotty from decades ago when he was carpet bombing Newsnet discussion groups on environment (sci.environment, talk.environment)
Nigel: All post anti American rhetoric and anti capitalist and anti renewable rhetoric.
Anti-renewabilism is for him only a tactical weapon to attack the true hate of his life: capitalism and its expression: “AmeriKKKan state”.
I wonder though about his attaching himself to environmental groups. Is it because it is easier to operate here – when you pop up under a new name, people tend to give you a benefit of the doubt, and the enforcement of anti-troll rules is not as energetic as on political groups?
Reply to Tomáš:
Tomáš, your comment is less an argument than a projection of Cold War trauma. No one here is “promoting” totalitarianism. Criticizing Western failures or referencing China’s or Russia’s energy and economic strategies does not equal endorsement—it’s called analysis. You know the difference, or you should.
Your tactic—framing every critique of the West as “pro-Russia” or “pro-China”—is tired, paranoid, and intellectually evasive. It’s a rhetorical smokescreen meant to shut down debate, not engage with facts.
This isn’t 1968. Stop dragging every discussion back into your personal Cold War bunker. Some of us are trying to talk like adults.
As for “terror states,” you might reflect on whether the U.S. and Israel—given their global military footprint and record of civilian casualties—can truly claim moral superiority since WWII. That’s not propaganda. That’s a question grounded in history.
China, Russia, and much of the Global South are trying to offer alternatives—yes, imperfect ones—to a world order dominated by elite-driven capitalist imperialism. Whether you agree or not, pretending Western power represents “real democracy” while dismissing others as “terrorist” is ahistorical and dishonest.
Much like this forum’s selective moderation—where honest critiques are filtered while cheap smears and emotional trolling get a free pass.
[ Unlikely this comment will make it through the eye of the needle. ]
Another expectation tragically unfulfilled…
Hard to imagine you could be any more dismissive while ignoring every thing said in the OP.
Unless you yourself know first hand how many of William’s comments have been deleted blocked or not. And others?
The EPA press office, when asked about Energy Star, did not comment directly about the program but noted the reorganization of the agency that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last Friday. “With this action, EPA is delivering organizational improvements to the personnel structure that will directly benefit the American people and better advance the agency’s core mission, while Powering the Great American Comeback,” EPA’s press office said in an email.
Steven Nadel, executive director of the nonprofit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, thinks Energy Star simply had the misfortune to be located inside EPA’s Climate Protection Partnership Division, and that Zeldin is eliminating offices with the word “climate” in its name.
“What I think we’re looking at here is an absolute distillation of the ideology of this administration, which is a thoroughgoing hostility to anything that the government does that helps people,” Goffman said.
—-
Bye Bye Climate science in Ameria.
Have you joined the Moral Majority yet?
Your fear is what they are banking on.
SN: Have you joined the Moral Majority yet?
BPL: Have you voted in the 1980 election?
Piotr: “Increase in GHG concentrations is the CAUSE, NOT merely a symptom of AGW.”
William: “ No — it’s more accurate to call it a proximate cause. ”
That’s NOT what you had said in your original post in which you ridiculed reductions in GHGs as NEITHER “ feasible [nor] wise“, and justified it by saying that they merely “treat symptoms, not causes“.
Furthermore – you know perfectly that we can’t reach net zero by say 2050 by addressing your “root causes”: we can’t completely deindustrialize the world and/or depopulate Earth from 8 billion to a tiny fraction of that to achieve net zero by 2050. Well, short of a global “final solution” – a nuclear holocaust, or releasing a bioweapon without any cure available to the many billions you want to eliminate,
William: “ I’m not a denier”
The lady doth protest too much. We don’t have to rely on your self-serving declarations, your posts would do: you have just tried to discredit the only feasible way to mitigate AGW (“neither feasible nor wise”) in favour of an alternative you know you cannot realistically implement on the necessary time-scale. Which is a very definition of an “anything-but-GHGs denier“.
By their fruits, not their delusions about themselves, you shall know them.
The latest article posted https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/the-most-recent-climate-status/ and the many responses motivated me to assemble this short passage, which I think addresses many current concerns about the prevailing denial, inaction, and distraction.
The Real Crisis Isn’t Partisan—It’s Systemic
Let’s be honest: the United States has become a case study in institutional failure—and climate policy is Exhibit A.
People keep acting like we just need to get rid of Trump and the GOP to “fix” things. But climate inaction isn’t a Republican invention alone. Democratic administrations have also repeatedly failed to deliver structural climate action, even when they’ve had the power and the mandate to do so. Instead, we get endless reports—well-packaged, peer-reviewed, and ultimately shelved. They make no difference on the ground. They don’t challenge the fossil cartel or the financial elite. They don’t stop the pipelines. They don’t force real adaptation. They don’t redirect military budgets to survival needs. And scientists—instead of demanding real power or taking a stand, as Scott Nudds correctly highlighted—keep producing sterile assessments that serve as bureaucratic rituals.
The climate crisis is here now—unfolding in real time—and yet most of the so-called “solutions” on offer are vague, toothless, or outright performative. Echo chambers ring with “reduce CO₂, CO₂, CO₂” or “cut greenhouse gases!” Then we’re told that Net Zero by 2050 is doable (no, it is not). Last year: $183 billion in U.S. climate damages. Likely over $1 trillion globally. But let’s talk about how mean Trump is to NOAA instead of why no serious climate mobilization ever happens—even under liberal governments that claim to “believe the science.” Don’t kid yourselves: the +1.5°C barrier has been permanently breached.
This whole red-vs-blue, MAGA-Republican-vs-Democrat-Woke-Liberal divide has become a kind of trap—an identity game that distracts from the bigger picture. Both parties are complicit in maintaining a corrupt system that prioritizes empire, profit, and elite control over collective ecological survival. One party denies the science; the other claims to accept it—and still does virtually nothing with that knowledge.
It’s not just about disinformation. The American public has also been too passive—lulled into consumer apathy or shallow culture wars while critical thinking disappears down the drain. Meanwhile, “liberal” elites now act more like technocratic gatekeepers than agents of real change. They issue warnings, give TED Talks, and wait for someone else to fix it.
The rest of the world sees it clearly. The U.S. talks climate while dropping bombs, expanding LNG exports, and sanctioning half the planet into economic chaos. And yes—consensus-first scientific institutions are part of the problem when they refuse to name these contradictions. When they refuse to declare how this business-as-usual addiction is driving the worsening climate crisis.
You don’t need Trump to delay climate action. You just need complicity, cowardice, and careerism—and there’s plenty of that on both sides of the aisle.
If you’re still waiting for one party to save you while blaming the other for everything, you’re stuck in an illusion. Both have helped bring us to the brink. Maybe it’s time to stop pretending the system can be salvaged with another report or another election—and start talking honestly about what collapse looks like, and what, if anything, you’re personally willing to do about it.
W: People keep acting like we just need to get rid of Trump and the GOP to “fix” things. But climate inaction isn’t a Republican invention alone. Democratic administrations have also repeatedly failed to deliver structural climate action, even when they’ve had the power and the mandate to do so.
BPL: Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act included a lot of climate-related programs. The fact that they had the potential to knock down our reliance on fossil fuels significantly is why the Trump administration is now busy eradicating them.
The Democrats may not be great, but they are miles better than the Republicans. Both-sides-ism is a rejection of personal responsibility.
Reply to Barton Paul Levenson
Weak unviable irrational excuses are still excuses for abdicating your personal and collective responsibility. Scott Nudds makes more rational sense than you are willing to see.
Again, wrong. You posit a false equivalence between the parties, claiming that this inhibits action. But the reality is that precisely this insistence is (at least potentially) a much *worse* inhibition to action. You say the system is broken, and that is correct, in the sense that it is unresponsive to the wishes of ordinary citizens. But that does not mean that it is irrelevant, because there is a drastic asymmetry in the policies and the actions of the two parties.
While the actions of recent Democratic presidents have admittedly been inadequate, the actions of recent Republican ones have been strongly counterproductive. Biden made multi-billion dollar investments in climate action; Trump has once again pulled us out of Paris; stopped all payments to UN mitigation funds; and is attempting to claw back as much of the Biden investment money as he legally can, PLUS whatever he can pragmatically get away with.
I’m not waiting for anyone to “save me,” and I’m working all the time. That means working with the system, AND working around the system AND visioning and working toward what is to come. Those courses of action are not incompatible.
And speaking of that last, I note that you have not responded to my invitation to envision what the future should look like, and how best practically to approach it.
What should we be working toward, according to you, and how should we be working, in your opinion?
And speaking of that last, I note that you have not responded to my invitation to envision what the future should look like, and how best practically to approach it.
Reply to Kevin McKinney
I would not know but given previous comments by William and Scott Nudds there’s a chance greater than zero that William responded to you but their comment was blocked and deleted. He might even try to reply to your comment here again and the same thing will occur. You would not know.
Which would be why I repeated it. Reread what I wrote; I didn’t make any accusation.
Just one problem with your little analysis, William. It’s wrong. Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act was the single most ambitious piece of legislation addressing climate issues ever passed by any administration. Was it sufficient? Of course not, but it was a whole helluvalot better than the current Administration’s wholesale vandalism of the entire US scientific enterprise.
I refuse to believe that you are gullible enough to believe what you’ve written, but the only other conclusion I can come to is that you are simply a lying, right wing propagandist. Is there another explanation I’m not seeing?
Reply to Ray Ladbury
William says
12 May 2025 at 8:40 PM
William: We need to dismantle the dictatorship of capital and build something rooted in ecological survival and justice — a people-first system, maybe inspired by elements of what China attempts, flawed as it is.
Yes he is clearly “a lying, right wing propagandist”. Undoubtedly a KKK Neo Nazi type fellow.
No other explanation fits. /s
Thanks Ray. Unfortunately, your short, to the point, and rational response will be buried with reams of arguments. And then rational people will be tempted to prolong the boring diversions by responding to them. It’s all a great waste of time.
Every once in a while something sensible/useful intrudes, but the interludes are all too brief.
Meanwhile, those bent on misdirection and/or self promotion dominate these pages, making them all but useless, unless one has a deep enjoyment of destructive nonsense and people insisting on correcting said destructive nonsense.
SA: “It’s all a great waste of time. Those bent on misdirection and/or self-promotion dominate these pages, making them all but useless — unless one has a deep enjoyment of destructive nonsense.”
TPP: Piotr, in particular, seems to embody that kind of behavior. Why it’s tolerated — let alone encouraged — is difficult to make sense of from any rational standpoint. But like it or not, it’s what’s served up on the menu here, day after day.
William, we all seem to agree solving the climate problem requires a large reduction in GHGs by about 2050. Other environmental problems also need quite urgent attention.
Changing the socio – economic system and making massive energy reductions on such time frames is completely impractical as Piotr points out above, and I’ve pointed out previously (you obviously use multiple names). Chances of success are effectively zero.
In comparison, renewables have at least some chance of success. They are already growing in scale and should make at least some difference. And contrary to your claims Biden did have some substantial policies. on renewables with the inflation reduction act. Therefore by simple logic our best chance is renewables, (and at best modest energy reductions added on). You do like to lecture people on the virtues of logic, right?
“You don’t need Trump to delay climate action. You just need complicity, cowardice, and careerism—and there’s plenty of that on both sides of the aisle.” – William
Correct. But this isn’t a Trump issue. This is a Republican/Libertarian issue.
Consider the words of Republican Senator Dan Crenshaw…
“Lying generally is acceptable, Lying specifically is not” – Republican senator Dan Crenshaw.
https://youtu.be/HoeyAns5CvA?t=341
“Lying is generally acceptable.” to Republicans and Libertarians.
W: If you’re still waiting for one party to save you while blaming the other for everything, you’re stuck in an illusion. Both have helped bring us to the brink.
BPL: If you think both parties are exactly the same, you’re stuck in an illusion. Both-sides-ism has helped bring us to the brink.
https://raywilliams.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/rep.jpg
BPL says: If you think both parties are exactly the same, you’re stuck in an illusion. Both-sides-ism has helped bring us to the brink.
Prieto P. (falsely named…):
If you, BPL, genuinely believe William ever claimed “both parties are the same”, then you’re the one in need of a serious reality check. Review what was actually said — and what the data shows.
It’s exactly this kind of anti-scientific reasoning, misrepresentation, and data denial that has helped push the world to the brink. Comments from those who can’t even get basic facts straight add nothing of value to serious discussions on climate catastrophe or sound policy development.
If I can read what is there, why can’t you and others?
Prieto Principle, what you say simply isn’t true.
You clearly use multiple identities. We can all see the striking similarities of style, content and opinion. Denying this just further erodes your integrity and peoples perception of that.
You have spent years on this website stating American presidents are the same and that Democrats and Republicans are the same. You are rarely explicit in what you mean so people take you literally. In one post you said they are the same because they are all capitalists, (?) but most of your posts don’t say that. And not everyone reads all your posts or realise you use multiple names.
You have appallingly bad communications skills. Your posts must be self contained – so if you claim two people are the same you have to explain what you mean by that and in plain explicit language. Get it?
In Re to Nigelj, 18 May 2025 at 3:32 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833464
Hallo Nigel,
Although I read the posts on this forum a significantly shorter time than you, I agree that PP sound exactly like the entities he currently refuses to be identical with.
I somewhat doubt that the real Pedro Prieto
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3272-9184
suddenly got mad and started flooding this website with his stuff under his right name instead of various obscure nicknames that he (perhaps) used for years. I therefore suspect that someone else may currently use his identity herein.
Anyway – in case that he indeed finally decided to post under his right name, his previous record on Real Climate compromises his reputation heavily, I think.
Greetings
Tomáš
Thomas Kalisz. For several years I ignored that pietro principle used different names. Assumed everyone else could see it anyway. To me it’s normally the content of what people say that counts not their internet identities. But the number of changes in name got so large it became very strange, so I mentioned they must be the same person. And using a name of a real person like piedro prieto is deceptive. Then again it’s possible the man has been banned so adopts new names to get past the moderator. Haven’t seen anything like it on any other websites so it’s psychologically intriguing.
SCIENCE N DATA +1.5C broken thru and accelerating.
(AGU article) Earth’s Energy Imbalance More Than Doubled in Recent Decades
The doubling of the rate of global heating in recent decades has surprised the scientific community so needs to be better understood yet our capability to measure Earth’s energy imbalance is at risk: by Richard Allan and co
Worryingly, the observed energy imbalance is rising much faster than expected, reaching 1.8 Wm2 in 2023—or twice that predicted by climate models—after having more than doubled within just two decades (Figure 1). This strong upward trend in the imbalance is difficult to reconcile with climate models: even if the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing and associated climate response are accounted for, state-of-the-art global climate models can only barely reproduce the rate of change up to 2020 within the observational uncertainty (Raghuraman et al., 2021). The continued rise in the energy imbalance since 2020 leaves us with little doubt that the real world signal has left the envelope of model internal variability. The root cause of the discrepancy between models and observations is currently not well known, but it seems to be dominated by a decrease in Earth’s solar reflectivity (Goessling et al., 2024; Stephens et al., 2022), and model experiments suggest it could be due to poorly modeled sea surface temperature patterns, the representation and emissions of polluting aerosol particles, or something else (Hodnebrog et al., 2024).
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024AV001636
James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha 15 April 2025
Abstract. Global temperature for 2025 should decline little, if at all, from the record 2024 level.
Absence of a large temperature decline after the huge El Nino-spurred temperature increase in 2023-24 will provide further confirmation that IPCC’s best estimates for climate sensitivity and aerosol climate forcing were both underestimates. Specifically, 2025 global temperature should remain near or above +1.5C relative to 1880-1920, and, if the tropics remain ENSO-neutral, there is good chance that 2025 may even exceed the 2024 record high global temperature.
Global temperature in February and March 2025 fell below the record highs for those months in 2024 (Fig. 1) and such relative decline is likely in most of the next few months. However, the decline has been modest and the 2024 vs 2025 ranks of several months later in the year might be reversed.
Expectation of continuing global temperature change is aided by understanding of the accelerated global warming that began in about 2015. As noted in our “Acceleration” paper,2 the leap of global temperature in 2023-24, in part, had an earlier origin.
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/2025GlobalTemperature.15April2025.pdf
According to the ERA5 dataset, globally April 2025 was: +1.51°C warmer than an estimate of the pre-industrial April average for 1850-1900. Being the second-warmest April on record, 0.07°C cooler than the warmest April in 2024.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-april-2025
April 2025 is another data point of an absence of a large temperature decline as noted by Hansen above. January to April 2025 the Data sides with James Hansen to a T about the IPCC “climate sensitivity” consensus being wrong combined with his assertions of multiple errors in Modelling.
Plus, Globally, the annual average for the latest 12-month period (May 2024 to April 2025) was: 1.58°C above the estimated 1850-1900 average used to define the pre-industrial level.
Looking more like a Hansen slam dunk as each month passes. But no, this will not rattle that ‘consensus’. My prediction is they will be sticking with it through 2026 and beyond no matter what the latest Data says.
And here is the Hansen follow-up up for May 2025
Large Cloud Feedback Confirms High Climate Sensitivity
James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha 13 May 2025
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/CloudFeedback.13May2025.pdf
Abstract.
Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) declined over the 25 years of precise satellite data, with
the decline so large that this change must be mainly reduced reflection of sunlight by clouds. Part
of the cloud change is caused by reduction of human-made atmospheric aerosols, which act as
condensation nuclei for cloud formation, but most of the cloud change is cloud feedback that
occurs with global warming. The observed albedo change proves that clouds provide a large,
amplifying, climate feedback. This large cloud feedback confirms high climate sensitivity,
consistent with paleoclimate data and with the rate of global warming in the past century.
Summary.
Earth’s darkening, by itself, provides strong proof that climate sensitivity is much higher
than IPCC’s best estimate of 3°C for doubled CO2. In our “Pipeline”7 and “Acceleration”5 papers, we
include two other, independent, assessments of climate sensitivity, one based on paleoclimate evidence
and one based on global warming from preindustrial time to the present. Each of the three assessments
concludes that the data are inconsistent with a sensitivity of 3°C. As summarized in our recent
(Acceleration) paper, we conclude that climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 is 4.5°C ± 0.5°C (1σ). In
future communications, we will describe each of the other two analyses. Climate sensitivity as low as
3°C for doubled CO2 is excluded with greater than 99 percent confidence.
Criticisms of the Acceleration paper in the media did not address the physics in our three assessments of
climate sensitivity. Instead, criticisms were largely ad hoc opinions, even ad hominem attacks. How can
science reporting have descended to this level? Climate science is now so complex, with many sub-
disciplines, that the media must rely on opinions of climate experts. Although there are thousands of
capable scientists in these disciplines, the media have come to depend on a handful of scientists, a clique
of climate scientists who are willing, or even eager, to be the voice of the climate science community.
But are they representative of the total community, of capable scientists who focus on climate science?
Truth is that there are many scientists out there with a depth of understanding at least as great as the clique of scientists that the media rely on. Given the success of this clique in painting us as outliers, we are dependent on the larger community being willing to help educate the media about the current climate situation.
“Instead, criticisms were largely ad hoc opinions, even ad hominem attacks.
How can science reporting have descended to this level?”
It is what it is James. Deal with it head on.
What’s the consensus on Hansen’s recent “”Large Cloud Feedback Confirms High Climate Sensitivity”.
Abstract. Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) declined over the 25 years of precise satellite data, with the decline so large that this change must be mainly reduced reflection of sunlight by clouds. Part of the cloud change is caused by reduction of human-made atmospheric aerosols, which act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, but most of the cloud change is cloud feedback that occurs with global warming….
A link to Hansen’s recent “”Large Cloud Feedback Confirms High Climate Sensitivity”.
The thesis itself is not presenting anything new,
It kicks-off by referring to the publication of Hansen et al (2025) “Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?” and saying ” A few reports appeared in the media the next day, but, almost uniformly, these reports dismissed our conclusions as a fringe opinion, out of step with the larger scientific community, and thus there was no continuing discussion of the issues raised in our paper.” So the idea of this latest thesis is to present a sharper message which would then not be “dismissed … as a fringe opinion, out of step with the larger scientific community” through finding a wider readership “beyond the handful of climate scientists that the media have come to rely on.”
MA Rodger says
The Hansen thesis itself is not presenting anything new,
That’s a typical unscientific response — not one point you raised actually counters Hansen’s presentation or the metrics he uses.
And even if it isn’t presenting something entirely new, so what? In the recent RealClimate article and the accompanying report – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/the-most-recent-climate-status/ – the fact that the findings confirmed previous results — despite incorporating new data — was considered a positive outcome. It reinforces the robustness of earlier conclusions, not undermines them.
When it comes to Hansen et al detailed robust work the opposite cherry-picked standard is applied.
Black Peter,
Well done!!!
That example of a work whose “findings confirmed previous results” which you cite as an exemplar of work “not presenting anything new” is “falsely” applied.
Idiots beware!!!
Pedantry requires a little understanding without which you are simply making a fool of yourself.
The data appears to say from satellites that there is 0.5% less cloud cover now than there was when satellites were first used. This then says it’s the equivalent of a 138 ppmv co2 rise which suggests it’s significant in relation to climate change
What’s the consensus?
I’d rather the question was: what does the science data and physics say is the conclusion?
That is because you don’t understand what is meant by scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is driven by the data and physics. It isn’t what people believe. It’s what scientists need to accept to make actual progress in understanding their field of study–the theories, tools, facts/data that allow a scientist to advance the field.
A scientists can reject the consensus, but doing so is a recipe for irrelevance, because one’s publications will have less predictive power than if one used the full productive power of the field.
Ray Ladbury says:
“Scientific consensus is driven by the data and physics.”
Not this “consensus” being discussed above.
First of all, don’t presume to tell me what I do or don’t know — you wouldn’t know that yourself. Second, your statement is demonstrably false. Did you even read Hansen’s article before responding? Clearly not.
The current “consensus” within public-facing climate science isn’t driven purely by data and physics. It’s shaped by the unsupported opinions of a small, self-reinforcing clique of climate scientists. These individuals hold outsized influence due not to superior insight, but to media cultivation and a long-standing popularity built on self-promotion. Their status as go-to experts has more to do with visibility than with scientific robustness.
James Hansen is absolutely right in his critique. Let me quote him again — try to follow this time:
Criticisms of the Acceleration paper in the media did not address the physics in our three assessments of climate sensitivity.
criticisms were largely ad hoc opinions, even ad hominem attacks.
Although there are thousands of capable scientists in these disciplines, the media have come to depend on a handful of scientists, a [SELF-APPOINTED] CLIQUE of climate scientists who are willing, or even eager, to be the voice of the climate science community.
But are they representative of the total community, of capable scientists who focus on climate science? [ NO , they are not.]
Truth is that there are many scientists out there with a depth of understanding at least as great as the clique of scientists…..
Given the success of this clique in painting us as outliers,
One prominent member of this clique was recently sanctioned by a judge for lying under oath — misrepresenting the evidence he submitted in court. The penalties from that case were reversed only because the judge acknowledged his “false witness.”
Why should anyone trust a proven liar — especially one who wields media clout and resorts to baseless, unscientific commentary and personal attacks?
This kind of clique-driven gatekeeping is exactly what Hansen is calling out, and why voices like his still matter.
I think that Prieto P certainly uses multiple identities including Poor Peru, Dharma, Complicius, William , Sabine, Escobar, Ned Kelly and Thomas and Reality Check (this goes back a few years). The style, information and opinions are all strikingly similar. and certain themes are constant namely that Hansen is right and the rest are wrong. Renewables allegedly wont work. Degrowth and simplification are the “real solution.” There’s anti Americanism and pro Russia and China rhetoric. Anti capitalist and pro socialist rhetoric. I’m simplifying what he says, and he’s not anti all things American, but that is the general flavour of it. Im not making value judgements on his views , just noting what they are.
PP : “The current “consensus” within public-facing climate science isn’t driven purely by data and physics. It’s shaped by the unsupported opinions of a small, self-reinforcing clique of climate scientists.”
No. It’s shaped by their understanding of what the data and physics is showing.I have a lot of respect for Hansen and he may be proven right ultimately, but his more contentious work is full of assumptions to such a degree others just aren’t buying into some of it. The scientific consensus is essentially presented in things the IPCC findings. They aren’t persuaded by some of Hansens claims.
What does the data we have say about climate sensitivity ? The model / data comparisons on this website show warming tracking along the middle of the model ensemble and the middle appears to be models which generate middle range climate sensitivity. Of course if warming creeps above the middle range line for an extended period it would suggest high sensitivity. Im am not an expert so tell me if I have that wrong.
Middle range climate sensitivity is quite bad enough to have me worried and I vigorously promote solutions like renewables. The PP solutions of ambitious degrowth / simplification / population reduction do not look viable on the short time frames we have to fix the problem. I note that Piotr has reached similar conclusions.
The scientific denial echoing through this chamber is not just deafening — it’s intellectually bankrupt and beyond tedious.
PP: What’s the consensus? . . . I’d rather the question was: what does the science data and physics say is the conclusion?
BPL: What do you think the scientific consensus IS? A vote taken around a table?
Well. What does “the science data and physics say” ?
Collected data by itself doesn’t “say” any “conclusion” by themselves whatsoever. Many non-scientists don’t understand this. Data in and of itself is atheoretic. It’s 20.2C around me right now. Accurate datum freshly measured with tolerably advanced gear. What theory does that support? Or refute?
It is the consensus of experts qualified to understand the potential theoretic consequences of various observations (your “physics”) of particular observational data gathered by specific methods and who are qualified to understand the specific means by which they are collected, cleaned, and interpreted that provides any actual scientific conclusions.*
This is taught in junior high school science these days..
_________
*Are you aware that in many areas, cleaning, scaling, and otherwise pretreating data often takes much more time than the original collection in the first place? Consider, for example, how much processing is done on microwave satellite temp data before we get to the temperatures some kilometers up and never do see the _actual_ surface temps at all in any case.