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.
Climate science from climate scientists...
Here are some coping tools for us all. Bruce Springsteen in Manchester UK this week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QJXsmDBS8k
Dolly Parton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QJXsmDBS8k
We know the facts. Now we need passion.
Just FYI:
Clean Energy Just Put China’s CO2 Emissions Into Reverse For First Time.
In Re to MA Rodger, 15 May 2025 at 10:03 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833315
Dear MA,
I think that you analyzed Hansen 2025 some time ago.
Could you remind me when you posted your comments on this article, or repeat your observations on the article herein again?
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz,
You ask “When?”
Not surprisingly given the paper in question, Hansen et al (2025), was published in February, that would have been February. But my critique of this far-too-lengthy paper (I note the Hansen & Kharecha account posted 13th May talks of their new account being intended to ” clarify the situation” by acting “to summarize our analysis” of Feb) is stretched over a number of posts following that I link here. And a quick look appears to show that I got bored/distracted and never actually completed my critique.
In Re to MA Rodger, 18 May 2025 at 3:31 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833446
Dear MA,
Thank you very much for your fast update!
I tried to read the article myself and have been surprised that it is a strange hybrid between a popular scientific publication, a kind of an “executive summary for policy makers”, and a political essay, drifting from aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity through an analysis of solar radiation management towards advocacy for a collaboration in nuclear energy exploitation between the USA and People Republic of China, spiced with a mention of “deep state” on page 35.
As regards the main objective of the authors, it appears that the assertion of the paleoclimate data as a supoport for high climate sensitivity is based on two publications cited under reference 159:
“159. Already by 1984 the combination of paleoclimate
data and global climate modeling was shown to
imply a climate sensitivity 2.5-5 °C for doubled
CO2 [J. Hansen, A. Lacis, D. Rind et al., “Climate
sensitivity: analysis of feedback mechanisms,” In:
J.E. Hansen, T. Takahashi (eds). AGU Geophysical
Monograph 29 Climate Processes and Climate
Sensitivity. Washington: American Geophysical
Union (1984): 130-63] with the large range mainly caused by uncertainty in the magnitude of glacial/interglacial temperature change. A recent remarkable analysis of noble gas abundances in
groundwater deposited during the last ice age [A.
M. Seltzer, J. Ng, W. Aeschbach et al., “Widespread
six degrees Celsius cooling on land during the
Last Glacial Maximum,” Nature 593 (2021): 228-
32] favors climate sensitivity in the range 4-5 °C
for doubled CO2 (see discussion the Seltzer paper
in reference 1).”
In the article, there is no discussion showing if also other paleoclimate data are in accordance with these findings (and if not, why). Furthermore, it appears that this high paleoclimate sensitivity towards atmospheric CO2 concentration was inferred from halving an originally higher starting CO2 concentration during an ice age. Why, however, such a climate sensitivity (to my understanding responding primarily to a decrease in Earth insolation, due to changes in Earth orbital parameters, and secondarily enhanced by a decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentration as a feedback) should be the same as climate sensitivity primarily caused by a CO2 atmospheric concentration increase?
There seems to be an assumption that climate sensitivity towards CO2 concentration changes is basically independent from all other starting conditions of the respective climate change as well as from the actual cause / mechanism of the respective change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. According to page 7 of the earlier Hansen¨s article “Global warming in the pipeline” from the year 2023 cited in the present article as ref. 1,
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
it appears that this assumption has been derived from a simulation carried out with a particular global circulation model, in
Hansen J, Sato M, Russell G et al. Climate sensitivity, sea level,
and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng
Sci 2013;371:20120294.
I therefore wonder if another model, with a different parameterization, perhaps could show a significantly stronger climate sensitivity dependence on initial climate state than the GCM chosen for that study. Are you aware of other studies supporting the conclusion that climate sensitivity towards atmospheric CO2 concentration can be approximated as a constant independent from initial climate state?
Best regards
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz,
You asking me about the work of Hansen (et al) I must state that generally I am no great fan of the theorising of Hansen as I see rather too many critical lapses in scholarship within such theorising.
As an exemplar lapse touched upon in this case, note Seltzer et al (2021) cited by Hansen within his Ref 159. As you copy above, this Seltzer et al paper is referenced by Hansen saying:-
Reference 1, the ‘Global warming in the pipeline’ paper, shows the calculations used to reach this ECS=“4-5 °C” result – actually 4.5°C+/-1.1°C (2σ). What is absent is mention of the ECS conclusions stated by Seltzer et al which are not aligned with this Hansen ECS conclusion. The Seltzer et al conclusion on ECS:-
You ask if the climate forcing from CO2 concentrations and from albedo should be treated equally.
If the forcings and feedbacks are correctly assessed & attributed, the only reason not to treat them equally is perhaps any differing geography of their application (something GCMs should be able to show). Otherwise a level of Wm^-2 results both of them which could both be treated as forcing even if one could be seen as a feedback of the other. What is forcing and what is feedback is surely defined by what you define as being the system boundary.
And you appear to be asking about the idea that ECS can be different for differing “initial climate state” (presumably by this you mean “starting temperature”). In the past an ECS varying with SAT has been a Hansen thing, so the opposite of your apparent interpretation of the ‘Pipeline’ paper.
Hansen’s has a schematic graph of ECS v SAT appearing in his thesis Hansen & Sato (2012) ‘Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth’s Climate History’ as Fig 7. The text talks of the strength of albedo feedbacks varying with SAT.
The paper you reference Hansen et al (2013) ‘Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide’), also has a ECS v SAT graph in its Fig 7, this time plotting the results of the modelling exercise you appear to reference. It is seemingly a rather old model dating to the 1990s (described in Russell et al (1995). (I note as the curious the finding shown in this Fig7a which suggests the tropopause would disappear for an atmosphere of 5000ppm or more, something I haven’t met elsewhere, a lost tropopause being something which I was under the impression would have serious consequences.)
Reply to MA Rodger
I believe that’s long bow to draw and may even be overegging the souffle on top.
The seltzer conclusion was also:
Our land-based result broadly supports a recent reconstruction based on marine proxy data assimilation1 that suggested greater climate sensitivity than previous estimates5–7.
[…] but it is incompatible with previous influential LGM temperature reconstructions6,7,13 that have suggested less low-latitude cooling during the LGM and lower climate sensitivity.
and then followed that up with:
The advent of new techniques for palaeoclimate data assimilation50 using geochemical marine proxy data1 has produced estimates of low-latitude LGM cooling that greatly exceed previous estimates that incorporated microfossil-assemblage-based transfer functions5,6 and had provided a lower ECS than the model-based consensus49
and […] advent of new techniques for palaeoclimate data assimilation50 using geochemical marine proxy data1 has produced estimates of low-latitude LGM cooling that greatly exceed previous estimates that incorporated microfossil-assemblage-based transfer functions5,6 and had provided a lower ECS than the model-based consensus 49
and hardly broadbased or extensive
[…] our low-latitude LGM cooling estimate is only compatible with a [one] previous study [Tierney et al 2020] that suggested an ECS of 3.4 °C per doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (within the model-based range [Knutti, R. & Heger 2008]),…[…]
Heeding from Hansen’s Pipeline paper: https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false
Seltzer et al. [51] use the temperature-dependent solubility of dissolved noble gases in ancient groundwater to show that land areas between 45°S and 35°N cooled 5.8 ± 0.6°C in the LGM. This cooling is consistent with 1 km lowering of alpine snowlines found by Rind and Peteet [24]. Land response to a forcing exceeds ocean response, but polar amplification makes the global response as large as the low latitude land response in GCM simulations with fixed ice sheets (Supplementary Material Fig. S3). When ice sheet growth is added, cooling amplification at mid and high latitudes is greater [7], making 5.8°C cooling of low latitude land consistent with global cooling of ∼7°C.
Plus Hansen really gets into the weeds here speaking of Seltzer and ECS and his overarching theory analysis ::
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)
The 1979 Charney study [4] considered an idealized climate sensitivity in which ice sheets and non-CO2 GHGs are fixed. The Charney group estimated that the equilibrium response to 2 × CO2, a forcing of 4 W/m2, was 3°C, thus an ECS of 0.75°C per W/m2, with one standard deviation uncertainty σ = 0.375°C. Charney’s estimate stood as the canonical ECS for more than 40 years. The current IPCC report [12] concludes that 3°C for 2 × CO2 is their best estimate for ECS.
We compare recent glacial and interglacial climates to infer ECS with a precision not possible with climate models alone. Uncertainty about Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) temperature has been resolved independently with consistent results by Tierney et al. [49] and Seltzer et al. [51]. The Tierney approach, using a collection of geochemical temperature indicators in a global analysis constrained by climate change patterns defined by a global climate model, is used by Osman et al. [50] to find peak LGM cooling 7.0 ± 1°C (2σ, 95% confidence) at 21–18 kyBP. We show that, accounting for polar amplification, these analyses are consistent with the 5.8 ± 0.6°C LGM cooling of land areas between 45°S and 35°N found by Seltzer et al. using the temperature-dependent solubility of dissolved noble gases in ancient groundwater. The forcing that maintained the 7°C LGM cooling was the sum of 2.25 ± 0.45 W/m2 (2σ) from GHGs and 3.5 ± 1.0 W/m2 (2σ) from the LGM surface albedo, thus 5.75 ± 1.1 W/m2 (2σ). ECS implied by the LGM is thus 1.22 ± 0.29°C (2σ) per W/m2, which, at this final step, we round to 1.2 ± 0.3°C per W/m2. For transparency, we have combined uncertainties via simple RMS (root-mean-square). ECS as low as 3°C for 2 × CO2 is excluded at the 3σ level, i.e. with 99.7% confidence.
More sophisticated mathematical analysis, which has merits but introduces opportunity for prior bias and obfuscation, is not essential; error assessment ultimately involves expert judgment. Instead, focus is needed on the largest source of error: LGM surface albedo change, which is uncertain because of the effect of cloud shielding on the efficacy of the forcing. As cloud modeling is advancing rapidly, this topic is ripe for collaboration of CMIP [53] (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) with PMIP [54] (Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project). Simulations should include at the same time change of surface albedo and topography of ice sheets, vegetation change, and exposure of continental shelves due to lower sea level.
Knowledge of climate sensitivity can be advanced further via analysis of the wide climate range in the Cenozoic era (Earth system sensitivity section). However, interpretation of data and models, and especially projections of climate change, depend on understanding of climate response time.
and […] Although PGM temperature lacks quantification comparable to that of Seltzer et al. [51] and Tierney et al. [49] for the LGM, the PGM-Eemian warming provides support for the high ECS inferred from LGM-Holocene warming.
and best not overlook 95 Seltzer AM, Blard P-H, Sherwood SC et al. Terrestrial amplification of past, present, and future climate change. Sci Adv 2023;9:eadf8119.
nor Reto Knutti & Gabriele C. Hegerl https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo337
Knutti, R. & Hegerl, G. C. The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nat. Geosci. 1, 735–743 (2008).
who states: Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values.
[…] But the upper limit of climate sensitivity will be more difficult to quantify.
(39.95€ will get the rest of it)
But do note this one
9. Hansen, J. et al. in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity (ed. Hansen, J. & Takahashi, T.) Vol. 29 (American Geophysical Union, 1984).
Not good to cherry-pick one-off items; but good to have an eye for many details.
in Re to MA Rodger, 20 May 2025 at 4:01 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833551
Dear MA,
Thank you very much for your kind feedback!
1) I understand that forcings are expressed in W/m2 just to enable that they serve as a “common denominator” and their effects on Earth climate can be summarized reasonably. I got, however, somewhat unsure about this understanding when I read the article
O. Boucher Æ G. Myhre Æ A. Myhre
Direct human influence of irrigation on atmospheric water vapour
and climate
Climate Dynamics (2004) 22: 597–603
DOI 10.1007/s00382-004-0402-4
that has been recently cited herein by Barton Paul Levenson.
In the abstract, the authors summarize their research as follows:
“In idealised simulations we estimate
a global mean radiative forcing in the range of 0.03 to
+0.1 Wm–2 due to the increase in water vapour from
irrigation. However, because the water cycle is embodied
in the climate system, irrigation has a more complex
influence on climate. We also simulate a change in the
temperature vertical profile and a large surface cooling
of up to 0.8 K over irrigated land areas. This is of
opposite sign than expected from the radiative forcing
alone, and this questions the applicability of the radiative
forcing concept for such a climatic perturbation.”
Is it possible that when Boucher et al wrote their article 22 years ago, the concept of radiative forcing was not fully established yet, and (possibly) did not include non-radiative mechanisms of energy transport such as latent heat flux?
If so, and the meaning / definition of radiative forcing developed during time, I am afraid that it can be extremely diffcult for a layman to track and understand discussions among climate scientists, especially if it is not precisely explained to which definition of the term (or, perhaps, to which attribution of the respective value to a respective forcing) they refer.
This is just an explanation for my question regarding equivalence of various forcings. I think that this question was somewhat unfortunate, because it draws the attention away from my focus, which was rather on the following aspect.
2) As I meanwhile tried to explain in more detail in my further post of 20 May 2025 at 8:37 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833562
under “initial climate state”, I meant rather different land hydrology regimes than different starting temperatures. I think that modelling experiments described in
Hansen et al (2013) ‘Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide’)
have not considered the possibility that water availability for evaporation from the land can change, similarly as could change the starting area of ice sheets, starting albedo, etc.
For this reason, I do not suppose that their modelling experiments convincingly excluded the possibility suggested by Makarieva. I therefore still think that my proposal (to check, by a dedicated modelling experiment, if the climate sensitivity towards atmospheric CO2 concentration may depend on water availability for evaporation from the land) could make sense. I would very appreciate any comment thereon, including a convincing argument why I am wrong.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz,
(1) I’m probably not the person to ask about the climate forcing formalism but I don’t think there has been anything profound in their definition since Boucher et al (2005) who find a positive forcing results in negative ΔT and thus “it … appears that this climate forcing mechanism challenges the concept of radiative forcing.” There are indeed some complicating factors in the use of climate forcing which IPCC AR5 WG1 sec 8.1.1 discusses at some length.
(2) Your grand theory that a wetter land surface would reduce the impact of AGW does hold some germ of truth to it. That is: I am of the understanding that Land dries out with increasing temperature and the increasing Ocean water flux is thus shared with Land. Thus there is an energy flux from Ocean to Land, cooling Oceans. Also there is an increase in clear-sky conditions over Land and back in the depths of time we two have argued over its significance it at some length.
William,
To paraphrase a bigly-famous President of the good ol’ US of A:-
In addition to my post of 18 May 2025 at 5:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833471
Dear MA,
I have noted that in her recent post,
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=3234926&post_id=163757704&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=5116cu&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozMDQwNjUzOTAsInBvc3RfaWQiOjE2Mzc1NzcwNCwiaWF0IjoxNzQ3NjQ2MjU5LCJleHAiOjE3NTAyMzgyNTksImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zMjM0OTI2Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.DgdXaKBOeoBoIyoKTyQp_-Yw1Qlkv37AWtwV6saX2zQ
Anastassia Makarieva suggests that both James Hansen et al. as well as IPCC may be (partly) correct.
She asserts that models with lower climate sensitivity (as proposed by IPCC) fit better historical global temperature developments, whereas “hot” models with higher climate sensitivity fit better the recently observed changes. As an explanation, she proposes that climate sensitivity may have increased during anthropocene, because the climate on historical Earth with less perturbed ecosystems might be less vulnerable towards changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration than the climate on modern Earth with more perturbed ecosystems.
I would like to ask if her assertions (about the better fit of climate models with medium sensitivity with historical data and of “hot” models with developments during the last decades) may be correct. If so, why not to check her hypothesis by a suitable modelling experiment?
I proposed comparing climate sensitivity towards CO2 atmospheric concentration for two extreme values of water availability for evaporation from the land. Piotr objected that such an experiment does not make sense. He seems to assume that past human activities could not measurably deteriorate land hydrology, nor is there a significant risk that we could do so in the future. May I ask you for an independent opinion?
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz,
Your questioning here is quite technical and I wouldn’t normally spend time answering such questions for no reason. However, I did start and leave unfinished some blather in April’s UV comment thread on an issue associated with your first question so I am minded to answer that first question.
I’m not sure I grasp what you ask in your second question.
In your first question, I feel you misrepresent Makarieva’s blog by not setting out her position. This is a third option to add to:-
❶ The IPCC (ECS=2.3ºC to 4.7ºC. ECS>4.7ºC is unlikely, ECS>5.7ºC is very unlikely)
❷ The Hansen (ECS=4ºC to 5ºC),
that third option being:-
❸ The Makarieva (ECS is irrelevant as “a self-amplifying warming exists and has started in earnest.”)
Your first question appears to be about ECS and whether it is correct that models showing low-mid ECS are less capable of capturing “recently observed change” than those with high ECS while it is the opposite for “historical global temperature developments.” (Note the proposal that neither high nor low-mid ECS can model both “recent” and “historic” climates is not exactly how Makarieva et al (2023) put it, although it is still implied when they argue for a “self-amplifying” ECS value. The graphic of ‘model weights’ in the blog by Makarieva which you link-to is (as labelled) derived from Brunner et al (2020) fig 4 which shows weightings for CMIP6 models. The method of weighting gets a bit technical but use both temperature and s.l. pressure anomalies + variability as well as temperature trends over the period 1980-2014. TCR is indicated for each model with the six highest-TCR models within the nine lowest-ranked overall weightings. Makarieva plots these weightings against each model’s ECS which is taken from Zelinka et al (2020).
But think <i?'periods'. What you call the “historic” climate which Makarieva says are not well modelled by high-ECS CMIP6 models is the period 1980-2014. And what you call the “recent” climate which Makarieva says they do better at is given as the unforeseen ‘bananas’ temperatures of late 2023 & 2024, Makarieva saying that it “was not predicted by any climate model … but the fact that this heat anomaly did occur gives more weight to the models with higher sensitivity and makes the task of urging the community to downgrade them [due to their low weighting] more difficult.”
These two periods, “historic” and “recent,” are not the periods considered with the reference cited by Makarieva when she says “This is the ‘other evidence’ to which Hausfather et al. 2022 referred to.” The ‘periods considered’ by Hausfather et al are early-mid 20th century and late 20th century. (That reference does refer to consideration of what Makarieva describes as “two main degrees of freedom” in the models, these two being “aerosols and the so-called “pattern effects”.”)
All that said, the fundamental problem with Makarieva’s analysis is that, as this graphics from the RealClimate ‘Model-Observation Comparison’ page shows, the average of CMIP6 models has been running hot even with the “bananas” so why would giving increased credit to an even hotter set of CMIP6 models be considered an improvement for this “recent” period?
Tomas Kalisz, you almost sound like a … not very good AI – you know the words, you know in what context they usually appear, but have no idea what they actually mean: I never claimed that past human activities could not measurably deteriorate land hydrology, nor did I ever claim that “ there is no significant risk that we could do so in the future. ”
So stop attributing to me arguments I didn’t make, and trying to elicit support from others for you, by setting yourself against the …. absurd arguments you have attributed to me.
In Re to Piotr, 23 May 2025 at 2:38 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833678
Hallo Piotr,
Thank you very much for your comment!
I woud like to explain that in my post of 20 May 2025 at 8:37 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833562 ,
I wrote that you seem “to assume that past human activities could not measurably deteriorate land hydrology, nor is there a significant risk that we could do so in the future”
just because you have not replied to my post of 16 May 2025 at 4:44 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833382
wherein I argued for the proposed modelling experiment (which should clarify if climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration may depend on water availability for evaporation from the land) by the following paragraph:
“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.”
I confirm that you never claimed that “past human activities could not measurably deteriorate land hydrology,” nor that “there is no significant risk that we could do so in the future.” I dared to speculate about a possibility that you may think so just due to the absence of your reply to my argument.
It appears that you, in fact, do agree that human activities may have contributed to land hydrology deterioration in the past and/or could do so in the future. If so, I have not grasped yet, why you so strictly refuse the idea of the proposed modelling experiment.
I still suppose that the proposed experiment can bring a new insight into Earth climate mechanisms, and that this insight can also have a practical importance. I do not understand yet why you think the opposite. Could you clarify?
Greetings
Tomáš
In Re to MA Rodger, 22 MAY 2025 AT 3:48 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833645
Dear MA,
Many thanks for you kind response. It is also my understanding that Makarieva suggests an alternative to both IPPC as well as to Hansen. I see, however, that you do not consider her arguments for this alternative very convincing.
Let us wait if someone checks her hypothesis by a modelling experiment showing whether or not changes in terrestrial hydrology regime can influence climate sensitivity.
Greetings
Tomáš
A British solution to the American problem. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cCy_uX3krfU?feature=share
Actor is smarter than the spineless American academic community.
Pedro Pascal Says ‘F— the People That Try to Make You Scared’ When Asked About U.S. Political Chaos: ‘Fight Back. Don’t Let Them Win’
https://variety.com/2025/film/festivals/pedro-pascal-america-political-chaos-cannes-fight-back-1236401603/
Scott Nudds: Actor is smarter than the spineless American academic community.
because he said something that would not cost him anything? Please do treat us, o Scott Nudds, with the tales of YOUR bravery – how Heroic Scott Nudds proudly spoke out to the power, knowing that it will cost him his job. You know. like I asked your before:
==== early May ==============
– Scott Nudds: “ are you going to sit at your desk cowering until you are fired?”
– Piotr May 4: “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?”
– Scott Nudds: “Most of my comments here are being deleted.”
===============
Given that your accusations of censorship, along with a dozen of other posts haven’t been deleted, your excuse Dog ate the proof of my unspeakable bravery and smartness ” won’t do
So put your money where your brave mouth is – show these “cowering scientists” how to be Spinefull, Moral and Smart like Scott Nudds. You wouldn’t be all bark and no bite, a Brave Scott Nudds, would you?
Bring it on, m heifer.
El Hierro is a Spanish island in the Atlantic. Electricity was a diesel generator. Generous European Union subsidies were obtained to replace the diesel with wind turbines and pumped hydro. The idea was that in hours of low demand, the electricity produced by the wind turbines would be used to pump water uphill, and during peak demand hydro power would supply electricity. Long story short: did not work. Last thing I heard, the diesel in the port is still chugging away. The project was a success in that the island of “El Hierro” was #1 in EU subsidy per capita.
The reply went like this:
In Australia they tried the solar/wind/battery demonstration at a place called King Island and what they demonstrated is you still need a lot of diesel backup … although perhaps the occasional time when the solar and wind are running might save a bit in diesel fuel … but I doubt a full cost analysis would show enough fuel saving to pay for all the renewables gear. I seem to remember they even built a flywheel energy storage system.
The only place I have seen solar/battery combination work, is very remote areas, far from grid connection, in dry climates without too many clouds and where the total electrical demand is fairly low (e.g. enough to run phones, and some simple equipment, maybe a small A/C plus a few lights). I mean, the difference between having no electricity at all, and having a little bit, can be huge if you are out in the middle of nowhere.
But people are now accustomed to using quite a lot of electricity … make a coffee, microwave your dinner, have a heat lamp in the bathroom, run A/C for the entire house all Summer. We could easily live with less … at a significantly lower standard of living.
Maybe that’s OK but it’s not the dream being sold to the people … we are told that these renewables are the cheapest electricity generation, and then strangely also told that government subsidies are absolutely a requirement to give the incentive to use this stuff that supposedly is already cheap … go figure huh?
El Hierro cut diesel use by more than half on average, and has several times gone for more than three weeks without consuming any diesel oil at all. It’s saving 20,000 tons of CO2 emissions and 7,000 tons of diesel. That’s worth 1.8 million Euro a year. And this largely with 2014 tech.
You can try to paint it as a failure that accomplished nothing if you like.
But that would make you a liar.
Only 49 more weeks per year every year to go.
A raging success El Hierro is not. It is a failure and indictive of the myth making religious like fanaticism sections of the world now believe despite the overwhelming physical evidence.
Far easier to believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead than believe todays record fossil fuel energy demand can ever be replaced by 100% WWS with storage backup. Not going to happen.
I’m not a liar either. Nor a fool.
FYI – Essential commands of modern human–computer interaction and user interface design.
What is Cut, copy, and paste?
Err, Tomáš, re “latent heat flux allegedly merely transports energy from one place on Earth surface to another one”.
Are you claiming that the first law of thermodynamics is only an allegation?
in Re to Dave Geologist, 18 May 2025 at 7:38 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833457
Hallo Dave,
Thank you for your question. No, I do not think that the law of energy conservation is an allegation only. It is, however, incorrect if someone supposes that it prevents that latent heat flux transports energy from Earth surface to the space.
Unfortunately, the people who object that heat of condensation which releases when clouds form “stays in the system” do not consider that if the released heat could not escape (and Earth atmosphere indeed acted as a “closed room” with respect to heat transport from the surface), there would have been no water vapour condensation in the atmosphere, no clouds, no precipitation and, consequently, no water cycle at all.
If it sounds to you as a nonsense, please try to imagine what would have happened if the condensing vapour indeed heated the surrounding air only: In such a case, the warm air surrounding the formed water droplet would have still comprised all the released condensation heat, and there would have been no reason why the formed dropled should stay liquid and not evaporate in this warm air again.
In other words, Earth atmosphere is an open system, continuously radiating the heat coming from the surface further to the space. Actually, it is just the longwave infrared radiation escaping from the troposphere to the space what enables that water vapour steadily flows from the surface, condenses somewhere in the atmosphere and returns back to the surface in form of rain and/or snow. And, it is the water cycle what maintains the pleasant global mean surface temperature about 15 degree Celsius on the Earth. Without surface cooling by latent heat flux (which is enabled by the water cycle), the global mean temperature would have been significantly higher than the present one.
In this respect, the latent heat flux acts analogously as a heat pipe connecting a heavily powered computer processor with a cooling radiator. If you omit the pipe and let the heat transport by sensible heat and radiation only, you risk that the processor fails due to overheating.
Greetings
Tomáš
My sympathies. What will you do about bandwidth at your new locations ?
““The work continues, the data, the products, the science will continue because science is done by people not by buildings,” NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt told CNN. ”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/24/climate/nasa-lease-canceled-columbia
sidd
Here’s Dr. Hansen on GISS losses. That said, Dr. Schmidt’s efforts to continue also have merit. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Godfather of climate science decries Trump plan to shut Nasa lab above Seinfeld diner: ‘It’s crazy’. Over breakfast at Tom’s Restaurant, right below the historic Giss lab, James Hansen calls Doge’s decision a ‘big mistake’ – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/21/nasa-giss-lab-trump-shut-down-james-hansen
Poor Peru, May 14 Quote: “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).”
MKIA: The root cause is known with great precision and was predicted at the time of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano eruption. The eruption was a step function increase in CO2 and H20 injected into the atmosphere at a single point on January 15, 2022. A single point injection takes a while to disperse throughout the atmosphere – the effects are finally being seen exactly as predicted. They are predicted to be temporary.
Per NASA: ” In the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, Millán and his colleagues estimate that the Tonga eruption sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer.”
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
From the American Meterological Society abstract:
“Significance Statement
Volcanic eruptions typically cool Earth’s surface by releasing sulfur dioxide, which then converts into aerosols, which reflect sunlight. However, a recent eruption released a significant amount of water vapor—a strong greenhouse gas—into the stratosphere with unknown consequences. This study neglects the aerosol effect and examines the consequences of large stratospheric water vapor anomalies and reveals that surface temperatures across large regions of the world increase by over 1.5°C for several years, although some areas experience cooling close to 1°C. Additionally, the research suggests a potential connection between the eruption and sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific, which warrants further investigation.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/37/17/JCLI-D-23-0437.1.xml
Per Wikipedia:
“One study estimated a 7% increase in the probability that global warming will exceed 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) in at least one of the next five years,[78] although greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy to mitigate them remain the major determinant of this risk.[79] Another study estimated that the water vapor will stay in the stratosphere for up to eight years, and influence winter weather in both hemispheres.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami#Climate_and_atmospheric_impact
KIA, your claim that the “energy imbalance” is caused by the hunga tonga volcano is wrong. as follows. 1) PP is talking about an energy imbalance that is hard to explain that started well before the hunga tonga volcanic eruption (AGU article: Earth’s Energy Imbalance More Than Doubled in Recent Decades) and 2) Its also unlikely that the Hunga Tonga Volcano contributed significantly to the high temperatures / energy imbalance in 2023 – 2024. You are cherry picking a couple of studies showing a warming effect. Using your own wikipedia reference in full: “More recent studies have indicated that the eruption had a slight cooling effect.”. Not sure if you don’t understand what you read, or deliberately twist things and quote things out of context, but I will hazard a guess it’s a strange combination of all three.
I said nothing about the “energy imbalance”. All experts predicted that warming would occur temporarily, and that has indeed occurred.
Reply to Mr. Know It All
MKIA: “The root cause is known with great precision and was predicted at the time of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano eruption.”
TPP: Thanks, but I don’t think that’s accurate. If such precise predictions existed at the time of the eruption, I’d need to see documented reporting from scientists who made those claims — not just retrofitted interpretations years later.
From what I recall — and from what I’ve since checked — there was nothing remotely like “great precision” in the immediate aftermath. That claim simply doesn’t hold up.
Frankly, there’s very little in climate science today — particularly regarding impacts — that can be predicted with precision, let alone great precision.
Take that NASA article: saying the eruption injected water vapor equal to 10% of what’s normally in the stratosphere is a striking factoid, not a predictive model. It doesn’t say what you seem to think it says — and certainly doesn’t forecast specific surface climate outcomes.
Your AMS reference makes this crystal clear: “It is therefore unclear what it might mean for surface climate.” That’s not precision — that’s open-ended uncertainty.
And those “chemistry–climate model simulations”? They aren’t reality; they’re theoretical constructs. They model possible “impacts of stratospheric water vapor anomalies similar to those caused by HTHH.” That’s a whole chain of “ifs,” “mays,” and assumptions — not firm predictions.
Same goes for the Wikipedia excerpts: “One study estimated a 7% increase…” / “Another study estimated the water vapor might remain for up to eight years…” Interesting, but again — so what? Estimations are not certainties. One swallow does not make a summer.
There are hundreds of climate-related studies being published every week now. It’s a torrent of output — and most of it is highly conditional, narrow in scope, or exploratory. Which is fine — that’s science. But none of this is the slam-dunk you’re suggesting.
My view? The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption is about as consequential to the long-term trajectory of climate change and global warming as who wins the next World Series.
Let’s not inflate what even the experts have said they don’t fully understand.
Nobody said anything about HTHH being consequencial to the long-term trajectory of climate change and global warming. They predicted it would create temporary warming for a couple of years, maybe up to 8 years. It did precisely that, and that warming is what many here on RC have been wetting themselves about – acting like it is a big deal and some kind of warming acceleration. It was predicted and is not a big deal. Let’s not inflate what wannabe scientists here on RC have said that they don’t fully understand.
Hmm, that interpretation seems… overly strong. Here’s what the relevant bit of the cited article says:
Nice cherry picking to avoid the actual relevant parts of the articles. See comments above.
Hi all,
I saw the recent post on Spain’s blackout referencing Pedro Prieto’s expert insights, posted under the name “Pedro Prieto.” That clearly wasn’t the real person. For clarity: I’m not him either. I chose the name “The Prieto Principle” to honor someone whose work I’ve respected for years. Apparently that was too subtle — which, in hindsight, speaks volumes.
Let me be clear: I am not Pedro Prieto, nor any of the dozens of names I’ve been accused of being. The constant speculation about who’s “really who” here — as if every disagreement must come from a single rogue sockpuppet — is telling. It reveals a mindset that sees dissent as a threat, not an opportunity for honest debate or inquiry.
To be explicit: I am not any of the following:
Pedro Prieto / Poor Peru / Philly / Billy / Willy / William / Drama / Darma / Dharma / Darmah / Escobar / Sabine / Ned Kelly / Compliciated / Complicius, etc.
Nor am I any of these contributors — though remarkably, they often sound indistinguishable in tone, position, attitude, and tactics:
patrick o’27, Radge Havers, Kevin McKinney, Dan, nigel jones, Secular Animist, Barton Paul Levenson, zebra, Ray Ladbury, jgnfld, Susan Anderson, MA Rodger, Steven Emmerson, nigelj, Piotr, John Pollack, Dave_Geologist, Scott Nudds, Tomáš Kalisz, Pete Best…
Different people, I presume — and yet the messaging rarely deviates. That’s not a conspiracy; it’s groupthink. Even when confronted with new evidence or perspectives, the reaction is reflexive and identical — like a loop. Or yes, like zombies: returning to action again and again, unfazed by data or logic that directly contradicts them. You can bury a faulty point under layers of solid evidence — but it just rises again, unexamined, unchanged.
Dissent isn’t engaged — it’s labeled. Smeared. Dismissed. Above all, accused of being someone else.
What’s missing here is genuine dialogue. There’s little curiosity, and next to no openness to perspectives that challenge the prevailing narrative — whether about the failure of current mitigation strategies, the blind faith in renewable energy utopianism, or the deeper political-economic structures driving ecological collapse.
The ignorance of real-world alternatives to Western neoliberalism — from governance to economics to solutions for climate change impacts — is hard to watch. It’s not just narrow; at this point it feels like deliberate denial. It’s either blissful ignorance, intellectual laziness, or something worse. Take your pick.
Critics like James Hansen — among the most respected climate scientists alive — are treated here as dysfunctional fringe voices for daring to say that things are far worse than the IPCC admits. That’s not science — that’s institutional complacency. When serious scientists say solutions must be people-centered and can’t be built on the foundations of a collapsing capitalist model, maybe — just maybe — it’s time to listen.
Instead, we get endless repetitions of school yard level talking points and an obsession with “consensus enforcement” dressed up as intellectual discourse. That’s not critical thinking — it’s self-policing ideology.
For what it’s worth, I came here with sincere intent: to engage, share, and learn. But if the dominant response remains to attack the messenger whenever beliefs are questioned — then what’s the point?
If you’re here to explore real solutions — beyond dogma and PR — I’m in. But if it’s just more tribal gatekeeping and intellectual recycling, I’ll take my time elsewhere.
Let’s see how this one goes.
— The Prieto Principle
Re: Prieto Principle claiming that he has not used different handles on RC – if it swims like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck …
Prieto Principle: “ patrick o’27, Radge Havers, Kevin McKinney, Dan, nigel jones, Secular Animist, Barton Paul Levenson, zebra, Ray Ladbury, jgnfld, Susan Anderson, MA Rodger, Steven Emmerson, nigelj, Piotr, John Pollack, Dave_Geologist, Scott Nudds, Tomáš Kalisz, Pete Best… often sound indistinguishable in tone, position, attitude, and tactics.”
And you have arrived at these opinions …. after less than 2 weeks from your first appearance here?
As for your throwing in the same bag jgnfld, MA Rodger, BPL, Ray, John Pollack etc. etc. with … Scott Nudds, then let me … congratulate you, either
– on your ethics ( trying to discredit others by associating them with … their opposite)
– or on the sharpness of your intellect (if you are really incapable of distinguishing them from Scott Nudds)
P.Principle: “[or] I’ll take my time elsewhere.”
Please, do. And no backsies (like with the proud departures of Pukite and Killian).
Now go away or we shall taunt you a second time! Fetchez la vache!
Piotr says
21 May 2025 at 9:56 PM
And you have arrived at these opinions …. after less than 2 weeks from your first appearance here?
Please tell us how smart are you Piotr?
In your alternative universe silent lurkers do not exist and people never read a website until after they post a comment and suddenly appear. Is this Sesame Street?
Piotr: “And you have arrived at these opinions …. after less than 2 weeks from your first appearance here?”
“Thessalonia”: Please tell us how smart are you Piotr?In your alternative universe silent lurkers do not exist
In my, “alternative” to yours, universe, we go by the Occams razor: we ask ourselves which is a more likely:
– that you are a completely fresh face, a new poster, who has been patiently reading RC for years, thoroughly enough to make the definitive evaluations of the 20 DIFFERENT authors with whom you vehemently disagree, and with all disagreement and anger with the “ tone, position, attitude, and tactics of those 20 authors building up in you for all those years …. you have said NOTHING???
Was it really worth it ?
– that other possibility is that you are a Multi-troll who have been posting here with your doomer’s and anti-Capitalism views for years, posting under dozens(?) of different handles, but not wanting to be held responsible for your previous words and actions – when you change your handle you try to wipe your slate clean – by pretending that all the earlier personalities were NOT you, and that you are a virgin, a completely new poster, a long-time lurker, who have suddenly stopped lurking?
Now, which of these two explanations sounds MORE LIKELY to you, o smart Thessalonia?
In addition to Piotr, 29 MAY 2025 AT 12:34 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833880
What is also remarkable is the consecutiveness of these allegedly independent entities.
Poor Peru miraculously appears as soon as Dharma vanishes. Another PP – even in two basically interchangeable parallel embodiments – emerges as soon as the fake South American disappears, etc.
And what is also remarkable is their common denominator – soon or later, each of them arrives at endorsing Russia and/or China as “alternatives” to the rotten West.
As Russia commits an aggressive war aiming to occupy territory of a neighbour country and subjugate its citizens, endorsing Russia equals to endorsing terrorists and war criminals.
Although I think that Piotr is sometimes too harsh in his criticism, I am afraid that no criticism is harsh enough if someone tries to exploit this website for spreading narratives from Russian propaganda factories.
Piotr, there are many many fake skeptics and science deniers in the world. There are many many people who are long-winded, argumentative, and like to see themselves in print. They are not all one and the same person.
This is not a useful line of attack, as it provides them with a ready-made line of defense, since they know they are not interchangeable, nor are they bots.
You have a brain; please use it rather than letting your intolerance lead you down this rabbit hole.
On the whole, it is often best not to answer. soliloquizers, as you amplify them and bore the rest of us.
In Re to Susan Anderson, 31 May 2025 at 1:51 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833971
Dear Susan,
Personally, I do not believe that e.g. the “Socrates’ Pet Scorpion” that ridiculed you is an entity different from “William”. It is, of course, up to you if you suppose otherwise.
I do not think, however, that it it is essential whether or not all these subjects that appeared instantly after “Poor Peru” disappearance are the same or not. For me, it is essential that some of them admire war criminal Vladimir Putin (see e.g. “Prieto P.”, 17 May 2025 at 10:24 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833426
asserting
“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.”
Other endorse them, e.g. “William” 12 May 2025 at 8:05 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833107
asserting that
“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.”
I see these activities simply shameful, and do not think that any potential gem comprised in the flood of postings produced by these entities can overweight their successful effort to switch Real Climate discussions into a platform for supporting Russian hybrid war against the West and/or Chinese official propaganda.
Greetings
Tomáš
Susan: There are many many people who are long-winded, argumentative, and like to see themselves in print. They are not all one and the same person.
And there are many many trolls who keep changing their identity. In the post you comment, I proposed the Occam razor test. Your response: There are many many people who are long-winded etc” is NOT the answer to this test.
Susan: This is not a useful line of attack
I disagree – the ability of a troll to change their identity is CRITICAL to their success – it allows trolls:
– to get a clean slate – not being held responsible for their posts/actions under previous names
– on sites with effective moderation – to avoid being relegated to a borehole
– to “own” their opponents – instead of discussing something important – the discussion are swamped with troll’s posts and people replying to them in good faith, assuming that it is a new person, open to persuasion, and not the same troll they have answered MANY times before
– to paralyse particular website by drowning any interesting post, idea or author in the deluge of the trolls mass-produced posts and people replying to them
– to discourage the passers-by from staying on the site.
– to make it appear that there are “many. many people” that hold identical views – instead of having two or three doomers – Killian, and one or two doomer multi-trolls, you think that we have “many, many people” who believe in their all-or-nothing fallacy (that if we can’t get to net-zero in a few decades – then there is no point in doing ANYTHING, as if the world with 450ppm was equally bad as the one with 800 ppm) and actively discourage the real reductions using existing and developing technologies (renewables, EVs) and economic mechanisms (carbon pricing) – in favour of their “solutions”
1. destruction of Capitalism (tried already by Stalin and Mao)
2. rapid deindustrialization/deurbanization (tried already by Pol Pot and during China’s Cultural Revolution)
3. changing the human nature (i.e., creation of Homo sovieticus attempted already in the USSR, Mao’s China, and N.Korea)
4. RAPID depopulation, which to bring us close to net zero in 1-2 decades – would require a genocide of … several billion people.
In case of Killian – I don’t think he thought the consequences of his ideas through (i.e. how to get to his Utopia without the cure being worse than the disease – his solution is a combination of “2” and “3”)
In case of the Troll of Dozens Faces, I see two possibilities
i) a classical ego-driven troll – he does not care, he is here to “own” the discussion and his adversaries:
– BPL: Gosh, if no genuine dialog is happening, why are you still here?
– Prieto P: I enjoy watching folks struggling in the deep end. Like you are.”
ii) troll from a Russian troll-farm. Context: without the world buying Russian oil and gas – Russian economy collapses – and with it – its regime, its oligarchs, and its ability to wage wars.
Solution – influence the world to keep buying oil and gas. Thus some of the Russian trolls pose as deniers (no climate change => no need to stop buying Russian oil and gas); while others pose as doomers, the product they are selling is apathy:
“since we can’t do anything about AGW without such extreme measures as the 4 listed above – then there is no point in renewables and in fossil fuel use reductions. And if so, no reason to cut our dependence on oil and gas, instead let’s enjoy our consumption while it lasts, and “After us – Deluge!”.
Prieto Principle
“Let me be clear: I am not Pedro Prieto, nor any of the dozens of names I’ve been accused of being.”
Really? Despite having the exact same opinions, style, tone, subjects, obsessions? Wow thats amazing!
“Nor am I any of these contributors — though remarkably, they often sound indistinguishable in tone, position, attitude, and tactics:patrick o’27, Radge Havers, Kevin McKinney, Dan, nigel jones, Secular Animist, Barton Paul Levenson, zebra, Ray Ladbury, jgnfld, Susan Anderson, MA Rodger, Steven Emmerson, nigelj, Piotr, John Pollack, Dave_Geologist, Scott Nudds, Tomáš Kalisz, Pete Best…”
We agree on some things, but our styles of commenting are all quite different, tone generally varies and we have different interests. Yet you think we are the same? Ha ha ha.
“What’s missing here is genuine dialogue. There’s little curiosity, and next to no openness to perspectives that challenge the prevailing narrative — whether about the failure of current mitigation strategies, the blind faith in renewable energy utopianism, or the deeper political-economic structures driving ecological collapse.”
None of us have blind faith in renewable energy. We know the downsides and we don’t need some narcissistic troll who thinks he’s superior stating the obvious about the challenges renewables face. What we have pointed out is your alternatives of massive cuts in energy consumption over a short period have some potential problems. I have made these points:
1) Massive reductions in quality of life.
2) Likely failure of the transport grid and mass starvation.
3) 50% unemployment
4)how do you convince people to undertake such a programme of massive austerity?
Unable to answer these let alone refute them with evidence you smear us with your insults and claims of group think.
“The ignorance of real-world alternatives to Western neoliberalism — from governance to economics to solutions for climate change impacts — is hard to watch. It’s not just narrow; at this point it feels like deliberate denial. It’s either blissful ignorance, intellectual laziness, or something worse. Take your pick.”
Neoliberalism is hard to define precisely. The Wikipedia definition just lists a collection of attributes. But essentially neoliberalism embraces small government capitalism. Neoliberalism essentially promotes consumption but so does socialism and the other ideas you have floated – shared decision making, worker participation etc,etc what on earth makes you think that would reduce energy consumption?
Not all countries practice neoliberalism. Some have state ownership of certain assets and this works well. I do not love laissez faire capitalism myself and I support a significant role for the state. But the historical evidence clearly shows anything beyond that, – like socialism where the state owns the entire productive sector or most of it, doesn’t work. Yet you continue to promote socialism. So maybe when you accuse people of ignoring evidence look in a mirror.
“Critics like James Hansen — among the most respected climate scientists alive — are treated here as dysfunctional fringe voices for daring to say that things are far worse than the IPCC admits. That’s not science — that’s institutional complacency. ”
Hansen is a smart guy who has the courage and vision to explore the worst case scenarios. His warming predictions for America have been remarkably accurate, – but he also claimed New York would be underwater by now. His defenders say this was based on higher emissions that have happened, but even with those higher emissions it’s hard to see how New York would have been underwater or remotely close. So unlike you I don’t take all his claims at face value. This doesn’t mean I think the IPCC have everything right either. I think they understate the climate problem a bit but not hugely.
“When serious scientists say solutions must be people-centered and can’t be built on the foundations of a collapsing capitalist model, maybe — just maybe — it’s time to listen.”
We listen. but listening doesn’t mean we necessarily have to agree, and the alternatives to capitalism have to be viable.
Nigel, IIRC, the premise for the question Hansen answered with his speculation not about “New York” being underwater, but a waterside portion of Manhattan, was a doubling of CO2. See:
https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm
You seem to have been swayed by a denialist talking point on that one.
Other than that, good comment.
Seems to me that all this fooforaw about calling scientists “doomers” is pretty much a strawman; I have somehow failed to notice all these terrible examples of vilification.
You say it well and I hope you say it again here. There are good and sincere advocates of the climate consensus and some of them comment here. But often they are out shouted by the hysterics and sometimes they get swept along with the current.
Climate change is too serious to be left in the hands of these people. The skeptics who post here have their own set of problems–but it is those circling the wagons in defense of what they worship as a consensus that cause far greater problems.
Thomas Fuller says
24 May 2025 at 5:26 AM
Many thanks. I agree with you.
nigelj says
22 May 2025 at 4:21 PM
This reply contains so many errors and false assumptions that engaging further is pointless. It only confirms my point about the lack of genuine dialogue here — and underscores why change is unlikely, and why trying is a wasted effort.
The Prieto Principle says: “This (my) reply contains so many errors and false assumptions that engaging further is pointless. It only confirms my point about the lack of genuine dialogue here — and underscores why change is unlikely, and why trying is a wasted effort.”
I made no errors or false assumptions. I have explained previously to you why massive reductions in energy use (for example 50%) on short time frames would cause 50% unemployment. I mentioned that history shows that during recessions and depressions demand for energy drops and this causes or contributes to unemployment. This is basic economics 101.
Even 5% reductions in demand for energy and other goods have sent unemployment to 10%. During the economic depression of the 1930s that lasted 10 years consumption dropped about 20% and unemployment hit 25%. So if you cut energy consumption by 50% and extrapolate you could get to at least 50% unemployment. This is not an unreasonable extrapolation. Energy use is behind everything. You have even said this yourself.
It doesn’t matter how the economy is organised. Demand reductions create unemployment problems.
Eventually unemployment would fall. People might eventually go back to living in rural areas and working on farms but the transition period could be lengthy and it would be hell on earth. Read about the depression of the 1930s.
You don’t think about the consequences of your ideas.
nigelj says
28 May 2025 at 4:03 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833838
Reply to Nigelj:
I refused to respond before because of this persistent bad-faith engagement, and your fabricated positions being pinned on me.It’s worse than a strawman fallacy — it’s ad hominem gaslighting. This will be the last time, and the same goes for that other persistant bad actor Piotr.
Nigelj, your response is not just built on false assumptions — it’s based on false identity. I’ve already stated I’m not the person you think I am, nor am I affiliated with past posters you seem to have fixated on. Yet you persist in assigning me ideas, histories, and motivations that aren’t mine. This isn’t debate — it’s projection, confusion, and a kind of rhetorical schizophrenia that derails any real discussion.
You write:
“I have explained previously to you why massive reductions in energy use…”
No, you haven’t. You’ve explained something to someone else in the past, and now you’re trying to impose that script on me. That alone makes this exchange unserious and frankly absurd.
Saying “a 5% drop in energy demand led to 10% unemployment, so a 50% drop will lead to 50% unemployment” is pure nonsense. That’s pseudoscientific extrapolation that ignores complex systems behavior, feedbacks, and policy interventions. The economy is not a linear function of energy input, and especially not in modern services and care-based sectors.
Then you claim:
“Energy use is behind everything. You have even said this yourself.”
False again. I’ve never said that. Even if energy is fundamental, your assumptions and extrapolations from that premise are simplistic, linear, and frankly, misleading. Degrowth or energy descent isn’t about hitting the brakes arbitrarily. It’s about intentional design.
Nigelj falsely equates a recession or depression (which is an unplanned collapse of demand due to systemic failures or shocks) with a deliberate reduction in energy use through policy-driven or coordinated societal transition. These are not the same phenomena. Reducing energy use ≠ eliminating jobs. The kind of degrowth envisioned by many ecological economists involves redirecting labor, not destroying it.
Nigelj speaks as if the only outcome of lower consumption is chaos and suffering—ignoring the possibility of resilience, reorganization, regeneration and renewal. A new kind of global cooperation that isn’t based on threats by the most powerful. I have not touched on any of these things so far. But I’m certainly not going to waste my time attmepting a meaningful dialogue with people like this.
Then comes:
“You don’t think about the consequences of your ideas.”
This is classic rhetorical projection. In reality, I am the only one raising consequences (ecological overshoot, collapse risks, accelerated warming from failed RE programs etc.). Nigelj’s reply just assumes business-as-usual must continue, why because, even if it leads us off a Seneca Cliff.
This is the most ironic line of all, because I haven’t offered a single “program” or “idea” on how to restructure an economy or reduce energy demand. What I have said — clearly and repeatedly — is that the dominant assumptions around net-zero, 100% renewable grids, and the feasibility of RE transitions are technically and physically flawed. Pedro Prieto’s work illustrates this with clarity, rigor, and evidence — and I stand by his critiques.
That doesn’t mean I’ve proposed a blueprint for an energy transition. I’ve made no claims about what should be done — only about what won’t work, based on the evidence. That distinction matters, and misrepresenting it shows either a lack of comprehension or deliberate distortion.
I repeat this forum has a problem: ‘Dissent isn’t engaged — it’s labeled. Smeared. Dismissed. Above all, accused of being someone else.’ That is not rational discourse. It’s a social control mechanism posing as debate. It avoids evidence and turns disagreement into identity policing.
Since first deciding to say anything here I have pointed out:
— That the current net-zero energy narratives are unscientific and unrealistic.
— That Hansen’s updated climate sensitivity findings make the urgency and scale of our crisis even worse than mainstream narratives admit.
— That the prevailing faith in technological salvation is ideological, not empirical.
None of this is “my grand plan.” It’s a serious evidence based objective critique of flawed ones.
What’s especially troubling is the deeper intellectual laziness here: the unwillingness to even imagine alternatives to ‘Western neoliberal systems’ — economically, politically, or ecologically. The ignorance of existing global perspectives, real-world limits, and alternative civilizational models is staggering. At some point, it ceases to be accidental and starts to look like intentional ideological denial.
So if the only way for you and some others to “engage” is to accuse dissenters of being liars, frauds, or ghosts from past threads, then yes — you’ve confirmed my original point: there is no genuine dialogue here. This has stopped being a discussion and turned into a kind of tragicomedy of errors. No more.
P.S.
I have n0 need to go read up on the Great Depression or Economic Theory. Though I do recommend this comment packed full of useful objective data and information.
Pedro Prieto says
25 May 2025 at 6:37 PM
Atmospheric CO₂ ppm Growth and Global Warming Acceleration
With James Hansen et al and associated data realism
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833748
“This will be the last time [answering to Nigel] and the same goes for that other persistant bad actor Piotr.
said the … good actor, “the Prieto Principle” , whom you may remember from his previous roles: Poor Peru, Darma, Darmah,Dharma,Philly. Mr. Chen, Compliciated, Complicius, Sabine,Escobar, Ned Kelly and many dozens(?) of others.
So his proud declaration of no longer responding to Nigel and others here … would last only as long as his current handle. When “the Prieto Principle” is gone – whatever other handle takes up his trolling – would deny being ever “the Prieto Principle” – and therefore is not bound by his previous handle’s promises.
“the Prieto Principle”: “ None of this is “my grand plan.””
I agree – there is no grand plan – IT’S ALL simple – its all about validation of your ego: if the best scientists in the world are unable, or unwilling to see, what you, without the benefit of scientific education, can, then you, the Prieto Principle – must be REALLY REALLY SMART, while everybody else (except your allies in the attacks on science: Paul Pukite and Killian) must be morons, and therefore your life as an Internet troll^* has not been a complete waste.
—
^* – BPL: “Gosh, if no genuine dialog is happening, why are you still here?”
– The P. Principle: “I enjoy watching folks struggling in the deep end”
The Prieto Principle
“Nigelj, your response is not just built on false assumptions — it’s based on false identity. I’ve already stated I’m not the person you think I am, nor am I affiliated with past posters you seem to have fixated on. ”
I don’t believe you. There are too many striking similarities. Numerous other people here have reached the same conclusions, eg: BPL, Piotr, Tomas Kalisz and others.
“Saying “a 5% drop in energy demand led to 10% unemployment, so a 50% drop will lead to 50% unemployment” is pure nonsense. That’s pseudoscientific extrapolation that ignores complex systems behavior, feedbacks, and policy interventions. The economy is not a linear function of energy input, and especially not in modern services and care-based sectors.”
No its not nonsense. Its simple inductive logic. It assumes we have a market capitalist economy and we know degrowth tends to cause unemployment – look at history, facts. Policy interventions to stop this have a poor record. If the economy was socialist economy, people would be quickly absorbed into organisations even although they might be doing very little. But the economy is not socialist and unlikely to become socialist.
“Nigelj falsely equates a recession or depression (which is an unplanned collapse of demand due to systemic failures or shocks) with a deliberate reduction in energy use through policy-driven or coordinated societal transition. These are not the same phenomena. Reducing energy use ≠ eliminating jobs. The kind of degrowth envisioned by many ecological economists involves redirecting labor, not destroying it.”
Redirecting labour is just vague academic theorising. Who does that and how? In a capitalist economy like America politicians don’t determine what jobs people have and they don’t create jobs. There will be serious long lasting unemployment until people find jobs in a shrinking economy which will not be easy.
“Nigelj speaks as if the only outcome of lower consumption is chaos and suffering—ignoring the possibility of resilience, reorganization, regeneration and renewal. A new kind of global cooperation that isn’t based on threats by the most powerful. I have not touched on any of these things so far. But I’m certainly not going to waste my time attmepting a meaningful dialogue with people like this.”
Sounds like a utopian fantasy world.
“You don’t think about the consequences of your ideas.” – This is classic rhetorical projection. In reality, I am the only one raising consequences (ecological overshoot, collapse risks, accelerated warming from failed RE programs etc.). Nigelj’s reply just assumes business-as-usual must continue, why because, even if it leads us off a Seneca Cliff.”
It’s not projection. You don’t think through the consequences of huge, rapid degrowth done over a decade or two. They wont be nice. Any degrowth programme will need to be done quite slowly so we can ADAPT. This means degrowth is not going to be useful in combating climate change.
All the regulars here are aware of and accept the ecological overshoot problem. You just bore everyone by flooding us with information on it as if you are the source of all wisdom.
I don’t assume capitalism must continue. But its something that will OBVIOUSLY be difficult and slow to change and is thus not a solution to the climate problem.
“I repeat this forum has a problem: ‘Dissent isn’t engaged — it’s labeled. Smeared. Dismissed. Above all, accused of being someone else.’ That is not rational discourse. It’s a social control mechanism posing as debate. It avoids evidence and turns disagreement into identity policing.”
Wrong regarding myself. I made polite, reasoned, facts based criticisms of your comments. Any assumptions I made were reasonable. See above thread.
“What’s especially troubling is the deeper intellectual laziness here: the unwillingness to even imagine alternatives to ‘Western neoliberal systems’ — economically, politically, or ecologically. The ignorance of existing global perspectives, real-world limits, and alternative civilizational models is staggering. At some point, it ceases to be accidental and starts to look like intentional ideological denial.”
Perhaps its because this website is about climate science and mitigation (in a technical sense), not politics and economics?
nigelj says
30 May 2025 at 6:24 PM
The Prieto Principle said: “Nigelj, your response is not just built on false assumptions — it’s based on false identity. I’ve already stated I’m not the person you think I am, nor am I affiliated with past posters you seem to have fixated on. ”
N: I don’t believe you.
TPP: I don’t care. Tell someone who does. Your refusal to accept a plainly stated fact is not my concern.
N: There are too many striking similarities.
TPP: Your flawed pattern recognition is your issue, not mine.
N: Numerous other people here have reached the same conclusions, eg: BPL, Piotr, Tomas Kalisz and others.
TPP: Lining up three clowns in agreement changes nothing. Groupthink doesn’t make you right — it only makes you loud.
N: Its simple inductive logic.
TPP: No. It’s circular nonsense posing as logic.
N: But the economy is not socialist and unlikely to become socialist.
TPP: Says who? You? All you offer are unfounded opinions based on limited understanding — not knowledge, experience, or insight. Quit while you’re behind.
N: There will be serious long lasting unemployment until people find jobs in a shrinking economy which will not be easy.
TPP: Again — nothing but projection and fear-based speculation. You conflate critique of false solutions with promoting drastic alternatives. I haven’t proposed any program. You’re arguing with a fiction of your own making.
N: It’s not projection. You don’t think through the consequences of huge, rapid degrowth done over a decade or two.
TPP: I have not once mentioned “degrowth”. Only you have. That’s psychological projection. I have not promoted a rapid degrowth. I have not promoted any specific program or strategy. You are projecting in every comment you make to me and the others you find wanting.
N: This means degrowth is not going to be useful in combating climate change.
TPP: That’s an irrational claim. It cannot be “not useful” by definition. It may be difficult, complex, or politically challenging — but calling it “not useful” is nonsense — if the problem you want to combat is climate change.
N: All the regulars here are aware of and accept the ecological overshoot problem.
TPP: Who says? You? Prove it. Cite even one comment with clear understanding of ecological overshoot, its origins, its implications, and proposed responses. I haven’t seen one since I’ve arrived. Your “everyone agrees” is hearsay. A nothingburger.
N: You just bore everyone by flooding us with information on it as if you are the source of all wisdom.
TPP: More projected opinion. You don’t speak for “everyone.” Just say you’re uncomfortable with information you don’t understand or don’t like. The rest is noise.
N: I don’t assume capitalism must continue.
TPP: Then why raise it? I haven’t. Your ideological filter is doing the talking to the large cast of characters residing in your head.
N: Wrong regarding myself. I made polite, reasoned, facts based criticisms of your comments.
TPP: No you didn’t. You were impolite, misrepresented my views, made false assumptions, and repeated lazy opinionated talking points.
N: Any assumptions I made were reasonable. See above thread.
TPP: They were neither reasonable nor correct. Repeating them will never change that.
Conclusion:
This forum has a systemic problem, and you’re one of the worst offenders:
‘Dissent isn’t engaged — it’s Labelled. Smeared. Dismissed. Above all, multiple commenters here are
accused of being someone else.’
Strawman arguments are rampant. Misrepresenting others, then attacking them for beliefs they never held — that is not rational discourse. It’s a social control mechanism posing as debate. It avoids evidence and turns disagreement into identity policing.
You’ve proven my point again: there is no genuine discussion here.
Each to their own.
PP: This will be the last time, and the same goes for that other persistant bad actor Piotr.
BPL: “persistent.” And this will be the last time, huh? We’ll be watching. I’ve never yet seen someone on this board declare that they were taking their ball and going home, without at least a few more posts after that.
The Prieto Principle says
31 May 2025 at 5:55 AM
N: There are too many striking similarities (between the sock puppets PP,William, Dharma, Ned Kelly etc)
TPP: Your flawed pattern recognition is your issue, not mine.
N: My pattern recognition is just fine. Same tone and style and content over and over. The evidence is there in the striking similarities. One appears and disappears and another appears. Its beyond strange.
N: Its simple inductive logic.
TPP: No. It’s circular nonsense posing as logic.
N: No its inductive logic like this. We know that during recessions consumption falls about 5% and unemployment increases about 5%. We know in major depressions consumption falls about 20% unemployment reaches 25%. Therefore its reasonable to induce or conclude by inductive logic even higher reductions in consumption of 50% will cause even higher levels of unemployment, maybe roughly 50% unemployment or more, other things being equal obviously, and in a capitalist free market economy and on short time frames of a decade or so. And we know from history that unemployment rises regardless of what politicians try to do. Its magical thinking to believe that can change. The unemployment would not be permanent but would be painful.
N: But the economy is not socialist and unlikely to become socialist.
TPP: Says who? You? All you offer are unfounded opinions based on limited understanding — not knowledge, experience, or insight. Quit while you’re behind.
N: Not unfounded opinions. I base my comments on facts. Socialism (as in government ownership and control of the means of production) has been a failure in terms of achieving great living standards. Examples include The USSR, Maos China. These societies all collapsed and have adopted capitalism with a bit of socialism added on at best. People generally hated the socialist system.
The remaining fully socialist countries have terrible living standards eg Vietnam and N Korea and are only held together by dictators and propaganda. Strongly socialist parties in todays world generally attract only a small minority of the vote. Even moderately socialist parties have recently been rejected in various Latin American countries.
So given all this its hard to see the public voting for a strongly socialist government in somewhere like America. Now they might support a little bit of socialism like public healthcare because that works quite well but that is not really Socialism with a capital S.
N: There will be serious long lasting unemployment until people find jobs in a shrinking economy which will not be easy.
TPP: Again — nothing but projection and fear-based speculation. You conflate critique of false solutions with promoting drastic alternatives. I haven’t proposed any program. You’re arguing with a fiction of your own making.
N: I suggest you maybe try to find a job during one of Americas economic recessions to wake you up from your delusions.
N: It’s not projection. You don’t think through the consequences of huge, rapid degrowth done over a decade or two.
TPP: I have not once mentioned “degrowth”. Only you have. That’s psychological projection. I have not promoted a rapid degrowth. I have not promoted any specific program or strategy. You are projecting in every comment you make to me and the others you find wanting.
You have written about 20 posts, using various names, promoting reduced consumption which amounts to degrowth. You do not appear to know what you say. I see that MAR has noticed this.
N: All the regulars here are aware of and accept the ecological overshoot problem.
TPP: Who says? You? Prove it. Cite even one comment with clear understanding of ecological overshoot, its origins, its implications, and proposed responses. I haven’t seen one since I’ve arrived. Your “everyone agrees” is hearsay. A nothingburger.
I’ve heard BPL, Piotr, KM, RL, Killian, and others discuss the issue. Go back and look at their posts in the archives. The evidence is all there for you.
N: I don’t assume capitalism must continue.
TPP: Then why raise it? I haven’t. Your ideological filter is doing the talking to the large cast of characters residing in your head.
N: yes you have raised it, You said above thread “Nigelj’s reply just assumes business-as-usual must continue, why because, even if it leads us off a Seneca Cliff” and you have repeatedly associated business as usual with the capitalist system.
“Conclusion: This forum has a systemic problem, and you’re one of the worst offenders:
‘Dissent isn’t engaged — it’s Labelled. Smeared. Dismissed. Above all, multiple commenters here are
accused of being someone else.”
You are doing all the smearing – for example your last post above calling people on this website like BPL and Piotr “clowns”. And it’s a repeating pattern of insults like that. You have a big lack of self awareness and huge double standards.
PP: It only confirms my point about the lack of genuine dialogue here — and underscores why change is unlikely, and why trying is a wasted effort.
BPL: Gosh, if no genuine dialog is happening, why are you still here?
Reply to Barton Paul Levenson
BPL: Gosh, if no genuine dialog is happening, why are you still here?
TPP: I enjoy watching folks struggling in the deep end. Like you are.
PP: TPP: I enjoy watching folks struggling in the deep end. Like you are.
BPL: So you’re admitting to being a troll. What a SURPRISE!
…“There’s little curiosity, and next to no openness to perspectives that challenge the prevailing narrative — whether about the failure of current mitigation strategies, the blind faith in renewable energy utopianism, or the deeper political-economic structures driving ecological collapse.”
What do you think the prevailing narrative is here?
See my re @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/the-most-recent-climate-status/#comment-833565
patrick o twentyseven says
24 May 2025 at 4:57 PM
Hi — I already explained what I think the prevailing narrative is, so asking again makes no sense.
I’m not assuming others are fine with endless growth — their own words, and silence on the issue, speak for themselves.
This idea — “growth in clean alternatives is good because it displaces fossil fuels or slows their growth etc” — is a classic sleight of hand. A shell game. It’s misleading and rests on flawed logic. Wise people see through it.
As for individual carbon footprints — mine, yours — they’re all irrelevant. Halving them might feel good to your ego, but it doesn’t solve the real systemic causes: the destructive economic and financial systems driving ecological collapse, excessive wasteful energy demand and humanity’s ongoing assault on the ecosystems that sustain life.
Obviously I see things very differently to the prevailing narrative here.
PP: This idea — “growth in clean alternatives is good because it displaces fossil fuels or slows their growth etc” — is a classic sleight of hand. A shell game. It’s misleading and rests on flawed logic. Wise people see through it.
BPL: I notice you adduce no particular evidence for that conclusion.
PP: Obviously I see things very differently to the prevailing narrative here.
BPL: Gosh darn that prevailing narrative! If only we listened to wise people, like PP!
“Western neoliberalism”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Philosophy Tube:
“What Was Liberalism?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlLgvSduugI&list=PLvoAL-KSZ32e9ziASGC8ZWwrvV4fEXoRj
“MAD MARX” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWF_0lkBhjY&list=PLvoAL-KSZ32f2WAqejJdLM2ByZWKpREt8
Related:
“Witchcraft, Gender, & Marxism | Philosophy Tube” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmk47kh7fiE
“Charles Darwin Vs Karl Marx | Philosophy Tube” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfYvLlbXj_8
Also (on a tangent):
“Why We Can’t Build Better Cities (ft.Not Just Bikes)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lHNkUjR9nM
Gittemary Johansen:
“the EASIEST ways to cut your carbon footprint in half // effective, lazy, climate action” : 1. “buy less” … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cjO_Y7tGw ,
“am I an overconsuming hypocrite ? // reacting to your comments” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo9I7OlbvkY
I can see how some of what some have said (including me, eg. “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.” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/#comment-833587 ) could be taken that way; however, I and others have said other things as well; to clarify – While I see an elegant, ‘natural’ utility in how markets work, with the principles of supply and demand, I am also aware/suspect/believe that there are glitches and limits to what they can do, and I believe there is a sensible practicality in having some public planning/decision making, ownership/goods/services, and regulation. (ie. I was not intending to imply we are not already aware of problems…)
Also, How did Dan and Scott Nudds, in particular, end up on your list of apparent group-thinkers? What comments are you basing that on? I’m curious.
patrick o twentyseven
“While I see an elegant, ‘natural’ utility in how markets work, with the principles of supply and demand, I am also aware/suspect/believe that there are glitches and limits to what they can do, and I believe there is a sensible practicality in having some public planning/decision making, ownership/goods/services, and regulation. (ie. I was not intending to imply we are not already aware of problems…)”
Agreed. The glitches and limits of free markets are known as the problem of “market failure” which is well known and recognised by mainstream economists. Definitions are easily googled eg this one by googles AI assistant: “Market failure occurs when the free market mechanism, due to various factors, fails to efficiently allocate resources, leading to an inefficient distribution of goods and services. This means that the market doesn’t reach a price and quantity equilibrium that maximizes social welfare.” In essence it means free market capitalism does many things well but does a few things quite badly in various ways.
Most countries recognise markets fail and as a result they mitigate the problems by some central planning for example roading infrastructure, government ownership of things like basic education and healthcare services, government help for unemployed people, environmental regulations and health and safety regulations. Even capitalist America does some of this.
Right wing / conservative leaning parties frequently deny the problem of market failures and fight against it all (although they certainly apply some double standards). The left wing parties tend to accept that markets can fail, but they sometimes come up with cumbersome unworkable solutions. Getting the policy just right is quite difficult.
In a way socialism and communism is an argument that capitalism is a complete failure and all markets are a failure and the government should own and control nearly everything. And socialism and communism taken to that extent just obviously didn’t work (China under Mao, The USSR, N Korea, Cuba, etc,etc) So we seem to be stuck with capitalism with a little bit of socialism added on. There might be no better solution.
I think that you are mistaking for “groupthink” what is actually familiarity with the consensus among scientists. Many of us here are scientists capable of assessing the science for ourselves. And the science is the lens through which, predominantly, we view the situation.
It may surprise you, but I consider James Hansen to be well within the consensus range of opinions. None of the assumptions he makes strain credulity given our state of understanding of Earth’s climate. That his projections are on the higher side wrt sea level rise, climate sensitivity, etc. merely reflects his willingness to extrapolate a bit beyond where others feel comfortable reflects 1) his stature in the field; and 2) his courage and willingness to buck the opinion of his peers and face things as they may well be. Were I an engineer (or an actuary) designing mitigation for future climate catastrophes, I would be paying close attention to Hansen’s projections. He may very well be closer to correct than the midrange of opinions.
The IPCC is a “consensus” document. It is what people could agree to put on paper given the uncertainties in the data and the tolerances of various individuals to political pressure and Type I vs. Type II errors. It is thus bound to be on the conservative side. You have to also consider that many in the community are loath to paint too dire a picture lest the public say, “F*** it. We’re screwed. Let’s party.” It is possible that this point of view is correct.
Which point of view is more likely? In my opinion, it doesn’t matter, because, with the exception of the Chinese and a few European countries, we are doing sweet F*** all to address the crisis. And every time one of the parties in the major democracies takes even the most timid steps to address the crisis, the public turns against them and elects the most regressive, right-wing nutjob they can find to undo all the progress and more.
re “And every time one of the parties in the major democracies takes even the most timid steps to address the crisis, the public turns against them and elects the most regressive, right-wing nutjob they can find to undo all the progress and more.”
To be fair, I wonder if, had Kamala Harris distanced herself more from the way Biden handled the Israel-Palestine conflict, voter enthusiasm on the left and maybe center would have been greater. Of course, there is something deeply wrong with our society when Trump can get more than 5%, but I think a lot of that is racism and sexism. …
(AIUI (from “The End of the Myth” and some other sources (eg. “Billy Graham to the Moral Majority (Christian Nationalism Part 2)” (Jezebel Vibes): No (fight to end) segregation (etc.) → no Jerry Falwell… → less of an antiabortion movement; also, no racism (?)→ NRA remains a halfway reasonable organization; and no racism → some cohort among White people are more willing to pay taxes for welfare and maybe public infrastructure… maybe they’d care more about what happens in the tropics… etc. the oligarchy would no longer be able to hide in ethnic tensions and cultural wedge issues.)
… And some people don’t pay attention, and of course there’s the misinformation. …
(re William @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833685 yes, we should be more like China and install RE faster and also, … [sarc.-ish]: we should be more like China and protect the people from Fox News propaganda, and also crackdown on the American/Western Falun Gong – oh, wait…, you said we shouldn’t do that… Though Experiment: swap the Himalayas with the Rio Grande… (some of what you say may be true, idk, but what about the Uyghurs…)
Please pardon my sloppiness – I generally try to separate the people of a country from their government’s actions ie., China’s government cracks down on Falun Gong (AFAIK), etc.
Re The Prieto Principle https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833816
“A shell game”
Well, shells are one way of sequestering CO2. More seriously, is it a shell game when China does it, or just when Western nations do?
There is a difference between saying something can or can’t be done, and saying it will or won’t be. We might not get to net 0 by 2050. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. And maybe we won’t try hard enough. Well that would be our fault, then; doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been done. …
(So long as we are operating under the premise that we have choice and our actions are not already determined by physics/etc. ie. pretending we have free will (we don’t: you can’t have your will and free it too) – but if we already knew what we were going to do … You don’t know which choice you will make until you make that choice.)
…The technical possibilities may be there. Maybe technology in development won’t pan out, but why give up now? The technology already proven may get us x% of the way there without any real pain (outside of political pain*), so the question is how far beyond x% we can get without painful trade-offs, and then how we get the rest of the way; let’s not dismiss the x%.… etc.
*it may/will be necessary to provide public funds or policies/etc. to workers/communities in some sectors connected to fossil fuels… (job training, new industries/opportunities…)
Why do we even need to argue, actually? Maybe you can grow your degrowth movement and we can put our energy into clean energy, +… and maybe we’ll meet somewhere in the middle.
“As for individual carbon footprints — mine, yours — they’re all irrelevant. ” – wrong, but it is certainly easier to reduce them if the rest of society creates/makes the lower CO2-eg. options easier. I think Gittemary Johansen would agree that individual voluntary actions alone are not enough (or perhaps more accurately, shouldn’t be required to do it all) – see what she says starting at ~0:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cjO_Y7tGw I included those two videos ( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833770 ) because of the reference to overconsumption.
“Halving them might feel good to your ego, but it doesn’t solve the real systemic causes: the destructive economic and financial systems driving ecological collapse, excessive wasteful energy demand and humanity’s ongoing assault on the ecosystems that sustain life.” – And the way we get our energy. The clean energy transition doesn’t fix everything, not even regarding the environment, not even just climate (because deforestation, CH4 and N2O, etc.), but it would be a huge help, and at least then we can then have some energy sources that don’t (on their own) add to the problems.
All opportunities for absorbing and integrating the great opportunity for clearer objective thinking from that Pedro Prieto interview have been lost here. Not only lost but what was being offered has been disintegrated into dust.
If you missed it check out what was said here:
Fragile Electric Grids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX815YnSt0k
Here comes your Big Bang Theory loving East Coast liberal elite set, served with a side of kale salad, NPR tote bags, and a dash of performative indignation.
Recently overheard at the Upstate Newark County Fair Chowdown:
A fiery climate debate erupted between the East Coast intellectual duo — Barton Paul Levenson, environmental policy wonk, and Nigel Jones, urban sustainability consultant — and the Southern redneck champions — Cletus Wade Tucker III, proud diesel mechanic and part-time BBQ judge, and Tammy Rae Jenkins, local beauty queen turned vocal MAGA enthusiast. Here’s how it went down:
Barton: “Nigel and I have extensively studied the latest IPCC reports. The climate models, while imperfect, clearly indicate urgent reductions in carbon emissions are non-negotiable. To ignore the science is reckless elitism.”
Nigel: “Indeed, Barton. We must embrace green technology, divest from fossil fuels, and overhaul capitalism’s excesses. It’s a moral imperative for our generation.”
Cletus: “Well now, Barton, that sounds fancy, but back here, we’re just tryin’ to keep the lights on and our trucks runnin’. Y’all talk ‘bout saving the planet, but can’t even explain how yer solar panels’ll work when the power goes out after a storm.”
Tammy Rae: “Yep, and while Nigel’s preachin’, folks like me gotta decide if we’re payin’ the electric bill or puttin’ food on the table. Ain’t no fancy models gonna fix that.”
Barton: “It’s precisely this short-term thinking that’s the problem. We need systemic change.”
Nigel: “Yes, but without addressing social inequities, the transition will fail. It must be just and inclusive.”
Cletus: “Inclusive? How ‘bout includin’ a little common sense and respect for folks who actually live where the rubber meets the road?”
Tammy Rae: “Or maybe y’all could come down here, unplug from your latte machines, and listen before tellin’ us what’s best.”
Not left, not right. Just crawling under the nonsense looking for the light.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
“Emerging from Plato’s Cave since 429 BCE — and still unimpressed with the puppets.”
— Socrates’ Pet
Scorpion-
If you are bent on criticism, just say what you mean. Please leave the “kale salad” cleverness to somebody clever. I will suggest this: when “looking for the light”, crawling under things is a poor strategy, tho as a scorpion, you appear stuck with your m.o.
Richard Creager: “ If you are bent on criticism, just say what you mean. Please leave the “kale salad” cleverness to somebody clever”
Good one, Richard. I would add: “Witty saying proves nothing”, and the above wasn’t even half as witty as Multitroll (here: “Scorpion”) apparently thinks.
Or since he tries to bask in the light reflected off Socrates – “Life unexamined is not worth living”.
A little ‘light reading’?
“So the thesis of this book stands or falls with the correctness of the decline rate that Brown gives us. Therefore I have calculated with several different parameters as regards the decline rate, and all point in the same direction. The difference between them is a few years at most. Therefore I assume that my thesis is solid, which is that the end of global net oil exports in 2030-2032 (Brown’s scenario) is a best-case scenario.
Collapse can, I think, begin in earnest already in 2026, only because of too little diesel exports. Observe that oil exports vanish successively, more and more, not all at once.” ?
https://un-denial.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/lars-larsen-the-end-of-global-net-oil-exports-13th-edition-2024.pdf
https://un-denial.com/2024/07/29/book-review-the-end-of-global-net-oil-exports-by-lars-larsen-2024/
Reply to James Charles
Excellent blog site. I’ll take the time to see what Lars has to say, thanks.
In a geologic blink, that small lucky group outcompeted all other hominids and every other species on the planet.
Denial is not a defect. Denial is what made us human. Denial now prevents us from acknowledging and changing behavior that threatens our long-term survival and therefore denial may destroy us.
Hence this site’s tagline… unmasking denial: creator and destroyer
James Charles says
21 May 2025 at 4:55 AM
That looks very worthwhile — the Un-Denial site is encouraging; I hadn’t known about it before. Seems like a thoughtful community — nice people.
Also, thank you for the reminder about the Do the Math site. I had completely forgotten about it until it came up on Un-Denial. I’ll be visiting more often now. Again, great to see people discussing important topics and sharing knowledge.
Frederike Otto is a modern hero. I could wish RealClimate presents her work here. She helped initiate climate attribution studies and is here with a new effort on climate injustice. Here are some responses to a couple of frequent canards recommending ignoring, ignorance, and diversion which are often promoted here from our house fake skeptics. – Inequality magnifies climate impacts worldwide, climate scientist writes in new book
Author Friederike Otto analyzes colonialism, inequality, and how climate action can improve our lives. – https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/05/inequality-magnifies-climate-impacts-worldwide-climate-scientist-writes-in-new-book/
Excellent! Sounds good. I DO recommend all Democrats run with that as the main plank in their party platform. Democrat party new slogan: “Inequality magnifies climate impacts worldwide”. Put that on billboards, yard signs, bumper stickers, hats, etc.
I think that will be their ticket to success!
Reply to Susan Anderson
who said: ” ignorance, and diversion which are often promoted here from our house fake skeptics
I’m not sure I understand what you’re referring to, so I’d appreciate a bit more context. Could you provide some examples of the ignorance and diversion you mention, specifically from those you describe as “fake skeptics”?
Also, if you wouldn’t mind, could you clarify what exactly you mean by that term?
Thanks.
Mr Slow Willy and Dim-witted
William: Fake skeptic is a polite and slightly more accurate term for climate science denier which avoids the complaints about holocaust denial comparisons). The real skeptics are scientists who do not claim skepticism to support counterfactuals. The accusations of religion, collusion, belief systems, Galileo, Richard Feynman, as excuses for promoting false information fall apart on the merits of the arguments.
There is no need to call yourself slow and dim witted. But there is a need to look all around and realize that reality has the only seat at the table and bats 1000. Don’t assume that lies will win out on a planetary scale over time, though they are having a moment in our public politics. Ignorance is not bliss.
You would do well to check out Friederike Otto, whom I have now linked twice once my recent post goes up.
ps. elsewhere, I made a booboo, and named Prieto Principle as Pedro Prieto. I assume everyone who reads it can figure out who I meant.
I expect (not sure) that absent from ” Climate change still made the conditions that make fires more likely to spread, more likely to become bigger” is “…change and more fuel, more CO2, still … “. Being called “greening up” I heard a Canadian wildfire fighter say “These fires seem to be burning hotter than they used to and we don’t know why”.
Barry E Finch says
22 May 2025 at 9:46 AM
I heard a Canadian wildfire fighter say “These fires seem to be burning hotter than they used to and we don’t know why”.
That is one uneducated uninformed badly trained or really dumb Canadian wild fire fighter who has been living under a rock the last 20 years.
re BPL (very belated): line broadening:
“Why the Forcing from Carbon Dioxide Scales as the Logarithm of Its Concentration”
David M. Romps, Jacob T. Seeley, Jacob P. Edman
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml
see section 5c:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml#d9481557e2163
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line_shape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line#Line_broadening_and_shift
https://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~emr/stralingsprocessen/les12.pdf :
∆ν ≈ 1 / (2π· ∆t) natural linewidth (∆t radiative relaxation time)
∆ν collisional = ν (frequency) of collisions ÷ π
Sum ∆ν collisional + ∆ν natural linewidth to get ∆ν combined of the two effects.
Lorentz(ian) Shape: Applies to natural & collisional broadening:
φ(ν) or ø(ν) = b ÷ [ (ν − ν₀)² + b² ] ,
where b = ∆ν ÷ (2π)
Thermal / Doppler broadening: Gaussian shape,
∆ν thermal/Doppler = (ν₀ ÷ c) √( 2kT / m)
see also:
https://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/ATLAS/zenith-absorption
(cont. w/ corrections/clarifications @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833641
&
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833717 )
Pedro Prieto Report — 100% Decarbonization with 100% Renewable Energy Systems
https://www.15-15-15.org/webzine/2021/04/02/report-100percent-decarbonization-with-100percent-renewable-energy-systems/
Must be fake. Can’t be true. Must be a Communist. Or maybe even a covert Russia spy–a fifth column.
Abstract 2021
As the world continues paving its way to the so called renewable energy transitions, mainly solar photovoltaic systems and wind power, there are some fundamental hurdles appearing in the horizon, despite of the overwhelming hype that these renewables are receiving in all the global media and also in the academic world to replace the fossil fuel systems.
The main alibi to promote this expansion is that the world goes straightforward to an unprecedented Global Warming and Climate Change, if drastic and urgent measures to reduce the CO2 emissions are not taken soon. There is still almost no solid reference in the different governments and in the industrial and capitalist world about the problem that also may represent soon the gradual depletion of fossil fuels and other resources, once they reach their maximum world production peaks (not when they are exhausted, which is a much more distant and imprecise date).
There is no sign or apparent willingness to appeal to consume less in helping to solve the problem (the feared and despised degrowth or powerdown, when voluntarily assumed). Very likely because accepting the premise that the world resources are finite, that they are subject to depletion and that they will reach a tipping point, when their extractions/productions will decay, automatically implies the announced death of capitalism, that demands infinite growth in a finite world like ours. In any case, the only reference mentions energy savings and efficiency improvements, by using more and more technology, thus forgetting that there has not been a single global reduction of any kind in the more than 150 years of industrial society, through which we have noticeably and continuously improved our efficiency (William Stanley Jevons and his famous paradox, still today in force).
Therefore, it seems more digestible, even within the enormity of the pollution problem of our planet, to say, we are going to eliminate the CO2, than accepting we have to change our production model.
I got another whiff of trace gases at breakfast just now JCM 10 May 2025 at 12:03 PM “established that trace gases”. The slightest whiff is enough to trigger my lazy cut’n’paste comment (not even a response):
mass (grammes/m**2)
20 Earth’s surface that manufactures the surface radiation that leaks upward into the air (Power flux 396 w/m**2).
25,500 H2O gas that manufactures ~1,000 times the photons of the surface radiation that leaks upward.
6,700 CO2 gas that manufactures ~165,000 times the photons of the surface radiation that leaks upward.
10,300,000 N2, O2, Ar in the atmosphere.
re BPL (very belated): line broadening (cont.) (corrections)
https://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~emr/stralingsprocessen/les12.pdf formula errors?:
Hyperphysics has a different constant of proportionality:
∆ν thermal/Doppler = ( 2 ν₀ ÷ c) √( ln (2) · 2kT / m)
(link not included because it gave me a not secure warning when I went there), which agrees with the FWHM formula here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_broadening#Thermal_Doppler_broadening
Also I wonder why the radiative relaxation time (natural broadening) linewidth
∆ν ≈ 1 / (2π· ∆t radiative relaxation)
whereas
∆ν collisional = ν (frequency) of collisions ÷ π
. . . . . . . . . . . . = 1 / (π· ∆t collisional ) ;
where’s the 2?
Lying to Ourselves: The Most Dangerous Kind of Denial
Why is lying to yourself worse than lying to others? Because it signals a deeper refusal to confront reality.
We see this across issues—from media figures downplaying Biden’s cognitive decline, to post-9/11 liberals swallowing the Bush administration’s WMD narrative, to today’s climate discourse, where marketing often masquerades as science. What’s at play isn’t ignorance—it’s motivated reasoning: a psychological defense mechanism that protects the stories we want to believe.
Take climate. The idea that wind and solar will save us—without challenging the infinite-growth machine driving collapse—isn’t science. It’s green-tinted magical thinking. Pointing that out doesn’t make someone a “denier.” It makes them honest. But honesty is dangerous in a system built on illusion.
Quantum Decision Theory (QDT)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168045
offers a better lens: belief isn’t binary. It’s probabilistic, relational, and often suspended in contradiction until reality forces collapse. We don’t deny facts because we can’t see them—we deny because accepting them threatens who we think we are.
That’s why people rage at messengers who say: CO₂ doesn’t emit itself—systems do. That inequality, consumption, and political economy are the real drivers—not just bad tech, poor policy, or a bad President.
The IPCC skirts this. WG3 massages it. Most media avoids it. And too many environmentalists treat critique as betrayal—or worse, as a kind of immorality. But we need to grow up. Because truth isn’t always clean or convenient. And the longer we delay facing the structural roots of the crisis, the deeper the collapse when the wave breaks.
This isn’t cynicism. It’s realism.
Let’s stop lying to ourselves.
The Long Emergency Didn’t Start with Climate Change
Science and imperial ambition fused into a civilizational mission: not to live with nature, but to tame it. Western expansion wasn’t just about discovering new lands or accumulating knowledge—it was about imposing order on wild abundance. Systems of control, precision, and extraction replaced older ways of being. Not by accident, but by design.
Our predicament didn’t begin with rising CO₂ or oil shocks. It began much earlier—with the ancient impulse to dominate the Earth, to centralize power, and to treat nature as a stockpile of resources rather than a living system. What we now call a “climate crisis” is just the latest flare-up in a five-thousand-year pattern of systemic overshoot. A condition—not a glitch—that crystallized in its modern Western form about a millennium ago.
Today, many still cling to the fantasy that infinite growth can continue on a finite planet—or that AI, fusion, or carbon capture will clean up the mess without changing the machine. But this isn’t reason. It’s religion. The belief that each new technology will fix the damage of the last is a form of industrial faith—a story we tell ourselves to avoid confronting the real costs to how we live.
What we need now isn’t more innovation. It’s clarity. And the courage to ask: What kind of civilization are we trying to sustain? And at what price?
Facing this moment demands more than clever tools or upgraded models. It requires honesty that cuts through illusion—starting with the ones we tell ourselves. I’m still stunned by how hard that is for so many of my species to grasp, accept, or even consider as a foundational truth about where we are—and how we got here.
China has recently achieved a notable milestone in its climate efforts: a decline in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. In the second quarter of 2024, emissions fell by 1% year-on-year—the first quarterly decrease since the country emerged from its zero-COVID policies. This reduction was primarily driven by a surge in clean energy capacity, which outpaced the growth in power demand. Specifically, emissions from the power sector decreased by 3%, cement production dropped by 7%, and oil consumption declined by 3% .
Carbon Pulse+4Carbon Brief+4iifiir.org+4 Reuters+2iifiir.org+2Upstream Online+2
This trend continued into early 2025, with emissions falling by 1.6% in the first quarter compared to the same period in the previous year. Analysts suggest this could indicate that China is approaching, or has already reached, its emissions peak ahead of the official 2030 target .
Upstream Online
China’s long-term strategy involves a gradual transition away from coal. President Xi Jinping has committed to “strictly control” coal consumption during the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021–2025) and to “phase it down” during the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030) . Despite these commitments, China continues to approve new coal-fired power plants to address energy security concerns and meet peak demand. In 2024, the country initiated construction on 94.5 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity—the highest annual increase since 2015 .
globalenergymonitor.org Reuters
Nevertheless, China is making significant strides in renewable energy. By mid-2024, the country had already met its 2030 renewable energy target, six years ahead of schedule . The electrification rate has reached 30%, surpassing that of the European Union and the United States, which have plateaued around 22% . This rapid expansion in renewables, including solar, wind, and hydro power, is central to China’s plan to peak emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.
Le Monde.fr Financial Times theguardian.com
In summary, while China continues to balance its energy needs with economic growth, the recent decline in CO₂ emissions and accelerated investment in renewable energy signal a significant shift towards a more sustainable energy future.
This recent drop in China’s CO₂ emissions isn’t just a technical milestone—it reflects something deeper about the way the country governs. While the Western world struggles with polarization and performative politics, China is increasingly positioning itself as a global leader in climate and long-term planning.
I know it is not popular to say this here, but I genuinely admire the Chinese. I find their system—especially when it comes to governance—remarkably rational, pragmatic, and grounded in long-term thinking. They focus on solving real problems rather than performing for headlines. And yes, they often do it with a kind of empathy and quiet compassion that’s so often missing in the increasingly hysterical and dysfunctional politics of the Western world. So there—shoot me.
But honestly, I worry that even expressing something like this could soon be dangerous. We’re drifting into a cultural climate in the West where nuance is crushed under slogans, where inconvenient truths are seen as betrayals, and where even acknowledging something positive about the “wrong side” is enough to get metaphorically—or perhaps one day literally—shot down by ideological mobs. Cancel culture, tribal purity tests, and performative outrage have taken over. Dissent used to be seen as the lifeblood of democracy—now it feels like a threat to personal safety or social standing.
From environmental action to pension reforms, for example. China is gradually raising its retirement age in response to demographic pressures, with clear communication and support from the highest levels. Their PAYG system blends national solidarity with personal savings, and they’re even redistributing funds to reduce regional inequalities—something almost unthinkable in many Western democracies. Their pension system reflects real social values of the Chinese people.
Yet here in the West, even saying this out loud feels risky. We’ve drifted into a climate where nuance is punished, where praising the “wrong” system can get you shouted down, cancelled, or worse. Dissent used to be the heart of democracy—now it can feel like a threat to your safety or reputation.
And speaking of threats: Germany’s recent efforts to ban the AfD party on the grounds that it’s “anti-democratic” show how warped things have become. What could be more undemocratic than outlawing political opposition based on unproven ideological accusations? It’s a chilling irony—and a sign that the true threat to democracy might not come from populist movements, but from those claiming to defend western liberalism by abandoning its core principles. This mindset is what’s unraveling post-WWII democratic values—not MAGA, not Trump. There are far greater threats to our future to resolve than that.
China, by contrast, begins to look like a counterbalance to the West’s accelerating political dysfunction. China’s approach is measured, realistic, and deeply human-centered. Their retirement age hasn’t kept up with life expectancy, so they’re phasing in changes gradually, with full public awareness, guided by national policy through the 14th Five-Year Plan. This isn’t chaotic guesswork or rushed reform; it’s a steady recalibration based on demographic realities.
To me, that’s rational governance at work. Not perfect, but principled and focused on people’s material well-being. The kind of policy that says: we see the future coming, and we’re going to meet it with competence and care—not spin and finger-pointing.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I just wish we could have this kind of adult conversation in the West again—where acknowledging what’s working elsewhere doesn’t get you branded or ostracized. I’m tired of the fear, the cynicism, and the ideological blinders. I’m still clinging to logic, empathy, and truth—no matter how unpopular that becomes.
A quick anecdote if I may. I live in Singapore, which isn’t exactly cheap—so by comparison, what my cousin in Shanghai is experiencing feels almost surreal. She’s a primary school teacher about to retire at 55, and her monthly pension will be around 12,000 yuan (roughly 1,470 euros). And that’s in Shanghai, where the cost of living—excluding housing—is extremely low.
She paid off her fully renovated, comfortable three-bedroom apartment over a decade ago. It’s got all the modern amenities, including one of those fancy auto-toilets that practically clean your soul. Despite excellent public transport, they also own a big, stylish car with leather seats and all sorts of flashy, probably unnecessary tech features.
Healthcare? Fast, efficient, and affordable. You walk into a hospital in the morning, and by afternoon you have your results. She’ll also be receiving extensive elderly care benefits. Retiring at 55—with dignity, financial stability, and the freedom to travel somewhere special every year thanks to her savings and pension—is not just possible, but normal. People in the west have no idea what it is like living in China today.
China is, in every sense, a modern, civilized First World country. Meanwhile, the so-called “democratic” West is sinking into dysfunction—looking more like a Second World society teetering toward Third.
Parking Lots and Politics: An Opossum’s-Eye View
“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”
— Joni Mitchell
From where I scurry—under fences, through ditches, past flickering streetlights—I can’t make much sense of your politics. Left wing, right wing? From down here, under the roar of the freeway and the hum of HVAC units, it all starts to sound the same. The slogans change, but the pavement keeps spreading.
If I had to put it in human terms, I’d say your great thinkers—Marx, Rand, Musk, pick your prophet—spent a lot of energy arguing how best to organize the machinery of production. None seemed too bothered by where all that production leads: forests cleared, wetlands drained, poisons leaking under the moonlight. They were so busy talking about how people should live that they forgot to ask how life itself keeps living.
Me? I’m just an opossum. I don’t build empires. I don’t draft manifestos. I look for shelter, care for my young, forage what I can, and try not to get run over by someone hurrying to a climate change planning commission meeting. I live close to the edge—your edge. The edge where strip malls replace woods, and plastic bags flutter in the wind like ghost leaves. I can tell when the earth is sick. I can smell it. You probably can too, but maybe you’ve gotten used to it.
Sometimes I dream of the old ways—before concrete ruled the landscape. Small bands of humble humans once lived like we still do: attentive to the land, embedded in the rhythms of the wild. They took what they needed, yes, but they knew when to stop. They didn’t aim to conquer the Earth or cover it in asphalt. Their stories were about connection, not conquest.
I’m not here to scold you. Just to say: I notice. We notice. The raccoons, the frogs, the night birds. We feel the difference between living land and land that’s been sterilized. We know when a place no longer loves life.
There’s still time. But maybe you need to see through different eyes—closer to the ground, in the shadows, where the real world still flickers and breathes.
Meanwhile in another world far removed:
NSW Faces Catastrophic Flooding Amid Record Rainfall and Climate Change Concerns
New South Wales is grappling with devastating floods following record-breaking rainfall, particularly impacting the Mid North Coast and Hunter regions. The severe weather has resulted in at least five fatalities, damaged over 10,000 properties, and left approximately 50,000 residents isolated. Emergency services have conducted hundreds of rescues, and the Insurance Council of Australia has declared a “significant event,” anticipating a surge in insurance claims.
news.com.au+1dailytelegraph.com.au+1
theguardian.com+4reuters.com+4theguardian.com+4
theguardian.com+1theguardian.com+1
Experts and officials have linked the increasing frequency and intensity of such extreme weather events to climate change, emphasizing the urgent need for enhanced disaster preparedness and climate resilience strategies.
For a detailed report: Australia begins clean-up after floods kill 5, damage 10,000 properties
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/australia-begins-clean-up-after-floods-kill-5-damage-10000-properties-2025-05-24/
Remember Prieto and the Spain blackout interview? I found a few things might help.
Inertia?
Physically derived system inertia is falling due to the rapid increase in renewable energy sources. As traditional generators shut down, their individual rotational inertia and their contribution to frequency stability goes with them. This leads to a reduction in system inertia as a whole. Solving this problem is a major challenge for the transition to renewable energy powered networks.
a full basic explanation here:
https://arena.gov.au/blog/what-is-electricity-grid-inertia/
Vol.41 No.2 Jan. 20, 2021 ©2021 Chin.Soc.for Elec.Eng.
New Issues and Classification of Power System Stability With High Shares of Renewables and Power Electronics
Authors XIE Xiaorong 1 , HE Jingbo 2 , MAO Hangyin 3 , LI Haozhi 1
1. State Key lab of Control and Simulation of Power Systems and Generation Equipment (Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua University), Haidian District, Beijing 100084, China;
2. National Power Dispatching and Control Center, Xicheng District, Beijing 100031, China;
3. State Grid Zhejiang Electric Power Company, Hangzhou 310007, Zhejiang Province, China
ABSTRACT: Driven by energy transition and technological
progress, power system industry is undergoing a rapid
development with an important trend or key feature, i.e., high
penetration of renewable energy plus high penetration of power
electronic equipment (namely, “double high”), which, however,
brings significant changes to the dynamic behavior of the
system and causes new issues of stability. In this paper, the new
features of “double high” power systems were summarized first.
Next, their impacts on the various aspects of classical power
system stability were briefly reviewed. Then, we surveyed the
emerging stability issues in the context of “double high”. After
an examination of applicability of the classical and extended
classification of power system stability by IEEE/Cigre, a new
classification framework was finally proposed to get with the
new scenario of “double high”, while maintaining the classical
logic of classification. Hopefully, this work helps to promote
the researches on modeling, analysis and control of the stability
of “double high” power systems.
KEY WORDS: renewable energy; power electronics; power
system stability; classification
https://www.csee.org.cn/pic/u/cms/www/202106/221654202zl1.pdf
Key Insights and Credibility
Identifies “double-high” (高比例可再生 + power electronics) systems in China with >30% renewables as a new paradigm. Reviews how high renewables change grid dynamics and cause “new stability issues” (beyond classical models) csee.org.cn Proposes updated stability classifications for modern grids.
Credibility: Peer-reviewed Chinese engineering journal; authors from Tsinghua Univ. and State Grid R&D.
Impact of the High Penetration of Renewable Energy Sources on the Frequency Stability of the Saudi Grid †
by Saad Alqahtani
Ghaemi et al. (2023), Electronics (MDPI)
Electronics 2023, 12(6), 1470; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12061470
Simulates Saudi grid; finds that high inverter-based renewables sharply reduce system inertia, degrading frequency response during disturbances mdpi.com . Off-peak scenarios see “dramatic” frequency deviations. Battery storage (BESS) can compensate: aggregated BESS significantly improve frequency control mdpi.com . Credibility: Recent peer-reviewed study (open access); authors from academia and industry; international (collaboration with U.S. experts).
IEA (2023) – Renewable Energy Market Update
Will more wind and solar PV capacity lead to more generation curtailment?
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/will-more-wind-and-solar-pv-capacity-lead-to-more-generation-curtailment
Market analysis: notes China’s heavy investment (~$75 billion/yr since 2010) in transmission has slashed VRE curtailment from 16% (2012) to <3% (2022) by linking resource-rich regions to load centers. Emphasizes that strong grid build-out plus smart policies (differentiated incentives, storage deployment) are needed to prevent oversupply waste iea.org .
Credibility: International Energy Agency report; authoritative data and policy insight.
There is good data out there on this subject if interested. The global consensus from the research literature is that very high shares of variable renewables introduce new reliability challenges, but these are addressable with targeted solutions. Analysts agree that reduced inertia and frequency response (due to replacing synchronous generators with inverter-based wind/solar) make the grid more sensitive to disturbances docs.nrel.gov mdpi.com . Without fast-acting reserves or inverter “grid-forming” controls, sudden drops in generation (e.g. rapid ramp-down of solar) can cause larger and faster frequency deviations. For example, studies of Saudi Arabia show high PV/wind levels “dramatically affect” frequency stability under light loads mdpi.com . (By contrast, interconnected regions or larger balancing areas tend to mitigate this by geographic diversity.)
On the integration side, nearly all experts note the ramping challenge: dispatchable units (gas, hydro, coal) must cycle more steeply to follow variable net-load ("duck curve" effects). Reports from California and Germany illustrate that midday solar often forces conventional plants offline, then demands large sunrise/sunset ramps. In practice this leads to curtailment of renewables (spilling wind/solar when supply outpaces demand or grid capacity) docs.nrel.gov cleanenergywire.org . Economic analyses (e.g. Prokhorov & Dreisbach) find that under current market rules, more wind/solar increases instances of negative wholesale prices ideas.repec.org , signaling oversupply. Utilities then often curtail or even pay to avoid generation. While low wholesale prices benefit consumers in the short term, persistent negative pricing undermines generator economics (even harming renewables’ profitability). Hence, high penetration tends to force economic curtailment of VRE and/or of flexible peakers.
A systemic issue is the lack of bulk storage. Authorities highlight that without large-scale storage or other flexibility, grids must waste cheap renewable energy when oversupplied docs.nrel.gov . For instance, NREL notes that excessive curtailment “limits decarbonization by limiting contributions of VRE capacity” and insists that building storage, demand management or transmission can unlock this wasted potential docs.nrel.gov .
China investing ~~$75 billion per year every year since 2010 in upgrading electric grid transmission infrastructure and technology stands out to me. Especially compared to the OECD western nations with high 'Variable renewable energy' (VRE).
Related:
Practical Engineering:
“Connecting Solar to the Grid is Harder Than You Think” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G4ipM2qjfw (be sure to stick around beyond 15:00)
“The Most Confusing Part of the Power Grid” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwkNTwWJP5k
Off on tangents:
“hankschannel”: “Ember’s Global Electricity Review 2025” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF_f-bfnbAo
“How Oil Propaganda Sneaks Into TV Shows | Climate Town” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBC_bug5DIQ
Just Have a Think (one of his videos had a discussion of LCA &/or EROI / EPBT for PV but I’m not sure which):
“New Report – Rooftop Solar PV is THE biggest climate mitigation technology!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW2J4j2Wiao
“Renewable Energy Domination” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuJw09G5YIE
“Kicking fossil fuel out of industry! Here’s how it’s done…” (haven’t watched this one yet) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vljqz20qg2E
re BPL (very belated): line broadening (corrections)(cont.)
https://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~emr/stralingsprocessen/les12.pdf formula errors?:
… Also,
Lorentz(ian) Shape:
“ φ(ν) = b ÷ [ (ν − ν₀)² + b²] ,
where b = ∆ν ÷ (2π) ”…
formular implies FWHM = 2b = ∆ν ÷ (π)
(cont. from
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833607
&
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833641 )
Tomáš Kalisz 18 May 2025 at 5:52 PM “such a climate sensitivity (to my understanding responding primarily to a decrease in Earth insolation, due to changes in Earth orbital parameters”, It’s my distinct understanding that Milankovitch cycles’ combined effect 0n Summer insolation circa latitude 65N is what starts and ends glaciation periods, rather than decrease in Earth insolation. In fact, latitude 65N Summer insolation changes from Milankovitch cycles even line up with 2 unsuccessful partial deglaciation attempts during the latest glaciation period as well as its start and end.
In Re to MA Rodger, 22 MAY 2025 AT 3:48 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833645
Dear MA,
Many thanks for you kind response. It is also my understanding that Makarieva suggests an alternative to both IPPC as well as to Hansen. I see, however, that you do not consider her arguments for this alternative very convincing.
Let us wait if someone checks her hypothesis by a modelling experiment showing whether or not changes in terrestrial hydrology regime can influence climate sensitivity.
Greetings
Tomáš
in Re to Barry E. Finch, 24 May 2025 at 5:33 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833724
Hallo Barry,
Thank you very much for your correction.
My point was the question if climate sensitivity to a certain forcing may or may not depend on actual level of other forcings. For example, in case of variations in land insolation in certain latitudes, the question may read specifically if it depends on the starting CO2 atmospheric concentration, or not.
Alternatively (or in addition), we could ask if the climate sensitivity towards such changes in insolation depends (also) on water availability for evaporation from the land, on land albedo, etc.
Greetings
Tomáš
The State of Climate Discourse: Irrational Rejections and Willful Blindness to Emerging Scientific Signals
There’s an increasingly troubling pattern in climate science discussions:
the reflexive dismissal of credible voices, the refusal to engage with complex new data, and the vilification of anyone who dares question the dominant consensus narrative—even when they’re relying on published science or raising legitimate uncertainties.
Take, for example, Dr. James Hansen’s recent argument. He highlights a major factor driving recent acceleration in global warming: a change in Earth’s albedo, which is influenced by both clouds and atmospheric haze. As Hansen outlines, the observed decline in albedo—measured by the Earthshine and CERES projects—could stem from two primary causes: a reduction in cloud cover or a decrease in sulfur dioxide emissions from international shipping, following the new low-sulfur fuel regulations.
Both of these scenarios have serious implications for climate dynamics, and if both are at play, then understanding their relative contribution is essential. This is not fringe speculation—it’s rooted in scientific data and actively debated by credible researchers. Even the American Geophysical Union (AGU), hardly a fringe group, acknowledged in December that the recent uptick in warming is due to both reduced aerosol cooling (from shipping fuel regulations) and diminished cloud cover.
Contraction of the World’s Storm-cloud Zones the Primary Contributor to the Recent Increase in Cloud Radiative Warming…..Dec. 11, 2024 Presented at AGU24
https://agu.confex.com/agu/agu24/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/1730632
Earth’s clouds are shrinking, boosting global warming…..Dec. 19, 2024 Science
Narrowing storm bands may be a surprising and dangerous new feedback of climate change
https://www.science.org/content/article/earth-s-clouds-are-shrinking-boosting-global-warming
George Tselioudis, is a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Tselioudis and his colleagues now think they can explain the growing gap with evidence collected by a remarkably long-lived satellite. “I’m confident it’s a missing piece. It’s the missing piece,” says Tselioudis, who presented the work last week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
Are these AGU connected climate scientists suddenly “alarmist doomers” now too? Have they joined some kind of Hansen cult? These rhetorical questions point to a deeper issue: the increasing tendency to paint any deviation from the accepted mainstream narrative as dangerous, irrational, or conspiratorial—even when it’s based on clear scientific reasoning.
Some researchers, including James Hansen and colleagues, argue that climate sensitivity — how much warming results from a given CO₂ increase — may be higher than previously estimated due to underestimated cloud feedback strength.
Despite strong evidence for positive cloud feedback, significant uncertainties remain. Cloud formation and behavior are highly complex, and small-scale cloud processes are difficult to model with precision.
But when Zeke Hausfather and others say things like, ““We still do not know for sure that these changes in cloud behaviour are not due to short-term variability — “ onlookers must stop re-interpreting that as: ‘It’s only natural variability! Hansen is wrong. He has no proof.’ Because that is not what Zeke said.
When NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies director and climatologist Gavin Schmidt says, “we still aren’t able to say why the albedo has been changing so much,” he was not saying the data is wrong, that albedo has not changed-it has changed and fast over a 20 year period. The proof is in the actual Data! Opinions as to ‘why’ or ‘it doesn’t matter’ really don’t count.
And when Gavin Schmidt, Zeke Hausfather or James Hansen and others all say, “there is still more work to do before we can say 100% definitively xyz is happening because of abc,” it does not mean the Data is wrong or that there is nothing happening or that it is only just natural variability.
That should not be the take away message being spread around. They are not saying there is nothing to see here but the opposite. Especially when other unrelated objective data shows an acceleration in both atmospheric CO2 growth and warming everywhere which matches these other observations.
Meanwhile, financial heavyweights are weighing in with blunt warnings that should be impossible to ignore. Günther Thallinger, a board member at Allianz SE—one of the largest insurance and investment firms in the world—has sounded the alarm in stark terms. In a recent LinkedIn post and subsequent reporting, he lays out how the climate crisis is not only threatening physical assets but also the very structure of global capitalism:
“Heat and water destroy capital. Flooded homes lose value. Overheated cities become uninhabitable. Entire asset classes are degrading in real time.”
He warns that we are approaching warming thresholds where insurance will no longer be viable for many regions and sectors. Without insurance, other financial instruments—like mortgages, infrastructure lending, or corporate investment—will collapse. This is what Thallinger calls a climate-induced credit crunch. And he’s not some Twitter activist or ideological outlier—he’s a conservative fiduciary responsible for managing over $1 trillion in serious capital.
In a Guardian article dated April 3, 2025, summarizing Thallinger’s statements, he makes clear that we are entering a climate-induced systemic financial crisis:
“The climate crisis is on track to destroy capitalism, a top insurer has warned, with the vast cost of extreme weather impacts leaving the financial sector unable to operate.
The world is fast approaching temperature levels where insurers will no longer be able to offer cover for many climate risks, said Günther Thallinger, on the board of Allianz SE, one of the world’s biggest insurance companies. He said that without insurance, which is already being pulled in some places, many other financial services become unviable, from mortgages to investments.
Global carbon emissions are still rising and current policies will result in a rise in global temperature between 2.2C and 3.4C above pre-industrial levels. The damage at 3C will be so great that governments will be unable to provide financial bailouts and it will be impossible to adapt to many climate impacts.”
He cited companies ending home insurance in California due to wildfires. Australia’s disaster recovery spending has already increased sevenfold between 2017 and 2023, he noted. The idea that billions of people can just adapt to worsening climate impacts is a “false comfort”, he said: “There is no way to ‘adapt’ to temperatures beyond human tolerance … Whole cities built on flood plains cannot simply pick up and move uphill.”
At 3C of global heating, climate damage cannot be insured against, covered by governments, or adapted to.
— Guardian, April 3, 2025
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/03/climate-crisis-on-track-to-destroy-capitalism-warns-allianz-insurer
Is he a “conspiracy theorist” too? A “doomer” indulging in irrational exaggeration? Or perhaps—just perhaps—he’s a highly informed realist who understands both risk modeling and the mounting scientific evidence far better than many armchair skeptics or mainstream media climate commentators.
And when a renowned climate scientist like James Hansen with the highest integrity, former head of NASA-GISS and Gavin Schmisdt’s old boss says, “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,” https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/CloudFeedback.13May2025.pdf — maybe we should be heeding that advice. Or at least pause to wonder why he’s is so moved to say things like that now.
The reality is that the evidence contradicting the mainstream’s timing and scale assumptions about warming is growing. Instead of engaging with it in a spirit of scientific curiosity and rigor, too many default to dismissive name-calling and ideological gatekeeping. We need to move beyond this tribal mindset. Science progresses not by suppressing uncomfortable data, but by confronting it honestly—however inconvenient that may be.
This is not about being “anti-science” or a “doomer.” It’s about resisting the uncritical dogmatism and groupthink that sometimes masquerade as scientific consensus. When what the groupthink is is unfounded opinions and dismissive behaviour. And it’s about listening—really listening—to data, not just the voices that echo what we already believe.
I am returning to a climate science discussions matter mentioned last moth or recently. There’s a strong and legitimate scientific consensus—often cited as 98% or more of climate scientists—on core facts about climate change. One clear example is that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is the dominant driver of current global warming. This warming is now approximately +1.5°C above preindustrial levels (typically benchmarked around 1880–1920). That fact is not meaningfully disputed by mainstream climate science or global scientific institutions. The wording in discussions changes but the essential fact remains the same.
However, it’s important to distinguish between scientific consensus and what I call the dominant climate consensus narrative. The latter refers to a broader set of opinions, policy preferences, or assumed “truths” that circulate among the public-facing climate science community—think IPCC summaries, media gatekeepers, or certain academic advocates. While these narratives often claim the authority of science, they are not always grounded in the same rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific consensus that underpins foundational climate facts.
For example, when advocates, scientists or institutions promote the idea that a 100% renewable wind-water-solar (WWS) global energy system is readily achievable in the near term, this is not a settled scientific consensus. It’s a hypothesis or scenario put forward by some researchers, not a universal conclusion shared by the broader scientific community. Yet criticism of such claims is often incorrectly portrayed as “denialism,” which shuts down healthy scientific discourse.
Knowing the difference between scientific consensus and narrative opinion—and keeping that distinction front of mind—should be obvious, especially in high-stakes climate discussions. But it often isn’t. On platforms like RealClimate, the two are frequently and falsely conflated by the dominant, defensive commentators. The result is an environment where questioning claims—however rational or evidence-based—is too often treated as heresy.
In short: science should always be open to questioning and refinement. Suppressing reasonable debate by blurring the line between genuine consensus science and opinion-based narratives from experts in a particular field does a disservice to truth-seeking—and to sound climate policy.
Of course, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Climate Reality Check: We May Be Tracking Toward +2°C by 2035 — and +3°C Before 2050
Depending on your source, April’s global temperature anomaly relative to pre-industrial levels was between +1.49°C and +1.67°C. That’s dangerously close to the +2°C threshold, with projections showing we could reach it by 2030–2035. Here’s a visual trajectory:
Projected warming trend graphic https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff125c148-a18d-4272-b4cb-9a25dcb744de_640x509.webp
If the current acceleration of warming continues at ~0.038°C per year, we could breach +3.0°C before 2050 — a threshold well beyond what global climate frameworks were designed to avoid.
Despite mounting evidence, much of the mainstream climate modeling still insists we can limit warming to under +3°C if we reach Net Zero by 2050. That’s the dominant mainstream narrative — but it’s based on a mix of assumptions. This optimism rests heavily on a possibly underestimated value for climate sensitivity — the temperature rise expected per doubling of CO₂.
IPCC scenarios often use a value of 2.5–4.0°C, rounding out usually as 3.0°C for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). But that may be too low. Hansen et al. (2025) argue the ECS is more likely 4.5°C ± 0.5°C, based on paleoclimate data, modern observations, and cloud feedback analysis.
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/CloudFeedback.13May2025.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
If ECS is indeed closer to 4.5°C, our climate is more fragile — and reactive — than most models suggest.
The Real-World Risks: Beyond Science to Actuarial Warnings
We’re not just talking theory anymore. Insurance actuaries — those who manage real-world risk for billion-dollar industries — are sounding the alarm. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (UK), in partnership with Exeter University, warn of:
– A 20–25% population reduction at +2°C
– Catastrophic warming (>+2°C) likely by 2050
– Cascading risks: food insecurity, GDP collapse, and tipping points already being breached
See refs:
https://news.exeter.ac.uk/faculty-of-environment-science-and-economy/current-climate-policies-risk-catastrophic-societal-and-economic-impacts/
https://greenfuturessolutions.com/news/planetary-solvency-report/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/we-dont-have-time/2025/02/28/50-gdp-collapse-ahead-actuaries-sound-the-alarm-whos-listening/
https://www.commondreams.org/news/climate-change-and-gdp
“The climate system may be far more sensitive to greenhouse gases than mainstream models suggest. Current policy-led approaches are inadequate and risk planetary insolvency — i.e., systemic breakdown of society and ecosystems.”
As Sandy Trust, past-chair of the IFoA Sustainability Board, noted:
“It’s as if we’re modeling the Titanic hitting an iceberg but excluding the possibility the ship could sink.”
Many financial risk models still assume “mild” impacts, despite accelerating extreme weather events and likely non-linear tipping points.
2023 Refs
https://actuaries.org.uk/media/qeydewmk/the-emperor-s-new-climate-scenarios.pdf
https://news.exeter.ac.uk/research/climate-scenario-models-in-financial-services-significantly-underestimate-climate-risk/
Even Allianz, a global insurance heavyweight, has warned that the climate crisis could destabilize capitalism itself:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/03/climate-crisis-on-track-to-destroy-capitalism-warns-allianz-insurer
We’re Outrunning the Narratives
Climate change is no longer a distant or debatable future — it’s a rapidly unfolding reality. With fossil fuel use still high, positive feedbacks accelerating, and our models underestimating the risks, climate action must shift from incremental to transformative — now.
If Net Zero by 2050 is our only bet, we need to acknowledge that it may already be too late without emergency adaptation, major policy overhauls, and perhaps — though controversially — geoengineering. We should be allowing blind ideology, institutional inertia, lifestyle or economic denial to delay what physics and the planet are already telling us.
Or does it really no longer matter anymore because it is already too late. The world is never going to act rationally or agree how serious and urgent the problem is. Climate science ongoing output or none?
This is an extraordinary shrinking of America’s IQ in so many ways that a full understanding is nearly impossible, but it is only too obvious that deliberate destruction of science is the product of a bruised/intimidated mentality that’s seeking payback. There is no other logical explanation.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/05/09/americas-great-brain-drain/
https://youtu.be/gQJnc1ieXiM
You were directly warned over a decade ago and to a lesser extent since the 1980’s.
Almost 50% of ALL Nobel prizes have been given to Americans in the ~120 years since the prizes were started. We have less than 5% of the world population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country
Our nation, with less than 5% of world population has a YUGE percentage of all Olympic medals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_table#List_of_NOCs_with_medals_(sortable_&_unranked)
If you think it’s better elsewhere, tickets are cheap cheap – don’t forget to leave your passport with US Customs as you board your departing flight.
Atmospheric CO₂ ppm Growth and Global Warming Acceleration
With James Hansen et al and associated data realism
Renewable energy is not replacing fossil fuels — it is augmenting them by filling the gap
created by global energy demand increases driven by economic growth.
We are at the point now where positive feedbacks appear activated pushing the planet ever faster
toward irreversible tipping points in the climate system. It’s no longer just human-induced fossil
fuel use driving CO2 levels to record-high growth rates—natural amplifiers are now involved too.
Average annual atmospheric CO2 reached a record high of 424.61 ppm in 2024.
The recent (daily average) Global CO2 Trend exceeded that on May 20, 2025, reaching
425.81 ppm — an increase of +1.2 ppm.
The global average for February 2025 was even higher at 426.13 ppm, or +1.5 ppm
above the 2024 average.
Placing this into an historical context:
Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 48 ppm since 2004 @ 2.4 ppm/year the last 20
years when the Real Climate blog was started. It has risen from 378 ppm
In the early 2000s, the annual mean CO2 increase was only 1.6 ppm/year
(excluding El Niño years).
The Annual Mean CO2 Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii, in the past two years was
+3.35 ppm/year.
The Global CO2 Growth Rate reached a new record of +3.80 ppm in 2024.
The previous record high was +2.95 ppm in 2016, during the last Super El Niño.
Our conservative estimate for the average global CO₂ in 2025 is 428 ppm.
Sources:
https://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/co2.html
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-historic
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/3/1/2012/esd-3-1-2012.pdf
Global Climate Reality Check
Some institutions estimate the 2024 global annual temperature anomaly was +1.28°C. Yet multiple independent data lines and logic indicate it has already exceeded +1.58°C above pre-industrial
levels (1880–1920). Some indicate +1.67°C in recent months. This accelerated warming trajectory
seems unlikely to reverse anytime within the next two generations.
The decade 2015–2024 are now officially the ten warmest years on record. The loss of Arctic sea
ice is not just symbolic; its collapse is a major tipping point that will set off further climate
feedbacks that cannot be reversed for tens of thousands of years.
Ocean heat content is also at record highs, while aerosols, cloud cover, and albedo are at or near
record lows. Coral reef heat stress and bleaching are escalating globally. Meanwhile, land
clearing of native forests has doubled from 3,000 acres/hour in the mid-1990s to over 5,000
acres/hour, particularly when wildfires are included.
Greenhouse gases and CO emissions in particular are growing at record rates. We’re on track to
double CO concentrations₂ above the pre-industrial baseline in 30 to 40 years, around 2065 at
the latest, bringing us to ~560 ppm. This implies a global average temperature anomaly of +3°C to
+4°C above pre-industrial levels when following Hansen’s recent guidelines of Climate Sensitivity.
The Paris Agreement is fundamentally broken
It should be clear by now Net Zero CO₂ by 2050 is an unachievable goal. CO2 concentrations are
already far above even recent expectations with no emissions reduction achieved so far. The
current COP emissions reduction trajectory based on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and the
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) projections are unrealistic ambitions.
Having already breached the +1.5°C threshold in real terms (ERA +1.58°C), the +2°C Paris target
is now on track to be breached during 2035–2040, possibly even earlier.
All prior norms in regional and global climate forecasting have broken down.
European and Global Heat Records
Consider European temperatures in 2024:
Warmest year on record with an average of 10.69°C, which is +0.28°C above the previous
warmest year (2020).
This is +1.47°C above the 1991–2020 reference, and +2.92°C above 1850–1900.
Spring and summer 2024 were the warmest on record, at +1.50°C and +1.54°C above
1991–2020 averages, respectively.
Arctic region warming is similarly intense, with temperatures +1.35°C above the 1991–2020
baseline.
On the other side of the globe, the Australian continent passed the +2°C anomaly threshold
years ago, and is rushing toward +3°C within a decade.
Sources:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-
155degc-above-pre-industrial-level
https://climate.copernicus.eu/global-climate-highlights-2024
https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy-and-analysis/reports-and-
publications/risks-australia-three-degrees-c-warmer-world
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/2024-marks-worlds-worst-heat-climate-
pollution/
What is all this talk about being capable of urgently reducing CO emissions and still having time
to avoid the worst impacts of a rapidly warming world? That perspective is increasingly illogical.
This unrealistic narrative from consensus climate scientists no longer aligns with physical reality.
Global energy consumption continues to grow exponentially, with no meaningful reduction in
fossil fuel extraction or usage. The widely promoted idea that we can “avert the worst” by cutting
emissions now and through the next few decades has become disconnected from the facts.
Now both human activity and amplifying natural feedbacks are accelerating atmospheric
CO levels and annual growth rates — not reducing them. This in turn is driving an acceleration of
global warming and even more dangerous climate change impacts than we are already
experiencing everywhere.
It is not too late, however, to recognize the dire implications of Dr. James Hansen’s recent findings
underlying his claim that Global Warming Has Accelerated. In particular the assertion that
climate sensitivity is more likely in the range of 4–5°C per CO2 doubling — and that doubling now
appears likely appearing by around 2065.
That’s a world-altering threshold—which is less than two generations from today.
Further sources:
Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/Hansen_etal2025.Envir_Global.Warming.A
cceleration_FULL.abs.main.SM.pdf
JEH May 13: Large Cloud Feedback Confirms High Climate Sensitivity
http://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.
However, the 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.
– James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha
I hope the formatting comes out ok, and that this wasn’t too long or too tiresome for this forum. Thank you.
In the News:
When nations claiming to have reduced their emissions are, by and large, simply outsourcing them elsewhere within the globalised economy? Or when those climate-obsessed billionaires start losing interest in the issue just because it’s no longer as profitable or politically expedient? The peasants’ scepticism is well founded, even if they are wrong about the science.
“Bill Gates Gives Up on Climate Change… New reporting by Heatmap is signaling the end of a “major chapter in climate giving,” as Breakthrough Energy — Gates’ climate change nonprofit — has locked the doors on its policy and advocacy office, laying off dozens of employees throughout Europe and the US…
“Ever since billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump won his second presidential election, tech barons like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai, and of course Elon Musk have made no bones about shedding their progressive skin and embracing the new administration.”
https://futurism.com/bill-gates-gives-up-climate-change
This site offers a global snapshot daily of extreme events occurring. I do recommend only looking now and then as daily gets too depressing too fast.
https://climateandeconomy.com/2025/05/20/20th-may-2025-todays-round-up-of-climate-news/
“Three massive wildfires continue to rage north of Duluth in northeastern Minnesota. “Crews are also battling colossal wildfires just north of Minnesota in Canada’s Manitoba and Ontario provinces, with hundreds of thousands of acres burned since May 12…
“This year set the 2nd lowest annual maximum (boreal winter) Arctic sea-ice volume on record in the PIOMAS data set. This follows “ice extent” reaching a new lowest annual maximum in 2025. Not a good winter for sea ice! Zack Labe
“HISTORIC WARMTH IN ICELAND:
“Arguably the most extreme event in European history Temperature reached 20.3 [68.F] at Gagnheiði 950m asl; Previous monthly record was 12.9C broken by 7.4C! (an all-time record anomaly for Europe).”
“Thousands of residents evacuated on Saturday as rains lashed the north of Argentina’s Buenos Aires province, a vital agricultural hub, and caused severe flooding… In San Antonio de Areco, more than 260mm [10.2 inches] fell in 24 hours…”
“EXCEPTIONAL WARMTH IN GREENLAND:
“While the 19C in the West are not records for May, the colder Eastern coast is seeing unprecedented warmth. Ittoqqortormiit (Scoresbysund) reached +10C for the first time in May (data from 1958), and also +11,+12 and +13.0C [55.4F] at the same time!”
“‘Unprecedented rainfall’: NSW downpour leads to evacuation orders for towns and 24 flood rescues…
Taree experienced the worst rain, with more than 160mm falling in six hours overnight and 267mm
“HISTORIC IN KUALA LUMPUR:
“Yesterday Minimum of 28.1C [82.6F] at the Subang Int. AP is the highest minimum in history. The tropics keep breaking records continuously, especially of high minimums.”
“Yangjiang, Guangdong was hit by extreme rainstorms. The weather station recorded 128 mm of rainfall in one hour and 551 mm [21.7 inches] in six hours!
“Marine life cemetery: The Caspian Sea ecosystem is collapsing under pressure from global warming and pollution… “Since 2020, the Caspian’s water level has been falling by roughly 30cm’s a year,
“Heat Wave Sparks Record Temperatures and Wildfires Across Israel… “Israel’s Meteorological Service reported that the temperature in Kibbutz Eilon in the Western Galilee reached 41.6 degrees Celsius (106.9 Fahrenheit) on Saturday afternoon, the highest temperature ever recorded there since data collection began 85 years ago.”
“47.8C [118F] South University Valley EGYPT – all time high; CHAD:MIN. 33.6 Faya MAY HOTTEST NIGHT tied; IRAQ Historic hot nights- Record of May High minimums: 32.7 Rafei, 32.4 Kut al Yai, 31.0 Kut.”
“Supercell storm hits southwest of Toulouse, school evacuated due to 7cm hailstones…
“3 confirmed dead in Adentan flood [Accra, Ghana].
“Somalia faces rising hunger and flooding as climate shocks intensify. “Soaring food prices driven by worsening climate shocks are pushing millions of Somali families deeper into crisis,
“Crews battle forest wildfire stretching 20 miles overnight [Scotland]…
“An Apocalypse of Toxic Fungi Could Threaten Millions of Lives Within 15 Years…
24th May 2024 climate news examples:
“INCREDIBLE IRAN – another crazy record with a Minimum of 36.3C [97.3F] at Hosseynieh on 22 May, HIGHEST MAY MINIMUM IN IRANIAN HISTORY broken again. “Iran has pulverized thousands of records in March, April and May for almost 100% of its stations multiple times every station.”
“Severe heatwave sparks forest fires across eight locations in KP [Pakistan].
“KYRGYZSTAN: Min 22.4 [72.3F] Dhzalalabad, 21.7 Tokmak, 21.0 Kara Suu – HOTTEST MAY NIGHT IN KYRGYZ HISTORY again! TAJIKISTAN: 23.0 Isambaj; TURKMENISTAN: 26.0 Burdalyk.”
“Scorching heat kills two in Iraq. “On Thursday, temperatures reached 49 degrees Celsius [120.2F] in the southern provinces of Basra and Misan, and 48 degrees Celsius in the Zikar region.
“UAE tops 50C in highest May temperature on record.
“Turkey may need foreign grain as drought hits farmers [harsh April frost also pushing up fruit prices].
“Record May heat expected across Aegean region this weekend.
“Water Shortages Force Greek Farmers to Give Up Growing Some Crops…“The problem is especially in Thessaly and on the biggest island of Crete where using water for summer crops has been prohibited by authorities
“Greece will deploy a record number of firefighters and nearly double its drone fleet this summer to address growing wildfire risks driven by climate change, officials have said.
“Hundreds without drinking water and more storms forecast in southern French region devastated by deadly floods…
“‘Unprecedented’ marine heatwave hits waters around Devon, Cornwall and Ireland…
“Wildfire warning signs normally seen in the parched Australian outback have been installed on English moorland for the first time. “In a stark illustration of the worsening impact of the climate emergency, signs have been put up in the Peak District and south Pennines, where there have been more than 30 moorland fires since March.”
ALBEDO NEWS
“Sunniest spring for Scotland and Northern Ireland as marine heatwave continues… “Announced on Thursday 22nd Northern Ireland had (provisionally) recorded 570 hours of sunshine beating the previous sunniest spring in 2020. That was back in the time of lockdown when many people were staying at home and the lengthy fine weather became imprinted on their memories.”
https://climateandeconomy.com/
That ain’t hot for Iran! The forecast is for it to get a LOT hotter if they don’t wise up and stop the saber rattling:
https://cdp.dhs.gov/shared/se/courses/default/AWR-923-W%2005122021%201.2-20210512144644/groups/347.html
Mr. Know It All says
27 May 2025 at 6:33 PM
Great. Another insane warmonger. Can’t have too many on any discussion forum.
We have a new takeover artist/class bore here in Pedro Prieto. Unfortunately, due to light moderation, people who like to see themselves in print have an easy in here.
For content, a repeat my link to superb Friederike Otto who helped initiate the attribution effort to help us make connections between extreme weather events and global warming/climate change. She has embraced another important issue, climate justice.
Inequality magnifies climate impacts worldwide, climate scientist writes in new book. Author Friederike Otto analyzes colonialism, inequality, and how climate action can improve our lives. – https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/05/inequality-magnifies-climate-impacts-worldwide-climate-scientist-writes-in-new-book/
PP: the rest of us are capable of following the news.
As to your claims of groupthink, it’s sad that you appear unable to realize that the massive agreement of every kind of expert, amateur paying attention, weather watcher et al. can see the obvious and worries about it. We are, however, not all alike.
That said, the people who claim you are another version of other fake skeptics and bloviators on this blog are also wrong, and this is not helpful. You are right to complain about that.
SA Quote: “For content, a repeat my link to superb Friederike Otto who helped initiate the attribution effort to help us make connections between extreme weather events and global warming/climate change.”
MKIA: What did people blame for extreme weather events before say 1750?
SA Quote: “Inequality magnifies climate impacts worldwide, climate scientist writes in new book…..”
MKIA: Tell all Democrats to run for office with that as a major part of their platform.
:)
KIA: Measuring and observing weather has changed over human history, with prediction making vast progress in the last few centuries, and particularly in the last decades and years. If you intend to discredit modern weather prediction and climate science by mentioning 1750 and talking about ‘blame’ you are exposing your ignorance in public here. Blame seeking is not a scientific activity. Understanding cause and effect does indeed identify winners and losers, predators and victims, but the understanding is what skepticism is all about, as it requires an investment in objective knowledge, not proving a point without regard to evidence.
Weather and climate study observes a variety of different inputs, some human, many not. But what has become obvious in the last little while is that our vast dependence on fossil fuels (and plastics and an array of chemicals, many with toxicities inadequately known/understood) has reached a planetary scale which endangers our future. Over time the observations have helped us understand more (Arrhenius, Tyndall, Eunice Newton Foote in the 19th century), Hansen in the 1980s (Margaret Thatcher, Isaac Asimov and others; Bell Labs science hour dated 1951), and many others since then.
If you were not so determined to discredit the sum of human knowledge with regard to the effects of our growing consumption and waste, you might find yourself, as many of us are, both fascinated by the information and appalled by the growing sum of evidence as to how dangers are growing. The destruction of the scientific enterprise does not bode well for our future.
[Though we could use a bit less expertise in growing wealth and power for the wealthy and powerful, and how to kill and hurt people, along with replacing ourselves with machines which use every kind of dirty energy.]
Good luck!
In re to Susan Anderson, 29 MAY 2025 AT 9:20 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833878
Dear Susan,
Is it true that Margaret Thatcher and Isaac Asimov studied the carbon dioxide role in Earth climate?
Greetings
Tomáš
TK: Is it true that Margaret Thatcher and Isaac Asimov studied the carbon dioxide role in Earth climate?
BPL: Yes, Asimov wrote an article in 1959 talking about global warming. Can’t remember the title offhand. Gilbert Plass had published a radiation model in the mid-50s and predicted that doubling carbon dioxide would result in a 3-4 K warming, and I think Asimov was responding to that. Don’t know about Thatcher, but by coincidence, both she and Asimov had chemistry degrees.
TK:
Here’s Maggie Thatcher, before she doubled down (she got Alzheimer’s in her later years). Famous speech. There are many others who spoke out, with varying degrees of understanding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fys5Z63xCvA&t=15s
This is another example of you making others do your work for you. It was a simple search. You demand answers but are too lazy to look them up for yourself. You are the center of your own universe, but not of ours.
Isaac Asimov and many other scientists and laypeople are fully capable of following the relatively simple logic of how heat-trapping gases are leading to a warming planet, increase the energy (heat) in the system, leading to climate change. I chose two quick ones. Stephen Scheider was a good communicator. Our leaders here at RealClimate are others. Please stop wasting your own and others’ time by demanding dots on i’s and crosses on t’s when the bigger picture is so vast and obvious. Use your brain and your five senses, please.
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 31 May 2025 at 7:53 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833964
and Susan Anderson, 31 May 2025 at 1:45 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833970
Hallo Barton Paul, dear Susan,
Thank you very much for your kind replies and provided information.
Susan, my apologies for the old habit asking questions when something is unclear.
I admit that especially in discussions, it is still my first choice instead of using web searches.
Greetings
Tomáš
MKIA: What did people blame for extreme weather events before say 1750?
God’s will and witchcraft–the same causes Republicans are now appealing to.
Catastrophic climate change impacts are always local, not global. I don’t expect any of these places to be functioning by the time 2050 comes around.
“CLIMATIC HISTORY REWRITTEN in May:
“52.2 [126F] Abqaiq SAUDI HOTTEST MAY DAY…
51.6 Swiehan EMIRATES HOTTEST MAY DAY [SECOND DAY IN A ROW]
48.5 al-Jumailiya QATAR HOTTEST MAY DAY…
Min 34.8 Tuz IRAQ HOTTEST MAY NIGHT IN HISTORY…
ALGERIA 47.3 In Guezzam ALL TIME RECORD.”
“Massive fire breaks out in southern Saudi Arabia.
“The “Sarah Bani Malik” area, located in the south of Taif Province, Saudi Arabia, has witnessed massive forest fires in recent days… According to local sources, the fire has continued until today (Monday) and has caused great damage.”
“As Sweihan swelters, what is causing the record high temperatures in the UAE?
“…”The new thing about these conditions is that they are happening really too early, before even the official start of the summer season. The second element is how extreme they are compared to the record,” said Dr Diana Francis, an assistant professor and head of the Environmental and Geophysical Sciences…”
“Iraq adopts emergency irrigation measures amid record water shortage…
““We are facing a major water crisis,” al-Qaisi stated. “According to the Ministry of Water Resources, this year marks the lowest water storage in Iraq’s recent history. Negotiations are ongoing between the Ministries of Water Resources and Foreign Affairs with neighboring countries regarding Iraq’s share of water.””
“Delhi [northern India] drenched: May 2025 sets new record as wettest month since [records began in] 1901.
“A powerful rain in Delhi on Sunday alone dumped 81.4 mm in just a few hours, pushing the month’s total to rainfall to an all-time high. With roads waterlogged and trees uprooted, the intense weather surprising Delhiites.”
“Mumbai Rain [western, coastal India]: Wettest May In 107 Years [ie on record]
As Monsoon Arrives Ahead Of Schedule, Red Alert Issued.
“This year, Southwest Monsoon arrived in Maharashtra in advance on Sunday, May 25, 10 days prior to the usual onset date of June 5.”
“Bengaluru [central, southern India] logs wettest May ever, breaking all-time rainfall record for the city.
“Bengaluru has officially recorded its wettest May in history, surpassing all previous records and marking yet another extreme weather milestone for the city. According to a report in Deccan Herald, the city received a staggering 307.9 mm (30.7 cm) of rainfall by 6 am on May 26…”
“China’s Air Conditioning Use Poised to Skyrocket This Summer.
“Extreme heat baking parts of China has wilted crops and raised asphalt temperatures to 70C (158F), serving as a prelude to a summer that’s set to place an unprecedented burden on the country’s power network.”
“Deadly Australian floods were made worse by climate crisis and such storms are no longer ‘natural’, scientists warn…
“Meteorologists have noted that the flooding was sparked by a near-stationary trough system combined with a pool of cold upper-level air and moisture-laden easterly winds – conditions that have grown more extreme due to rising global average temperatures.”
see more from https://climateandeconomy.com
Which got me to thinking why these catastrophic news reports have no impact on what we are doing nor how we are living.
The Architecture of Captivity: Reflections on Control and the Fear of the Wild
One of the least examined pillars of modernity is its deep reliance on control—systemic, scientific, and increasingly total. From agriculture to urban planning, from fossil fuels to AI, our civilization has built itself atop an architecture of enforced stability and predictability. We subdue ecosystems, domesticate animals, kill “pests,” regulate behaviors with money and law—and call it progress. But in doing so, we may have built not a world of freedom, but one of managed captivity.
What’s striking is how normalized this control has become. We no longer recognize it as a form of enslavement, even as we are rendered utterly dependent on tightly engineered systems for our most basic needs—food, water, energy, shelter. We live in what might fairly be described as a scientifically optimized zoo for humans, where even our desires are curated and our fears manipulated. Escape seems impossible; the wild becomes terrifying. The very thought of modernity collapsing triggers existential panic. “We wouldn’t survive,” we say—exposing how thoroughly we’ve internalized our dependence.
Yet when we look at the historical record, something doesn’t add up. Indigenous cultures—far from being desperate to climb aboard the life raft of modernity—often resisted it fiercely. They didn’t see themselves as poor, brutish, or terrified. In fact, they often lived with ample time, deep social connection, and profound ecological knowledge. Those few moderns who immersed themselves in hunter-gatherer life often came away shocked: not by hardship, but by its relative ease and joy. And many who had the choice chose not to return to the civilized world.
This suggests a troubling dissonance. Could it be that the nightmare we project onto “the wild” is not a reflection of nature itself, but of our own alienation from it? That our belief in the solitary, brutish life “out there” is a kind of rationalization—a story we tell ourselves to justify the comforts of our gilded captivity?
What, then, are we defending when we panic at the idea of collapse? A system that has disconnected us from the land, from each other, from our own agency—and that is now initiating a sixth mass extinction? Why are we so desperate to maintain a set of institutions that have exhausted the biosphere, commodified life, and left most people anxious, overworked, and dependent? Because it’s all we know. Because we mistake captivity for safety.
Science—one of our greatest tools—is too often co-opted into this regime of control. Its potential for understanding becomes a scientific system of domination: managing yields, populations, atmospheres, behavior, culture—and even beliefs. It sets the parameters of what is socially acceptable, what is “rational,” and which norms are worthy of enforcement. We no longer ask what kind of life is worth living, but only how to keep the machine running. We optimize the zoo rather than question its walls.
Worse still, in our panic to preserve this system, we now erode the very principles it claimed to uphold. We censor dissent to protect “freedom.” We violate rights to save “democracy.” We justify coercion in the name of stability. This is not just tragic—it’s self-defeating. We’ve tried it before, and it didn’t work then either. You can’t save democracy by wrecking it. You can’t preserve legitimacy by denying voice. What begins as protection becomes betrayal.
It may be time to confront the deeper terror: not of the wild itself, but of the possibility that we’ve become too domesticated to imagine life outside the cage. That’s not romanticism. It’s a reckoning.
Glad to see a new article at Tamino’s presenting this pre-publication work with Stefan Rahmstorf:
How Fast is the World Warming – https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/05/28/how-fast-is-the-world-warming/ {preprint before review} https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6079807/v1
“I’m not afraid of doomerism or of ridicule, but if the issue becomes the focus of the discussion it might distract from what I consider the truly important message: that there is no longer any doubt regarding a recent increase in the warming rate. I think we need to say it, in print, and attract attention to it.”
The scientifically trained and honest part of the world strangles itself in caveats while lies are taking over. This won’t even benefit the lies and bullies, as reality has one quantity – it bats 1000.
Reply to Susan Anderson’s tamino comment
28 May 2025 at 9:46 AM
Foster & Rahmstorf hey? “strangles itself in caveats,” they sure do.
Yes, beneath the verbosity the message is simpler. James Hansen. Check. ECS check. Aerosols check. Albedo check. Global warming has accelerated markedly the last 15+ years Check.
An entrenched +/- 0.038C growth in global mean temperature per year going forward, check (been there a while myself but Fosters 0.043C growth is quite within the realm of possibility, so Check that too.
Now already +/- 3.8 ppm CO2 growth per year and going forward likely to accelerate, check (been there for a long while saying it’s coming soon while the pro-consensus climate science deniers squealed.)
Like how hard is it? It’s not hard at all. It’s simple as. All present climate model and IPCC projections, the Paris agreement and all COP mitigation strategies especially Net Zero by 2050 are pie in the sky, out of date and wrong.
Try a +4C temperature anomaly at circa 2065 after a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 to 560 ppm arrives ahead of schedule. With renewable energy and things like EV deployment not putting the slightest dent in any carbon emissions global growth.
P.S.
Of course there’s natural positive feedbacks adding to the forcing now as well as progress towards multiple tipping points rarely mentioned. There’s always some kind of data record variation yet acceleration will remain the dominant feature from now through the whole next generation time period and then some. Denying the data and the underlying science changes nothing. Realism bats 1000.
And Nature bats last.
Susan Anderson says
28 May 2025 at 9:46 AM
How Fast is the World Warming?
I touched on that issue and related information here:
William says
28 May 2025 at 9:20 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833853
Live from NASA GISS, kicking-off the Weather and Climate 100-hour livestream
This Weather & Climate Livestream has just begun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcWR6CdJnvQ
Program of speakers here: https://wclivestream.com/
https://x.com/i/status/1927742992045019139
It’s not me. It’s definately you.
MA Rodger says
27 May 2025 at 3:26 PM
William,
To paraphrase a bigly-famous President of the good ol’ US of A:- I really don’t know what you’re saying in that comment. And I don’t think you knows what you’re saying either.
W replies: We all have our limitations. Reading James Hansen’s climate science research papers appear to be one of yours.
William,
If you’re going to pepper the RC comment threads with you grand assertions, it would be best if the rest of us have some grasp of where you’re coming from. That is not at all clear.
Are you one of those Hansen acolytes? Or are you something else?
You’re on record here at RC telling us you are “here for genuine, mature dialogue on these issues” adding that “if it’s just dismissals, insults, or false accusations, I’ll pass — and likely stop engaging directly.” which is you declaring you are not another troll come here to play with us RC commenters.
Yet your recent comments don’t pass muster as “genuine, mature dialogue.”
So what are these “these issues” you proposed as the subject of this “genuine, mature dialogue”?
They appear to be centred on the issue of “energy transitions” (that is:- wood → coal → oil → nuclear → renewables) and on that issue you appear to be entirely agreeing with Jean-Baptiste Fressoz (a rare brief interview transcript from Jean-Baptiste Fressoz here) in seeing such energy transitions (and by implication ‘net zero’) as being illusory and thus impossible.
While I would whole-heartedly agree that this “energy transition” is far far too slow and still not being taken seriously by governments, to insist ‘net zero’ it is not possible is a highly radical view of the situation. Unlike your contrary assertion, this view is “an outlier.”
Such a view goes beyond your first (of this rash of) “William says” comment here at RC which was the old ‘Forget AGW!! Our problem is there are too many humans!!!’
However, your “energy transitions” view would explain your strange assertion that “current civilization cannot survive without Diesel engines.”
You may feel the need to explain why you hold such odd views but that would be a big ask.
However, let me be helpful and provide a bit of learning.
Within the “dismissals, insults, (and) false accusations” of your recent serving of comments here at RC, you tell us “atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will continue to rise each year until we achieve actual net zero.”
That is untrue.
There is an army of sciency folk involved in the Global Carbon Project and their primary objective is to fully quantify the carbon cycle. Each year they publish a Carbon Budget. The latest numbers show net anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.3Gt(C) in 2023 but show only an extra 5.9Gt(C) in the atmosphere (417.08ppm → 419.36ppm).
So where has the other 5.4Gt(C) gone?
The GCP analysis tells us it has gone into the oceans 2.9Gt(C), land sinks 2.3Gt(C) and ageing concrete 0.2Gt(C), this last chemically CO2 + Ca(OH)2 → CaCO3 + H2O.
And here’s the thing. If there were no CO2 emissions in 2023, those ocean, land & concrete sinks would still be operating, and operating for years with no significant difference.
So once the world gets CO2 emissions down below the capacity of the ocean/land/concrete sinks and keeps down below, atmospheric CO2 will decline. (The sinks will also slowly decline as well.)
Thus it is entirely untrue to assert that “atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will continue to rise each year until we achieve actual net zero.”
Hopefully that will be useful learning for you.
MA Rodger says
30 May 2025 at 4:37 AM
Reply to MA Rodger:
You reference an old comment from May 8:
“Such a view goes beyond your first (of this rash of) “William says” comment here at RC which was the old ‘Forget AGW!! Our problem is there are too many humans!!!’
That comment does not say what you impugn it says. What I said stands. It’s perfectly fine in every respect. Others could read it to check but probably will not. This is the best example of your whole commentary above and it’s most likely intent.
And yes I did say to Thomas W Fuller: “I’m here for genuine, mature dialogue on these issues. If that’s your interest too, great — let’s talk. But if it’s just dismissals, insults, or false accusations, I’ll pass — “
So, I pass.
You’re too polite, William. I assume your silence is deliberate.
Rodger is denying science backed by over a century of atmospheric research — and decades of energy and environmental data.
Even the IPCC supports your comment.
Some truly strange things are being said here.
Is this really a science site?
Th: Is this really a science site?
BPL: It is, despite all the global warming deniers who come here to troll.
Thessalonia says
30 May 2025 at 6:39 PM
Yes it is all very strange isn’t it?
Rodger smugly opines above:
Thus it is entirely untrue to assert that “atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will continue to rise each year until we achieve actual net zero.” Hopefully that will be useful learning for you.
. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833899
For other readers info in case they missed it:
Rodger is wrong — again. What I said — “atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will continue to rise each year until we achieve actual net zero” — is 100% scientifically true.
Right now, if we emit around 11.3 GtC, while natural sinks (oceans, forests, land, etc.) absorb only about 5.4 GtC. The result? Atmospheric CO₂ continues to rise. That’s what I said — and exactly what both the data and the science confirm.
My better wording is the more focused, accurate and necessary framing for today — not distractions from the present, reality and not wishful hypotheticals about technologies that don’t yet exist, decades into an uncertain future.
It’s time to stop misrepresenting basic climate science and making false accusations against people speaking the truth. The facts aren’t complicated — but ignoring them and twisting them beyond recognition to try to win “debating points” is beyond the pale.
and still now MA Rodger crows:
31 May 2025 at 4:23 AM
“This William commenter get (sic) so annoyed —-” ie from inside his ivory tower hubris.
And what does “as plan as plan as a pikestaff” mean anyway?
Must be a scientific term I hadn’t picked up on yet.
William,
Golly!! So you are actually saying that your comment of May 8 doesn’t equate to saying “‘Forget AGW!! Our problem is there are too many humans!!!’”? Even when its meaning is as plan as plan as a pikestaff for anyone to see?
Could it be I’ve managed to misread it?
Is there anybody, even a sock puppet, who sees some different meaning they’d like to share with me, a meaning which I apparently “impugn” by asserting this May 8 comment by William says “‘Forget AGW!! Our problem is there are too many humans!!!’”?
William’s May 8 comment runs:-
This William commenter get so annoyed when the obvious meaning of his comment is pointed out to him. He get so annoyed that he even feel the need to set a gaslighting sock puppet on me.
William, you’re in a worse state than I thought. Like that bigly-famous president of the good ol’ US of A I paraphrased up-thread, you really need help, chum. You’re losing your grip on reality, getting sucked in some fantasy existence. Maybe it’s that one where “In Springfield, they’re eating the dawgs!!”
W: That comment does not say what you impugn it says. What I said stands. It’s perfectly fine in every respect. Others could read it to check but probably will not. This is the best example of your whole commentary above and it’s most likely intent.
And yes I did say to Thomas W Fuller: “I’m here for genuine, mature dialogue on these issues. If that’s your interest too, great — let’s talk. But if it’s just dismissals, insults, or false accusations, I’ll pass — “
So, I pass.
BPL: His responding to MAR above is apparently how he “passes.”
Ray Ladbury says
27 May 2025 at 6:38 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833781
Who I think was replying to TPP about groupthink. There’s more going on than what Ray is speaking about, for example consider my comments:
27. William says
24 May 2025 at 7:09 PM
The State of Climate Discourse: Irrational Rejections and Willful Blindness to Emerging Scientific Signals
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833727
28. William says
24 May 2025 at 10:36 PM
it’s important to distinguish between scientific consensus and what I call the dominant climate consensus narrative. While these narratives often claim the authority of science, they are not always grounded in the same rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific consensus that underpins foundational climate facts.
29. William says
25 May 2025 at 1:15 AM
Climate Reality Check: We May Be Tracking Toward +2°C by 2035 — and +3°C Before 2050
We’re Outrunning the Narratives
There is a “dominant climate consensus narrative” circulating in the public sphere that claims scientists don’t know why temperatures spiked so sharply in 2023 and 2024—while casually dismissing potential explanations out of hand. To me, it looks like they’re cherry-picking from the pool of rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific papers—promoting some, while ignoring others that may be inconvenient to yet another dominant narrative, namely around Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS).
Is there really a rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific consensus supporting the Net Zero by 2050 storyline? To me—and to many others grounded in energy history and systems research—it sounds more like another narrative crafted to sell a preferred vision rather than reflect unavoidable realities based on genuine science.
So let me repeat what I touched on above: it’s crucial to distinguish between a solid, genuine scientific consensus (e.g., that CO₂ drives global warming) and what I call the dominant climate consensus narrative—a more public-facing, institutional messaging framework shaped by ideological assumptions and consensus beliefs, that is not grounded in scientific fact.
I could be wrong—but I know time will tell. Sooner than many might imagine possible.
Watch the festival of science combined with demand for support in preventing the diminishing or elimination of one of the most socially and environmentally useful science offered by the excellent, serious, committed to public good scientists America has. Their work and data are our property, the American people’s property. Protect them, defend them.
It started on May 28th and will go on continuously for 100 hours. It started with people from GISS talking about their work. It did not last long before some were prevented from entering their building. Fortunately, they were able to continue from another building after Gavin intervened. This is another aberration happening in America in 2025 CE. GISS might be closed completely soon. Have you contacted your political representatives already?
https://www.youtube.com/live/7rG4ePBqD-E
Species in the oceans are shifting to the poles five times faster than species on land.
The Fish are Fleeing: How Shifting Marine Ecosystems are Upending Life with Malin Pinsky
a marine biologist who is doing worthwhile things; not wasting his time
and who when asked about his research “how could he scientifically know that?” can happily admit “yeah, that’s a guess. an educated guess.”
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/179-malin-pinsky
Caught this in passing
Thomas Crowther: Actually, so there’s something, the model that you’ve
just described is called the environmental cosme curve. It’s this assumption that as
people get more money and get more developed, we’ll buy more stuff up to a
certain point, and then we’re rich enough and then we stop, and then that falls
:51:43] Recent evidence has suggested that actually that cosme curve is
completely wrong. The biggest driver of degradation on the planet is inequality.
We’ve got a small number of people with massive environmental footprints and
then billions of people. The people who live in direct association with nature, they
are trapped with no non extractive alternatives.
[00:52:04] They are forced to live in an economy where they have to plant
eucalyptus trees outside so that they can get paper so that ’cause the only
economy will give, will fund them for that. Those are the people for whom, if nature
can be the economic preference, if they can be a, an economic alternative with a,
with healthy nature.
[00:52:21] These are the people who know best how to find the regenerative options
and the sustainable options whereby nature always thrives. There is no single
location on the planet where a degraded ecosystem is more valuable to the local
people than a recovering one. We just need to balance that inequity and find and
lift these people out of poverty, and they have the power to find the regenerative
solutions now.
[00:52:45] The curve gets complicated after that, but at the beginning, at the
poorest ends of the, of our economy, these are the people that need to be lifted
out of poverty so that nature can do better.
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/177-thomas-crowther
“The biggest driver of degradation on the planet is inequality. We’ve got a small number of people with massive environmental footprints and then billions of people. ”
Yes inequality is a major factor in environmental degradation, but if we try to solve the problem with “wealth redistribution” where everyone is the same we just shift the wealth and consequent environmental impacts from wealthy people to a whole lot of less wealthy people. The overall impact on the planet doesn’t change. ( Of course some wealth redistribution to help very poor people is sensible, but that’s a separate issue.)
If we try to fix the environmental footprint problem by bringing the global average level of consumption down, this degrades lifestyles and is likely to meet substantial resistance. The other alternative is to mitigate environmental footprint problems mostly by technical strategies such as renewable energy, better mining systems, recycling, less use of industrial pesticides, conservation, fisheries quota management, etc,etc. Its not a perfect fix but at least it has a greater than zero chance of being implemented.
“These are the people (indigenous peoples, simple living peoples, simple farmers )who know best how to find the regenerative options and the sustainable options whereby nature always thrives. There is no single location on the planet where a degraded ecosystem is more valuable to the local people than a recovering one. We just need to balance that inequity and find and lift these people out of poverty, and they have the power to find the regenerative solutions now.”
We already know the so called regenerative solutions. The issue is which ones are viable in a population of 8 billion people, without doing more harm than good. Burning wood for energy is sustainable in theory, but if we ALL tried to live by burning wood right now, all our forests would be gone within a decade. This means we are stuck relying on modern sources of energy short to medium term at least, if you want to keep the forests. If we all tried to live using organic agriculture right now, the higher costs mean some people would starve. Woolen clothing and carpets is very ‘sustainable’ but expensive. Current habits have to change to something more sustainable, including some form of organic agriculture (IMO) but how we do that is therefore a very difficult long term challenge.
re 100 hours NOAA livestream, due to YouTube restrictions, they have to start a new one every 12 hours or so. [I had a little difficulty finding it … here: https://wclivestream.com/
current (looks like it’ll update) ->
https://www.youtube.com/@wclivestream/live
Remainder of program:
Thursday, May 29th, 5:30-6:15pm ET/2:30-3:45pm PT – American Meteorological Society panel with David Stensrud (president, 2025) and Alan Sealls (president-elect, 2026)
6:15-11pm ET/3:15pm-8pm PT – Primetime talks featuring: Karen McKinnon, Maria Molina, Amy McGovern,Adam Sobel, Anand Gnanadesikan, Chris Vagasky
Friday, May 30th – 8-11pm ET/5-8pm PT – Primetime talks featuring: Isaac Held, Jeff Masters, Suzana Camargo, Jen Kay
Saturday, May 31st – 6:30-11pm ET/3:30-8pm PT – Primetime talks featuring: Kim Cobb, Britney Schmidt, John Morales, Kristina Dahl, AMA with Daniel Swain, Zeke Hausfather
Sunday, June 1st – 2:30-5:30pm ET/11:30am-2:30pm PT – Closing talks featuring: Marshall Shepherd, Zack Labe
Re Susan Anderson & Silvia Leahu-Aluas https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833835 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833858 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/unforced-variations-may-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-833872
Thank you for alerting us to this!
World Faces New Danger of ‘Economic Denial’ in Climate Fight, Cop30 Head Says
The world is facing a new form of climate denial — not the dismissal of climate science, but a concerted attack on the idea that the economy can be reorganized to fight the crisis, the president of global climate talks has warned. The Guardian reports:
Reply to Steven Emmerson’s COP comment
Nothing has been or could be “as dangerous and cause as much delay as” the last 29 COPs run by the procrastinating governments behind the UNFCCC run excuse making boondoggle.
Since the 1990s “there has been a concerted attack” from the inside of the government run UNFCCC / IPCC institutions on every idea that the economy can be reorganised to fight the global warming climate and catastrophic climate change crisis.
This guy Andre Correa do Lago is full of ‘–it.’ The conference has not even started and he is already making excuses for it’s coming mega failure. This says it all: “Corrêa do Lago is an economist by training – the youngest of five brothers, all of whom became economists. ” — He is also a veteran of the Cop talks – the annual “conference of the parties”. He is a veteran at failure.
William: “Since the 1990s “there has been a concerted attack” from the inside of the government run UNFCCC / IPCC institutions on every idea that the economy can be reorganised to fight the global warming climate and catastrophic climate change crisis.”
I’m not aware of that. Can you please quite some specific copy and pasted examples please.
In theory the economy could be reorganised to fight the climate problem, but it’s not realistically possible to do this in the time frame we have left. It’s just too short.
It also depends on what is meant by reorganised. Ideas I have seen all lean towards socialism and the public just don’t have much appetite to that. Even the mildest socialist leaning policies get shot down by righties like Trump.
nigelj says
30 May 2025 at 5:17 PM
N: “In theory the economy could be reorganised to fight the climate problem, but it’s not realistically possible to do this in the time frame we have left. It’s just too short.”
TPP: How much time do we have left Nigel? In your opinion.
Then please provide the supporting evidence that informs this opinion and list some peer reviewed papers or articles by experts in the field [Prof. Kevin Anderson maybe?] that agree with your enlightened opinion.
N: I’m not aware of that.
TPP: Go read the news reports and insider press conferences during and after every one of the COP meetings the last decade or so. Go find some expert commentary and critiques of the IPCC WGIII – or read their published reports. It’s obvious. There are no shortage of criticisms by professionals. I am not going to hand feed anyone.
Who run the show and make the decisions of the UNFCCC and the COP meetings nigelj?
Climate change mitigation involves actions that reduce the rate of climate change. Working Group III supports the IPCC’s solution-oriented approach but does not advocate any specific mitigation options. And yet, Working Group III focuses on climate change mitigation, assessing methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg3/
But they do not have an “opinion” about any of it? Seriously, do people believe this?
Who signs off on the Summary for Policy Makers and the Technical Summaries of every IPCC report nigelj? If you do not know go find out.
=================================
Even after two days of binge reading, I still have trouble believing that the last IPCC report “Mitigation of climate change” is real. The document is packed with powerful statements with radical implications and might represent nothing short of a watershed in the history of climate politics. There is so much to talk about and so I will split the analysis into several articles.
This first one is about degrowth. The term is mentioned 7 times (plus 21 times in the bibliography)[i] in the 2,913-page report. This is roughly the same number of mentions than in the adaptation report, which had a total of 27 mentions (15 in the text and 12 in references). Just like in the adaptation report, “degrowth” is neither mentioned in the Summary for Policymakers nor in the Technical Summary, even though we’ll see that the underlying idea is present (this will be the topic of another article).
There are four places in the report where degrowth is discussed. In Chapter 1: Introduction and framing, degrowth is presented as an alternative sustainability concept with a specific take on well-being; in Chapter 3: Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals, it is discussed as a scenario feature for modelling mitigation pathways; in Chapter 5: Demand, services and social aspects of mitigation, it is evoked again in the context of prospective scenarios; and finally in Chapter 17: Accelerating the transition in the context of sustainable development, the term is mentioned twice in a discussion about the transition.
https://timotheeparrique.com/degrowth-in-the-ipcc-ar6-wgiii/
================================================================
Are you living where ignorance is bliss? Lucky you.
nigelj says
30 May 2025 at 5:17 PM
N: “In theory the economy could be reorganised to fight the climate problem, but it’s not realistically possible to do this in the time frame we have left. It’s just too short.”
I was firmly instructed by many that people who say it is too late are Doomers, they are far worse than old time climate science deniers because they are falling for the new climate denial being pushed by the evil fossil fuel companies.
If you don’t believe me ask Piotr, I think it was him pushing this line many months ago at some point here. There was ‘mann’ definitely pushing it big time for years in public. New age dragon slayers?
The Prieto Principle says
31 May 2025 at 6:39 AM
N: “In theory the economy could be reorganised to fight the climate problem, but it’s not realistically possible to do this in the time frame we have left. It’s just too short.”
TPP: How much time do we have left Nigel? In your opinion. Then please provide the supporting evidence that informs this opinion and list some peer reviewed papers or articles by experts in the field [Prof. Kevin Anderson maybe?] that agree with your enlightened opinion.
N: The scientific community / Paris Accords say that to keep warming under 2 degrees we have to reach net zero by 2050.
You do not say what you mean by “reorganising the economy” but your remarks all over this website seem to indicate something away from capitalism / neoliberalism, and strongly towards socialism / command and control, and to a zero growth or negative growth, much lower consuming economy (?). If you have something else in mind please define it.
This transformation would clearly need to be done within the next 5 years or so, to have any meaningful, major impact on the climate issue 2050 goal. Given the historical failures of socialism and the lack of political support in western countries for strongly socialist parties, it would seem hard to see why there would be an imminent switch to something strongly socialist. Given peoples addiction to consumption and failure to reduce consumption despite repeated pleas to cut carbon footprints, its hard to see why that would change in the next 5 – 10 years. I do not need to quote studies on this. Its observation, simple logic, and commonsense.
(I don’t oppose all socialist ideas. Government ownership of some basic services , for example secondary school education makes sense to ensure easy access to education. )
And in reference to your subsequent post, no I’m not being “doomy”. I’m not saying we cant fix the climate problem. We do have the renewables option which is slowly gaining some traction. Reductions in consumption certainly aren’t
TPP: Go read the news reports and insider press conferences during and after every one of the COP meetings the last decade or so. Go find some expert commentary and critiques of the IPCC WGIII – or read their published reports. It’s obvious. There are no shortage of criticisms by professionals. I am not going to hand feed anyone.
N: I’m not doing that spending all day searching around. You made a claim – you need to cite some specific examples with copy and paste examples. Not say look it up on the net.
For the record in Stefan Rahmstorf and Grant Foster
“In 2024 global temperature even exceeded 1.5◦C above pre-industrial temperatures, although to breach the 1.5 ◦C limit of the Paris Climate Accord this level would need to be exceeded not for a single year but for the average over a 20-year period centered on the time in question.”
No where in the Paris Agreement or in the SR15 out of the IPCC is it noted the above was the case.
ref: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
No where.
Clarification is provided in Chapter 1, of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) where it notes:
“…global warming is defined as the 30-year running average of global mean surface temperature (GMST), unless otherwise specified. Exceedance of a global warming level (e.g., 1.5°C) means that the 30-year average GMST has reached that level.”
Although 30 years is the primary reference period used for defining long-term warming levels (as is standard in climate science), the 20-year average is occasionally used in some studies or for specific modeling cases, but not as the formal threshold definition in SR15.
Summary:
SR15 does not state that breaching 1.5°C requires a 20-year average.
It defines breaching 1.5°C as a 30-year average (unless otherwise stated).
A single year above 1.5°C does not constitute a breach of the Paris limit under IPCC definitions.
The big out here is the actual avg temps for the next 10-15 years are unknown, and therefore a breach of +1.5C can only ever be known with certainty with hindsight. With only a couple of years breaching +1.5C so far may well already define a 20/30-year average breach.
All it will take are annual avg temps breaking the 2C or 3C barrier in the coming 10-15 years. So anyone telling you the +1.5C hasn’t been breached yet would not know. They could not know!
Rate of warming appears to have increased by as much as 80% from 0.18C to 0.33C a decade but it might not remain this high.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/05/28/how-fast-is-the-world-warming/
Forgot the link
You probably already know, but here it goes again, more fresh CO2 for the atmosphere.
Massive wildfires burning out of control in western and central Canada are forcing thousands to flee as dire forecasts for the country’s fire season come to fruition. The intensifying blazes are also sending hazardous smoke toward major cities in the United States. [ OMG, no! ]
The premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan provinces have declared monthlong states of emergency, and much of Canada, from the Northwest Territories and Alberta to Ontario, are at “extreme” risk of wildfires on Friday — the highest level on Environment Canada’s fire risk scale.
There are just over 170 wildfires burning across Canada as of Thursday, according to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Center, about half of them uncontrolled. The country raised its National Preparedness Level to 5 of 5 on Thursday, unusually high for this early in the fire season. Last year, Canada didn’t reach that level until July 15.
more https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/smoke-pours-into-the-us-as-canada-wildfires-force-province-s-largest-evacuation-in-living-memory/ar-AA1FJg2Y
WINNIPEG, Manitoba (AP) — The Canadian province of Manitoba has declared a state of emergency over a series of wildfires, and Prime Minister Mark Carney has agreed to send in the military to help.
“This is the largest evacuation Manitoba will have seen in most peoples’ living memory,” Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said. He said the fires have forced 17,000 people across several communities to flee.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-canadian-province-of-manitoba-declares-a-state-of-emergency-over-wildfires-as-thousands-flee/ar-AA1FFvC2