This Summary for Policymakers provides a high-level précis of the Synthesis Report, Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review. https://www.ipie.info/research/sfp2025-2
The Science is Not the Mask—But They’re Wearing It Like One
I’ve spent enough time around academic science and policy to recognize when something smells off—not just biased, but structurally manipulative. That’s what we’re seeing in this IPIE report. It doesn’t defend the integrity of science. It uses the credibility of science as a stage prop in a much deeper campaign: to consolidate authority, to police dissent, and to define the boundaries of acceptable doubt.
Let’s be blunt: this is not a report about information integrity. It’s a performance of institutional self-protection dressed in the robes of “evidence-based policy.” The authors frame all critical engagement—from feasibility concerns to mitigation realism—as a form of strategic sabotage. It collapses skepticism into denialism, concern into conspiracy, critique into complicity. That’s not science. That’s moral theater.
Skepticism Rebranded as Subversion
The core scientific value of skepticism—once the engine of progress—is now repackaged as a rhetorical threat. The report labels “strategic skepticism” as a deliberate attempt to undermine climate action. But who decides what qualifies as “strategic”? A technocrat? An activist? A language model trained on elite consensus?
Feynman warned about this decades ago. The danger is not only that we fool others, but that we fool ourselves—and institutional science is proving how easily that happens when its authority becomes indistinguishable from its politics.
Narrative Architecture with Guardrails
The tone of the document reads like something compiled via AI prompt constraints: ideologically vetted inputs, moral certainty preloaded, geopolitical enemies named in advance. Russia’s disinformation gets pages of scorn. Western greenwashing, fantasy modeling, and the techno-utopian fantasies baked into IAMs? Silence.
They use one-sided sources like that “#JunkScience” paper (Strudwicke & Grant, 2020) as justification to paint all dissent as foreign manipulation. That’s not scholarly rigor—it’s institutional deflection, securitized.
And yes, the Global South is instrumentalized throughout: elevated only when repeating the approved chorus, silenced or ignored when they raise deeper critiques—like carbon colonialism, land grabs via offsets, or the neocolonial logic of Net Zero timelines. The moral language is there, but the structure is extractive.
Truths With Teeth Removed
They claim “climate science has delivered the solutions available to humanity.” That is an outright distortion. Climate science can describe what is. It can model what might happen. It cannot prescribe what should be done. That is a political act. A moral act. A deeply human one. Not a scientific result.
The IPCC mandate is clear: it assesses, it does not prescribe. It offers options, not orders. To collapse these boundaries—to claim science has settled the solution—is to mask politics as physics.
And it’s dangerous. Because once the mask is in place, any dissent becomes heresy. Any realism becomes sabotage. And any refusal to accept institutional optimism is branded a threat.
A System Built to Protect Itself
This isn’t about stopping denialism. It’s about securing the legitimacy of a narrative that’s already showing signs of collapse. Net Zero by 2050 is not a neutral target—it’s a political compromise built on speculative tech, unjust economic assumptions, and misleading accounting.
Those who point this out aren’t enemies of science. They’re its allies. And yet, in this report, they’re treated like insurgents.
You want to know what real disinformation looks like? It’s the refusal to admit that science-based policy is still policy. That “the science” cannot tell us whether 1.5°C is politically, ecologically, or ethically viable. That cost-benefit models don’t make justice disappear.
Page 33 Media and bots: An example of biased focus and distorted unfounded claims: “Another study of tweets relating to climate change found that 15% of all accounts were bot accounts. One noteworthy feature was that while 83% of these suspected bot accounts supported climate activism, the remaining accounts representing denial and skepticism concerning climate change would pursue active strategies of engagement, such as initiating conversations with non-skeptical human users while amplifying the voices of skeptical users. […] Here, a noteworthy feature was that although, again, bot accounts engaged in climate activism as well as denialism, both categories of bots tended to polarize discussions through evoking emotions.”
These were only “suspected” Bot accounts, not proven to be so. Even if they were 85% of all accounts were genuine, or at least “suspected” to be real people.
While this comment: “categories of bots tended to polarize discussions through evoking emotions,” is particularly appalling given almost all online discussions tend to evoke human emotions of some kind! To distort such obvious truths and project this solely upon “suspected denialist bots” alone is insidious and unscientific ideologically biased swill.
Final Thought
This report is worse than propaganda—it’s consensus laundering. It takes selective truths, strips them of complexity, moralizes the frame, and declares war on critique. It doesn’t build public trust in science. It burns it to keep the illusions warm.
I won’t play along. And I hope many others won’t either. Though I suspect this will be picked up by many not realising what’s behind the mask and misuse it as deigned.
>>> Who Is the IPIE?
The IPIE presents itself as a neutral scientific body, but its structure and agenda suggest something else. It is a non-governmental organization focused not on climate science itself, but on the broader “information environment”—things like algorithmic bias, deepfakes, misinformation, and narrative control.
Legally registered charity in Zurich in late 2023, the IPIE launched at the 2023 Nobel Prize Summit. It has a Board of Trustees, ethics committees, and topic-specific panels. It claims neutrality and independence from state or corporate interests, but details about its funding are scarce.
In reality, the IPIE functions more like a well-connected, ideologically aligned think tank. It has no formal accountability mechanisms beyond its own internal governance. Its credibility relies on the appearance of objectivity—but its influence remains marginal, at least for now.
In short: IPIE is not a climate science authority. It’s an information control body, operating in the gray zone between advocacy, technocracy, and soft power projection. The real danger is not that they speak—but that they claim to speak for science while advancing a pre-approved political blueprint.
nigeljsays
Can’t agree with Williams criticisms of the Syntheses report. The Synthesis Report talks about the problems of certain actors spreading misleading information about climate science and solutions. It sounds accurate to me. Firstly it is consistent with dozens of other reports and commentary I’ve read and my own experience reading denialism / scepticism in hundreds of internet comments threads.
The reports is based on 300 peer reviewed studies, not one alleged (without evidence) junk science paper. The report didn’t say scepticism is inherently bad. Instead the focus of the report was on the spreading of misleading information. Misleading information trying to discredit climate solutions is real and pervasive. Examples:
“Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles”
Unfortunately, “believers” cannot make unbiased evaluations of the “science”, or of criticism of the “science”. That’s because, you guessed it, they’re biased. AGW theory has been degraded into political talking points, Trump bashing, etc. We see it daily here on RC. It has become 90% Trump bashing with little actual “science”. Everyone is gung-ho to bash Trump or the evil USA, but for the most part unwilling to do much in their own lives to walk their talk. Instead they want government to enforce everyone else to do something. They bash the USA, apparently unaware of the fact that if all the other countries were to actually get to net zero or actual zero, then emissions from the USA would not matter. It’s politics, not science. Emotions and feelings, not facts and real action. All feel-good stuff that results in no action toward actually solving the GHG emissions “problem”.
nigeljsays
KIA,
Unfortunately, “believers” cannot make unbiased evaluations of the “science”
Neither can unbelievers. Nobody can make entirely unbiased evaluations of anything. Know how we solve this dilemma? We work to minimise biases, and scientists are taught how to minimise their biases, and we argue things on the specifics. Which you haven’t done in respect of the link I posted.
“Instead they want government to enforce everyone else to do something.”
No. We want governments to enforce that ” everyone” do something. For example a carbon tax or cap and trade scheme ultimately pushes everyone to make changes.
America is now one of the complete outlier countries who’s central government not only denies the science, but has done nothing to push solutions.
See I haven’t mentioned Trump once. I’ve just spoken about how things really are. It’s your comments that are full of emotion, not mine.
Due to the recent report that put warming up to 0.25C decade they have compared their method to this one. It would appear that the current rate of warming is from 0.25C to 0.35C. Either way it’s serious stuff
Pete Best,
The “recent report” that Tamino’s post was reacting-to was Forster et al (2025) ‘Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence published a few days ago. These annual reports are an attempt ro fill in the gaps left by IPCC reports arriving half-a-decade apart.
Its headline AGW rate in the 2024 report is given as “+0.27°C per decade [0.2–0.4°C] over 2015–2024.”
Being now an annual report, previous publications can be referenced. Thus the 2023 report gave the latest rate of AGW at “+0.26°C per decade [0.2–0.4°C] per decade over 2014–2023.” and the 2022 a rather sheepish “an unprecedented rate of over 0.2°C per decade.” (The graphic Figure 9 shows this value as +0.236°C per decade.)
The ‘Global Warming Index’ method used by Forseter et al to calculate the AGW rate is set out in <a href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/2295/2023/essd-15-2295-2023-supplement.pdf#page=10"Supplimentary Section S7.1 of the 2022 report. It uses MLR, GMST and Forcing data to attribute AGW and natural warming.
The Foster & Rahmstorf method addresses the rate of AGW and its most recent use awaits publication Rahmstorf & Foster (PrePrint) ‘Global Warming has Accelerated Significantly’. The method gives a substantially higher value for the current rate of AGW than Forster et al although is itself a tad coy over that actual current rate.
Since the 1970s, GMST has followed a steady upward trend, rising at an average rate of ≈ 0.2°C per decade. … More recently, observed data suggest … an acceleration of global warming. … A piecewise linear fit with slope changes every 10 years … indicates that the most recent 10-year trend is significantly steeper than any previous, at ≈ 0.4°C per decade. Finally, we fit a LOWESS smooth to the data, a standard low-pass filter which is able to illustrate gradual trend changes rather than piecewise changes. This indicates that the warming trend has been accelerating from a rate of 0.15 – 0.2 °C per decade during 1980-2000, to more than twice that rate most recently. … Although the world may not continue warming at such a fast pace, it could likewise continue accelerating to even faster rates.
The Foster & Rahmstorf method adjusts the GMST data using MLR to extract any influence of Solar, Volcano & ENSO. So it is the ENSO wobble that is extracted from the GMST by F&R but which in the method used by Forster et al is apparently left out as noise when the MLR extracts the AGW signals based on Forcing. Both methods assume linear relationships are at play which in both cases is likely problematic.
But while all would agree there has been an acceleration in AGW, identifying a new rate resulting from that acceleration remains problematic, as does identifying the causes of that acceleration. I would even add that the absence of acceleration prior to 2015 & reasons thereof are further considerations.
Of course, there are some who will insist they have a measure of all this but who strangely cannot properly explain why.
Williamsays
The +0.25°C/decade narrative now being pushed — led by figures like Piers Forster — conveniently downplays more recent trends showing +0.36°C/decade, as Tamino just highlighted. And as Hansen has long been forecasting due to EEI and other known physics including ECS underestimations.
Unfortunately many of these so-called experts function more as narrative gatekeepers than scientists, reinforcing political messaging rather than confronting the full implications of current data. Net Zero by 2050 and the SR15 scenarios aren’t science — they’re storytelling. Some of us simply refuse to keep pretending.
Barry E Finchsays
MA Rodger 24 Jun 2025 at 5:33 AM “I would even add that the absence of acceleration prior to 2015 & reasons thereof are further considerations”. It’s ENSO. It started 1995 when the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly wind started increasing as a long-term trend after decades of no trend. By 2012 the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly wind was 30% (1 metre / second) stronger than pre-1995. It’s a power amplifier because the tropical Pacific Ocean is 3.6 times as wide as the tropical Atlantic Ocean.
+++++++
“Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus” Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Corrected online 14 February 2014 Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso “Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake”. I had wondered in 2016 whether that new since 1995 effect of the tropical Atlantic Ocean on the tropical Pacific Ocean had now ended. Apparently it had.
+++++++
Quote of Feb 2014: “Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. “We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean,” said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales.”
+++++++
Quote of Feb 2014: “The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength……….Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says.”
+++++++
Also, I plotted in 2013 Delta-GMST separaetly for El Nino, La Nina & Neutral years and found La Nina & Neutral years have been warming at 0.165 degrees / decade since 1964 but El NIno years were warming at 0.20 degrees / decade 1964-1995 then at 0.23 degrees / decade since 1995.
Piotrsays
MAR: “I would even add that the absence of acceleration prior to 2015 & reasons thereof are further considerations”.
Barry E. Finch: It’s ENSO. It started 1995 when the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly wind started increasing
So if ENSO is determined by tides, as Paul Pukite proposes, was the Moon doing something very different before 1995 (“decades of no trend”) than in 1995-2014 (“easterly wind increasing”), and different in another way on 2015-today (no longer “absence of acceleration”) ?
BEF: “ La Nina & Neutral years have been warming at 0.165 degrees / decade since 1964 but El NIno years were warming at 0.20 degrees / decade 1964-1995 then at 0.23 degrees / decade since 1995.
How do you reconcile it with the easterlies being stronger after 1995? One would expect after 1995 stronger La Nina & Neutral and/or weaker El Nino.
Yet in your sentence no change in the former (single number for 1964-on), and the opposite trend to the expected in the latter (since 1995 was warmer, not cooler).
Am I missing something?
Barry E Finchsays
Piotr. I don’t recall the details from 2014-2017 when that was still fresh in my mind but I recall phrases like “climate scientists are surprised by the more La-Nina-like conditions because climate modeling indicates that conditions will become more El Nino like with the warming”. In a Public Outreach talk 2014 Kevin Trenberth said “The western Tropical Pacific surface is now about 4 feet higher than the central and eastern. Something’s gotta give, and soon”. Tides are some unrelated topic. I didn’t mention tides. Find some bod interested in tides. Talk with them. See if you can annoy Gavin and then he’ll likely take a few weeks off useful work to discuss tides with you.
The Prieto Principlesays
Barry E Finch says 29 Jun 2025 at 6:56 AM Also, I plotted in 2013 Delta-GMST separaetly for El Nino, La Nina & Neutral years and found La Nina & Neutral years have been warming at 0.165 degrees / decade since 1964 but El NIno years were warming at 0.20 degrees / decade 1964-1995 then at 0.23 degrees / decade since 1995.
Nicely done, Barry. Clear, empirical, and quietly revealing. No million-dollar budget, no massive institution, no Nobel-sized ego required — just good data, long attention, and a steady hand.
Sometimes the most useful (but usually ignored) insights come from those simply paying close attention over time while remaining aware of then bigger picture framing. Keep it up.
and pointedly also says:
Mann13 (2023)
Twitter denial of aerosol forcing decline post-2020; Uses 2019 Nature article as evidence “IPCC represents the consensus. Individual articles don’t. Until there’s a major assessment (NAS or IPCC) saying otherwise, the claim of a sharp decrease in global aerosol forcing past 4 years must be considered an extraordinary claim lacking evidence. I’m done w/ this now, ok?” https://nitter.poast.org/MichaelEMann/status/1673511877790388225#m
Summarily dismissed out of hand was the attitude and the Reply by Prof Nick Cowern | Atmospheric science | Energy | Climate Change · Applied physicist with 35 years experience: “We cannot say that evidence is lacking just because it has not yet entered the mainstream (IPCC consensus yet.) That’s not how science works.”
Some beg to differ. I’ll sit back and wait for a major assessment shall I?
There was an unnoticed error in the URL — my deep apologies. I usually verify these things, but this time I slipped up. The mistake came from copying the link from a saved document I had trusted (but clearly should have re-checked).
That said, jumping to assumptions about my intentions, and accusing me of being “sneaky” or “disingenuous,” is unjustified. There’s no evidence for that, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t project malice where a simple error occurred.
For context: the broken link wasn’t unique — I later noticed several URLs from the same saved list were mangled in the same way, including:
I now realize what happened: I misunderstood that Mann’s page was only a redirect to the USA Today article, and I copied it without verifying. That was sloppy on my part — but not duplicitous. These things happen, especially when working with old reference sets. I’ve since confirmed the original USA Today article here:
[Response: The point is that the corrected link doesn’t say what you are trying to infer. – gavin]
Williamsays
[Response: The point is that the corrected link doesn’t say what you are trying to infer. – gavin]
The content found via the link shows exactly what I was pointing to. In every one of the 3 links. The purpose to show what Mann says, not what the article title is or concluded or misreported.
Here’s the content that matters: “While such models can be useful for conceptual inferences, their predictions have to be taken with great skepticism. Far more realistic climate models that do resolve the large-scale dynamics of the ocean, atmosphere and carbon cycle, do NOT produce the dramatic changes these authors argue for based on their very simplified model. It must be taken not just with a grain of salt, but a whole salt-shaker worth of salt,” Mann said.
That’s Mann’s own framing of a peer-reviewed paper — not mine. His words speak for themselves. The paper in question was Published: 12 November 2020
An earth system model shows self-sustained thawing of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z
It is the content that matters. Read the paper and skip the complaints about style or simple mistakes. Let’s not project bad faith where there was none. People make errors here all the time, even when providing formal IPCC Definitions and without giving links.
The 3rd link would equally apply to the Forster paper above, according to Mann.
Mann (2023) Twitter denial of aerosol forcing decline post-2020; While using a 2019 Nature article as his evidence; then says: “IPCC represents the consensus. Individual articles don’t. Until there’s a major assessment (NAS or IPCC) saying otherwise, the claim of a sharp decrease in global aerosol forcing past 4 years must be considered an extraordinary claim lacking evidence. I’m done w/ this now, ok?” https://nitter.poast.org/MichaelEMann/status/1673511877790388225#m
That was also what I was pointing to: Mann’s statements.
Williamsays
PS – Here is proof it was a dead redirect link embedded within Mann’s website — which is what I had originally copied from a listing based on his website some time ago now.
Go to his site-then click on the link there. The first result.
Barry E Finchsays
I stay with this that I made in 2018 based on some calculations with GAST anomaly & EEI anomaly since 1962, mostly because it’s cheap easy cut’n’paste and I don’t need constant new stuff for selling T shirts, coffee mugs or Pauline’s books (so 2 valid physics reasons):
+0.25 degrees 2020-2030
+0.31 degrees 2030-2040
+0.37 degrees 2040-2050
+0.43 degrees 2050-2060
That’s with +2.4 ppmv/year CO2 maintained throughout and CH4 increasing at recent rates. That’s assuming humans don’t do a huge cleanup of their aerosols air pollution while continuing to burn the coal, oil & gas and making cement & steel.
Since 2018 I’ve come across 3 new things:
1. A claim evidently correct that humans have done a huge cleanup of their aerosols air pollution (maritime fuels) and that it’s a 1-shot of +0.10 to +0.20 so one simply adds +0.15 to the 2020-2030 and 2030-2060 stay about the same.
2. I heard about ocean “Pattern Effect” from Andrew Dessler at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlolDdnSHCE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlolDdnSHCE) but Andrew says the extra 0.8 degrees is spread over hundreds of years so minimal over the next few decades.
3. It occurred to me this year that perhaps the weak mechanically-driven-backwards northern Ferrell Cell has slowed down in recent years of decades and then I heard of some science from Ben Santer that the winds have indeed slowed so that would add something to my GAST anomalies above but not possible to calculate without knowing the altered ocean wind-mixing depth.
The Prieto Principlesays
Reply to Barry E Finch
+0.25 degrees 2020-2030
+0.31 degrees 2030-2040
+0.37 degrees 2040-2050
+0.43 degrees 2050-2060
Looks quite reasonable to me. with some adjustments possible?
1. A claim evidently correct that humans have done a huge cleanup of their aerosols air pollution (maritime fuels) and that it’s a 1-shot of +0.10 to +0.20 so one simply adds +0.15 to the 2020-2030 and 2030-2060 stay about the same.
Are you sure that is correct? The recent periods aerosol removals is a permanent shift, which remains going forward (more or less) – all ghg warming forcing, from all sources, operates absent those aerosols being produced.
Therefore if +0.25 degrees 2020-2030 becomes more or less 0.40 degrees 2020-2030 (high end of Hansen and Foster numbers, then don’t the 2030-2060 also pickup that extra 0.15C as well?
And it is hard for me to agree “That’s with +2.4 ppmv/year CO2 maintained throughout ” when recently it’s pushing +3.5ppm growth with nothing ahead to slow that down sustainably, in fact the opposite seems more the likely case.
Instead of your steady state +0.6C per decade growth, until real physical changes are implemented long term (unlikely) I still see exponential growth of ppm and temps ongoing out to 2060 and beyond. Which is of course guesswork at this point, assuming bau thinking and lack of serious action by humanity.
As “we” continue to hit a brick wall with segments of the US. Population and support is softening everywhere else, then that shows the “message” is not resonating at levels needed. Desperately needed! Meanwhile, the current administration will disassemble the IRA, good luck getting a federal permit for a new onshore wind project, and on and on…
Nigeljsays
David, I broadly agree. but I just wonder how we communicate better. A while back scientists were criticized for talking too much about graphs, trends and technical issues and the public didn’t understand. Apparently we needed “story telling” that simplified things and talked about local issues. Now we are told surveys show the general public resent these attempts to infantilise the science. It’s like we can’t win whatever we do.
Davidsays
Hi Nigelj! I completely agree with your comment about the quandary that scientists face and the rest of us in the public concerned about climate change face. I know one thing I would bet the house on: in the future, if things go to hell more painfully than the public can bare, there will be a public cry saying “Why didn’t anyone tell us?!? Why didn’t anyone warn us this could happen?!?” ;-)
Back to the topic… I don’t have a solution on large scales. For myself, I spent several months over last winter/this spring rethinking how could I better listen to soooo many people in my life who deny, doubt, or question if anything meaningful can really be done. So I created a (I guess I’d call it) survey to informally collect reasons, questions, attitudes, etc from family members, friends, neighbors, business acquaintances, etc. that are in my personal orbit. That’s my start. I’m focusing on the mesoscale, but remain engaged with the bigger scales.
Now, back off topic: It’s either that or the other option I seriously considered over the winter: To hell with it! Im retired, go find a little place in the mountains somewhere and enjoy life while my clock finishes ticking down.
Then I’d look around and think about young folks I see daily and all those kids around the world facing a future I and my generation have crafted them. And the mess of a world that could be if we can’t turn things around faster.
So, the place in the mountains will have to wait a bit longer. BTW, I hear NZ is really nice according to friends who’ve been there! Ha!
Williamsays
Reply to Nigelj
– I just wonder how we communicate better.
– scientists were criticized for talking too much about graphs, trends and technical issues
– Apparently we needed “story telling” that simplified things and talked about local issues
– Now we are told surveys show the general public resent these attempts to infantilise the science.
– It’s like we can’t win whatever we do.
It looks like those things are beyond your abilities. We all have our limitations.
Apparently one of your limitations, William, is an inability to refrain from gratuitous insult.
Another would be the inability to formulate a cogent one.
Barry E Finchsays
“It looks like those things are beyond your abilities”. Definitely it’s far beyond my abilities. I find it sickening (I mean for 64 years, not for just recently). On the GoogleyTubes I correctly informed a “Dan Miller” that he shouldn’t worry that he didn’t understand my comment refuting a science point of his guest because he couldn’t possibly understand it and should just ignore it, not worry and keep doing his fine Social Type work with his business. I’m not interested in changing bod’s minds, people don’t change. That’s before GoogleysTubes removed me for life December 5, 2024 because it was necessary within my non-infantilizing information providing to inform 98 consecutive U.S. of Americans that they are “unadulterated imbeciles” in case they hadn’t realized and that was hamstringing their lives, a Free Public Service.
The Prieto Principlesays
Reply to Barry E Finch
smiling
Only 98? Maybe you weren’t trying hard enough Barry. Many more than that! It’s possible googley tubes did you a favour. You’d done enough?
Mr. Know It Allsays
You can discuss until you’re blue in the face. All that will do is emit more CO2 with each syllable spoken. Want to solve this “problem” that you feel is paramount and desperate? STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS. Trump and his administration has nothing to do with it. Install your own RE system. Nobody is stopping you. Some people have already done it – it is not new technology.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
Davidsays
Mr. Know It All,
How would you know what I have done to reduce personal CO2 consumption? You repeatedly make this argument here with others, but usually from what I can see you will not engage any further. The desire to reach out to others via expression, be it the spoken/written word, music, arts, scientific discovery, or just just shooting the bull is worthy I think. And that includes voicing concerns about the actions of my government.
If you wish to engage further in conversation, I’m game. If not, thank you for replying.
Davidsays
Re my 25 June 12:10 comment-
Please replace the opening sentence “How would…CO2 consumption?” with the following “How would you know what I have done to reduce my personal CO2 output?”
And add the following immediately following the above corrected sentence:
“I suggest that you (Mr. KIA) offer an impossible alternative. Most folks can not simply make the binary choice you offered. The reasons are obvious.”
Williamsays
QUOTE:
“Most folks can not simply make the binary choice you offered. The reasons are obvious.”
Piotrsays
CherylJosie 23 Jun- “I’ve worked for in the climate movement for the past 45 years
I find this ….perplexing, given than in your other post you seem to uncritically repeat the talking points of the fossil fuel/ fracking lobby propaganda: that without fracking half of the humanity would die of starvation (from the lack of nitrogen fertilizers) and therefore you can’t visualize the world without fracking/fossil fuels.
“CherylJosie 23 Jun- “I’ve worked for in the climate movement for the past 45 years
I find this ….perplexing,
I don’t find that perplexing at all. I happen to follow Cheryl on BlueSky and I recall that she was an early adopter of solar technology and lead the effort in her community until she had to give it up. This is not that odd for an electrical engineer as they are often keen to trying out new devices and tech. But why I have to even mention this is a sad commentary on the bad faith I keep seeing in this forum.
Cheryl is also earnest in her analysis of transients in temperatures and SSTs on BlueSky. Give her some credit for being scientifically curious as to what is happening regarding the 2023/2024 heat spike. Showing curiosity on something that doesn’t show an absolute monotonic rise in temperature also seems to be frowned upon here.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite 25 Jun: “ Piotr the paranoid gatekeeper said:”
Are you feeling well, Paul? Under what definition pointing to a new person that her two posts seems to be incongruent with each other – can be described as … “ paranoid gatekeeping” [(c) Paul Pukite] ?
P. Pukite: CherylJosie 23 Jun- “I’ve worked for in the climate movement for the past 45 years
Piotr: I find this ….perplexing,
I don’t find that perplexing at all.
Read the rest of sentence, Buttercup:
Piotr: “ [I find this ….perplexing], given than in your other post you seem to uncritically repeat the talking points of the fossil fuel/ fracking lobby propaganda: that without fracking half of the humanity would die of starvation.”
See? Have you read it before deleting it – you would have known WHY I find that perplexing, and you would have spared yourself ending up with an egg on your face, I quote:
P. Pukite “ I don’t find that perplexing at all. I happen to follow Cheryl on BlueSky and I recall that she was an early adopter of solar technology and lead the effort in her community.[…] But why I have to even mention this is a sad commentary on the bad faith I keep seeing in this forum. Cheryl is also earnest in her analysis. Give her some credit for being scientifically curious”
So, sorry, you haven’t _finally_ landed a blow on me and got your sweet, sweet, revenge for all those humiliations suffered from my hand over the years – quite the OPPOSITE – praising Cheryl you do not invalidate, but unwittingly STRENGTHEN my point. Since it wasn’t obvious to you, let me help:
NOBODY claimed that Cheryl is not genuinely concerned/knowledgeable about climate change – instead, I found it PERPLEXING that a person engaged in climate movement for 45 years WOULD ALSO repeat …. a piece of primitive fossil fuel propaganda (that without fracked natural gas, half of the humanity would die of starvation).:
P: ” [I find this ….perplexing], given than in your other post you seem to uncritically repeat the talking points of the fossil fuel/ fracking lobby propaganda”
In this context, the deeper Cheryl’s climate involvement, the more jarring is its INCONGRUENCY with … repeating a talking point of the pro-fracking (?) lobby.
Piotrsays
Cheryl: “ I’ve worked for in the climate movement for the past 45 years”
Piotr: “I find this ….perplexing, given than in your other post you seem to uncritically repeat the talking points of the fossil fuel/ fracking lobby propaganda: that without fracking half of the humanity would die of starvation. What was the name of that climate movement – BP?
It’s good that you didn’t bet, because you would have lost. My question was about who is most experienced in selling to an environmentalist pro-fossil fuel propaganda.
And in that area, BP seems to be heads and shoulders above the other fossil fuel interests:
BP, in the early 2000s, hired a PR firm, Ogilvy & Mather, founded by famous David Ogilvy, the “Father of Advertising”. On it’s advice it came with the “carbon footprint calculator”
Media and environmentalist bought it (me including – a link to one such calculators was in the textbook I was using, and I recommended using it to my students). Only recently we realized (Mark Kaufman, https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham) that it was all a con – getting praise for being an enlightened oil company, making a real effort to increase the awareness of the climate change, and in line with their declared willingness to shift away from the oil and gas and toward renewables), while the real purpose was the opposite:
– make AGW a question of INDIVIDUAL’s responsibility, thus shifting the blame for AGW away from THEM (fossil fuel corporations, who made trillions in profits), and onto each of US (they only deliver what we asked them to do, not like you doing trillions on it).
The questions why those who make mega-profits from fossil fuels don’t pay for their pollution and why the system does not offer low-carbon options (try to be without a car in a place without public transportation, or using renewable electricity in places where your electricity provider offers you none) are not to be asked – remember “It’s not them, it’s you! So start with yourself, you hypocrite – reduce your emissions to zero, BEFORE you start criticizing others for doing nothing or benefiting financially from it!
– and discourage people from action by promoting apathy – if I produce unsustainable amount of emissions, and I can’t reduce them to zero then it’s hopeless, I may as well stop trying. After us, Deluge!
That’s why BP would love to see your:
Cheryl: “ I’m having a hard time visualizing a world where I abandon the fossil fuel that half of my own flesh is comprised of [via N fertilizers] ”
the message you internalized being: no other emission-free way to make the life-saving fertilizers, it’s not us, it’s you, and if you really care about children in Africa not dying of starvation, then you must support fossil fuels.
CherylJosiesays
“What was the name of that climate movement – BP?”
I made history by installing photovoltaic panels for the world’s first grid-connected solar PV neighborhood. Here’s a retrospective writeup on the project.
They did mostly off-grid in remote/overseas projects before Gardner. Here’s how I got involved.
In 1985 I was an installer with Advanced Energy in Sterling, Massachusetts. SDA contracted us to mount the PV panels for the Gardner project. Two years later, Advanced Energy was out of business.
My project was a two-axis-tracking concentrating solar electric power plant with lead-acid storage. The gain of the dish was 6:1, bringing the $/watt down by a factor of 5.
My contribution to the science was a differential photodarlington transistor sensor capable of precisely resolving the angle towards the sun for optimal focus. The very first time I took my power plant outside and turned it on, the dish immediately found the sun and remained directly aimed at it, even if the dish started out pointed at the ground, and even if the sun was behind the clouds. My differential sensor performed flawlessly.
Some early solar PV manufacturers included BP, Arco, and Mobil. They hedged their bets, but dropped the effort because large-scale profitability wouldn’t materialize for decades with a small remote power market at high prices and no subsidies for large-scale domestic power.
It’s a mistake to assume that fossil fuel companies aren’t interested in alternative energy. What they are most interested in is shareholder profit, and they don’t care how they do it.
What they lack is a strong motive to transition out of the fossil business. They have lots of sunk cost and won’t be recovering any of it in an abrupt transition like IPCC demands. That’s only the smaller reason to keep drilling. The larger reason is more complicated and intractable.
Fossil energy isn’t going anywhere because the governments of the world won’t let it. The simplest way to refuel a war machine is to pump its tank full of room temperature liquid. Without military-industrial welfare, these dinosaurs can’t survive.
They are in no danger of defunding, which is how I ended up designing integrated circuits instead of designing solar power plants. I arrived 40 years too early and missed the market window.
While playing engineer, my role in alternative energy reverted to citizen advocacy until 2018, when I installed solar PV on my own home, and 2025 when I installed a heat pump.
I also critiqued Fremont’s climate adaptation plan.
I pointed out the impracticality of senior citizens/with disabilities and homeless people of no means traveling from their low/no income urban heat island housing near industrial areas on the outskirts of town to reach the ‘cooling centers’: libraries and senior facilities in shadier wealthier bucolic locations.
Can you envision unhealthy people of no means standing in the sun and risking rapid-onset heat stroke while waiting for a bus that doesn’t run on the weekends?
The Fremont plan makes no provision for transporting the most at-risk people to safety. They are on their own, and likely to perish, which is why I spoke up — to no avail. The plan was published as drafted with no money allocated to transporting those who the cooling centers are actually supposed to be helping.
It’s a hollow gesture designed to garner publicity and create opportunities for more wealthy and healthy people to congregate during a heat wave where politicians will pose for photo ops and claim credit for saving the world.
All such climate adaptation plans are similarly anemic, and nearly every liberal city has one.
Last year there was a mass die-off in Lake Elizabeth. The city had to dredge the dead fish to tame the smell. We don’t have a plan to spare the wildlife either.
I’ve sold my home. The optimal human climate niche has already passed me by. This apartment with no AC is sweltering hot already, even on the ground floor facing the shady gentrified court yard.
Before Advanced Energy, I installed three wood-burning gassification boilers and wood sheds at a private school. Before that, I lived and worked on a farmstead.
I’m hoping to return to farmsteading when I move out of Fremont, probably somewhere further north where the risk of wet bulb heat stroke will be less immediate for someone in my condition..
So yes, I’ve been directly involved in the climate movement for 45 years, in the exact practical and peaceful ways favored here. Thanks for asking!
The Prieto Principlesays
Reply to CherylJosie
I pointed out the impracticality of senior citizens/with disabilities and homeless people of no means traveling from their low/no income urban heat island housing near industrial areas on the outskirts of town to reach the ‘cooling centers’: libraries and senior facilities in shadier wealthier bucolic locations.
Can you envision unhealthy people of no means standing in the sun and risking rapid-onset heat stroke while waiting for a bus that doesn’t run on the weekends?
——
Congrats on your past efforts.
That issue you mentioned above came up recently in a community outreach meeting by the local and state govt climate action plan / disaster readiness response staff. I made the point my greatest fear is losing electricity power during a heat wave or wild fire conditions — that and not being fully warned in advance and given the opportunity and physical support I and other elderly people would need to get to a secure relief accommodation and the transportation provided to do it before it became a crisis point. Be it floods fire or storms and heat waves.
That the onus needs to be on the govt to be prepared to contact the vulnerable people before such emergencies arise, and get to them before the crisis hits. Or they’ll get stuck and or die.
At least they were listening and asking the right questions now, albeit decades behind the need for this particular low lying flood and fire prone region. Globally governments have not begun to scratch the surface of what’s needed now.
Mr. Know It Allsays
We’ve got new data points for climate science. Yup, it’s true. Quote: “New York’s Central Park reached a record high of 96 degrees Monday, which was last seen in 1888.” That’s from CNN and we KNOW they would never lie or exaggerate. Source:
You read that right! It was hotter in 1888 when GHGs were essentially at pre-industrial concentrations, than it has been over the past 137 years since then! FYI: That is NOT the type of information you want to put in your application for a grant to study AGW!
This heat wave is gonna be AWFUL. It’s may hit temperatures of OVER 90 F. That’s astonishing! It’s never been that hot in the eastern USA! Be careful everyone! I’m not lying:
If you knew anything about statistics, you would realize that picking one daily record for one spot tells you very little – especially a failure to make a new record.
However, I’ll play your game for a minute. You were talking about yesterday, which was merely a setup. The high today in Central Park was 99, exceeding the old record set in 1888 by 3 degrees F. So, it has warmed 3F (1.66 C) in 137 years from all those greenhouse gases. Right? I’m using your logic, here.
Silvia Leahu-Aluassays
Actual science confirms that we can abandon fossil fuels for anything. The barriers are:
1. ignorance, genuine or fossil funded, present everywhere, in some on this blog’s comments, in decision-makers, in the media
2. vested interests, that would rather destroy the biosphere and their own children’s livability than change their core business
3. an economic model that is not based on the laws off nature but on human fiction
One example of fossil-free fertilizers:
“Tonelli and Rosa explored on-farm production options for synthesizing green fertilizer without using fossil fuels: the electric Haber Bosch process and electrocatalysis. Both can make fertilizers from electricity, which can be supplied from on-site agrivoltaic solar panels directly installed on croplands. The former requires an electricity or intermediate hydrogen storage capacity to mitigate the impact of intermittent renewables production, while the latter could follow the production load of solar panels.”
The entire field of green chemistry could have replaced by now fossil chemistry, if we would have removed the aforementioned barriers. We can start today and be more assertive and determined. Our lives, more importantly the lives of our children and the children of all the species depend on it.
Forecasts for the season have been the usual “above average” but as usual not above average by much except in terms of the season’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy which averaged ACE=122 for the standard 1991-2020 period. That has been exceeded in 8 of the last 10 years, a decade which averaged ACE=140.
But such an unprecedented increase in Atlantic hurricanes will remain entirely trivial relative to the denial mechanisms now installed and running at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The Prieto Principlesays
MA Rodger says “the denial mechanisms now installed and running at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”
Blaming Trump now is cognitive denial excuse making at it’s worse. Especially after two decades of Rodger posting here constantly denying how bad things are using his flawed Math and incompetent reasoning.
The climate system is breaking down into chaos and catastrophic impacts due to the last 35 years of “climate mitigation and policy action” being a total failure by all involved from climate scientists to the IPCC and the UNFCCC COP system which has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump being in the white house.
Trump did not cause the current +0.36C accelerated Temperature increase per decade today.
Is net zero just a scam? | Facebook
31 Dec 2021 … Is net zero just a scam … Kevin Anderson is a single scientist, who has set himself against the false narratives.
7 Apr 2025 … 3 MINUTE TAKEDOWN OF the IPCC, CLIMATE SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS
Kevin Anderson on how Net-Zero is used as an Accountancy Scam to avoid making difficult decisions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH97qUn3Pow
Choosing to Fail, with Climate Scientist Kevin Anderson – YouTube
11 Mar 2024 … In this Climate Chat episode, we interview climate scientist Kevin Anderson for a 2nd time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVFSJINGueM
Starmer backed CCS ‘an absolute fraud’ – The Ecologist
11 Dec 2024 … Al Gore brands carbon capture and storage (CCS) tech – favored by Sir Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister – ‘a fraud … net zero.
File Not Found
The requested page was not found on this web server. Due to technical difficulties, Columbia Web pages are temporarily being delivered from a backup server at Akamai Technologies. The page you have requested might not be on this backup server. Please try exiting and restarting your web browser and connect to http://www.columbia.edu again.
The Prieto Principlesays
President Donald Trump and MAGA are not responsible for this reality today.
Bullshit of the first, and worst, order. Trump promoted the hell out of fossil fuel use and did everything possible to obstruct international action to mitigate carbon emissions for his entire first term, and is now doing the same again, but on steroids.
Of course he is not responsible for everything that has gone wrong with climate–it’s a systemic problem of long standing–but it would be hard to find a single individual anywhere, anytime, who bears a larger share of that responsibility.
Over a hundred records shattered, pavement buckling, people dying, blackouts. Too bad that “in line with evolving priorities,” NOAA will no longer update the billion-dollar weather disaster page, as this event sounds like it will likely qualify.
Williamsays
Reply to Kevin McKinney
“Predicaments have no solution, only outcomes.” –William
Piotrsays
– Kevin: “Over a hundred records shattered, pavement buckling, people dying, blackouts. Too bad that “in line with evolving priorities,” NOAA will no longer update the billion-dollar weather disaster page, as this event sounds like it will likely qualify.”
– “William”: “Predicaments have no solution, only outcomes.” –William
– “Witty saying proves nothing” – Voltaire
jgnfldsays
Mods: Whatever happened to the “one comment per day” suggestion? In my math system 13 does not equal one or two?
Sounds quite magisterial, but in plain fact predicaments can and often do have solutions.
But hey, if you’d care to expand on your thought, William, feel free.
Susan Andersonsays
For the class bores (right or wrong doesn’t much matter, volume/length replace quality with quantity:
“I have often felt compelled, on seeing an idiotic post, to point out its idiocy, as though I alone had noticed it. It’s a compulsion encouraged by the reward-based models of social media platforms. Users think of an interesting thought or response (trigger), send a post (behaviour), receive likes and re-posts (reward). Dopamine arrives as part of the feedback loop and we repeat the cycle.
“The compulsion to post relies on signalling, too – and not just of “virtue”. Read through your social media timelines and, if you’re an overtalker, you’ll find insecurities. Mine read like an exposé of impostor syndrome: barely veiled attempts to appear intelligent.”
The daily ERA5 re-analysis NH & SH SAT numbers are now approaching the end of the month. At the start of the month, there was what looked like a potential change in the development of post-“bananas” temperatures, ‘potential’ because it could have been simply a big wobble. As we now approach the end of the month, it looks a lot less like being just a wobble and a lot more like a longer-term piece of post-“bananas” cooling kicking in.
Since peak-“bananas” in late 2023, the SH had been showing a cooling at a modest-but-steady rate of about -0.1ºC per year (a cooling rate which continues) while the NH had been showing zero cooling, the year-on-year trace of multi-month averages sticking together like glue. (See graphic here Posted 26th June 2025 which shows NH SAT year-on-year anomalies 2023-25.)
By the end of May there were signs that the NH maybe at last be showing some year-on-year cooling. Those signs have been growing stronger as the June daily SAT numbers arrived.
How this apparent post-“bananas” cooling continues will be interesting given there is an annual ‘oscillation’ in the NH anomalies.
The 2023-25 graphic linked above shows there is a strong annual oscillation in the NH SAT anomalies. This results from a slower rate of warming during NH summer months than the NH winter months. (This strong annual oscillation has been present in seven of the last ten years [see the grey graphic ‘First POSTED 28th October 2024’ at link above showing NH & SH SAT 2014-to-date] with this strong winter warmth missing in 2018, 2021 & 2022, perhaps showing some ENSO influence on the NH winter temps.)
In terms of the months of the “bananas” temperatures since mid-2023, this annual NH oscillation grew in size, peak-to-peak measuring >0.4ºC when previously only >0.3ºC. This growth was a significant part of the NH contribution to the “bananas”. (The NH summer ‘minimum anomaly’ in 2024 was +0.32ºC toastier than that of 2016, eight years earlier. That’s a warming rate of +0.4ºC/decade which is not so “bananas” given the NH long-term warming rate (1980-2020) was +0.28ºC/decade prior to the “bananas”.)
Assuming the NH is cooling relative to 2024 and the cooling seen isn’t just a particularly large wobble, the eventual temperature of the 2025 summer NH ‘minimum anomaly’ and the following winter NH ‘maximum anomaly’ will be worth monitoring.
SecularAnimistsays
I must say that the trolls who infest this site are by far the stupidest global warming deniers that I have ever encountered anywhere online, including the mass social media platforms like Facebook.
I suppose that is because when these clowns post their nonsense on Facebook they are either ignored or driven away with wild hoots of derisive laughter and well-deserved contemptuous insults, whereas on RealClimate they are rewarded by endless bad-faith “arguments” with people who really should know better.
Dansays
So true. They are pure anti-science. Yet they flaunt their ignorance. They fail to make any effort to learn because they are too insecure to admit they are wrong. People like KIA and the others are an embarrassment to any educational institution they attended.
jgnfldsays
Naahhh…they are rewarded because their propaganda is endlessly published under the guise of “free inquiry”.
Pedro Prietosays
Reply to SecularAnimist et al
Who are these unnamed “global warming deniers” on this site? Where are they because I haven’t noticed any for many months.
It’s disappointing to see such contemptuous language on a forum that aspires to serious discussion. Your post doesn’t address a single argument, cite any evidence, or advance understanding in any direction. You may feel superior hurling insults at phantoms, but it reveals more about your intent than anyone else’s.
If you believe a comment is factually wrong or misleading, by all means, challenge it—politely, substantively, and specifically. Otherwise, this is just noise.
Pedro Prieto:
I seem to have missed some recent exchanges, but allow me to break this down clearly.
1 William made a fair request: where are the assumptions used in CMIP6 model designs explicitly documented and accessible? That’s a question seeking positive evidence, not asserting a conspiracy.
2 BPL deflects with sarcasm; Gavin responds with a rhetorical dismissal. But neither provides what William asked for.
3 I have personally observed multiple past attempts—here and elsewhere—to ask for assumptions behind climate models, often met with silence or redirection. That’s anecdotal, yes, but it aligns with William’s concern.
4 RealClimate’s own About page says it aims to provide context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. Well—here’s a case where specific scientific context is being asked for, and declined.
5 William did not demand that Gavin list every assumption in every model, nor that it be done in a single comment. That’s a strawman.
6 He asked: Where can the assumptions behind each CMIP6 model be found? If this is routine, open information, then providing some examples should be straightforward. The request wasn’t unreasonable—it was fundamental.
7 Gavin is widely regarded as a leading authority on climate modeling. If he cannot—or will not—point to where model assumptions are documented, then the claim that modellers are open and transparent becomes questionable by default.
8 In fact, Gavin’s refusal reinforces William’s original point—whether that was his intention or not.
9 The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim—in this case, that all assumptions are available and easily accessible. If so, why not demonstrate?
Final question: Given the apparent difficulty in getting straight answers here, would it now be acceptable to ask an AI LLM like Gemini or ChatGPT to locate where CMIP6 model assumptions are spelled out—and share that here? Would such output be respected as scientifically credible?
These models underpin critical climate policy decisions. If even expert scientists resist direct questions about their assumptions, and if laypeople cannot easily find them either, then transparency—and trust—suffers.
If this is all open and above board, show it.
[Response: There are literally thousands of papers discussing the assumptions that go into climate models. I have personally written many. You cannot open a copy of JAMES without tripping over dozens of examples. Your refusal to even look into the basics and instead demand that others do all the work for you is merely a bad faith argument. No one is fooled. – gavin]
A general observation is you guys are really good at burying content and context under all that noise.
William also said: “Hey, this model matches the Observations pretty closely, so they must be right. Hey guys, the ensemble mean average of all the discordant individual models almost matches the observations, well close enough, so it must be right too. Everyone guesses differently and you end up [with] dozens of different outputs.”
While: “… it may well be that these discrepancies will resolve themselves in the course of ‘normal’ model development (and as the observed signals become clearer). Or not ;-).”
Comments on a commentary forum generate comments. But I cannot agree that no one is being fooled nor who is doing the fooling.
This has taken an intriguing turn. Let’s see where it takes us.
Earlier I made a clear and respectful request: “William made a fair request: where are the assumptions used in CMIP6 model designs explicitly documented and accessible?”
And concluded with: “If this is all open and above board, show it.”
Gavin responds with this: [Response: There are literally thousands of papers discussing the assumptions that go into climate models. I have personally written many. You cannot open a copy of JAMES without tripping over dozens of examples. Your refusal to even look into the basics and instead demand that others do all the work for you is merely a bad faith argument. No one is fooled. – gavin]
These are curious characterizations. They don’t reflect what I wrote. I did not “demand” anything. I’m not acting in bad faith. Nor am I trying to fool anyone — what possible purpose would that even serve? The accusation doesn’t hold up.
Gavin — with respect, your reply dodges the point and shifts blame. I and William before me asked a simple, reasonable question about transparency and accessibility, not about your personal publication history. You claim there are “literally thousands of papers” documenting model assumptions, and that JAMES (the Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems) is overflowing with them.
But here’s the problem: Most people — even those following climate debates closely — have never heard of JAMES. I certainly hadn’t. I’ve never once seen it referenced on RealClimate, and a quick targeted search confirms this:
Search results for “Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems” on RealClimate:
➤ https://www.realclimate.org/?s=%22Journal+of+Advances+in+Modeling+Earth+Systems%22 → Zero results.
The same holds true across Twitter/X, BlueSky, and other forums where climate scientists engage the public. JAMES is not a household name — and if model assumptions are buried across “thousands of papers,” how exactly is the public (or even policy professionals) supposed to access and synthesize them?
To scold others for not already knowing this or supposedly “refusing to look into the basics”is gaslighting. The whole point of asking was to locate where this information is gathered clearly and accessibly. That’s not bad faith — it’s basic intellectual integrity.
If JAMES is so central, why not list a few example papers summarizing model assumptions? Why not demonstrate what transparency looks like in practice? Because otherwise, it feels like we’re being told: “It’s out there somewhere. Go dig.”
And then being blamed for even asking. That’s not helpful. That’s gatekeeping — and it breeds mistrust. The remedy is simple: Show the links. Show the assumptions.
Or just admit that this information is fragmented, often inaccessible, and — at present — not meaningfully available to the broader public or policymakers. This isn’t about “doing your own research.” It’s about refusing to play rhetorical games — which, frankly, is what your response shows you’re good at. You say there are “literally thousands” of papers. Fine. Then why is it so hard to name even one?
For example: Gavin Schmidt’s NASA GISS author page lists over 100 papers:
➤ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/authors/gschmidt.html
But which of those specifically outlines the assumptions applied in CMIP6 models?
That was the original question. Still waiting for an answer.
[ Splitting this response across two parts for clarity. The issue quickly became so complex. ]
Pedro Prietosays
Part Two (Call for Transparency and Clarity)
Pedro Prieto continues…
Gavin, with respect — yes, you have a day job. But when you accuse others of “bad faith” for expecting scientists like you to “do all the work,” let’s be clear: That is your job.
You work for the public. That’s what it means to be part of a public research institution like NASA GISS. Your role is not just to advance modeling tools, but to help society understand and evaluate them. That means clarity, accessibility, and accountability — especially when the models are central to trillion-dollar global policy frameworks.
You are the public servant here — not me, not William, nor anyone else “pestering” you with reasonable questions about model assumptions and their adequacy to support sound climate policy. That is exactly what all climate scientists are expected to do–to serve the public good, to communicate clearly, and to make complex knowledge accessible.
There are over 60,000 climate scientists and researchers globally. If even a small number had prioritized clarity outreach and transparency, we would already have a publicly accessible archive of core model assumptions across CMIP3, 5, and 6. But we don’t.
That’s not a failure of the public. It’s not “bad faith” to request this. That’s a failure of the modeling community. If JAMES really does include detailed discussions of model assumptions, then here’s a simple and constructive request: Please walk RealClimate readers through how to search the JAMES archive for CMIP6 model assumptions. Link a few representative papers. Show what transparency and helping the public looks like.
That would be an honest, trust-building act. It would help others learn, and signal that the modeling community values openness — not just gatekeeping credentials. Because from the outside, it still looks like core assumptions are scattered, buried, and known only to insiders.
That’s a problem. So why not fix it? You’re a leader in this field. Ask AGU or Wiley to commission a special overview article. Or write one yourself. You know this terrain. Others don’t.
“JAMES invites authors and readers from the international Earth systems modeling community.”
That’s the key phrase: “modeling community.” JAMES does not explicitly serve the broader public. It has no special issue or topical collection dedicated to CMIP3, CMIP5, or CMIP6. It lacks a usable internal journal search function. And it frames its audience narrowly.
So when Gavin Schmidt claims this is the place to find CMIP6 assumptions — but offers no directions, no links, and no guideposts — effectively excluding broader publics and reinforcing the perception that climate model assumptions are not openly or accessibly communicated.
As William rightly said:
“Ask what all their assumptions are for the models — and they refuse to tell anyone.”
I understand why. Do you?
nigeljsays
PP, I confess I sometimes get frustrated that the articles on this website don’t give me all the details and examples I would like, but we need to remember this website is a free website, where scientists volunteer their time (as you mentioned) and so there is clearly going to be a limit on the length and number of articles. There are now so many other ways of getting a list of something like the assumptions used in climate models, that leave this websites authors to concentrate on issues that are most pertinent, and not so easily googled.
For example, I asked google gemini “please list between 5 – 10 of the most important assumptions used in typical climate models used for climate change, citing research where possible. ” I set a limit of about 3 pages for the reply because I didn’t want an entire book on the subject. Any member of the public could ask such a question that without needing guidance. I had only a rough idea of a few of the assumptions used, so this was a learning experience for me.
The response took about ten minutes to compile, and was rather interesting and informative, and ran to several pages and is very detailed and used dozens of sources. It is also very technical. It will not be as good or maybe as accurate, as someone like Gavin would do, but it gives me some idea and saves me hours of searching websites. The entire response is too long to post here, but here is the summary of the key assumptions as follows fyi:
Numerical Approximation of Fundamental Laws: The translation of continuous physical laws into discrete mathematical equations for computational solution introduces approximations that affect accuracy and stability.
Parameterization of Cloud Processes: Due to their sub-grid scale nature and complex radiative properties, clouds are parameterized, representing a major source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity and feedbacks.
Parameterization of Convection and Turbulence: Fine-scale atmospheric processes like convection and turbulence require simplified representations, impacting the accuracy of precipitation patterns and regional climate projections, especially in the “gray zone” of increasing resolution.
Parameterization of Ocean Mixing and Eddies: Small-scale ocean mixing and mesoscale eddies, crucial for heat and carbon transport, must be parameterized, contributing significantly to model biases and uncertainties in sea level rise projections.
Assumptions about Aerosol Properties and Interactions: The representation of aerosols, their sources, composition, and complex interactions with clouds and radiation, involves significant assumptions that influence radiative forcing and historical climate simulations.
Initial Conditions for Simulations: While less impactful for long-term climate statistics, initial conditions carry uncertainties that affect shorter-term decadal predictions and can lead to long-term model drift in specific ocean circulations.
Future Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs): Projections are fundamentally dependent on assumptions about future human behavior, technological development, and policy choices, as encapsulated in the SSPs. This represents an irreducible source of scenario uncertainty, shifting the models’ role towards scenario planning rather than deterministic forecasting.
Natural External Forcings: Assumptions about unpredictable natural events like volcanic eruptions and solar activity are made, with their significance varying across different timescales of climate projection.
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS): The assumed value of ECS, a critical parameter for long-term warming, reflects the cumulative uncertainties in climate feedbacks, particularly those involving clouds, and has shown an upward revision across model generations, indicating potentially higher future warming.
Spatial and Temporal Resolution: The choice of model resolution is a foundational computational assumption that dictates the necessity and nature of all sub-grid parameterizations, creating a scale gap between global projections and local impacts.
Davidsays
Hi Pedro. I’m curious if you did any, say, google searches on JAMES in regards to your extensive commentary? I don’t understand why you, and particularly William, are so vexed. Then again, I’m not that bright!
I think your suggestions about an CMIP article or establishing a CMIP question/answer forum are worthwhile. I also think both you and William should have approached this without all the lengthy editorializing and particularly, at times, insinuating ill intent on the behalf of our host. Why not write a request and go from there? How is something like this better handled by writing thousands of words in a comment section instead of a direct letter outlining your desire to open a dialogue on CMIP concerns and requests?
Yes, Dr. Schmidt is a public servant for the people of the U.S. and we’re damn fortunate to have someone of his caliber. RealClimate is not a part of that. He, and our other hosts, do host RC in their spare time which I consider a valuable resource to gain understanding. I think you and William forget that we are guests. I know how I’d feel if a guest in my home handled themselves the way you at times, and William much more frequently have behaved.
It’s well-documented by now that climate change is driving measurable increases in wildfire. And the increase in persistent smoke events has been a matter of public record. But the health effects apparently are only beginning to be studied, as the Atlantic reports:
(Don’t know if that will be paywalled for you; we subscribe.)
A couple of quotes:
Across the country, from 2012 to 2022, the number of people exposed to unhealthy air from wildfire smoke increased 27-fold; one out of every four unhealthy air days in parts of the country is now a smoke day. “It is the exposure that is impacting air quality across the U.S. now more than any other pollution source,” Joan Casey, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Washington whose work helped show a link between wildfire-smoke exposure and increased risk of dementia, told me.
Yet science—to say nothing of policy—has hardly caught up with what that means for human health. “We’re in the preschool stage of development,” Casey said.
Miller and her team studied [smoke-exposed] monkeys for the next 15 years… those that were exposed to wildfire smoke as infants became adolescents with smaller, stiffer lungs than their peers born the following year, which resulted in poorer lung function and worse immune regulation. When the researchers exposed blood samples from both populations of adolescent monkeys to bacterial infection, the samples from the smoke-exposed animals responded more weakly, indicating that their immune system wasn’t working as well. The smoke-exposed monkeys also slept far less, she told me: “It was absolutely stunning.” Some research suggests that smoke can affect humans the same way: In 2022, a large study in China concluded that human children who had been exposed to air pollution early in life also had poorer-quality sleep. High-quality sleep is important to neurodevelopment in children, and poor sleep is associated with a range of negative health consequences across a lifetime.
Smoke also causes premature death: more than 50,000 people in California died prematurely from wildfire smoke between 2008 and 2018, according to one estimate, and more than 11,000 people in the U.S. do so each year, according to another. Climate change is only accelerating those dynamics. As I’ve written before, the National Bureau of Economic Research found last year that in a worst-case warming scenario, deaths from wildfire-smoke exposure in the U.S. could top 27,000 a year by the middle of the century. That is, smoke could kill 700,000 people from now until 2055.
zebrasays
The Score
Checked 6/29 @12:30 PM; latest tranche is 28 new comments.
Using “find in page”, I found 3 responses related to my earlier comment.
But what if one of the 5 was a new person with something to say other than nyaah nyaah nyaah I said You said ….?
Does anyone ever think about what kind of impression this stuff makes on the hypothetical new/young person just checking in? I don’t do social media; I comment mostly on NYT articles, so I guess maybe young folks wouldn’t find it unusual.
But what if they actually were interested in the science??
nigeljsays
I suggest young people wouldn’t find I said, you said unusual. It’s just a discussion, and while it can be messy, and frustrating and argumentative, this is just like the discussions young people often have in real life or online.
Barry E Finchsays
Kevin McKinney 29 Jun 2025 at 7:39 AM “well-documented by now that climate change is driving measurable increases in wildfire”. Tentative suggestion, change to well-documented by now that climate change and the increase by 50% of the only fuel for wildfires that exists on Earth are driving measurable increases in wildfire”.
nigeljsays
Piotr @25 Jun 2025 at 3:53
I’m posting this comment again, because it would be lost in the comments above thread, and may be of interest to Ron R And Kevin McKinney. The issue is on the climate protestors and their defacing of a painting by splattering it with paint, although it was covered in glass.
Nigel: “ Even if the public realised the painting is covered in glass, they may be suspicious that the protestors would have been happy to destroy it even if there was no glass.
piotr: “Sorry, but the people who in spite of the facts are holding onto belief of the worst about others have their minds already made up, and no gentle persuasion by the IPCC report will change their minds either.
Nigel: Fair comments.
Piotr: “But it is not about reaching them: as I wrote before:“the fight is for those yet-uncommitted and open to convincing. As Kevin said: “It was MLK who made the point that it is discomfort and tension that create change“.”
Its definitely about reaching the undecideds. And discomfort clearly works sometimes. However my instincts are that it may not work very reliably especially if the tactics are very shocking (as I previously stated). So I asked google gemini this question: “With contentious issues protestors sometimes use tactics that make people feel uncomfortable as a way of persuading them change is required. Does this work to convince the undecided people (sometimes characterised as fence sitters)? Please also cite a few research studies if possible.”
Googles answer:
The effectiveness of “uncomfortable” protest tactics in convincing undecided people (often called “fence-sitters”) is a complex area with mixed findings in research. While these tactics are designed to draw attention and create urgency, they can also alienate the very people they aim to persuade.
Here’s a breakdown of how it might work, or backfire, for fence-sitters, along with relevant studies:
How Uncomfortable Tactics Might Persuade Fence-Sitters:
Increased Salience and Forced Consideration:
Disruptive protests, by their nature, are hard to ignore. They break through the daily routine and force individuals to confront an issue they might otherwise tune out. For fence-sitters, who haven’t committed to a side, this forced engagement can push them to consider the issue more deeply. The inconvenience or discomfort acts as a prompt to seek information and form an opinion.
Study 1: Oliver, P. E., & Myers, D. (1999). “How to Mobilize the Unemployed: Mass Demonstrations, the Public, and the Media in the Great Depression.” American Sociological Review, 64(4), 586-608.
While not directly about fence-sitters, this study highlights how disruptive demonstrations during the Great Depression garnered significant media attention and raised the salience of unemployment. This increased visibility likely compelled more people, including those previously unconcerned, to engage with the issue. The discomfort caused by widespread social upheaval amplified the urgency of the cause.
The “Radical Flank Effect” (Positive Version):
This is perhaps the most nuanced way disruptive tactics can indirectly sway fence-sitters. The presence of a radical or “uncomfortable” faction can make a more moderate wing of the same movement appear more reasonable and acceptable by comparison. Fence-sitters, presented with a stark contrast, might find themselves drawn to the moderate message as the “less extreme” option.
Study 2: Simpson, C., et al. (2022). “Radical flanks of social movements can increase support for moderate factions.” PNAS Nexus, 1(3), pgac110.
This research provides strong evidence for a positive radical flank effect. It found that awareness of radical groups employing highly publicized non-violent disruptive protests could increase public identification with and support for more moderate groups within the same movement. The authors suggest this works through a “contrast effect,” where the moderate faction appears less radical due to the actions of the more extreme group, making them more appealing to those in the middle.
Demonstration of Commitment and Urgency:
Disruptive tactics often involve personal sacrifice, risk, and sustained effort on the part of protesters. For fence-sitters, witnessing such commitment can signal the genuine importance and urgency of the cause. It suggests that the issue is so critical that people are willing to endure discomfort, legal consequences, or public opprobrium, which can be a powerful persuasive force.
How Uncomfortable Tactics Might Backfire for Fence-Sitters:
Alienation and Negative Identification:
If the tactics are perceived as overly aggressive, self-serving, or disproportionate to the cause, they can alienate fence-sitters. Instead of generating sympathy or understanding, the discomfort might lead to anger, resentment, or a negative perception of the activists themselves, which then extends to the cause they represent. Fence-sitters may disassociate from the movement and move towards the opposing side or simply become more entrenched in their non-support.
Study 3: Feinberg, M., et al. (2020). “Extreme Protest Tactics Reduce Popular Support for Social Movements.” Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society Working Paper.
This study found that “extreme” protest tactics (e.g., those perceived as highly disruptive or involving property damage) by groups like animal rights activists, anti-Trump protesters, and anti-abortion groups, decreased public support for their causes. The mechanism identified was a reduction in feelings of identification with the movement among bystanders. For fence-sitters, this lack of identification could push them away rather than draw them in. Another recent study found that disruptive vegan protests led meat-eaters to increase their meat consumption, demonstrating a strong backfire effect.
Focus on Tactics, Not the Message:
When tactics are highly disruptive or controversial, media coverage and public discussion can become fixated on the tactics themselves rather than the substance of the demands. This means the core message intended to persuade fence-sitters gets lost in the noise and debate over the methods.
Reinforcing Pre-existing Biases:
For fence-sitters who lean even slightly against the protest’s cause, uncomfortable tactics can serve to confirm their existing biases. They might interpret the disruption as further evidence that the protesters are unreasonable, extreme, or misguided, thus pushing them definitively to the opposing side.
Key Takeaways for Fence-Sitters:
Non-violence is Key: Research overwhelmingly suggests that nonviolent protests are more effective at gaining public support and achieving long-term goals. Violence, even by a small “radical flank,” tends to backfire by delegitimizing the entire movement.
Clarity of Message: For uncomfortable tactics to work, the “action logic” must be clear. People need to understand why the disruption is occurring and what the protest aims to achieve. If the discomfort is seen as arbitrary or unrelated to a clear demand, it’s more likely to alienate.
Balance of Disruption and Sacrifice: The public’s perception of whether the disruption is justified by the moral imperative and the protesters’ willingness to make sacrifices (e.g., facing arrest) plays a role.
The “Undecided” are Fluid: As recent research from Harvard’s IQSS suggests, the idea of a fixed “undecided voter” might be an oversimplification. People are constantly swaying in response to the political climate and media. Disruptive protests can be a strong “wind” that shifts this sway, but the direction of the shift is not guaranteed and depends heavily on the execution and public perception of the tactics.
In conclusion, while “uncomfortable” protest tactics can successfully capture attention and, through the radical flank effect, potentially make moderate alternatives more appealing, they carry significant risks of alienating undecided individuals. For fence-sitters, the outcome hinges on whether the discomfort translates into a deeper engagement with the issue and sympathy for the cause, or simply annoyance and a reinforced negative perception of the movement.
Nigel: I think the AI has given an interesting and thought provoking response..
Davidsays
From Nigelj’s repost: “The “Undecided” are Fluid: As recent research from Harvard’s IQSS suggests, the idea of a fixed “undecided voter” might be an oversimplification. People are constantly swaying in response to the political climate and media. Disruptive protests can be a strong “wind” that shifts this sway, but the direction of the shift is not guaranteed and depends heavily on the execution and public perception of the tactics.”
Preface: My comments below concern the American Public only. I’m not sufficiently aquatinted with other nation’s general public to comment…
Yes, the “Undecided” are fluid, but are so are a meaningful percentage of those who would be labeled as “Denier or Doubter.” People are not as resolutely bound to existing beliefs as some suggest. I don’t understand why there is (what I see here sometimes and on other similar forums) as general reluctance morphing into dismissal of swaths of this segment of the public. I’ve been guilty of thinking like this myself. But given the urgency of C.C., this deserves a reset. That’s what I’ve been working towards at a local level and in my personal interactions. Just listening to why there’s no CC, or it won’t be serious, why RE is wrong, won’t work, and so on.
Execution is another area that deserves way more attention. Throwing paint at a glass protected painting isn’t going to impact because most of the public will not make a connection and many who do will just as quickly forget without another thought or chock the act up as vandalism. Singular isolated acts don’t do anything except maybe make the participants feel a fleeting dose of satisfaction.
You have to ALWAYS be peaceful, acts/protests must be coordinated and sustained in both number and duration, and there MUST be clear eloquent repeatable consistent messaging.
July arrives and we’re halfway through the year. So how is the Arctic ice faring this year?
Up in the Arctic the last 12 months average temperatures have been the hottest or near-hottest on record. So we should not be too surprised to see records set for the level of high-melt/low-freeze of Sae Ice Extent this year.
The first half of 2025 has indeed proved to be a record-breaker, although this is through the freezier first-half of the year which gets far less attention than the meltier second-half of the year.
In the JAXA SIE data**, 2025 saw the lowest winter freeze on record, the bigliest 2025 SIE appearing on the solstice (which is a late maximum by recent years that had maximums appear 15th Feb-20th Mar). The 2025 13.8 M sq km daily maximum wasn’t a dramatic new record, the previous top-5 least-freezy years being 2017 (13.9 M), 2018 (13.9 M), 2015 (13..9 M), 2016 (13.9 M), 2023 (14.1 M).
More dependent on the Arctic weather appearing through Feb/March, 2025 also took the record for average daily SIE Jan-Jun, 12.35M sq km, the previous top-5 years running 2016 12.40M, 2018 12.42M, 2019 12.52M, 2017 12.52M, 2020 12.63M.
And a final nerdy measure, the number of daily minimum SIE records for each year also sees 2025 top of the pile for the first half of the year and already not far short of the record for the full year (In parenthesis below are the full year tallies as things stand 30/6/25. The last record-day from 2010 will likely be toppled tomorrow.)
2025 … … 75 days
2016 … … 54 days … … (96 days)
2019 … … 26 days … … (26 days)
2018 … … 14 days … … (14 days)
2017 … … 12 days … … (12 days)
2015 … … .. 1 day … … . (1 day)
2012 … … .. 0 days … … (65 days)
2020 … … .. 0 days … … (55 days)
2024 … … .. 0 days … … (18 days)
2021 … … .. 0 days … … (3 days)
2010 … … .. 0 days … … (1 day)
(** NSIDC’s CHarctic uses a bit more rounding in its numbers which, with other variations, will give slightly different numbers.)
Of course there are plenty of other ways to assess the health (or otherwise) of the Arctic sea ice. The PIOMAS Sea Ice Volume analysis puts 2025 in second place behind 2017 through the first half of the year (although the June up-date is yet to be posted). By month, the record least-freezy year by volume (SIV peaks with April averages) was in 2017 (20,700 cu km) with 2025 now in second spot (21,700 cu km) and a pack of eight years reaching 22,000-odd cu km (2018, 2019, 2016, 2021, 2011, 2024, 2020 & 2014) and another five 23,000-odd (2022, 2023, 2012, 2013, 2007).
Note that the list of record years for minimum SIV in the second half of the year is a fair-bit different from the first-half least-freezy list. 2017 doesn’t make the top-10, today’s top-5 running 1st 2012 (3,800 cu km), equal-2nd 2020 2019, 2024 (4,200 cu km) & 5th 2011 (4,700 cu km).
IPIE Report – Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review
https://www.ipie.info/research/sr2025-1
This Summary for Policymakers provides a high-level précis of the Synthesis Report, Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review.
https://www.ipie.info/research/sfp2025-2
The Science is Not the Mask—But They’re Wearing It Like One
I’ve spent enough time around academic science and policy to recognize when something smells off—not just biased, but structurally manipulative. That’s what we’re seeing in this IPIE report. It doesn’t defend the integrity of science. It uses the credibility of science as a stage prop in a much deeper campaign: to consolidate authority, to police dissent, and to define the boundaries of acceptable doubt.
Let’s be blunt: this is not a report about information integrity. It’s a performance of institutional self-protection dressed in the robes of “evidence-based policy.” The authors frame all critical engagement—from feasibility concerns to mitigation realism—as a form of strategic sabotage. It collapses skepticism into denialism, concern into conspiracy, critique into complicity. That’s not science. That’s moral theater.
Skepticism Rebranded as Subversion
The core scientific value of skepticism—once the engine of progress—is now repackaged as a rhetorical threat. The report labels “strategic skepticism” as a deliberate attempt to undermine climate action. But who decides what qualifies as “strategic”? A technocrat? An activist? A language model trained on elite consensus?
Feynman warned about this decades ago. The danger is not only that we fool others, but that we fool ourselves—and institutional science is proving how easily that happens when its authority becomes indistinguishable from its politics.
Narrative Architecture with Guardrails
The tone of the document reads like something compiled via AI prompt constraints: ideologically vetted inputs, moral certainty preloaded, geopolitical enemies named in advance. Russia’s disinformation gets pages of scorn. Western greenwashing, fantasy modeling, and the techno-utopian fantasies baked into IAMs? Silence.
They use one-sided sources like that “#JunkScience” paper (Strudwicke & Grant, 2020) as justification to paint all dissent as foreign manipulation. That’s not scholarly rigor—it’s institutional deflection, securitized.
And yes, the Global South is instrumentalized throughout: elevated only when repeating the approved chorus, silenced or ignored when they raise deeper critiques—like carbon colonialism, land grabs via offsets, or the neocolonial logic of Net Zero timelines. The moral language is there, but the structure is extractive.
Truths With Teeth Removed
They claim “climate science has delivered the solutions available to humanity.” That is an outright distortion. Climate science can describe what is. It can model what might happen. It cannot prescribe what should be done. That is a political act. A moral act. A deeply human one. Not a scientific result.
The IPCC mandate is clear: it assesses, it does not prescribe. It offers options, not orders. To collapse these boundaries—to claim science has settled the solution—is to mask politics as physics.
And it’s dangerous. Because once the mask is in place, any dissent becomes heresy. Any realism becomes sabotage. And any refusal to accept institutional optimism is branded a threat.
A System Built to Protect Itself
This isn’t about stopping denialism. It’s about securing the legitimacy of a narrative that’s already showing signs of collapse. Net Zero by 2050 is not a neutral target—it’s a political compromise built on speculative tech, unjust economic assumptions, and misleading accounting.
Those who point this out aren’t enemies of science. They’re its allies. And yet, in this report, they’re treated like insurgents.
You want to know what real disinformation looks like? It’s the refusal to admit that science-based policy is still policy. That “the science” cannot tell us whether 1.5°C is politically, ecologically, or ethically viable. That cost-benefit models don’t make justice disappear.
Page 33 Media and bots: An example of biased focus and distorted unfounded claims:
“Another study of tweets relating to climate change found that 15% of all accounts were bot accounts. One noteworthy feature was that while 83% of these suspected bot accounts supported climate activism, the remaining accounts representing denial and skepticism concerning climate change would pursue active strategies of engagement, such as initiating conversations with non-skeptical human users while amplifying the voices of skeptical users. […] Here, a noteworthy feature was that although, again, bot accounts engaged in climate activism as well as denialism, both categories of bots tended to polarize discussions through evoking emotions.”
These were only “suspected” Bot accounts, not proven to be so. Even if they were 85% of all accounts were genuine, or at least “suspected” to be real people.
While this comment: “categories of bots tended to polarize discussions through evoking emotions,” is particularly appalling given almost all online discussions tend to evoke human emotions of some kind! To distort such obvious truths and project this solely upon “suspected denialist bots” alone is insidious and unscientific ideologically biased swill.
Final Thought
This report is worse than propaganda—it’s consensus laundering. It takes selective truths, strips them of complexity, moralizes the frame, and declares war on critique. It doesn’t build public trust in science. It burns it to keep the illusions warm.
I won’t play along. And I hope many others won’t either. Though I suspect this will be picked up by many not realising what’s behind the mask and misuse it as deigned.
>>> Who Is the IPIE?
The IPIE presents itself as a neutral scientific body, but its structure and agenda suggest something else. It is a non-governmental organization focused not on climate science itself, but on the broader “information environment”—things like algorithmic bias, deepfakes, misinformation, and narrative control.
Legally registered charity in Zurich in late 2023, the IPIE launched at the 2023 Nobel Prize Summit. It has a Board of Trustees, ethics committees, and topic-specific panels. It claims neutrality and independence from state or corporate interests, but details about its funding are scarce.
In reality, the IPIE functions more like a well-connected, ideologically aligned think tank. It has no formal accountability mechanisms beyond its own internal governance. Its credibility relies on the appearance of objectivity—but its influence remains marginal, at least for now.
In short: IPIE is not a climate science authority. It’s an information control body, operating in the gray zone between advocacy, technocracy, and soft power projection. The real danger is not that they speak—but that they claim to speak for science while advancing a pre-approved political blueprint.
Can’t agree with Williams criticisms of the Syntheses report. The Synthesis Report talks about the problems of certain actors spreading misleading information about climate science and solutions. It sounds accurate to me. Firstly it is consistent with dozens of other reports and commentary I’ve read and my own experience reading denialism / scepticism in hundreds of internet comments threads.
The reports is based on 300 peer reviewed studies, not one alleged (without evidence) junk science paper. The report didn’t say scepticism is inherently bad. Instead the focus of the report was on the spreading of misleading information. Misleading information trying to discredit climate solutions is real and pervasive. Examples:
“Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles”
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=sabin_climate_change
Unfortunately, “believers” cannot make unbiased evaluations of the “science”, or of criticism of the “science”. That’s because, you guessed it, they’re biased. AGW theory has been degraded into political talking points, Trump bashing, etc. We see it daily here on RC. It has become 90% Trump bashing with little actual “science”. Everyone is gung-ho to bash Trump or the evil USA, but for the most part unwilling to do much in their own lives to walk their talk. Instead they want government to enforce everyone else to do something. They bash the USA, apparently unaware of the fact that if all the other countries were to actually get to net zero or actual zero, then emissions from the USA would not matter. It’s politics, not science. Emotions and feelings, not facts and real action. All feel-good stuff that results in no action toward actually solving the GHG emissions “problem”.
KIA,
Unfortunately, “believers” cannot make unbiased evaluations of the “science”
Neither can unbelievers. Nobody can make entirely unbiased evaluations of anything. Know how we solve this dilemma? We work to minimise biases, and scientists are taught how to minimise their biases, and we argue things on the specifics. Which you haven’t done in respect of the link I posted.
“Instead they want government to enforce everyone else to do something.”
No. We want governments to enforce that ” everyone” do something. For example a carbon tax or cap and trade scheme ultimately pushes everyone to make changes.
America is now one of the complete outlier countries who’s central government not only denies the science, but has done nothing to push solutions.
See I haven’t mentioned Trump once. I’ve just spoken about how things really are. It’s your comments that are full of emotion, not mine.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/06/20/another-estimate-of-the-warming-rate/
Due to the recent report that put warming up to 0.25C decade they have compared their method to this one. It would appear that the current rate of warming is from 0.25C to 0.35C. Either way it’s serious stuff
Pete Best,
The “recent report” that Tamino’s post was reacting-to was Forster et al (2025) ‘Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence published a few days ago. These annual reports are an attempt ro fill in the gaps left by IPCC reports arriving half-a-decade apart.
Its headline AGW rate in the 2024 report is given as “+0.27°C per decade [0.2–0.4°C] over 2015–2024.”
Being now an annual report, previous publications can be referenced. Thus the 2023 report gave the latest rate of AGW at “+0.26°C per decade [0.2–0.4°C] per decade over 2014–2023.” and the 2022 a rather sheepish “an unprecedented rate of over 0.2°C per decade.” (The graphic Figure 9 shows this value as +0.236°C per decade.)
The ‘Global Warming Index’ method used by Forseter et al to calculate the AGW rate is set out in <a href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/2295/2023/essd-15-2295-2023-supplement.pdf#page=10"Supplimentary Section S7.1 of the 2022 report. It uses MLR, GMST and Forcing data to attribute AGW and natural warming.
The Foster & Rahmstorf method addresses the rate of AGW and its most recent use awaits publication Rahmstorf & Foster (PrePrint) ‘Global Warming has Accelerated Significantly’. The method gives a substantially higher value for the current rate of AGW than Forster et al although is itself a tad coy over that actual current rate.
The Foster & Rahmstorf method adjusts the GMST data using MLR to extract any influence of Solar, Volcano & ENSO. So it is the ENSO wobble that is extracted from the GMST by F&R but which in the method used by Forster et al is apparently left out as noise when the MLR extracts the AGW signals based on Forcing. Both methods assume linear relationships are at play which in both cases is likely problematic.
But while all would agree there has been an acceleration in AGW, identifying a new rate resulting from that acceleration remains problematic, as does identifying the causes of that acceleration. I would even add that the absence of acceleration prior to 2015 & reasons thereof are further considerations.
Of course, there are some who will insist they have a measure of all this but who strangely cannot properly explain why.
The +0.25°C/decade narrative now being pushed — led by figures like Piers Forster — conveniently downplays more recent trends showing +0.36°C/decade, as Tamino just highlighted. And as Hansen has long been forecasting due to EEI and other known physics including ECS underestimations.
Unfortunately many of these so-called experts function more as narrative gatekeepers than scientists, reinforcing political messaging rather than confronting the full implications of current data. Net Zero by 2050 and the SR15 scenarios aren’t science — they’re storytelling. Some of us simply refuse to keep pretending.
MA Rodger 24 Jun 2025 at 5:33 AM “I would even add that the absence of acceleration prior to 2015 & reasons thereof are further considerations”. It’s ENSO. It started 1995 when the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly wind started increasing as a long-term trend after decades of no trend. By 2012 the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly wind was 30% (1 metre / second) stronger than pre-1995. It’s a power amplifier because the tropical Pacific Ocean is 3.6 times as wide as the tropical Atlantic Ocean.
+++++++
“Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus” Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Corrected online 14 February 2014 Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso “Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake”. I had wondered in 2016 whether that new since 1995 effect of the tropical Atlantic Ocean on the tropical Pacific Ocean had now ended. Apparently it had.
+++++++
Quote of Feb 2014: “Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. “We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean,” said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales.”
+++++++
Quote of Feb 2014: “The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength……….Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says.”
+++++++
Also, I plotted in 2013 Delta-GMST separaetly for El Nino, La Nina & Neutral years and found La Nina & Neutral years have been warming at 0.165 degrees / decade since 1964 but El NIno years were warming at 0.20 degrees / decade 1964-1995 then at 0.23 degrees / decade since 1995.
MAR: “I would even add that the absence of acceleration prior to 2015 & reasons thereof are further considerations”.
Barry E. Finch: It’s ENSO. It started 1995 when the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly wind started increasing
So if ENSO is determined by tides, as Paul Pukite proposes, was the Moon doing something very different before 1995 (“decades of no trend”) than in 1995-2014 (“easterly wind increasing”), and different in another way on 2015-today (no longer “absence of acceleration”) ?
BEF: “ La Nina & Neutral years have been warming at 0.165 degrees / decade since 1964 but El NIno years were warming at 0.20 degrees / decade 1964-1995 then at 0.23 degrees / decade since 1995.
How do you reconcile it with the easterlies being stronger after 1995? One would expect after 1995 stronger La Nina & Neutral and/or weaker El Nino.
Yet in your sentence no change in the former (single number for 1964-on), and the opposite trend to the expected in the latter (since 1995 was warmer, not cooler).
Am I missing something?
Piotr. I don’t recall the details from 2014-2017 when that was still fresh in my mind but I recall phrases like “climate scientists are surprised by the more La-Nina-like conditions because climate modeling indicates that conditions will become more El Nino like with the warming”. In a Public Outreach talk 2014 Kevin Trenberth said “The western Tropical Pacific surface is now about 4 feet higher than the central and eastern. Something’s gotta give, and soon”. Tides are some unrelated topic. I didn’t mention tides. Find some bod interested in tides. Talk with them. See if you can annoy Gavin and then he’ll likely take a few weeks off useful work to discuss tides with you.
Barry E Finch says 29 Jun 2025 at 6:56 AM
Also, I plotted in 2013 Delta-GMST separaetly for El Nino, La Nina & Neutral years and found La Nina & Neutral years have been warming at 0.165 degrees / decade since 1964 but El NIno years were warming at 0.20 degrees / decade 1964-1995 then at 0.23 degrees / decade since 1995.
Nicely done, Barry. Clear, empirical, and quietly revealing. No million-dollar budget, no massive institution, no Nobel-sized ego required — just good data, long attention, and a steady hand.
Sometimes the most useful (but usually ignored) insights come from those simply paying close attention over time while remaining aware of then bigger picture framing. Keep it up.
Reply to Pete Best
I give you Michael Mann:
Mann7 (2020)
Past a point of no return: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero still won’t stop global warming
“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero still won’t stop global warming, study says.”
https://michaelmann.net/content/past-point-no-return-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-zero-still-wont-stop-global-warmingmichaelmann.net
[Response: That link is dead, but the actual news piece you should have linked to (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/12/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-stop-climate-change-study/3761882001/) is super clear that Mann is criticizing the headline result. So quoting this in an uncheckable way to make it seem like he was contradicting himself is pretty sneaky, and frankly disingenuous. Don’t do that. – gavin]
and then says
Mann9 (2023)
Yes, we can still stop the worst effects of climate change. Here’s why
“Opinion: State-of-the-art climate models show warming stops once we stop emitting carbon.”
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/yes-we-can-still-stop-the-worst-effects-of-climate-change-heres-why
and pointedly also says:
Mann13 (2023)
Twitter denial of aerosol forcing decline post-2020; Uses 2019 Nature article as evidence
“IPCC represents the consensus. Individual articles don’t. Until there’s a major assessment (NAS or IPCC) saying otherwise, the claim of a sharp decrease in global aerosol forcing past 4 years must be considered an extraordinary claim lacking evidence. I’m done w/ this now, ok?”
https://nitter.poast.org/MichaelEMann/status/1673511877790388225#m
Summarily dismissed out of hand was the attitude and the Reply by Prof Nick Cowern | Atmospheric science | Energy | Climate Change · Applied physicist with 35 years experience: “We cannot say that evidence is lacking just because it has not yet entered the mainstream (IPCC consensus yet.) That’s not how science works.”
Some beg to differ. I’ll sit back and wait for a major assessment shall I?
[Response: That link is dead, but the actual news piece you should have linked to (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/12/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-stop-climate-change-study/3761882001/) is super clear that Mann is criticizing the headline result. So quoting this in an uncheckable way to make it seem like he was contradicting himself is pretty sneaky, and frankly disingenuous. Don’t do that. – gavin]
There was an unnoticed error in the URL — my deep apologies. I usually verify these things, but this time I slipped up. The mistake came from copying the link from a saved document I had trusted (but clearly should have re-checked).
That said, jumping to assumptions about my intentions, and accusing me of being “sneaky” or “disingenuous,” is unjustified. There’s no evidence for that, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t project malice where a simple error occurred.
For context: the broken link wasn’t unique — I later noticed several URLs from the same saved list were mangled in the same way, including:
https://michaelmann.net/the-story-about-the-business-as-usual-story-is-misleading/michaelmann.net
https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/sustainability/climate/2024/05/michael-mann-defeatism-threat-climate-change-action-net-zeronewstatesman.com
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/02/08/climate-expert-debunks-big-oils-lies-about-carbon-capture-nature-based-solutionsdemocracynow.org+2commondreams.org
I now realize what happened: I misunderstood that Mann’s page was only a redirect to the USA Today article, and I copied it without verifying. That was sloppy on my part — but not duplicitous. These things happen, especially when working with old reference sets. I’ve since confirmed the original USA Today article here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/12/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-stop-climate-change-study/3761882001/
Again, my mistake. But there was no intent to mislead. Please don’t assume bad faith where none exists.
—————-
Corrected Reference Links
Mann7 (2020)
Past a point of no return: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero still won’t stop global warming
Original article by Doyle Rice in USA TODAY, quoting Dr. Mann’s perspective on climate models.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/12/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-stop-climate-change-study/3761882001/
michaelmann.net
Fixed
[Response: The point is that the corrected link doesn’t say what you are trying to infer. – gavin]
[Response: The point is that the corrected link doesn’t say what you are trying to infer. – gavin]
The content found via the link shows exactly what I was pointing to. In every one of the 3 links. The purpose to show what Mann says, not what the article title is or concluded or misreported.
Here’s the content that matters: “While such models can be useful for conceptual inferences, their predictions have to be taken with great skepticism. Far more realistic climate models that do resolve the large-scale dynamics of the ocean, atmosphere and carbon cycle, do NOT produce the dramatic changes these authors argue for based on their very simplified model. It must be taken not just with a grain of salt, but a whole salt-shaker worth of salt,” Mann said.
That’s Mann’s own framing of a peer-reviewed paper — not mine. His words speak for themselves. The paper in question was Published: 12 November 2020
An earth system model shows self-sustained thawing of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z
It is the content that matters. Read the paper and skip the complaints about style or simple mistakes. Let’s not project bad faith where there was none. People make errors here all the time, even when providing formal IPCC Definitions and without giving links.
The 3rd link would equally apply to the Forster paper above, according to Mann.
Mann (2023) Twitter denial of aerosol forcing decline post-2020; While using a 2019 Nature article as his evidence; then says:
“IPCC represents the consensus. Individual articles don’t. Until there’s a major assessment (NAS or IPCC) saying otherwise, the claim of a sharp decrease in global aerosol forcing past 4 years must be considered an extraordinary claim lacking evidence. I’m done w/ this now, ok?”
https://nitter.poast.org/MichaelEMann/status/1673511877790388225#m
That was also what I was pointing to: Mann’s statements.
PS – Here is proof it was a dead redirect link embedded within Mann’s website — which is what I had originally copied from a listing based on his website some time ago now.
it will show search results on his website:
https://michaelmann.net/?s=Past+a+point+of+no+return%3A+Reducing+greenhouse+gas+emissions+to+zero+still+won%27t+stop+global+warming
Go to his site-then click on the link there. The first result.
I stay with this that I made in 2018 based on some calculations with GAST anomaly & EEI anomaly since 1962, mostly because it’s cheap easy cut’n’paste and I don’t need constant new stuff for selling T shirts, coffee mugs or Pauline’s books (so 2 valid physics reasons):
+0.25 degrees 2020-2030
+0.31 degrees 2030-2040
+0.37 degrees 2040-2050
+0.43 degrees 2050-2060
That’s with +2.4 ppmv/year CO2 maintained throughout and CH4 increasing at recent rates. That’s assuming humans don’t do a huge cleanup of their aerosols air pollution while continuing to burn the coal, oil & gas and making cement & steel.
Since 2018 I’ve come across 3 new things:
1. A claim evidently correct that humans have done a huge cleanup of their aerosols air pollution (maritime fuels) and that it’s a 1-shot of +0.10 to +0.20 so one simply adds +0.15 to the 2020-2030 and 2030-2060 stay about the same.
2. I heard about ocean “Pattern Effect” from Andrew Dessler at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlolDdnSHCE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlolDdnSHCE) but Andrew says the extra 0.8 degrees is spread over hundreds of years so minimal over the next few decades.
3. It occurred to me this year that perhaps the weak mechanically-driven-backwards northern Ferrell Cell has slowed down in recent years of decades and then I heard of some science from Ben Santer that the winds have indeed slowed so that would add something to my GAST anomalies above but not possible to calculate without knowing the altered ocean wind-mixing depth.
Reply to Barry E Finch
+0.25 degrees 2020-2030
+0.31 degrees 2030-2040
+0.37 degrees 2040-2050
+0.43 degrees 2050-2060
Looks quite reasonable to me. with some adjustments possible?
1. A claim evidently correct that humans have done a huge cleanup of their aerosols air pollution (maritime fuels) and that it’s a 1-shot of +0.10 to +0.20 so one simply adds +0.15 to the 2020-2030 and 2030-2060 stay about the same.
Are you sure that is correct? The recent periods aerosol removals is a permanent shift, which remains going forward (more or less) – all ghg warming forcing, from all sources, operates absent those aerosols being produced.
Therefore if +0.25 degrees 2020-2030 becomes more or less 0.40 degrees 2020-2030 (high end of Hansen and Foster numbers, then don’t the 2030-2060 also pickup that extra 0.15C as well?
And it is hard for me to agree “That’s with +2.4 ppmv/year CO2 maintained throughout ” when recently it’s pushing +3.5ppm growth with nothing ahead to slow that down sustainably, in fact the opposite seems more the likely case.
Instead of your steady state +0.6C per decade growth, until real physical changes are implemented long term (unlikely) I still see exponential growth of ppm and temps ongoing out to 2060 and beyond. Which is of course guesswork at this point, assuming bau thinking and lack of serious action by humanity.
Disconcerting news courtesy of today’s Washington Post (06/23/2025). Below the link to the story is the link to the AP-NORC release which allows access to the data:
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/06/23/climate-ev-solar-wind-tax-fema-trump/c6791280-5027-11f0-baaa-ba1025f321a8_story.html
.
https://apnorc.org/projects/declines-in-public-support-for-green-and-renewable-energy/
.
.
Despite real and meaningful progress by a number of countries, we here in the U.S. striving for faster action are NOT winning the day. People are free to disagree, but I think the numbers are screaming that collectively a rethink of how communication on the subjects of climate change and the environment is done is paramount.
As “we” continue to hit a brick wall with segments of the US. Population and support is softening everywhere else, then that shows the “message” is not resonating at levels needed. Desperately needed! Meanwhile, the current administration will disassemble the IRA, good luck getting a federal permit for a new onshore wind project, and on and on…
David, I broadly agree. but I just wonder how we communicate better. A while back scientists were criticized for talking too much about graphs, trends and technical issues and the public didn’t understand. Apparently we needed “story telling” that simplified things and talked about local issues. Now we are told surveys show the general public resent these attempts to infantilise the science. It’s like we can’t win whatever we do.
Hi Nigelj! I completely agree with your comment about the quandary that scientists face and the rest of us in the public concerned about climate change face. I know one thing I would bet the house on: in the future, if things go to hell more painfully than the public can bare, there will be a public cry saying “Why didn’t anyone tell us?!? Why didn’t anyone warn us this could happen?!?” ;-)
Back to the topic… I don’t have a solution on large scales. For myself, I spent several months over last winter/this spring rethinking how could I better listen to soooo many people in my life who deny, doubt, or question if anything meaningful can really be done. So I created a (I guess I’d call it) survey to informally collect reasons, questions, attitudes, etc from family members, friends, neighbors, business acquaintances, etc. that are in my personal orbit. That’s my start. I’m focusing on the mesoscale, but remain engaged with the bigger scales.
Now, back off topic: It’s either that or the other option I seriously considered over the winter: To hell with it! Im retired, go find a little place in the mountains somewhere and enjoy life while my clock finishes ticking down.
Then I’d look around and think about young folks I see daily and all those kids around the world facing a future I and my generation have crafted them. And the mess of a world that could be if we can’t turn things around faster.
So, the place in the mountains will have to wait a bit longer. BTW, I hear NZ is really nice according to friends who’ve been there! Ha!
Reply to Nigelj
– I just wonder how we communicate better.
– scientists were criticized for talking too much about graphs, trends and technical issues
– Apparently we needed “story telling” that simplified things and talked about local issues
– Now we are told surveys show the general public resent these attempts to infantilise the science.
– It’s like we can’t win whatever we do.
It looks like those things are beyond your abilities. We all have our limitations.
Apparently one of your limitations, William, is an inability to refrain from gratuitous insult.
Another would be the inability to formulate a cogent one.
“It looks like those things are beyond your abilities”. Definitely it’s far beyond my abilities. I find it sickening (I mean for 64 years, not for just recently). On the GoogleyTubes I correctly informed a “Dan Miller” that he shouldn’t worry that he didn’t understand my comment refuting a science point of his guest because he couldn’t possibly understand it and should just ignore it, not worry and keep doing his fine Social Type work with his business. I’m not interested in changing bod’s minds, people don’t change. That’s before GoogleysTubes removed me for life December 5, 2024 because it was necessary within my non-infantilizing information providing to inform 98 consecutive U.S. of Americans that they are “unadulterated imbeciles” in case they hadn’t realized and that was hamstringing their lives, a Free Public Service.
Reply to Barry E Finch
smiling
Only 98? Maybe you weren’t trying hard enough Barry. Many more than that! It’s possible googley tubes did you a favour. You’d done enough?
You can discuss until you’re blue in the face. All that will do is emit more CO2 with each syllable spoken. Want to solve this “problem” that you feel is paramount and desperate? STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS. Trump and his administration has nothing to do with it. Install your own RE system. Nobody is stopping you. Some people have already done it – it is not new technology.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
Mr. Know It All,
How would you know what I have done to reduce personal CO2 consumption? You repeatedly make this argument here with others, but usually from what I can see you will not engage any further. The desire to reach out to others via expression, be it the spoken/written word, music, arts, scientific discovery, or just just shooting the bull is worthy I think. And that includes voicing concerns about the actions of my government.
If you wish to engage further in conversation, I’m game. If not, thank you for replying.
Re my 25 June 12:10 comment-
Please replace the opening sentence “How would…CO2 consumption?” with the following “How would you know what I have done to reduce my personal CO2 output?”
And add the following immediately following the above corrected sentence:
“I suggest that you (Mr. KIA) offer an impossible alternative. Most folks can not simply make the binary choice you offered. The reasons are obvious.”
QUOTE:
“Most folks can not simply make the binary choice you offered. The reasons are obvious.”
CherylJosie 23 Jun- “I’ve worked for in the climate movement for the past 45 years
I find this ….perplexing, given than in your other post you seem to uncritically repeat the talking points of the fossil fuel/ fracking lobby propaganda: that without fracking half of the humanity would die of starvation (from the lack of nitrogen fertilizers) and therefore you can’t visualize the world without fracking/fossil fuels.
What was the name of that climate movement – BP?
Piotr the paranoid gatekeeper said:
I don’t find that perplexing at all. I happen to follow Cheryl on BlueSky and I recall that she was an early adopter of solar technology and lead the effort in her community until she had to give it up. This is not that odd for an electrical engineer as they are often keen to trying out new devices and tech. But why I have to even mention this is a sad commentary on the bad faith I keep seeing in this forum.
Cheryl is also earnest in her analysis of transients in temperatures and SSTs on BlueSky. Give her some credit for being scientifically curious as to what is happening regarding the 2023/2024 heat spike. Showing curiosity on something that doesn’t show an absolute monotonic rise in temperature also seems to be frowned upon here.
Paul Pukite 25 Jun: “ Piotr the paranoid gatekeeper said:”
Are you feeling well, Paul? Under what definition pointing to a new person that her two posts seems to be incongruent with each other – can be described as … “ paranoid gatekeeping” [(c) Paul Pukite] ?
P. Pukite: CherylJosie 23 Jun- “I’ve worked for in the climate movement for the past 45 years
Piotr: I find this ….perplexing,
I don’t find that perplexing at all.
Read the rest of sentence, Buttercup:
Piotr: “ [I find this ….perplexing], given than in your other post you seem to uncritically repeat the talking points of the fossil fuel/ fracking lobby propaganda: that without fracking half of the humanity would die of starvation.”
See? Have you read it before deleting it – you would have known WHY I find that perplexing, and you would have spared yourself ending up with an egg on your face, I quote:
P. Pukite “ I don’t find that perplexing at all. I happen to follow Cheryl on BlueSky and I recall that she was an early adopter of solar technology and lead the effort in her community.[…] But why I have to even mention this is a sad commentary on the bad faith I keep seeing in this forum. Cheryl is also earnest in her analysis. Give her some credit for being scientifically curious”
So, sorry, you haven’t _finally_ landed a blow on me and got your sweet, sweet, revenge for all those humiliations suffered from my hand over the years – quite the OPPOSITE – praising Cheryl you do not invalidate, but unwittingly STRENGTHEN my point. Since it wasn’t obvious to you, let me help:
NOBODY claimed that Cheryl is not genuinely concerned/knowledgeable about climate change – instead, I found it PERPLEXING that a person engaged in climate movement for 45 years WOULD ALSO repeat …. a piece of primitive fossil fuel propaganda (that without fracked natural gas, half of the humanity would die of starvation).:
P: ” [I find this ….perplexing], given than in your other post you seem to uncritically repeat the talking points of the fossil fuel/ fracking lobby propaganda”
In this context, the deeper Cheryl’s climate involvement, the more jarring is its INCONGRUENCY with … repeating a talking point of the pro-fracking (?) lobby.
Cheryl: “ I’ve worked for in the climate movement for the past 45 years”
Piotr: “I find this ….perplexing, given than in your other post you seem to uncritically repeat the talking points of the fossil fuel/ fracking lobby propaganda: that without fracking half of the humanity would die of starvation. What was the name of that climate movement – BP?
Cheryl: “<i?You mean this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP_Solar. Nope. Actually, it was Mobil Solar. Bet you didn’t see that coming!”
It’s good that you didn’t bet, because you would have lost. My question was about who is most experienced in selling to an environmentalist pro-fossil fuel propaganda.
And in that area, BP seems to be heads and shoulders above the other fossil fuel interests:
BP, in the early 2000s, hired a PR firm, Ogilvy & Mather, founded by famous David Ogilvy, the “Father of Advertising”. On it’s advice it came with the “carbon footprint calculator”
Media and environmentalist bought it (me including – a link to one such calculators was in the textbook I was using, and I recommended using it to my students). Only recently we realized (Mark Kaufman, https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham) that it was all a con – getting praise for being an enlightened oil company, making a real effort to increase the awareness of the climate change, and in line with their declared willingness to shift away from the oil and gas and toward renewables), while the real purpose was the opposite:
– make AGW a question of INDIVIDUAL’s responsibility, thus shifting the blame for AGW away from THEM (fossil fuel corporations, who made trillions in profits), and onto each of US (they only deliver what we asked them to do, not like you doing trillions on it).
The questions why those who make mega-profits from fossil fuels don’t pay for their pollution and why the system does not offer low-carbon options (try to be without a car in a place without public transportation, or using renewable electricity in places where your electricity provider offers you none) are not to be asked – remember “It’s not them, it’s you! So start with yourself, you hypocrite – reduce your emissions to zero, BEFORE you start criticizing others for doing nothing or benefiting financially from it!
– and discourage people from action by promoting apathy – if I produce unsustainable amount of emissions, and I can’t reduce them to zero then it’s hopeless, I may as well stop trying. After us, Deluge!
That’s why BP would love to see your:
Cheryl: “ I’m having a hard time visualizing a world where I abandon the fossil fuel that half of my own flesh is comprised of [via N fertilizers] ”
the message you internalized being: no other emission-free way to make the life-saving fertilizers, it’s not us, it’s you, and if you really care about children in Africa not dying of starvation, then you must support fossil fuels.
“What was the name of that climate movement – BP?”
You mean this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP_Solar
Nope.
Actually, it was Mobil Solar.
https://archive.ph/6eSA8
Bet you didn’t see that coming!
I made history by installing photovoltaic panels for the world’s first grid-connected solar PV neighborhood. Here’s a retrospective writeup on the project.
https://archive.ph/phoQ1
The contractor that managed the project was Solar Design Associates.
https://archive.ph/0wPJu
They did mostly off-grid in remote/overseas projects before Gardner. Here’s how I got involved.
In 1985 I was an installer with Advanced Energy in Sterling, Massachusetts. SDA contracted us to mount the PV panels for the Gardner project. Two years later, Advanced Energy was out of business.
https://www.buildzoom.com/contractor/advanced-energy-system-inc-m-9847
In addition to the solar PV neighborhood, I installed a dozen solar hot water/baseboard heating systems and a ground-sourced geothermal heat pump.
When the solar business imploded, I got my BSEE. Solarex made the 5 watt PV panel that I used for my senior project.
https://solarexusa.com/
My project was a two-axis-tracking concentrating solar electric power plant with lead-acid storage. The gain of the dish was 6:1, bringing the $/watt down by a factor of 5.
My contribution to the science was a differential photodarlington transistor sensor capable of precisely resolving the angle towards the sun for optimal focus. The very first time I took my power plant outside and turned it on, the dish immediately found the sun and remained directly aimed at it, even if the dish started out pointed at the ground, and even if the sun was behind the clouds. My differential sensor performed flawlessly.
Some early solar PV manufacturers included BP, Arco, and Mobil. They hedged their bets, but dropped the effort because large-scale profitability wouldn’t materialize for decades with a small remote power market at high prices and no subsidies for large-scale domestic power.
It’s a mistake to assume that fossil fuel companies aren’t interested in alternative energy. What they are most interested in is shareholder profit, and they don’t care how they do it.
What they lack is a strong motive to transition out of the fossil business. They have lots of sunk cost and won’t be recovering any of it in an abrupt transition like IPCC demands. That’s only the smaller reason to keep drilling. The larger reason is more complicated and intractable.
Fossil energy isn’t going anywhere because the governments of the world won’t let it. The simplest way to refuel a war machine is to pump its tank full of room temperature liquid. Without military-industrial welfare, these dinosaurs can’t survive.
They are in no danger of defunding, which is how I ended up designing integrated circuits instead of designing solar power plants. I arrived 40 years too early and missed the market window.
While playing engineer, my role in alternative energy reverted to citizen advocacy until 2018, when I installed solar PV on my own home, and 2025 when I installed a heat pump.
I also critiqued Fremont’s climate adaptation plan.
https://www.fremont.gov/about/sustainability/climate-action-plan
I pointed out the impracticality of senior citizens/with disabilities and homeless people of no means traveling from their low/no income urban heat island housing near industrial areas on the outskirts of town to reach the ‘cooling centers’: libraries and senior facilities in shadier wealthier bucolic locations.
Can you envision unhealthy people of no means standing in the sun and risking rapid-onset heat stroke while waiting for a bus that doesn’t run on the weekends?
The Fremont plan makes no provision for transporting the most at-risk people to safety. They are on their own, and likely to perish, which is why I spoke up — to no avail. The plan was published as drafted with no money allocated to transporting those who the cooling centers are actually supposed to be helping.
It’s a hollow gesture designed to garner publicity and create opportunities for more wealthy and healthy people to congregate during a heat wave where politicians will pose for photo ops and claim credit for saving the world.
All such climate adaptation plans are similarly anemic, and nearly every liberal city has one.
Last year there was a mass die-off in Lake Elizabeth. The city had to dredge the dead fish to tame the smell. We don’t have a plan to spare the wildlife either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJbe2mzq91I
I’ve sold my home. The optimal human climate niche has already passed me by. This apartment with no AC is sweltering hot already, even on the ground floor facing the shady gentrified court yard.
Before Advanced Energy, I installed three wood-burning gassification boilers and wood sheds at a private school. Before that, I lived and worked on a farmstead.
I’m hoping to return to farmsteading when I move out of Fremont, probably somewhere further north where the risk of wet bulb heat stroke will be less immediate for someone in my condition..
So yes, I’ve been directly involved in the climate movement for 45 years, in the exact practical and peaceful ways favored here. Thanks for asking!
Reply to CherylJosie
I pointed out the impracticality of senior citizens/with disabilities and homeless people of no means traveling from their low/no income urban heat island housing near industrial areas on the outskirts of town to reach the ‘cooling centers’: libraries and senior facilities in shadier wealthier bucolic locations.
Can you envision unhealthy people of no means standing in the sun and risking rapid-onset heat stroke while waiting for a bus that doesn’t run on the weekends?
——
Congrats on your past efforts.
That issue you mentioned above came up recently in a community outreach meeting by the local and state govt climate action plan / disaster readiness response staff. I made the point my greatest fear is losing electricity power during a heat wave or wild fire conditions — that and not being fully warned in advance and given the opportunity and physical support I and other elderly people would need to get to a secure relief accommodation and the transportation provided to do it before it became a crisis point. Be it floods fire or storms and heat waves.
That the onus needs to be on the govt to be prepared to contact the vulnerable people before such emergencies arise, and get to them before the crisis hits. Or they’ll get stuck and or die.
At least they were listening and asking the right questions now, albeit decades behind the need for this particular low lying flood and fire prone region. Globally governments have not begun to scratch the surface of what’s needed now.
We’ve got new data points for climate science. Yup, it’s true. Quote: “New York’s Central Park reached a record high of 96 degrees Monday, which was last seen in 1888.” That’s from CNN and we KNOW they would never lie or exaggerate. Source:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/23/weather/heat-dome-midwest-east-coast-climate
You read that right! It was hotter in 1888 when GHGs were essentially at pre-industrial concentrations, than it has been over the past 137 years since then! FYI: That is NOT the type of information you want to put in your application for a grant to study AGW!
This heat wave is gonna be AWFUL. It’s may hit temperatures of OVER 90 F. That’s astonishing! It’s never been that hot in the eastern USA! Be careful everyone! I’m not lying:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/heat-wave-with-100-degree-temps-affect-170-million/1786492
If you knew anything about statistics, you would realize that picking one daily record for one spot tells you very little – especially a failure to make a new record.
However, I’ll play your game for a minute. You were talking about yesterday, which was merely a setup. The high today in Central Park was 99, exceeding the old record set in 1888 by 3 degrees F. So, it has warmed 3F (1.66 C) in 137 years from all those greenhouse gases. Right? I’m using your logic, here.
Actual science confirms that we can abandon fossil fuels for anything. The barriers are:
1. ignorance, genuine or fossil funded, present everywhere, in some on this blog’s comments, in decision-makers, in the media
2. vested interests, that would rather destroy the biosphere and their own children’s livability than change their core business
3. an economic model that is not based on the laws off nature but on human fiction
One example of fossil-free fertilizers:
“Tonelli and Rosa explored on-farm production options for synthesizing green fertilizer without using fossil fuels: the electric Haber Bosch process and electrocatalysis. Both can make fertilizers from electricity, which can be supplied from on-site agrivoltaic solar panels directly installed on croplands. The former requires an electricity or intermediate hydrogen storage capacity to mitigate the impact of intermittent renewables production, while the latter could follow the production load of solar panels.”
https://carnegiescience.edu/green-fertilizers-could-revolutionize-agriculture-and-increase-food-security
The entire field of green chemistry could have replaced by now fossil chemistry, if we would have removed the aforementioned barriers. We can start today and be more assertive and determined. Our lives, more importantly the lives of our children and the children of all the species depend on it.
The first storm of the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season has appeared but Tropical Storm Andrea is expected to last only briefly.
Forecasts for the season have been the usual “above average” but as usual not above average by much except in terms of the season’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy which averaged ACE=122 for the standard 1991-2020 period. That has been exceeded in 8 of the last 10 years, a decade which averaged ACE=140.
But such an unprecedented increase in Atlantic hurricanes will remain entirely trivial relative to the denial mechanisms now installed and running at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
MA Rodger says
“the denial mechanisms now installed and running at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”
Blaming Trump now is cognitive denial excuse making at it’s worse. Especially after two decades of Rodger posting here constantly denying how bad things are using his flawed Math and incompetent reasoning.
The climate system is breaking down into chaos and catastrophic impacts due to the last 35 years of “climate mitigation and policy action” being a total failure by all involved from climate scientists to the IPCC and the UNFCCC COP system which has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump being in the white house.
Trump did not cause the current +0.36C accelerated Temperature increase per decade today.
Is net zero just a scam? | Facebook
31 Dec 2021 … Is net zero just a scam … Kevin Anderson is a single scientist, who has set himself against the false narratives.
7 Apr 2025 … 3 MINUTE TAKEDOWN OF the IPCC, CLIMATE SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS
Kevin Anderson on how Net-Zero is used as an Accountancy Scam to avoid making difficult decisions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH97qUn3Pow
Choosing to Fail, with Climate Scientist Kevin Anderson – YouTube
11 Mar 2024 … In this Climate Chat episode, we interview climate scientist Kevin Anderson for a 2nd time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVFSJINGueM
Starmer backed CCS ‘an absolute fraud’ – The Ecologist
11 Dec 2024 … Al Gore brands carbon capture and storage (CCS) tech – favored by Sir Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister – ‘a fraud … net zero.
Intelligent morally robust scientists such as James Hansen agree. Go ask him!
https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/about/people/james-e-hansen – Data missing?
File Not Found
The requested page was not found on this web server. Due to technical difficulties, Columbia Web pages are temporarily being delivered from a backup server at Akamai Technologies. The page you have requested might not be on this backup server. Please try exiting and restarting your web browser and connect to http://www.columbia.edu again.
President Donald Trump and MAGA are not responsible for this reality today.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html
Anymore than you reading this now or Gavin Schmidt are.
~The Prieto Principle
Bullshit of the first, and worst, order. Trump promoted the hell out of fossil fuel use and did everything possible to obstruct international action to mitigate carbon emissions for his entire first term, and is now doing the same again, but on steroids.
Of course he is not responsible for everything that has gone wrong with climate–it’s a systemic problem of long standing–but it would be hard to find a single individual anywhere, anytime, who bears a larger share of that responsibility.
I’m not finding the subthread to add onto here, but we had been talking about the current heat dome. So, an update on that:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/25/weather/heat-wave-infrastructure-health-global-warming-climate
Over a hundred records shattered, pavement buckling, people dying, blackouts. Too bad that “in line with evolving priorities,” NOAA will no longer update the billion-dollar weather disaster page, as this event sounds like it will likely qualify.
Reply to Kevin McKinney
“Predicaments have no solution, only outcomes.” –William
– Kevin: “Over a hundred records shattered, pavement buckling, people dying, blackouts. Too bad that “in line with evolving priorities,” NOAA will no longer update the billion-dollar weather disaster page, as this event sounds like it will likely qualify.”
– “William”: “Predicaments have no solution, only outcomes.” –William
– “Witty saying proves nothing” – Voltaire
Mods: Whatever happened to the “one comment per day” suggestion? In my math system 13 does not equal one or two?
Sounds quite magisterial, but in plain fact predicaments can and often do have solutions.
But hey, if you’d care to expand on your thought, William, feel free.
For the class bores (right or wrong doesn’t much matter, volume/length replace quality with quantity:
“I have often felt compelled, on seeing an idiotic post, to point out its idiocy, as though I alone had noticed it. It’s a compulsion encouraged by the reward-based models of social media platforms. Users think of an interesting thought or response (trigger), send a post (behaviour), receive likes and re-posts (reward). Dopamine arrives as part of the feedback loop and we repeat the cycle.
“The compulsion to post relies on signalling, too – and not just of “virtue”. Read through your social media timelines and, if you’re an overtalker, you’ll find insecurities. Mine read like an exposé of impostor syndrome: barely veiled attempts to appear intelligent.”
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/jun/26/i-was-one-of-those-men-who-couldnt-stop-talking-heres-how-i-learned-to-shut-up-and-listen
Nice virtue signalling there Susan. I too find people in glass houses throwing stones such a bore. Then I remind myself, well, it is the internet.
The daily ERA5 re-analysis NH & SH SAT numbers are now approaching the end of the month. At the start of the month, there was what looked like a potential change in the development of post-“bananas” temperatures, ‘potential’ because it could have been simply a big wobble. As we now approach the end of the month, it looks a lot less like being just a wobble and a lot more like a longer-term piece of post-“bananas” cooling kicking in.
Since peak-“bananas” in late 2023, the SH had been showing a cooling at a modest-but-steady rate of about -0.1ºC per year (a cooling rate which continues) while the NH had been showing zero cooling, the year-on-year trace of multi-month averages sticking together like glue. (See graphic here Posted 26th June 2025 which shows NH SAT year-on-year anomalies 2023-25.)
By the end of May there were signs that the NH maybe at last be showing some year-on-year cooling. Those signs have been growing stronger as the June daily SAT numbers arrived.
How this apparent post-“bananas” cooling continues will be interesting given there is an annual ‘oscillation’ in the NH anomalies.
The 2023-25 graphic linked above shows there is a strong annual oscillation in the NH SAT anomalies. This results from a slower rate of warming during NH summer months than the NH winter months. (This strong annual oscillation has been present in seven of the last ten years [see the grey graphic ‘First POSTED 28th October 2024’ at link above showing NH & SH SAT 2014-to-date] with this strong winter warmth missing in 2018, 2021 & 2022, perhaps showing some ENSO influence on the NH winter temps.)
In terms of the months of the “bananas” temperatures since mid-2023, this annual NH oscillation grew in size, peak-to-peak measuring >0.4ºC when previously only >0.3ºC. This growth was a significant part of the NH contribution to the “bananas”. (The NH summer ‘minimum anomaly’ in 2024 was +0.32ºC toastier than that of 2016, eight years earlier. That’s a warming rate of +0.4ºC/decade which is not so “bananas” given the NH long-term warming rate (1980-2020) was +0.28ºC/decade prior to the “bananas”.)
Assuming the NH is cooling relative to 2024 and the cooling seen isn’t just a particularly large wobble, the eventual temperature of the 2025 summer NH ‘minimum anomaly’ and the following winter NH ‘maximum anomaly’ will be worth monitoring.
I must say that the trolls who infest this site are by far the stupidest global warming deniers that I have ever encountered anywhere online, including the mass social media platforms like Facebook.
I suppose that is because when these clowns post their nonsense on Facebook they are either ignored or driven away with wild hoots of derisive laughter and well-deserved contemptuous insults, whereas on RealClimate they are rewarded by endless bad-faith “arguments” with people who really should know better.
So true. They are pure anti-science. Yet they flaunt their ignorance. They fail to make any effort to learn because they are too insecure to admit they are wrong. People like KIA and the others are an embarrassment to any educational institution they attended.
Naahhh…they are rewarded because their propaganda is endlessly published under the guise of “free inquiry”.
Reply to SecularAnimist et al
Who are these unnamed “global warming deniers” on this site? Where are they because I haven’t noticed any for many months.
It’s disappointing to see such contemptuous language on a forum that aspires to serious discussion. Your post doesn’t address a single argument, cite any evidence, or advance understanding in any direction. You may feel superior hurling insults at phantoms, but it reveals more about your intent than anyone else’s.
If you believe a comment is factually wrong or misleading, by all means, challenge it—politely, substantively, and specifically. Otherwise, this is just noise.
Responding to William and Gavin’s comments above:
28 Jun 2025 at 5:15 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/06/unforced-variations-jun-2025/#comment-834996
Pedro Prieto:
I seem to have missed some recent exchanges, but allow me to break this down clearly.
1 William made a fair request: where are the assumptions used in CMIP6 model designs explicitly documented and accessible? That’s a question seeking positive evidence, not asserting a conspiracy.
2 BPL deflects with sarcasm; Gavin responds with a rhetorical dismissal. But neither provides what William asked for.
3 I have personally observed multiple past attempts—here and elsewhere—to ask for assumptions behind climate models, often met with silence or redirection. That’s anecdotal, yes, but it aligns with William’s concern.
4 RealClimate’s own About page says it aims to provide context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. Well—here’s a case where specific scientific context is being asked for, and declined.
5 William did not demand that Gavin list every assumption in every model, nor that it be done in a single comment. That’s a strawman.
6 He asked: Where can the assumptions behind each CMIP6 model be found? If this is routine, open information, then providing some examples should be straightforward. The request wasn’t unreasonable—it was fundamental.
7 Gavin is widely regarded as a leading authority on climate modeling. If he cannot—or will not—point to where model assumptions are documented, then the claim that modellers are open and transparent becomes questionable by default.
8 In fact, Gavin’s refusal reinforces William’s original point—whether that was his intention or not.
9 The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim—in this case, that all assumptions are available and easily accessible. If so, why not demonstrate?
Final question: Given the apparent difficulty in getting straight answers here, would it now be acceptable to ask an AI LLM like Gemini or ChatGPT to locate where CMIP6 model assumptions are spelled out—and share that here? Would such output be respected as scientifically credible?
These models underpin critical climate policy decisions. If even expert scientists resist direct questions about their assumptions, and if laypeople cannot easily find them either, then transparency—and trust—suffers.
If this is all open and above board, show it.
[Response: There are literally thousands of papers discussing the assumptions that go into climate models. I have personally written many. You cannot open a copy of JAMES without tripping over dozens of examples. Your refusal to even look into the basics and instead demand that others do all the work for you is merely a bad faith argument. No one is fooled. – gavin]
Responding to BPL and Gavin’s comments and just above:
28 Jun 2025 at 5:15 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/06/unforced-variations-jun-2025/#comment-834996
A general observation is you guys are really good at burying content and context under all that noise.
William also said: “Hey, this model matches the Observations pretty closely, so they must be right. Hey guys, the ensemble mean average of all the discordant individual models almost matches the observations, well close enough, so it must be right too. Everyone guesses differently and you end up [with] dozens of different outputs.”
While: “… it may well be that these discrepancies will resolve themselves in the course of ‘normal’ model development (and as the observed signals become clearer). Or not ;-).”
Comments on a commentary forum generate comments. But I cannot agree that no one is being fooled nor who is doing the fooling.
Pedro Prieto says
28 Jun 2025 at 8:34 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/06/unforced-variations-jun-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-835023
This has taken an intriguing turn. Let’s see where it takes us.
Earlier I made a clear and respectful request: “William made a fair request: where are the assumptions used in CMIP6 model designs explicitly documented and accessible?”
And concluded with: “If this is all open and above board, show it.”
Gavin responds with this:
[Response: There are literally thousands of papers discussing the assumptions that go into climate models. I have personally written many. You cannot open a copy of JAMES without tripping over dozens of examples. Your refusal to even look into the basics and instead demand that others do all the work for you is merely a bad faith argument. No one is fooled. – gavin]
These are curious characterizations. They don’t reflect what I wrote. I did not “demand” anything. I’m not acting in bad faith. Nor am I trying to fool anyone — what possible purpose would that even serve? The accusation doesn’t hold up.
Gavin — with respect, your reply dodges the point and shifts blame. I and William before me asked a simple, reasonable question about transparency and accessibility, not about your personal publication history. You claim there are “literally thousands of papers” documenting model assumptions, and that JAMES (the Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems) is overflowing with them.
But here’s the problem: Most people — even those following climate debates closely — have never heard of JAMES. I certainly hadn’t. I’ve never once seen it referenced on RealClimate, and a quick targeted search confirms this:
Search results for “Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems” on RealClimate:
➤ https://www.realclimate.org/?s=%22Journal+of+Advances+in+Modeling+Earth+Systems%22
→ Zero results.
The same holds true across Twitter/X, BlueSky, and other forums where climate scientists engage the public. JAMES is not a household name — and if model assumptions are buried across “thousands of papers,” how exactly is the public (or even policy professionals) supposed to access and synthesize them?
To scold others for not already knowing this or supposedly “refusing to look into the basics” is gaslighting. The whole point of asking was to locate where this information is gathered clearly and accessibly. That’s not bad faith — it’s basic intellectual integrity.
If JAMES is so central, why not list a few example papers summarizing model assumptions? Why not demonstrate what transparency looks like in practice? Because otherwise, it feels like we’re being told: “It’s out there somewhere. Go dig.”
And then being blamed for even asking. That’s not helpful. That’s gatekeeping — and it breeds mistrust. The remedy is simple: Show the links. Show the assumptions.
Or just admit that this information is fragmented, often inaccessible, and — at present — not meaningfully available to the broader public or policymakers. This isn’t about “doing your own research.” It’s about refusing to play rhetorical games — which, frankly, is what your response shows you’re good at. You say there are “literally thousands” of papers. Fine. Then why is it so hard to name even one?
For example: Gavin Schmidt’s NASA GISS author page lists over 100 papers:
➤ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/authors/gschmidt.html
But which of those specifically outlines the assumptions applied in CMIP6 models?
That was the original question. Still waiting for an answer.
[ Splitting this response across two parts for clarity. The issue quickly became so complex. ]
Part Two (Call for Transparency and Clarity)
Pedro Prieto continues…
Gavin, with respect — yes, you have a day job. But when you accuse others of “bad faith” for expecting scientists like you to “do all the work,” let’s be clear: That is your job.
You work for the public. That’s what it means to be part of a public research institution like NASA GISS. Your role is not just to advance modeling tools, but to help society understand and evaluate them. That means clarity, accessibility, and accountability — especially when the models are central to trillion-dollar global policy frameworks.
You are the public servant here — not me, not William, nor anyone else “pestering” you with reasonable questions about model assumptions and their adequacy to support sound climate policy. That is exactly what all climate scientists are expected to do–to serve the public good, to communicate clearly, and to make complex knowledge accessible.
There are over 60,000 climate scientists and researchers globally. If even a small number had prioritized clarity outreach and transparency, we would already have a publicly accessible archive of core model assumptions across CMIP3, 5, and 6. But we don’t.
That’s not a failure of the public. It’s not “bad faith” to request this. That’s a failure of the modeling community. If JAMES really does include detailed discussions of model assumptions, then here’s a simple and constructive request: Please walk RealClimate readers through how to search the JAMES archive for CMIP6 model assumptions. Link a few representative papers. Show what transparency and helping the public looks like.
That would be an honest, trust-building act. It would help others learn, and signal that the modeling community values openness — not just gatekeeping credentials. Because from the outside, it still looks like core assumptions are scattered, buried, and known only to insiders.
That’s a problem. So why not fix it? You’re a leader in this field. Ask AGU or Wiley to commission a special overview article. Or write one yourself. You know this terrain. Others don’t.
To drive the point home, I ran a search for public mentions:
Twitter/X search for “Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems”
13 years of results = 13 total tweets.
https://xcancel.com/search?f=tweets&q=%22Journal+of+Advances+in+Modeling+Earth+Systems%22+%28JAMES%29
That’s not exactly widespread public engagement. So please — if you want trust, build it.
The Facts vs the Myth: JAMES
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems (JAMES) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal published by AGU and Wiley. It focuses on research advancing Earth system modeling across physical, chemical, biological, and geological processes.
Main site: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/19422466
Aims & Scope: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/19422466/aims-and-scope/read-full-aims-and-scope
Topic collections (no CMIP series): https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/topic/vi-categories-19422466/215de481-5da0-46db-a21e-f064e06790bc/19422466
“JAMES invites authors and readers from the international Earth systems modeling community.”
That’s the key phrase: “modeling community.” JAMES does not explicitly serve the broader public. It has no special issue or topical collection dedicated to CMIP3, CMIP5, or CMIP6. It lacks a usable internal journal search function. And it frames its audience narrowly.
So when Gavin Schmidt claims this is the place to find CMIP6 assumptions — but offers no directions, no links, and no guideposts — effectively excluding broader publics and reinforcing the perception that climate model assumptions are not openly or accessibly communicated.
As William rightly said:
“Ask what all their assumptions are for the models — and they refuse to tell anyone.”
I understand why. Do you?
PP, I confess I sometimes get frustrated that the articles on this website don’t give me all the details and examples I would like, but we need to remember this website is a free website, where scientists volunteer their time (as you mentioned) and so there is clearly going to be a limit on the length and number of articles. There are now so many other ways of getting a list of something like the assumptions used in climate models, that leave this websites authors to concentrate on issues that are most pertinent, and not so easily googled.
For example, I asked google gemini “please list between 5 – 10 of the most important assumptions used in typical climate models used for climate change, citing research where possible. ” I set a limit of about 3 pages for the reply because I didn’t want an entire book on the subject. Any member of the public could ask such a question that without needing guidance. I had only a rough idea of a few of the assumptions used, so this was a learning experience for me.
The response took about ten minutes to compile, and was rather interesting and informative, and ran to several pages and is very detailed and used dozens of sources. It is also very technical. It will not be as good or maybe as accurate, as someone like Gavin would do, but it gives me some idea and saves me hours of searching websites. The entire response is too long to post here, but here is the summary of the key assumptions as follows fyi:
Numerical Approximation of Fundamental Laws: The translation of continuous physical laws into discrete mathematical equations for computational solution introduces approximations that affect accuracy and stability.
Parameterization of Cloud Processes: Due to their sub-grid scale nature and complex radiative properties, clouds are parameterized, representing a major source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity and feedbacks.
Parameterization of Convection and Turbulence: Fine-scale atmospheric processes like convection and turbulence require simplified representations, impacting the accuracy of precipitation patterns and regional climate projections, especially in the “gray zone” of increasing resolution.
Parameterization of Ocean Mixing and Eddies: Small-scale ocean mixing and mesoscale eddies, crucial for heat and carbon transport, must be parameterized, contributing significantly to model biases and uncertainties in sea level rise projections.
Assumptions about Aerosol Properties and Interactions: The representation of aerosols, their sources, composition, and complex interactions with clouds and radiation, involves significant assumptions that influence radiative forcing and historical climate simulations.
Initial Conditions for Simulations: While less impactful for long-term climate statistics, initial conditions carry uncertainties that affect shorter-term decadal predictions and can lead to long-term model drift in specific ocean circulations.
Future Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs): Projections are fundamentally dependent on assumptions about future human behavior, technological development, and policy choices, as encapsulated in the SSPs. This represents an irreducible source of scenario uncertainty, shifting the models’ role towards scenario planning rather than deterministic forecasting.
Natural External Forcings: Assumptions about unpredictable natural events like volcanic eruptions and solar activity are made, with their significance varying across different timescales of climate projection.
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS): The assumed value of ECS, a critical parameter for long-term warming, reflects the cumulative uncertainties in climate feedbacks, particularly those involving clouds, and has shown an upward revision across model generations, indicating potentially higher future warming.
Spatial and Temporal Resolution: The choice of model resolution is a foundational computational assumption that dictates the necessity and nature of all sub-grid parameterizations, creating a scale gap between global projections and local impacts.
Hi Pedro. I’m curious if you did any, say, google searches on JAMES in regards to your extensive commentary? I don’t understand why you, and particularly William, are so vexed. Then again, I’m not that bright!
I think your suggestions about an CMIP article or establishing a CMIP question/answer forum are worthwhile. I also think both you and William should have approached this without all the lengthy editorializing and particularly, at times, insinuating ill intent on the behalf of our host. Why not write a request and go from there? How is something like this better handled by writing thousands of words in a comment section instead of a direct letter outlining your desire to open a dialogue on CMIP concerns and requests?
Yes, Dr. Schmidt is a public servant for the people of the U.S. and we’re damn fortunate to have someone of his caliber. RealClimate is not a part of that. He, and our other hosts, do host RC in their spare time which I consider a valuable resource to gain understanding. I think you and William forget that we are guests. I know how I’d feel if a guest in my home handled themselves the way you at times, and William much more frequently have behaved.
That’s my two cents…
It’s well-documented by now that climate change is driving measurable increases in wildfire. And the increase in persistent smoke events has been a matter of public record. But the health effects apparently are only beginning to be studied, as the Atlantic reports:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/06/wildfire-smoke-epidemic/683343/
(Don’t know if that will be paywalled for you; we subscribe.)
A couple of quotes:
The Score
Checked 6/29 @12:30 PM; latest tranche is 28 new comments.
Using “find in page”, I found 3 responses related to my earlier comment.
But what if one of the 5 was a new person with something to say other than nyaah nyaah nyaah I said You said ….?
Does anyone ever think about what kind of impression this stuff makes on the hypothetical new/young person just checking in? I don’t do social media; I comment mostly on NYT articles, so I guess maybe young folks wouldn’t find it unusual.
But what if they actually were interested in the science??
I suggest young people wouldn’t find I said, you said unusual. It’s just a discussion, and while it can be messy, and frustrating and argumentative, this is just like the discussions young people often have in real life or online.
Kevin McKinney 29 Jun 2025 at 7:39 AM “well-documented by now that climate change is driving measurable increases in wildfire”. Tentative suggestion, change to well-documented by now that climate change and the increase by 50% of the only fuel for wildfires that exists on Earth are driving measurable increases in wildfire”.
Piotr @25 Jun 2025 at 3:53
I’m posting this comment again, because it would be lost in the comments above thread, and may be of interest to Ron R And Kevin McKinney. The issue is on the climate protestors and their defacing of a painting by splattering it with paint, although it was covered in glass.
Nigel: “ Even if the public realised the painting is covered in glass, they may be suspicious that the protestors would have been happy to destroy it even if there was no glass.
piotr: “Sorry, but the people who in spite of the facts are holding onto belief of the worst about others have their minds already made up, and no gentle persuasion by the IPCC report will change their minds either.
Nigel: Fair comments.
Piotr: “But it is not about reaching them: as I wrote before:“the fight is for those yet-uncommitted and open to convincing. As Kevin said: “It was MLK who made the point that it is discomfort and tension that create change“.”
Its definitely about reaching the undecideds. And discomfort clearly works sometimes. However my instincts are that it may not work very reliably especially if the tactics are very shocking (as I previously stated). So I asked google gemini this question: “With contentious issues protestors sometimes use tactics that make people feel uncomfortable as a way of persuading them change is required. Does this work to convince the undecided people (sometimes characterised as fence sitters)? Please also cite a few research studies if possible.”
Googles answer:
The effectiveness of “uncomfortable” protest tactics in convincing undecided people (often called “fence-sitters”) is a complex area with mixed findings in research. While these tactics are designed to draw attention and create urgency, they can also alienate the very people they aim to persuade.
Here’s a breakdown of how it might work, or backfire, for fence-sitters, along with relevant studies:
How Uncomfortable Tactics Might Persuade Fence-Sitters:
Increased Salience and Forced Consideration:
Disruptive protests, by their nature, are hard to ignore. They break through the daily routine and force individuals to confront an issue they might otherwise tune out. For fence-sitters, who haven’t committed to a side, this forced engagement can push them to consider the issue more deeply. The inconvenience or discomfort acts as a prompt to seek information and form an opinion.
Study 1: Oliver, P. E., & Myers, D. (1999). “How to Mobilize the Unemployed: Mass Demonstrations, the Public, and the Media in the Great Depression.” American Sociological Review, 64(4), 586-608.
While not directly about fence-sitters, this study highlights how disruptive demonstrations during the Great Depression garnered significant media attention and raised the salience of unemployment. This increased visibility likely compelled more people, including those previously unconcerned, to engage with the issue. The discomfort caused by widespread social upheaval amplified the urgency of the cause.
The “Radical Flank Effect” (Positive Version):
This is perhaps the most nuanced way disruptive tactics can indirectly sway fence-sitters. The presence of a radical or “uncomfortable” faction can make a more moderate wing of the same movement appear more reasonable and acceptable by comparison. Fence-sitters, presented with a stark contrast, might find themselves drawn to the moderate message as the “less extreme” option.
Study 2: Simpson, C., et al. (2022). “Radical flanks of social movements can increase support for moderate factions.” PNAS Nexus, 1(3), pgac110.
This research provides strong evidence for a positive radical flank effect. It found that awareness of radical groups employing highly publicized non-violent disruptive protests could increase public identification with and support for more moderate groups within the same movement. The authors suggest this works through a “contrast effect,” where the moderate faction appears less radical due to the actions of the more extreme group, making them more appealing to those in the middle.
Demonstration of Commitment and Urgency:
Disruptive tactics often involve personal sacrifice, risk, and sustained effort on the part of protesters. For fence-sitters, witnessing such commitment can signal the genuine importance and urgency of the cause. It suggests that the issue is so critical that people are willing to endure discomfort, legal consequences, or public opprobrium, which can be a powerful persuasive force.
How Uncomfortable Tactics Might Backfire for Fence-Sitters:
Alienation and Negative Identification:
If the tactics are perceived as overly aggressive, self-serving, or disproportionate to the cause, they can alienate fence-sitters. Instead of generating sympathy or understanding, the discomfort might lead to anger, resentment, or a negative perception of the activists themselves, which then extends to the cause they represent. Fence-sitters may disassociate from the movement and move towards the opposing side or simply become more entrenched in their non-support.
Study 3: Feinberg, M., et al. (2020). “Extreme Protest Tactics Reduce Popular Support for Social Movements.” Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society Working Paper.
This study found that “extreme” protest tactics (e.g., those perceived as highly disruptive or involving property damage) by groups like animal rights activists, anti-Trump protesters, and anti-abortion groups, decreased public support for their causes. The mechanism identified was a reduction in feelings of identification with the movement among bystanders. For fence-sitters, this lack of identification could push them away rather than draw them in. Another recent study found that disruptive vegan protests led meat-eaters to increase their meat consumption, demonstrating a strong backfire effect.
Focus on Tactics, Not the Message:
When tactics are highly disruptive or controversial, media coverage and public discussion can become fixated on the tactics themselves rather than the substance of the demands. This means the core message intended to persuade fence-sitters gets lost in the noise and debate over the methods.
Reinforcing Pre-existing Biases:
For fence-sitters who lean even slightly against the protest’s cause, uncomfortable tactics can serve to confirm their existing biases. They might interpret the disruption as further evidence that the protesters are unreasonable, extreme, or misguided, thus pushing them definitively to the opposing side.
Key Takeaways for Fence-Sitters:
Non-violence is Key: Research overwhelmingly suggests that nonviolent protests are more effective at gaining public support and achieving long-term goals. Violence, even by a small “radical flank,” tends to backfire by delegitimizing the entire movement.
Clarity of Message: For uncomfortable tactics to work, the “action logic” must be clear. People need to understand why the disruption is occurring and what the protest aims to achieve. If the discomfort is seen as arbitrary or unrelated to a clear demand, it’s more likely to alienate.
Balance of Disruption and Sacrifice: The public’s perception of whether the disruption is justified by the moral imperative and the protesters’ willingness to make sacrifices (e.g., facing arrest) plays a role.
The “Undecided” are Fluid: As recent research from Harvard’s IQSS suggests, the idea of a fixed “undecided voter” might be an oversimplification. People are constantly swaying in response to the political climate and media. Disruptive protests can be a strong “wind” that shifts this sway, but the direction of the shift is not guaranteed and depends heavily on the execution and public perception of the tactics.
In conclusion, while “uncomfortable” protest tactics can successfully capture attention and, through the radical flank effect, potentially make moderate alternatives more appealing, they carry significant risks of alienating undecided individuals. For fence-sitters, the outcome hinges on whether the discomfort translates into a deeper engagement with the issue and sympathy for the cause, or simply annoyance and a reinforced negative perception of the movement.
Nigel: I think the AI has given an interesting and thought provoking response..
From Nigelj’s repost: “The “Undecided” are Fluid: As recent research from Harvard’s IQSS suggests, the idea of a fixed “undecided voter” might be an oversimplification. People are constantly swaying in response to the political climate and media. Disruptive protests can be a strong “wind” that shifts this sway, but the direction of the shift is not guaranteed and depends heavily on the execution and public perception of the tactics.”
Preface: My comments below concern the American Public only. I’m not sufficiently aquatinted with other nation’s general public to comment…
Yes, the “Undecided” are fluid, but are so are a meaningful percentage of those who would be labeled as “Denier or Doubter.” People are not as resolutely bound to existing beliefs as some suggest. I don’t understand why there is (what I see here sometimes and on other similar forums) as general reluctance morphing into dismissal of swaths of this segment of the public. I’ve been guilty of thinking like this myself. But given the urgency of C.C., this deserves a reset. That’s what I’ve been working towards at a local level and in my personal interactions. Just listening to why there’s no CC, or it won’t be serious, why RE is wrong, won’t work, and so on.
Execution is another area that deserves way more attention. Throwing paint at a glass protected painting isn’t going to impact because most of the public will not make a connection and many who do will just as quickly forget without another thought or chock the act up as vandalism. Singular isolated acts don’t do anything except maybe make the participants feel a fleeting dose of satisfaction.
You have to ALWAYS be peaceful, acts/protests must be coordinated and sustained in both number and duration, and there MUST be clear eloquent repeatable consistent messaging.
As an aside, People’s attitudes are often a product (in varying degrees) of what they consume from media. Millions of deniers are hearing/seeing only one message. I’ll add a link below to a pair of telling articles from Media Matters that details how lopsided the online media environment has become. But this isn’t a result of just conservative success, but also a huge fail by liberal messaging and science messaging.
.
https://www.mediamatters.org/google/right-dominates-online-media-ecosystem-seeping-sports-comedy-and-other-supposedly
.
https://www.mediamatters.org/tiktok/study-interacting-these-popular-right-leaning-comedy-podcasters-can-turn-your-tiktok-feed
July arrives and we’re halfway through the year. So how is the Arctic ice faring this year?
Up in the Arctic the last 12 months average temperatures have been the hottest or near-hottest on record. So we should not be too surprised to see records set for the level of high-melt/low-freeze of Sae Ice Extent this year.
The first half of 2025 has indeed proved to be a record-breaker, although this is through the freezier first-half of the year which gets far less attention than the meltier second-half of the year.
In the JAXA SIE data**, 2025 saw the lowest winter freeze on record, the bigliest 2025 SIE appearing on the solstice (which is a late maximum by recent years that had maximums appear 15th Feb-20th Mar). The 2025 13.8 M sq km daily maximum wasn’t a dramatic new record, the previous top-5 least-freezy years being 2017 (13.9 M), 2018 (13.9 M), 2015 (13..9 M), 2016 (13.9 M), 2023 (14.1 M).
More dependent on the Arctic weather appearing through Feb/March, 2025 also took the record for average daily SIE Jan-Jun, 12.35M sq km, the previous top-5 years running 2016 12.40M, 2018 12.42M, 2019 12.52M, 2017 12.52M, 2020 12.63M.
And a final nerdy measure, the number of daily minimum SIE records for each year also sees 2025 top of the pile for the first half of the year and already not far short of the record for the full year (In parenthesis below are the full year tallies as things stand 30/6/25. The last record-day from 2010 will likely be toppled tomorrow.)
2025 … … 75 days
2016 … … 54 days … … (96 days)
2019 … … 26 days … … (26 days)
2018 … … 14 days … … (14 days)
2017 … … 12 days … … (12 days)
2015 … … .. 1 day … … . (1 day)
2012 … … .. 0 days … … (65 days)
2020 … … .. 0 days … … (55 days)
2024 … … .. 0 days … … (18 days)
2021 … … .. 0 days … … (3 days)
2010 … … .. 0 days … … (1 day)
(** NSIDC’s CHarctic uses a bit more rounding in its numbers which, with other variations, will give slightly different numbers.)
Of course there are plenty of other ways to assess the health (or otherwise) of the Arctic sea ice. The PIOMAS Sea Ice Volume analysis puts 2025 in second place behind 2017 through the first half of the year (although the June up-date is yet to be posted). By month, the record least-freezy year by volume (SIV peaks with April averages) was in 2017 (20,700 cu km) with 2025 now in second spot (21,700 cu km) and a pack of eight years reaching 22,000-odd cu km (2018, 2019, 2016, 2021, 2011, 2024, 2020 & 2014) and another five 23,000-odd (2022, 2023, 2012, 2013, 2007).
Note that the list of record years for minimum SIV in the second half of the year is a fair-bit different from the first-half least-freezy list. 2017 doesn’t make the top-10, today’s top-5 running 1st 2012 (3,800 cu km), equal-2nd 2020 2019, 2024 (4,200 cu km) & 5th 2011 (4,700 cu km).