This month’s open thread. Please try and stay focused on substance rather than personalities. There are many real issues that are particularly salient this month, and so maybe we can collectively try not to have the comments descend into tedium.
Climate science from climate scientists...
Our planet is warming TWICE as fast as we thought! [ref: Rahmstorf Foster March 2025 – https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6079807/v1_covered_209e5182-d9a5-4305-a4e0-70204151d2b3.pdf ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-pZNRN4XAE [also, intriguing Potholer on Thunberg cite of Kevin Anderson misquoted by the likes of Tucker Carlson to discredit her – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVZiKGjl6RY ]
from comments: “The spreadsheet says it’s cheaper to go extinct than to deal with climate stuff.”
Stefan Rahmstorf: The northern Atlantic ‘cold blob’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy2kBPujc4w
Susan Anderson says
12 Aug 2025 at 2:04 PM
Our planet is warming TWICE as fast as we thought! [ref: Rahmstorf Foster March 2025 –?
No. Not according to M Mann
Mann13 (2023)
Twitter denial of aerosol forcing decline post-2020; While he uses a 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
PP: So clueless. Your steady attacks on and misrepresentations of Mike Mann’s work are unhelpful at best. Mike Mann is a personal friend who has been very supportive of all of us over the years, including Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt. He has taken on the public role of informing the public as to our mutual problems which was forced on him by the attacks made when he first revealed the hockey stick image from his research.
Susan Anderson to Multitroll PP et aliās: “Your steady attacks on and misrepresentations of Mike Mann’s work are unhelpful at best.”
Yeah – a chihuahua yapping at a timberwolf – a troll who tries to take down a scientist who has everything the troll will never have – intellectual integrity and serious publication record in the climate science.
The psychology of it is painfully banal – the same as in any other (unpaid) internet troll:
“If I, a climate science ignorant, can put down somebody with scientific record of Michael Mann, then I, Pedro/Tom/Fact Checker/Dharma/Chen/ Escobar/Ned/ etc etc, must be really really smart”.
Piotr, creative attacks, viewed properly, are hilarious. However, they’re wasteful & shouldn’t be given pride of place by quoting them. Yap yap!!!
My point was that Hansen, Mann, and Schmidt are on the same ‘side’ of a great divide, ably described by Ray Ladbury in this useful and thoughtful post about quality: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838117
Susan Anderson says
13 Aug 2025 at 9:23 AM
Susan Anderson says
23 Aug 2025 at 2:10 PM
Hansen, Mann, and Schmidt are on the same ‘side’ of a great divide
Wrong.
Dead Wrong and Clueless.
Or quote where Michael E Mann states anything like:>>
“Our planet is warming TWICE as fast as we thought!”
Susan: “Piotr, creative attacks, viewed properly, are hilarious. However, they’re wasteful & shouldn’t be given pride of place by quoting them. Yap yap!!!
you lost me Susan – I see Multi-troll’s attacks on Mann as anything but “creative”., nor I have given them a place quoting them.
.
And why _you_ end with “Yap Yap”, when my metaphor “a chihuahua yapping at a timberwolf” was obviously about Multi-troll yapping at Mann (“a troll who tries to take down a scientist who has everything the troll will never have – intellectual integrity and serious publication record in the climate science.“)
Or quote where Gavin Schmidt states anything like:>>
“Our planet is warming TWICE as fast as we thought!”
Or he can go on the record right here right now per : the Rahmstorf Foster March 2025 Submitted Paper
Then confirm publicly he agrees with Hansen’s work published here.
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/
Piotr: my apologies. You have the sense of my remarks backwards to my intent. I have a lot of respect for your acumen. I was making fun of myself. Please remember that the sum of the garbage overwhelming this thread reduces its usefulness to a considerable extent.
I am, however, furious about the neverending determination to create and exploit a wide gulf between Mann, Schmidt and Hansen et al. It is complicated, I’d guess, on the part of those most aware by fear of consequences, which are indeed showing to be quite dire. I don’t find that an excuse to try to do one’s possible to make things less bad, but I understand the existential terror.
I do not retract my complaint about citing invalid material. For a casual visitor, that can be confusing, and gives pride of place to real garbage.
Susan, no offense taken. I was just perplexed that in your self-deprecation humour you used the phrase that does not fit you, but only the PP Multitroll.
As for doomer trolls trying to use Hansen to attack Mann and Schmidt – that’s what trolls do, because they don’t have any other play – they don’t have their own research to support their claims.
And because they can’t get respect for the quality of their own thinking, they try to get it by associating themselves with somebody who deserves such respect. For the same reason the HIV-not-linked-to-AIDS, 9-11 truthers and anti-vaxers tried to have their views, and themselves in the process, validated by associating with the authority of the chosen professionals, whose views they presented, or misrepresented, as a support for their “anti-scientific elites” opinions.
“not to” try to make things less bad [double negatives trap]
Also, I put this, meant to be a response to Piotr, on the wrong thread (correct one just before, to his note to me). It’s hard to get the ‘nesting’ right sometimes.
PP posted: “Our planet is warming TWICE as fast as we thought! [ref: Rahmstorf Foster March 2025 –? No. Not according to M Mann. Mann13 (2023) Twitter denial of aerosol forcing decline post-2020;”
Your comment is a non sequitur. Just because Mann thinks Hansens views on aerosols are exaggerated, doesn’t mean Mann disputes that warming is accelerating.
from 31 Jul 2025 at 7:46 AM jgnfld wrote:
“(Pedro Prieto’s) so-called ‘groupthink’ among those qualified to think… is precisely how science progresses…”
Rebranding exclusion and conformity as intellectual merit conflates social consensus with the scientific method. Everyone is qualified to think critically. Science progresses by building on prior knowledge — not by treating institutional orthodoxy as infallible or dismissing challenges as illegitimate.
“Pedro’s” point highlights a recurring issue: the misrepresentation of scientific consensus boundaries. Consensus is often overstated, and labeling dissent as “denialism” obscures legitimate debates about where evidence actually stands.
Let’s be specific. There is no scientific consensus that:
– 100% wind, water, solar (WWS) is viable or sufficient.
– “Net Zero” is feasible or a scientifically credible solution.
– IPCC outputs represent full consensus (e.g., “Arctic BOE not until 2090s” is not a consensus claim).
– Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) or Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) reflect climate science consensus.
– ECS/TCR estimates have converged into a firm consensus.
– CMIP6/7 models, or any GCM, reflect consensus on outcomes.
– Aerosol or cloud forcing are settled science.
– Ocean Heat Content uptake is fully understood.
– AMOC weakening timelines are resolved by consensus.
– Tipping points are predictable or universally agreed upon.
– Carbon pricing is a scientifically agreed solution.
– Renewable energy can fully replace fossil fuels — in time, at scale, or without trade-offs.
– Fossil fuel phaseout automatically delivers a desirable or sustainable system.
– Any peer-reviewed paper is valid just because it was peer-reviewed.
– NOAA, NASA-GISS, WMO data outputs are beyond question or error.
– IPCC SR15 conclusions (e.g. about 1.5°C) are settled by scientific consensus.
– The Paris Agreement reflects scientific consensus.
– The EPA Endangerment Finding, or any decision to remove it, reflects consensus science.
Believing that all these are “settled science” or endorsed by a unified “climate science community” is not reasoned judgment — it’s groupthink. It reflects institutional alignment, not empirical consensus.
Yes, there is a strong scientific consensus, ~97% of Climate scientists agree:
Anthropogenic CO₂ and GHGs are the dominant cause of modern warming.
That’s it.
Everything else — mitigation strategies, timelines, modeling choices, policy frameworks — is an active debate involving assumptions, expert judgment, uncertainty, and more often personal morals and politics.
Much of what passes for assumed climate science consensus in RealClimate/Media articles and Social media commentary and Blog comments is no more than a shared opinion within a small subset of contributors. That’s not how science was supposed to be presented. But it is how ‘group think’ belief systems usually sustain themselves through the ages.
PrPr: Rebranding exclusion and conformity as intellectual merit conflates social consensus with the scientific method.
BPL: Except that social consensus is not what the scientific consensus means. The latter is a consensus of evidence–when several lines of evidence point to the same conclusion. It’s not a vote taken around a table.
PrPr: Everyone is qualified to think critically.
BPL: You have to be freaking kidding.
Much of this is mere pointless repetition, and some trivial (e.g., considering policy options as “scientific consensus.”)
However, there’s this:
Seriously? Can anyone think of an unequivocal example of a technology that comes without trade-offs?
Trivia is more enticing and distracting than recognizing the misrepresentation of scientific consensus boundaries and owning them. The denial present here every day is a real eyeopener.
“trivia” – you regard human survival on earth as trivia? Seriously?
And ‘denial’ is coming from the vast majority of qualified scientists, not from fake skeptics? Really?
Barton’s elitism + Kevin’s deflection + Susan’s false dichotomy
Three revealing admissions in these replies:
1. Barton’s intellectual gatekeeping: Claims critical thinking requires credentials—then fails to rebut any of the 17 consensus boundary examples provided. If the evidence is so clear, why the appeal to authority?
2. Kevin’s trivialization: Dismisses policy debates as ‘not consensus’—while ignoring that IPCC mitigation scenarios themselves (SSPs) assume:
– 85% fossil/nuclear in 2050 (SSP2-4.5)
– Massive unproven CDR deployment (SSP1-1.9)
– If these aren’t ‘trade-offs,’ what is?
3. Susan’s false binary: Equates questioning policy feasibility with ‘denial’ of warming itself—a classic motte-and-bailey. The ~97% consensus only covers anthropogenic warming, not mitigation certitude.
Source – There is no scientific consensus that: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-837438
For readers: When ‘consensus’ defenders must:
Redefine science as priestly class knowledge (Barton)
Pretend modeling assumptions are facts (Kevin)
Conflate physics with politics (Susan)
…their position is already theological, not empirical, not Scientific.
No, Susan. What denial there is (here–plenty of denial on skeptic sites, I know)–comes from bloggers, lobbyists, NGOs and those pushing for a political victory. They sort of get in the way of the scientists, IMO.
He’s attempting the old Karl Rove switcheroo move of accusing others of having their own flaws in an attempt to deflect. Actually far older propaganda trick than Rove, but he instituted it well in the USA. . Was effective a couple few decades back but most competent readers are on to that one by now.
Ersatz Preto Prieto,
I agree that mitigation falls into a different category than the physics of climate change, if for no other reason than that it depends on the combined actions of every person on the planet. Personally, I believe that it is likely possible to come up with a solution that is close to sustainable in the long term and even improves living conditions for the majority of people on the planet–even those in the energy=intensive industrialized countries. In OECD countries, increased consumption does not equate to increased well being.
And certainly, we cannot guarantee that a 100% renewable energy economy would work. It hasn’t in the US and Europe primarily because fossil fuel interests are intent on sabotaging it.
But I think you perhaps misunderstand where the scientists are coming from. From the point of view of climate, what matters is reducing the amount of carbon we spew into the air. The simulations conducted are not prescriptions for doing that, but feasibility tests based on strategies that seem the most workable at the time the studies are carried out. Thus, 10 years ago, nuclear power might have carried a much higher emphasis than it would today. Nuclear power is less viable today not just because of the enormous improvements in renewables, but also because we have squandered another decade in implementing solutions. Nuclear power is expensive, and more important very slow. Less time means we must concentrate on solutions that can be implemented more quickly.
But perhaps the most surprising aspect of your criticism is that leveled at BPL. First, your so-called “17 consensus boundary examples are not relevant, because the science and the solutions at their most basic level–e.g. the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions–are not predicated on any of them. Second and most important, your contention that anyone can “think critically” is problematic, because in many cases, what is needed is not merely “critical thinking” but scientific thinking. Scientific thinking requires training. It does not come naturally to the human mind. It certainly is not a shocking contention to suggest that those who have received scientific training and carry it out as part of their day job would be better equipped to handle the task.
PP’s falsehoods should be beneath notice. However, for the sake of anyone who takes him seriously, I suggest looking at what I write rather than his tactical deconstruction, which as jgnfld points out comes from the fake skeptic playbook.
I oversimplify at times, which might lead to confusion as to who did what, but in this kind of attack its purpose is to discredit and silence. The fake skeptic enterprise gets more dishonest and more powerful by the day.
https://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a brilliant German philosopher. These 38 Stratagems are excerpts from “The Art of Controversy”, first translated into English and published in 1896.
PS: PP does not fall into the ‘fake skeptic’ category: my error. His vanity publishing and rage at anyone and everyone who doesn’t fit in his exact slice of perception is a distraction. We should all learn to ignore him (guilty as charged).
Ray L: Thank you for making the effort to spell that out. I found something similar in teaching life drawing; it is hard work learning to bypass our built in and cultural predispositions to reach for what is actually out there. There are a variety of them; I found the most hampering was fear. We all want the ‘secret’ or a recipe for doing what will meet approval. Once those things are identified and hopefully set aside, though it’s like jumping off a cliff in some ways, it can be exhilarating. Sadly, in our world of science denial, the ‘secret’ recipe is to fly with lies. A crash is the likely result.
Yeah, “critical thinking,” as in the tools they teach you to evaluate news stories or basic philosophy or perhaps works of art, won’t put you on a par with a brain surgeon, or a rocket scientist, or a climate scientist. What’s missing from that paradigm is, once again, meta-literacy. Understanding a hierarchy of reliability is the closest thing a lay person will get to having a short cut to the understanding of advanced science.
Worse “critical thinking” in the minds of some equates to “thinking for yourself” which is, in practical terms, meaningless. Everyone, even people in a coma, for better or worse thinks for themselves. It says absolutely nothing about skill. Case in point, RFK Jr. thinks for himself and, whoop-de-doo, what a sad, fubar, piece of work he is. You can bet that he’s a proud critical thinker though, and that no one will ever be able to tell him anything different.
Ray Ladbury: “Scientific thinking requires training. It does not come naturally to the human mind.”
That’s a necessary, but not the sufficient condition – the history of science is littered with scientists, who assumed they their expertise in one discipline automatically translates into any other area. See Linus Pauling pushing later in life medical quackery. Or Freeman Dyson thinking his work in quantum mechanics and nuclear physics qualified him as an expert on climate change. And if this applies even to brilliant minds like these – it applies even more so to the more mediocre ones.
So what’s needed is not only scientific training, but also the in-depth subject knowledge of the discipline. Our PP troll has neither,.
PP writes:
No, those aren’t “trade-offs.” They are simply assumptions, made for essentially illustrative purposes.
Officially, and as reported by Wikipedia:
By contrast, the term “tradeoff” describes a situation in which a particular choice comes with both advantages and disadvantages. For example, fossil fuels have the following trade-offs:
Pros: Convenient, affordable, controllable, energy-dense, mature technology.
Cons: Inefficient; subject to supply constraints on multiple levels and time frames; produces toxic by-products which kill or harm millions every year; and produces climate-altering by-products which have the potential to kill millions more, cause mass displacement and enormous economic losses, devastate the biosphere with mass extinctions and ecosystem disruptions at global scale, and very possibly end civilization as we know it.
Now those</em< are "tradeoffs."
P.S. No, I am not "pretending modeling assumptions are facts." Actually, PP seems closer to doing that than I am, when he mixes fundamentally different categories in an attempt to label as much information as "non-consensus" as possible for his own rhetorical purposes. I don't think anyone has ever explicitly claimed most of his examples are "consensus science", which is why I think his points are, as I said, "trivial." Except, of course, as examples of "strawman technique."
Re. cons: Don’t forget the trillions upon trillions expended in wars over FFs and in the guarding of trade lanes even in peacetime (whenever that was).
Yes… or over resource-related quarrels (think Pakistani/Indian freshwater supplies), or immigration-related quarrels, both of which can be exacerbated by climate change.
Well said Kevin.
Homework
The global average annual energy growth rate over the last 10 years (2014-2023) has been approximately 1.5%.
Using this growth rate as a basis, the expected range for total energy consumption in 2050 can be projected. The expected range for global energy consumption in 2050 is therefore between 815 EJ and 1,060 EJ, with a central estimate around 935 EJ.
Contextual Considerations-These projections assume that historical growth trends continue and that there is no significant contraction in global energy demand. The actual outcome will depend on several factors
Compare to IPCC SSP “best-case” scenarios
SSP1-1.9 (2050): Total Energy: ~400 EJ – a 57% Reduction of projected trend
SSP2-4.5 (2050): Total Energy: ~550 EJ – a 41% Reduction of projected trend
———————-
Based on the latest available data, the most recent complete year is 2023. Here are the numbers for global primary energy consumption:
Total Energy Consumption: Approximately 620 EJ (exajoules)
Fossil Energy Consumption: Approximately 504 EJ
(coal: 164 EJ, oil: 196 EJ, natural gas: 144 EJ)
Fossil Share: The share of global primary energy from fossil fuels was 81.5%.
These figures are based on the latest data from sources like the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy, which is considered a credible and comprehensive source.
Your provided SSP2-4.5 (2050) numbers show a fossil fuel share of ~45% by 2050. This highlights a significant and rapid decline that would be necessary to meet that scenario’s energy mix.
SSP 2050 “best-case” scenarios
SSP1-1.9 (2050):
Fossil Energy: ~175 EJ
Total Energy: ~400 EJ
→ ~44% Fossil Share
SSP2-4.5 (2050):
Fossil Energy: ~250 EJ
Total Energy: ~550 EJ
→ ~45% Fossil Share
————————
Here’s the calculation based on your central estimate of 935 EJ for total energy consumption in 2050:
Estimated Fossil Fuel Share in 2050
Current Non-Fossil Share (2023): 18.5%
Assumed 2050 Non-Fossil Share: 18.5%+10%=28.5%
Assumed 2050 Fossil Fuel Share: 100%−28.5%=71.5%
Applying this share to the total projected energy consumption:
Projected Total Consumption (2050): 935 EJ
Estimated Fossil Fuel Consumption (2050): 935 EJ×0.715 ≈668 EJ
This scenario, which assumes a significant but still relatively modest shift to non-fossil fuels, still results in a fossil fuel share far greater than the 45% projected in the IPCC’s SSP2-4.5 scenario. It highlights the scale of the transition required to meet climate goals.
Compared to IPCC best case scenarios:
Fossil Energy: ~175 EJ
Fossil Energy: ~250 EJ
Who came up with those numbers in the IPCC AR6?
And why?
Who decided a 100% WWS+storage Grid was possible anywhere?
And why?
PP says: “There is no scientific consensus that…..”
Half of the things he quotes are engineering or political issues, so a scientific consensus doesn’t even apply. The lack of consensus on the other genuinely scientific issues is well acknowledged by scientists. By highlighting them, he just feeds the denialists. Not sure if this is deliberate or just being naieve but its a pointless waste of space.
PP bullshits: “Much of what passes for assumed climate science consensus in RealClimate/Media articles and Social media commentary and Blog comments is no more than a shared opinion within a small subset of contributors.”
Rubbish ,and blatant trolling, and a strawman. None of us who share the same opinions here claim that it is a scientific consensus of the larger scientific community.
Are you absolutely sure about that?
Reply to nigelj
Is there an empirical scientific consensus that 100% WWS +storage Electricity Grid is actually possible to build; and economically feasible at scale and cheaper long term past 2100?
Yes or No?
“Much of what passes for assumed climate science consensus in RealClimate/Media articles and Social media commentary and Blog comments is no more than a shared opinion/belief within a small subset of contributors.”
True or False?
Imagine you are under Oath.
Pedro Prieto, you are asking very loaded questions. I’m not going to waste my time on pointless trickery like that.
PP Multi-troll: Everyone is qualified to think critically
“what said Marjorie Taylor Greene in defense of her claim of Zionist lasers from space causing wildfires in the US?”
We must always focus on solutions to the multiple crises humanity has created for itself and for all the living. Given the moment we are in, it is more urgent and imperative than ever to work on and practice solutions. We have them.
Here is one list of individual actions we can take from the world’s top climate scientists:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/09/what-are-the-most-powerful-climate-actions-you-can-take
Can we practice no 2, reducing flying? Of course. If you don’t know how, please learn from and be inspired by Gianluca Grimalda, the first person who lost their job by refusing to fly and from all the slow and clean travelers of the world.
https://youtu.be/EDwbGDpCkPY?si=wbvogOWXvmV3lYuU
Do I practice what I say? Yes, I travel by train, both in the US and Europe, with the exception of Trans-Atlantic flights for which I am still looking for an alternative. I hope Anemos or Artemis, Towt company’s wind-powered ships will take me on soon, I am on the waiting list.
Energy solution: 100% clean renewable. See Marc Jacobson’s roadmaps. He is an expert and as an engineeress, I base my decisions on expertise. Whether it is his team’s roadmaps or others’, our duty is to accelerate their adoption and to abandon the use of fossil fuels for anything, with or without political support. Fortunately, the energy economics is favoring the transition.
Reply to Silvia Leahu-Aluas:
The framing of climate action as a universal moral duty—where individuals must “do their part” by refusing flights or waiting for wind-powered ships—is not just impractical but fundamentally unjust. Let’s correct the narrative with inconvenient truths:
1. The 10% Problem: The wealthiest 10% (those earning >$38k/year) generate 52% of global emissions (Oxfam, 2023). The super-rich (private jets, yachts, multiple homes) are worse: a single billionaire emits a million times more than the global poor. I, like most people, am not responsible for this crisis. Forcing working-class sacrifices while exempting elites is class warfare disguised as environmentalism.
2. Thermodynamics > Virtue: No amount of personal austerity changes the fact that renewable energy cannot sustain infinite growth (Rees, Hall, Garrett). Even if every “recommended action” were adopted, emissions would barely budge without binding caps on luxury consumption—private aviation, mega-mansions, and industrial overproduction.
3. Solutions That Matter:
– Make the rich pay: Tax frequent flyers, ban private jets, and enforce wealth-based carbon tariffs.
– Nations, not individuals: The U.S. military alone emits more than 140 countries combined.
– Degrowth for the 10%: Kevin Anderson is clear—if the wealthy don’t cut consumption by 75%, no amount of “clean energy” saves us.
Jacobson’s 100% renewables fantasy won’t fix this. Neither will scolding train passengers. Your waiting list for wind-powered ships won’t save the Maldives—seizing Bezos’ mega-yacht might. In fact, seize all billionaire yachts, ban building new ones, nationalize Amazon and AWS, then dismantle their infrastructure, ensuring nothing like them can ever be built again.
Target the actual culprits, or stop pretending you’re serious. Because you and all the climate scientists surveyed in the Guardian report aren’t.
Th: Jacobson’s 100% renewables fantasy won’t fix this. Neither will scolding train passengers. Your waiting list for wind-powered ships won’t save the Maldives—seizing Bezos’ mega-yacht might
BPL: I don’t see how. The CO2 generated by the yacht is trivial in relation to the size of the problem. And 100% renewables isn’t a fantasy.
T: I agree with your solutions, but I don’t see how this is to be done. Do you suggest we acquire more and better weapons? At the moment, they hold the reins and most of the ammunition.
Kevin Anderson manages to say these things without being so bombastic or unrealistic about the ability to wake us all up as the world chooses predation over working together to solve problems.
Meanwhile, every small action and focus is worth doing.
—
You (and others) might appreciate this [unpaywalled review from Rolling Stone of Adam Becker’s book/ideas] – https://archive.ph/p3NaM
“In More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, published this spring, Becker subjects Silicon Valley’s ideology to some much-needed critical scrutiny, poking holes in — and a decent amount of fun at — the outlandish ideas that so many tech billionaires take as gospel. In so doing, he champions reality while also exposing the dangers of letting the tech billionaires push us toward a future that could never actually exist. “The title of the book is More Everything Forever,” says Becker. “But the secret title of the book, like, in my heart is These F’ing People.”
Reply to Silvia Leahu-Aluas: Version 2.0
[ see below survey questions ]
This moralizing about individual climate actions isn’t just naive – it’s actively harmful. The Guardian’s survey reveals climate scientists’ fundamental failure: they’re experts at measuring the crisis, but clueless about solving it within biophysical reality (Rees, Hall, Garrett). Your wind-powered ship fantasy won’t save the Maldives – seizing Bezos’ yacht might. In fact, we should:
1. Confiscate all billionaire toys (yachts, jets, space rockets)
2. Nationalize and dismantle Amazon/AWS
3. Ban the construction of any new luxury emissions bombs
The brutal truth? The wealthiest 10% cause 75% of emissions (Anderson/Oxfam), while the bottom 50% account for just 7%. Yet we’re told to feel guilty for occasional flights while:
– 1 private jet hour = 2 years of average person’s emissions
– Jeff Bezos’ yacht has a support yacht for his helicopter
– Taylor Swift’s jet emitted 8,300 tons of CO2 in 2022 alone
Your personal purity theater changes nothing. Climate scientists pretending individual actions matter are either:
a) Cowardly avoiding confrontation with power
b) Scientifically illiterate about energy systems
c) Complicit in maintaining this lethal status quo
When you’re ready to name and target the actual criminals – the oligarchs, the military-industrial complex, the growth-obsessed corporations – then we can talk. Until then, spare us your slow-travel waiting lists and renewable fairy tales.
—————————————-
Survey: Which Critique of “Individual Action” Climate Narratives is More Effective?
After my initial response to Silvia Leahu-Aluas’ post about personal climate actions, I’ve prepared two versions of a systemic rebuttal. Which better exposes the flaws in this approach?
Version 1 (Technical/Policy Focus):
Highlights thermodynamic limits (Rees, Hall, Garrett)
Debunks 100% renewables myth (Clack vs. Jacobson)
Demands binding laws targeting elite overconsumption
Sample line: “Jacobson’s 100% renewables fantasy is as useful as a lifeboat made of Twitter hashtags.”
Version 2 (Unapologetic Class Analysis):
Names/shames elite emissions (Bezos yachts, Swift’s jet)
Calls for confiscation of luxury emissions sources
Accuses climate scientists of cowardice/complicity
Sample line: “Your wind-powered ship waiting list won’t save the Maldives—seizing Bezos’ yacht might.”
Vote Below:
1️⃣ Version 1 (Systemic but restrained)
2️⃣ Version 2 (No-holds-barred truth bomb)
3️⃣ Both fail to address [your suggestion]
Thanks, looking forward to hearing your insights.
T
Th: Climate scientists pretending individual actions matter are either:
a) Cowardly avoiding confrontation with power
b) Scientifically illiterate about energy systems
c) Complicit in maintaining this lethal status quo
BPL: Individual actions may only be a small part of the solution, but they are part. The cracking down on the super-rich is a good idea in and of itself, but it won’t solve the problem of global warming. That will take replacing power sources with renewable energy and fuels with hydrogen, and in the long run, trying to take CO2 directly out of the air.
Thessalonia, you are scapegoating the wealthy. Everyone consuming fossil fuels contributes to the climate problem to some extent ,, and can do something to help.
However I doubt we will solve any of our environmental problems by doing things that are austere, like reducing air travel, People love air travel too much. I do some things to cut my carbon footprint, but theres no way Im going to turn the heater down low in winter and punish myself. So we are very reliant on energy substitution schemes like renewables and biofuels, and EV’s.
The financial inequality issue is very troubling. The power of the billionaires is becoming problematic. However Socialism doesn’t work. The failure of the USSR and Maos China etc,etc showed that.
The problem can be reduced with wealth taxes and progressive income taxes, and this is reasonably practical but it requires public support of such policies. But its currently about the only thing that makes any sense.
I try and do things to reduce my carbon footprint but I know it will ultimately make minimal difference because my carbon footprint is huge by global standards simply by living in a wealthy Western country, even if I busted a gut. I did try once to get through a UK winter with the thermostat set to 10C and compensate by wearing multiple layers, gloves and a hat indoors. I managed it but it was pretty brutal. I spent a few years car free and cycled a 19 mile round trip to work daily (remote rural workplace so no public transport) which did wonders for my health but took its toll in the form of accumulated fatigue. I have just about given up flying apart from one sin this year when I flew to Scotland with a friend to do a three peaks charity event. The alternative to flying was 12 hours on a minibus, no thanks, or spending a large sum of money on the train fare which would still take a good 10 hours at least (ground based public transport in the UK is expensive, no wonder we have some of the most congested roads in Europe). It is difficult to tax the wealthy as they have the ability to move their assets offshore and can affort to hire accountants to find and exploit every loophole available.
Adam Lea: “I try and do things to reduce my carbon footprint but I know it will ultimately make minimal difference because my carbon footprint is huge by global standards simply by living in a wealthy Western country, even if I busted a gut. ”
Exactly what the PR campaign by BP that offered to the public their “carbon footprint calculator” wanted to achieve:
– to deflect attention from them: “if your carbon footprint is not zero then you are in no position to criticize those who gain trillions in profits from nourishing dependence on fossil fuels, since they only deliver what you want them to”
– to sow apathy – if “minimal difference even if I busted a gut.” then what’s the point of even trying – let’s enjoy our consumption while it lasts, and “After us , Deluge!”
A particularly fine update on US southwest drought/heat effects:
Why winter rains keep skipping the Southwest. Human-caused climate change from burning fossil fuels may be involved in a persistent tilt toward dry patterns. – https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/08/why-winter-rains-keep-skipping-the-southwest/
cites new publication: Human emissions drive recent trends in North Pacific climate variations – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09368-2
“Abstract: The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO)—the leading pattern of climate variability driving changes over the North Pacific and surrounding continents—is now thought to be generated by processes internal to the climate system. According to this paradigm, the characteristic, irregular oscillations of the PDO arise from a collection of mechanisms involving ocean and atmosphere interactions in the North and tropical Pacific. Recent variations in the coupled ocean–atmosphere system, such as the 2015 El Niño, ought to have shifted the PDO into its positive phase. Yet, the PDO has been locked in a consistent downward trend for more than three decades, remanding nearby regions to a steady set of climate impacts. Here we show that the main multidecadal variations in the PDO index during the twentieth century, including the ongoing, decades-long negative trend, were largely driven by human emissions of aerosols and greenhouse gases rather than internal processes. This anthropogenic influence was previously undetected because the current generation of climate models systematically underestimate the amplitude of forced climate variability. A new attribution technique that statistically corrects for this error suggests that observed PDO impacts—including the ongoing multidecadal drought in the western United States—can be largely attributed to human activity through externally forced changes in the PDO. These results indicate that we need to rethink the attribution and projection of multidecadal changes in regional climate.”
Remember the Michael E Mann Scientific Standard
“IPCC represents the consensus. Individual articles don’t. Until there’s a major assessment (NAS or IPCC) saying otherwise, the claim of [ X ] must be considered an extraordinary claim lacking evidence. I’m done w/ this now, ok?”
quote ref – https://nitter.poast.org/MichaelEMann/status/1673511877790388225#m
Thanks Susan for this as I had missed seeing this new work. Sure seems like we’ve seen a recent spat of serious works revolving around water of late. Whether it relates to precipitation patterns, surface-water, ground-water, usage, etc. And all of it is concerning.
Makes me wonder if the day is coming way faster than I previously thought where we will be building some new major pipelines. Not to move hydrocarbons, or hydrogen. But to move potable water from Canada south to an increasingly thirsty United States! What do you forsee?
Carbon Brief latest: “Renewable energy will overtake coal to become the world’s top source of electricity “by 2026 at the latest”, according to new forecasts from the International Energy Agency (IEA).The rise of renewables is being driven by extremely rapid growth in wind and solar output, which topped 4,000 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2024 and will pass 6,000TWh by 2026. ”
“Wind and solar are increasingly under attack from populist politicians on the right, such as US president Donald Trump and Reform in the UK (My comment: And doomers on the hard left, like the guy on this website who uses all the sock puppets). Nevertheless, they will together meet more than 90% of the increase in global electricity demand out to 2026, the IEA says, while modest growth for hydro power will add to renewables’ rise.”
“With nuclear and gas also reaching record highs by 2026, coal-fired generation is set to decline – driven by falls in China and the EU – meaning that power-sector emissions will decline, too. The chart below illustrates these profound shifts in the global electricity mix – in particular, the meteoric rise of renewables, driven by wind and solar. Global electricity generation by source, terawatt hours, 1990-2026….”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/iea-renewables-will-be-worlds-top-power-source-by-2026/
Early days of course and progress is still too slow but at least the ‘trend’ is in the right direction.
Non-Climate Science Consensus Theories about the future are not reality.
Report Facts, not bullshit hype. There is no trend to report. There are no sock puppets here. If there was the moderators would soon block or ban them. Then there would be none. Like now.
Thessalonia says ” There is no trend to report”, despite the graph in the link I posted showing renewable generation growing for a couple of decades, and coal use slowing and the two trends getting very close to crossing each other. Maybe Thessalonia doesn’t know what a trend is, or needs to wear glasses. LOL.
NigelJ conflates two very different things:
1. Growth in renewable capacity (which is real)
2. Actual displacement of fossil fuels (which isn’t real)
The IEA’s own data shows:
– Global fossil fuel consumption hit record highs in 2024 (IEA 2025)
– 81% of world energy still comes from fossils (BP Stats 2025)
– Wind/solar provide just 4.7% of total energy (not just electricity)
For lurkers: When someone shows you a graph of electricity generation, ask:
– Where’s the total energy graph?
– Why are fossils still growing?
– What about the 68% of energy use that isn’t electricity?
Futuristic Projections aren’t reality – as Germany’s €600 billion Energiewende and 40% higher prices clearly show.
P.S. ‘Maybe you need glasses’ isn’t an argument – as much as an unconscious admission Nigelj can’t defend the data in his own comment.
Pedro Prieto. I conflated nothing. I did not suggest renewables have displaced the use of coal, only that renewables have grown and coal use has slowed. This is what the graph showed. It’s slowed very substantially by 90%. We are thus getting close to renewables displacing coal.
Some positive information related to solar and wind power and battery storage:
Canary Media: “2024 was a fantastic year for energy storage”
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/batteries/2024-was-a-fantastic-year-for-energy-storage
The Guardian: US power grid added battery equivalent of 20 nuclear reactors in past four years
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/24/power-grid-battery-capacity-growth
Faced with worsening climate-driven disasters and an electricity grid increasingly supplied by intermittent renewables, the US is rapidly installing huge batteries that are already starting to help prevent power blackouts.
From barely anything just a few years ago, the US is now adding utility-scale batteries at a dizzying pace, having installed more than 20 gigawatts of battery capacity to the electric grid, with 5GW of this occurring just in the first seven months of this year, according to the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA).
This means that battery storage equivalent to the output of 20 nuclear reactors has been bolted on to America’s electric grids in barely four years, with the EIA predicting this capacity could double again to 40GW by 2025 if further planned expansions occur…..
with the EIA predicting this capacity could double again to 40GW by 2025
Half way through 2025 — how much is it now? /sarc
“There’s a sucker born every minute. ”
P. T. Barnum
Thessalonia is implying there’s insufficient capacity now, so the onus on Thessalonia is to provide evidence. Hitchens Philosophical Razor: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Canary Media: “2024 was a fantastic year for energy storage”
The Guardian: US power grid added battery equivalent of 20 nuclear reactors in past four years
Bul lshit manipulation. Spin. Lies. The gullible line up to swallow it whole.
“20 Nuc lear Rea ctors Worth of Batteries”? Let’s Do the Math.
The celebratory headlines about US battery storage additions (20GW) fail to mention energy capacity (GWh) – the actual measure of how much work these systems can do.
20GW of US nuc lear rea ctors (avg. 90% capacity factor) generate:
157,680 GWh annually
(20GW × 24h × 365d × 0.9)
20GW of grid batteries (4-hour duration, 1 cycle/day):
29,200 GWh annually
(20GW × 4h × 365d × 1.0 efficiency)
Real ity Che ck:
The much-hyped “20GW of batteries” stores <20% of the annual energy produced by equivalent nuc lear capacity.
Only Store it, they don’t Produce it!
China’s Hua long One rea ctors (1.2GW each, 92% CF) outperform this further: 19,334 GWh/yr per rea ctor vs batteries’ 1,460 GWh/yr.
To truly replace one modern rea ctor, the US would need:
13,250 GWh of storage (for 90% CF matching)
That’s 3,312 Tes la Megapacks (4h duration) per rea ctor
Batteries have a role in grid flexibility, but comparing them to baseload nucl ear is either ignorant or dishonest.
Key Omissions in the Articles:
No mention of battery degradation (20% capacity loss in 10 years)
Ignores materials intensity (500,000 lbs minerals per GWh vs nuclear’s 5,000 lbs)
Pretends 4-hour storage solves renewable intermittency (we need weeks of storage for seasonal gaps)
Sources: EIA, WNA, Hua long One performance reports.
(But sure, Canary Media—let’s pretend lithium mines are “green” while opposing the densest energy source we have.)
Thessalonia, what duration on average does it take to get a civil nuclear powered generator unit up-and-running from scratch? Do you know?
Per the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024, on page 60 (bold text my emphasis):
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2024
An additional time of 5 years for planning, approvals, licensing, design, procurements, site preparations, and commissioning means the overall deployment times are on average around 1½ decades duration.
See IAEA Technical Report No. NP-T-2.7, Project Management in Nuclear Power Plant Construction: Guidelines and Experience, Fig 8.
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1537_web.pdf
Some recent civil nuclear projects include:
* UAE’s Barakah four reactor project, 4x 1,337 MWₑ net capacity, demonstrated it took more than 15-years to get its first reactor unit operational from scratch.
* Finland’s OLKILUOTO-3 reactor project, 1x 1,600 MWₑ net capacity, demonstrated it took more than 22-years to get its reactor unit operational from scratch.
* USA’s VOGTLE-3 & -4 twin reactor project, 2x 1,117 MWₑ net capacity, demonstrated it took around 17-years to get VOGTLE-3 operational from scratch.
* China’s HAIYANG-1 & -2 twin AP1000 project, 2x 1,170 MWₑ net capacity, with decades of nuclear power development experience, are demonstrating that nuclear power projects are requiring significantly more than a decade to get up-and-running from scratch.
* Japan’s SHIMANE-3, if all goes to the latest plan, will take more than 25-years to complete.
* France’s FLAMANVILLE-3 reactor project, 1x 1,630 MWₑ net capacity, has demonstrated it will take more than 20-years to get this reactor unit fully operational.
* China’s SHIDAO BAY-1 twin reactor project, driving a single turbine-generator with 200 MWₑ net capacity, has demonstrated it took more than 18-years to get operational from scratch.
* Russia’s AKADEMIK LOMONOSOV-1 & -2 floating twin small reactor project, 2x 32 MWₑ net capacity, has demonstrated it took around 20-years to get its twin reactor units operational from scratch.
* South Korea’s SHIN-HANUL-1 & -2 project, 2x 1,340 MWₑ net capacity, despite decades of nuclear power development experience, South Korea is demonstrating that nuclear power projects are requiring significantly more than a decade to get up-and-running from scratch.
See my Submission (#066) + Attachment 1, Supplementary Submissions (#066.1 – #066.3), and public hearing testimony on 11 Dec 2024, to the Australian Parliament House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy re their Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.
https://www.aph.gov.au/nuclear
Nuclear technologies are DEMONSTRABLY TOO SLOW to deploy to save us from Planetary Insolvency!
Nuclear technologies are DEMONSTRABLY TOO SLOW to deploy to save us from Planetary Insolvency!
Summary (Years after Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to reach 4 GW Wind + 4 GW Solar)
Country Years for Wind (4 GW) Years for Solar (4 GW)
USA ~4 (by 2001) 16 (by 2013)
France ~11 (by 2008) 16 (by 2013)
Denmark ~6 (by 2003) ~18 (after 2015)
UK ~12 (by 2009) 17 (by 2014)
Canada ~12 (by 2009) ~20 (after 2017)
Brazil ~17 (by 2014) 22 (by 2019)
Key Insight:
Wind energy grew faster (many countries hit 4 GW within 6–17 years after Kyoto).
Solar energy took longer, with most nations reaching 4 GW between 16–22 years after Kyoto (2013–2019).
MEANWHILE * China’s SHIDAO BAY-1 twin reactor project, driving a single turbine-generator with 200 MWₑ net capacity, has demonstrated it took more than 18-years to get operational from scratch. IS ONE OF A KIND EXPERIMENTAL … IN MANY RESPECTS EACH ONE OF THOSE NUKES WERE ONE-OFFS NEW DESIGNS DEVELOPMENTS …. SOME WILL OPERATE GHG FREE FOR 80+ YEARS.
THINK!
HORSES for Course.
APPLES are not Oranges.
Wind and SOLAR do not Operate 24/7/365 days per year.
A 1GW Nameplate Nuclear Power station has a Energy Output orders of magnitude greater than 4 GW Wind and 4 GW Solar over it’s lifetimes.
Some things are actually worth waiting for and doping it right.
But the things that get posted here every day are debilitating to reason and knowledge.
Pedro Prieto: – “MEANWHILE * China’s SHIDAO BAY-1 twin reactor project, driving a single turbine-generator with 200 MWₑ net capacity, has demonstrated it took more than 18-years to get operational from scratch. IS ONE OF A KIND EXPERIMENTAL … IN MANY RESPECTS EACH ONE OF THOSE NUKES WERE ONE-OFFS NEW DESIGNS DEVELOPMENTS …. SOME WILL OPERATE GHG FREE FOR 80+ YEARS.”
I don’t think a single 200 MWₑ net capacity generator unit is going to keep civilisation going! Do you think, Pedro Prieto?
And most of those nuclear power generator units referred by me earlier are not one-offs. There are now multiple physical examples of the:
* Westinghouse AP-1000 (Gen III+) design;
* KEPCO APR-1400 (Gen III) design;
* Framatome / EDF EPR (Gen III+) design;
* Japanese ABWR design;
* Chinese Hualong One (HPR-1000) Generation III reactor design.
Only the Russian AKADEMIK LOMONOSOV-1 & -2 floating twin small reactors, and the Chinese SHIDAO BAY-1 twin reactor project that I referred to earlier appear to be one-offs.
You didn’t bother to look at my Submission, did you, Pedro Prieto? That would be inconvenient for your narrative, aye Pedro Prieto?
I’d suggest relentless and accelerating sea level rise (SLR) will likely inundate some of these nuclear plants long before their useful operating lives (you suggest 80+ years, but there are no physical examples that have ever demonstrated this) are over. For examples:
* UAE’s Barakah plant is at risk of relentless SLR – 2 reactors inundated at 1 m of SLR, perhaps as early as the 2060s, and all four units at 2 m SLR?
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/16/52.2334/23.9669/?theme=water_level&map_type=water_level_above_mhhw&basemap=hybrid&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&refresh=true&water_level=1.0&water_unit=m
* UK’s Hinkley Point A, B & C are at risk of relentless SLR at 6 m, possibly before 2100.
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/15/-3.1389/51.2049/?theme=water_level&map_type=water_level_above_mhhw&basemap=hybrid&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&refresh=true&water_level=6.0&water_unit=m
* France’s Flamanville reactors are at risk of inundation by relentless SLR at 6 m, possibly before 2100.
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/15/-1.8831/49.5355/?theme=water_level&map_type=water_level_above_mhhw&basemap=hybrid&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&refresh=true&water_level=6.0&water_unit=m
* China’s Haiyang nuclear power plant is at risk inundation by relentless SLR at 5 m, possibly before 2100.
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/15/121.3881/36.708/?theme=water_level&map_type=water_level_above_mhhw&basemap=hybrid&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&refresh=true&water_level=5.0&water_unit=m
And there are many other reactor units sited on coastlines or river estuaries that are likely also at risk of multi-metre SLR well before the end of this century.
James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha published on 20 Feb 2025 their communication titled The Acid Test: Global Temperature in 2025, which included (bold text my emphasis):
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/Acid.Test.20Feb2025.pdf
We/humanity would need to cool down planet Earth to save our coastlines.
Meanwhile, a swarm of jellyfish shuts a nuclear power plant in France.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/11/swarm-of-jellyfish-shuts-nuclear-power-plant-in-france
Pedro Prieto: – “Some things are actually worth waiting for and doping it right.”
Not if they are TOO LATE to deploy to save us from Planetary Insolvency! And that’s my critical point you’ve apparently ignored.
The IFoA report is suggesting without immediate policy action to change course, Catastrophic (i.e. ≥25% GDP loss and ≥25% human mortality) or Extreme (i.e. ≥50% GDP loss and ≥50% human mortality) impacts by year-2050 are eminently plausible.
https://actuaries.org.uk/news-and-media-releases/news-articles/2025/jan/16-jan-25-planetary-solvency-finding-our-balance-with-nature/
Clearly, you can’t see the critical factors…
Repeating one core point:
The much-hyped “20GW of batteries” stores <20% of the annual energy produced by equivalent nuclear capacity.
Only Store it, they don’t Produce it!
China’s Hua long One reactors (1.2GW each, 92% CF) outperform this further:
19,334 GWh/yr per reactor vs 20 GW batteries’ 1,460 GWh/yr
To truly replace one modern reactor, the US would need:
13,250 GWh of storage (for 90% CF matching)
That’s 3,312 X Tesla Megapacks (4h duration) per reactor
Batteries have a role in grid flexibility, but comparing them to baseload nuclear is either ignorant or dishonest. I’m going with ignorant and badly misinformed and/or manipulated by Elites with $$$$$.
No one can defy EROEI – No one.
in Re to Geoff Miell, 14 Aug 2025 at 8:24 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-837573
Dear Geoff,
Many thanks for your overview.
I would like to add four remarks.
1) Batteries (or any other electricity storage) have different role than nuclear power plants (or any other electricity production means). Storage can improve economy of the installed sources, whereas installation of additional sources has the opposite effect.
While batteries are too expensive to be suitable for more than a few hours of storage, nuclear power plants require enormous investments for a unit of installed power. I suppose, however, that the investors had good reasons why they have not decided to build rather nuclear power. I am afraid that even in comparison with the described huge batteries, economic return of an investment into nuclear power plants, proposed herein by some discussion participants as a seemingly more reasonable “alternative”, in fact looks significantly worse.
2) I think that besides economy measured financially, we should consider also a long-term aspect that could be assigned as “economy of resources”. In this respect, present nuclear technology that remains technically at the level reached in the last century does represent an enormous wasting with a precious consumable natural resource. Nuclear power plants have a significantly worse energy efficiency in comparison with power plants consuming other fuels, and orders of magnitude worse exploitation of the spent fuel.
In addition to these two aspects, nuclear power plants based on the present commercially available technology are the least flexible electricity sources. The argument that they are still suitable as the “base load” in electrical grids is in my opinion highly controversial, because such an arrangement strongly influences the economy of other sources that should secure the rest of the supply.
3) There are complex reasons why nuclear industry failed to innovate and has not resolved technical challenges preventing better energy efficiency and high fuel exploitation. Anyway, if I was an investor, I would presently not see any prospect of investments in extremely difficult and expensive research and development that perhaps could fix the past omissions.
Presently, there are other ways and opportunities in the energy sector that look obviously easier. Although renewable energy sources and large-scale electricity storage may also see technical obstacles, there is a significantly lower economic risk linked to regulatory burden. that is basically unavoidable due to safety and security issues that are inherent for nuclear technology.
4) Due to enormous investments required, it is foreseen that new nuclear power plants should stay operational till the end of 21st century. Such huge investments can thus represent an absurd long-term locking of entire nations to a technically obsolete technology and significantly hamper technical innovation and further technical progress and economic improvements in their energy sector.
Moreover, I am afraid that through their detrimental influence on technical innovation, such poor investments may undermine competitiveness of the entire national industry. I think that especially for smaller countries like Czech Republic, such a wrong turn can initiate a long-lasting stagnation of their national economies.
Greetings
Tomáš
sorry the JEH link
Radiation: The Facts
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/NuclearRadiationSafety.2014.pdf
Bonus
Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo: Do
Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular Misconceptions?
James E. Hansen
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf
DBL Bonus Charles Hall Our Energy Future – Can RE sustainables prevail?
https://youtu.be/keDBIL9ysgY?si=BNlbCC35ABGKnE8p&t=995
Th: Bul lshit manipulation. Spin. Lies. The gullible line up to swallow it whole.
BPL: Obviously Thessalonia came here to make friends. There’s no better way to convince people than to insult, belittle, and jeer at them.
Thessalonia tells us, in bold no less, that batteries “Only Store [energy], they don’t Produce it!”
Wow! Who knew?
Thanks for such a blinding, life-changing revelation!
Kevin, as I keep pointing out, spending too much time with trolls, it rubs off. There’s no challenge to keep you sharp.
Nothing “produces” energy.
“Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change from one form to another.”
(I heard that somewhere.)
Looked at RC today and saw that of the 1st 14 comments 9 were by Thessalonia and 2 by Weaktor. Well, that’s 30 minutes of my life I have back!
Thessalonias and Victors comments are mostly BS, but I have a certain fascination with reading BS. Its very entertaining. They provide a service, maybe unwittingly.
When I looked at RealClimate today I didn’t see any posts by Thessalonia on the list. Must be your bad luck. Try harder. Tomorrow you might get confronted with 100 from Pedro.
Ray L: Indeed. But being in the mood, I took a look at a few of T’s remarks, and despite his poor rendition of points better made with more human understanding by Kevin Anderson and others, I found myself in agreement about getting rid of billionaire tech bros.
It’s the vanity publishing and lack of self-awareness of the hostile affect that gets in the way. He and others don’t understand that we understand all too well what’s going on. Raging at each other goes nowhere fast, and degrades the conversation.
“To meet the scale of the challenge posed by climate change, there is a need for transformation in the lifestyles led by individuals across much of the world. Choice is a central component of this transformation, and this review has highlighted the power of decision-making that extends beyond individual consumption behavior. There is a need for change among systems of provision and governance, businesses and communities, and in social and cultural norms that each set the context for individual decision-making. Individuals acting as citizens, influencers, investors, professionals, and consumers hold the key to delivering this change.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223003548
I subscribe to the quoted social theory of change. Therefore, onward to my next long distance (~3300 km round trip) train travel with the lowest CO2e per passenger per km among available motorized mobility means. That is my and many others’ main criterion for choosing how to travel.
Just one example of practicing and scaling the solutions to the climate emergency.
A big Thank You to our hosts for the expansion of “Recent Comments” to 30! :-)
And as always, I’m grateful for Real Climate.
I agree David, but I now realize the flaw in my plan. ;-(
Since I can now more easily find comments from people (like you) that I would bother to check on, I am tempted to contribute more often myself, in response!
Well, OK, self-discipline is always a good challenge. And, we will be able to see if the sock-puppeteer has any at all, which I doubt. Carry on.
NASA’s acting chief calls for the end of Earth science at the space agency
Nevertheless, Duffy is putting his imprint on the space agency, seeking to emphasize the agency’s human exploration plans, including the development of a lunar base, and ending NASA’s efforts to study planet Earth and its changing climate.
Duffy has not spoken much with reporters who cover the space industry, but he has been a frequent presence on Fox News networks, where he previously worked as a host. On Thursday, he made an 11-minute appearance on “Mornings with Maria,” a FOX Business show hosted by Maria Bartiromo to discuss NASA.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/08/nasas-acting-chief-calls-for-the-end-of-earth-science-at-the-space-agency/?comments-page=1#comments
Had enough yet?
Do you plan to pledge your fealty to Neo-Hitler?
Space or Bust
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/space-or-bust/
2050 arrives in 25 years.
The Paris Agreement was adopted 9 years ago.
The failed Kyoto Protocol was adopted 28 years ago.
More doers to support, promote and patronize. More clean mobility solutions to adopt. More action towards saving the living from human-induced destruction.
I just found out that Sailcoop, a French cooperative dedicated to decarbonizing maritime travel, is servicing the France to US route between St.Nazaire and Baltimore.
Does individual action matter? Yes, because: “Changing our lives shifts the culture and creates space for collective action. Together, let’s explore a more meaningful life – without all the fossil fuel!” says Peter Kalmus, one of my favorite climate scientists and activists.
Reply to Silvia Leahu-Aluas
More doers More clean mobility More action
Does individual action matter? Yes
This won’t solve climate change. But it is a first step that just about everybody should agree is good and feasible. And if you want to do something closer to home, here are two Suggestions and a Fact:
1) If you own a home in the northern hemisphere, paint your roof white. This will reflect sunlight back to space and decrease global warming. Not by much… but tell your neighbor.
2) Wash your clothes with cold water. This will reduce fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions. Not by much, but tell your neighbor.
3) The ~97% consensus only covers anthropogenic warming causes, not mitigation certitude.
I have a one word Solution for global warming and averting climate change catastrophe for humanity and the Earth.
My #1 Solution is: Less
We need Less Vanity, Less Population, Less Energy, Less GDP, Less Consumption, Less Mining, Less Agriculture, Less Shopping, Less Transport, Less shipping, Less trade, Less Finance, Less Internet, Less smart phones, Less cars, Less health care, Less movies, Less Netflix and Less Spotify, Less billionaires, Less insurance companies, Less war, Less Competition, Less Greed, Less Things and fewer Liars.
Less consumption and less war etc, etc would indeed help reduce the climate problem. There are many simple things people can do easily found with google, and they often have the benefit of saving money provided this doesn’t go back into high energy and resource consuming activities.
However we can’t solve the climate problem by consuming less, as a stand alone or main solution, because our consumption would have to drop by astronomical amounts., and very quickly over a period of just 20 years , and this doesn’t look practical. So we require energy substitution to some level.
”So we require energy substitution to some level”
Exactly. It’s simple, actually. We have two choices, just as every other society before us faced two choices when presented with something better: remain stuck in the past, because that’s what the vested interests of a few rich men and their paid ‘liars for hire’ wanted, or move on to better things.
Or at worst, the two choices are transition to a sustainable way of life or die. History has a few examples of those societies which chose the latter.
“Well, that escalated quickly.” – Ron Burgundy
.
Erin now Cat 5 per NHC update at 11:21 AST, Max. sustained winds 140 kt, or 160 mph, 255 km/hr
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCUAT5+shtml/161520.shtml
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT5+shtml/161433.shtml
That’s a 75 kt increase in sustained winds in just a little more than 24 hours according to the NHC. An impressive example of rapid intensification. I’m glad the administration changed their mind on the need for the Hurricane Hunters as currently deployed and will not try to quietly curtail them once the season is over.
Some comments took me travelling until I found this lunacy by Ted Nordhaus 5d ago and wanted to share it.
Why I Stopped Being a Climate Catastrophist
Humans did not “thrive” in the cold paleolithic era, they mostly struggled. Only with the warm Holocene did humans become a thriving and ecologically dominant species.
https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/why-i-stopped-being-a-climate-catastrophist/comment/144713823
Humanity first boomed and spread using fire, wood, stone tools, and water, reshaping landscapes and animal populations. With the advent of cheap and abundant fossil fuels, that expansion accelerated dramatically — the global population grew from 1 billion to 8 billion in just over 200 years.
The timeline goes like this:
Around 1804 → world population reached 1 billion.
Around 2022 → world population reached 8 billion.
So it took roughly 218 years for humanity to grow from 1 billion to 8 billion people.
that was not because of the holocene!
It proves the paradox: the smarter people get, the more they know, the dumber they become.
Pedro Prieto: – “The timeline goes like this:
Around 1804 → world population reached 1 billion.
Around 2022 → world population reached 8 billion.
So it took roughly 218 years for humanity to grow from 1 billion to 8 billion people.
that was not because of the holocene!”
I think you are (willfully?) ignoring the stable & compatible environment of planet Earth during the Holocene period that has enabled human civilisation, agriculture and population to grow during this key period.
Estimated human population:
year-1700: circa 600 million
year-1805: 1 billion
year-1925: 2 billion
year-1950: 2.5 billion
year-1987: 5 billion
year-2023: 8 billion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_projections#/media/File:World_population_growth,_1700-2100,_2022_revision.png
During the Holocene period (i.e. circa the last 11,700 years) the longer-term running mean GMST has been relatively very stable at about 14 ± 0.5 °C, until around the 1980s.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
https://berkeley-earth-wp-offload.storage.googleapis.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/03231115/2024-Global-Time-Series.png
Civilisation, characterized by complex urban settlements, emerged roughly 6,000 years ago, around 4000 BCE, with the rise of agriculture and trade, which occurred wholly within the Holocene period.
The 30-year LOESS smooth GMST anomaly, relative to the 1850-1900 baseline, is now exceeding +1.4 °C (per Berkeley Earth dataset).
https://berkeley-earth-wp-offload.storage.googleapis.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/08175222/12MonthMovingAverage.png
Currently, Planet Earth hasn’t been this warm since the Eemian interglacial period (i.e. beginning circa 130,000 years ago and ending circa 115,000 years ago), where it was one of the warmest periods of the last 800,000 years, with temperatures comparable to and at times warmer (by up to on average 2 °C) than the contemporary Holocene interglacial, with the maximum sea level being up to 6 to 9 metres higher than at present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Interglacial
https://johnenglander.net/chart-of-420000-year-history-temperature-co2-sea-level/
Humanity is on a collision course towards a +3 °C GMST anomaly, or more; a world beyond any past human (aka Homo sapiens) experience. Large-scale depopulation would be likely.
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10171397154975562&set=a.10167518085325562
https://actuaries.org.uk/news-and-media-releases/news-articles/2025/jan/16-jan-25-planetary-solvency-finding-our-balance-with-nature/
https://globaia.org/habitability
https://x.com/i/status/1957042554723033185
Donald Trump: “One of the most urgent tasks… is to decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.”
“The radical left’s fearmongering about climate and our future is… destroying America’s economy, weakening our society, and eviscerating our middle class.”
“We have to defeat the climate hoaxsters once and for all.”
Good question — because that’s where the word “consensus” gets even more slippery.
Here’s a breakdown you can use:
1. CMIP output & projections (sea ice, temps, etc.)
CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) runs are ensembles of models, not a “consensus” in themselves.
The IPCC reports then summarize the spread of results, highlighting where models converge and where uncertainty remains.
Example: sea ice loss projections show a strong downward trend across models — there’s consensus on direction, not precise timing, or anything else.
2. IPCC WG I (physical science basis)
Strong consensus statements (e.g. “warming is unequivocal and human-caused”).
Uses calibrated language: very likely, high confidence.
But remember: this is policy-relevant, not policy-prescriptive. It avoids dictating what must be done.
3. WG II (impacts, adaptation, vulnerability)
Much more uncertainty because it projects human + ecological systems together.
You’ll see “consensus” here in the form of broad agreement on risks increasing with warming, but big gaps on precise local/regional outcomes.
4. WG III (mitigation)
This is where “consensus” is weakest. The report lays out pathways (e.g. net zero by mid-century) but these are scenarios, not predictions.
They depend heavily on assumptions about technology, economics, and politics — which are not scientific constants. (eg 100% WWS Grids, CDR, CCUS, energy mix, EV RE take-up)
5. SPMs (Summaries for Policymakers)
These are negotiated documents, line-edited by governments.
They reflect political consensus on wording more than purely scientific consensus.
That’s why they often feel more certain or streamlined than the underlying chapters.
So:
Yes, there is strong scientific consensus in WG I (basic physics, attribution, direction of change).
But as you move into projections, impacts, and mitigation (WG II & III) the “consensus” shifts into scenarios and negotiated language rather than universal agreement.
A sharp RealClimate-style line might be:
“Consensus is strongest on causes and basic physical responses, weaker on projections and impacts, and weakest on mitigation pathways — where politics and assumptions dominate the framing.”
It’s important to be precise about what ‘consensus’ means. The much-cited ~97% figure applies only to attribution — the agreement that recent global warming is real and primarily caused by human activity.
That consensus does not extend to certainty about mitigation pathways or the feasibility of goals like ‘net zero.’ On those questions, there is active debate, uncertainty, and legitimate disagreement within the scientific community. And outright disdain as well.
No climate scientist knows for certain why the temp spike happened in 2023/24 or why the rate of growth has significantly risen to +0.36C/decade recently. Bar a few remaining desperate pleas for ‘natural variation’. They can’t explain why the climate models didn’t capture this shift in their forecasts either.
No climate scientist worth their salt believes in the 100% WWS + Storage electricity grid phantasm. Or the BECCS CDR CCUS mythologies found throughout the IPCC AR6 so-called “assessment” of the “science”.
No climate scientist I know of still agrees with or believes in the Net Zero by 2050 goal or the Paris Agreement is achievable or buys into the unfounded myths found all through the AR6 WGIII chapters. Even those who were authors of it. Prior climate scientist promoters have all stopped promoting it.
Non-climate scientists is another matter entirely.
The only thing left for our climate scientists is to plead to reduce emissions as much as possible. But that is not a plan. It’s a prayer of knowing desperation masquerading as a call to action.
Some frame it differently: The sooner we get to zero emissions the better.
PPr: It’s important to be precise about what ‘consensus’ means. The much-cited ~97% figure applies only to attribution — the agreement that recent global warming is real and primarily caused by human activity.
BPL: You have expert opinion confused with evidence. The scientific consensus is not a vote taken around a table. It’s a consensus of evidence–when many different lines of investigation all lead to the same conclusion. The late E.O. Wilson called it “consilience.”
PPr: No climate scientist worth their salt believes in the 100% WWS + Storage electricity grid phantasm.
BPL: You’ve polled them, have you?
PPr: Or the BECCS CDR CCUS mythologies found throughout the IPCC AR6 so-called “assessment” of the “science”.
BPL: Darn that IPCC! They should evaluate the broad lines of evidence pointing to anthropogenic global warming!
Oh, wait. They did.
PPr: No climate scientist I know of still agrees with or believes in the Net Zero by 2050 goal or the Paris Agreement is achievable or buys into the unfounded myths found all through the AR6 WGIII chapters. Even those who were authors of it. Prior climate scientist promoters have all stopped promoting it.
BPL: Again, you did a poll? “No climate scientist I know of” is probably not exhaustive of the field.
Reply to Kevin McKinney
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-837625
KEVIN,
The IPCC’s SSP2-4.5 scenario shows 45% fossil fuels + 10-15% nuclear in 2050. Even the most optimistic scenario, SSP1-1.9, still requires ~60% fossils + nuclear.
Key Points from IPCC AR6 WGIII, Table 3.4 (PDF p.44):
SSP1-1.9 (2050): 44% fossil energy
SSP2-4.5 (2050): 45% fossil energy
These SSP Energy projections imply:
Heavy reliance on unproven carbon removal (CDR) and carbon capture (CCUS) at massive scale.
Continued long-term fossil fuel infrastructure, despite “phaseout” claims.
Why is this rarely discussed in regard to mitigation strategies and their assumptions?
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) emphasizes relative reductions (e.g., “fossils down 60% from 2019”) rather than absolute shares, obscuring reality.
Media focuses narrowly on electricity generation (where renewables perform well) while ignoring total energy demand (where fossils dominate).
Climate science institutions remain silent on these constraints, even as policymakers push “100% renewables” narratives.
The global energy demand in 2050 and 2100 is projected to be less than it is today; despite future energy demand trends, not least being AI electricity and increasing populations.
Reference: IPCC AR6 WGIII, Chapter 3, Table 3.4 (PDF p.44)
Bring a calculator – they do not spell it out clearly.
→ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter03.pdf
Where is the scientific consensus that 100% wind, water, and solar (WWS) is feasible? The models do not support this claim, yet it frequently appears in “Net Zero” rhetoric to day.
Renewables in 2050 are projected at ~20-30% (including hydro/biomass), but these estimates remain speculative at best. Both SSPs rely on large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and carbon capture (CCUS) to compensate for slow mitigation—technologies with unproven feasibility at scale. Fossil fuels are relegated as Low Carbon Energy (Not as fossil fuels) once CDR/CCUS is theoretically applied to that energy use source. Unproven theoretical technology is assumed to provide ~15% of total energy supply in 2050. This seems like an unachievable overreach to me. What do you think?
If the IPCC’s own models show fossil fuels consumption at ~45% in 2050, how can “Net Zero by 2050” claims be taken seriously? And why is there no honest debate about this or the infeasibility of carbon removal at scale?
Who Decides What Goes Into IPCC WGIII?
1) The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) plays a dominant role in shaping the Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) used in IPCC scenarios. Yet:
2) IIASA’s models assume massive CDR deployment (thousands of carbon removal plants by 2050) with no real-world feasibility.
3) Their scenarios lock in a very large fossil fuel dependence while promoting “Net Zero” as politically palatable, and achievable. But is it?
4) There seems on the surface little accountability or investigations into why these assumptions—not physical or engineering realities—dictate IPCC policy guidance that led onto the Paris Agreement and the SR15 Net Zero by 2050 Goals.
PS thousands of carbon removal plants by 2050.
That number was actually put at 10,000 plants, I saw noted recently.
That is X 400 new CDR Plants built per year, every year from now until 2050 might get them there. In theory.
Announced yesterday, a new Victorian State Govt RE electricity plan expansion. Taxpayer Costs double to ~$8bln, with solar and wind footprints to cover 8.3% of the states land area.
Some other research showed future ambitions for the continent show an area being used the size of the State of Tasmania to be filled with solar and wind power plants.
In other news this has been coming for a while …
Western Green Energy Hub proposal would transform the Nullarbor. What are the odds of it going ahead?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-26/western-green-energy-hub-nullarbor-renewable-hydrogen-ammonia-wa/104632512
$100bn Nullarbor energy project sparks outrage
Plans for 3000 wind turbines and a desert city of 8000 people have sparked an extraordinary battle over the future of Australia’s ancient Nullarbor Plain.
It’s not just the size of the proposed $100bn Western Green Energy Hub, although that alone boggles the mind: 3000 wind turbines and 60 MILLION solar panels to power green hydrogen and ammonia facilities spanning a 2.2 million hectare project area.
2.2 million hectares = 22,000 km² ≈ 8,494 sq mi.
The scale of development on the West Australian side of the Nullarbor Plain has attracted outrage from heavy-hitters in science and conservation, including former Greens leader Bob Brown who describes it as “one of the most environmentally and culturally disastrous of any single industrial proposal in Australian history’’.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/100bn-nullarbor-energy-project-sparks-outrage/news-story/0b523503aea60eb227fabb0f908f974a?amp
Pastoralist: Nullarbor is not the place for $100b ‘green’ hydrogen project
“The location is too fragile and does not have the resources available to construct or to sustain it,” says Kinclaven station pastoralist Katie Hall on proposed $100b solar and wind project.
https://www.farmweekly.com.au/story/8883515/nullarbor-pastoralist-says-100b-wind-and-solar-project-unviable/
Another Luddite or a Fossil Fuel shill?
The WA government has signed a $584 million deal to expand power transmission infrastructure north of Perth to support its renewable energy transition.
The Clean Energy Link North project will connect wind and solar resources in the Mid West to the grid by 2027.
And it has to happen quickly, with demand for energy increasing and the state committed to getting out of coal-fired power by the end of the decade.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-23/renewables-wind-solar-transmission-line-clean-energy-link-north/105563786
Think about that again, 60 Million Solar Panels over 22,000 sq kilometres in pristine vulnerable ancient wilderness.
WA RE Plans dwarfs these to export electricity to Singapore via the Northern Territory outback.
SunCable’s Australia-Asia Power Link, a [ONLY] 12,000-hectare solar farm slated for development near the Northern Territory town of Tennant Creek,
SunCable is backed by software billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes, [ Who also funds independent politicians for federal elections ] and was originally centred around a plan to build 20 GW of solar and up to 42 GWh of battery storage, and supply Singapore via a 4,200 kms sub sea cable.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/suncable-singapore-gives-nod-to-imports-from-worlds-biggest-solar-and-battery-project/
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/sustainability/renewable-energy-superpower-major-new-solar-project-unveiled/news-story/e2b9072ad04e4f8044607c3eee7548ee
Winning teal independents backed by $10.2m in political donations
AEC disclosures reveal Atlassian founder Scott Farquhar was the biggest Climate 200 donor, giving $1.5m, followed by Mike Cannon-Brookes
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/07/winning-teal-independents-backed-by-102m-in-climate-200-political-donations
When 2050 finally arrives, no one is going to know (or care) who said what in 2025 or at the Copenhagen COP before that.
Question:
Are you aware of any study by the U.S. federal government, or a state government, that seriously examines the contradiction between the goals of economic growth and the reality of biophysical limits—particularly in relation to preserving the environment? I don’t mean the usual government talk about “sustainable development.” I’m asking whether anyone has done an in-depth analysis of consumption, the way we push consumption, the generation of waste, and the long-term implications of all that.
Charlie Hall:
Unfortunately Bill Rees isn’t here, but let me try to answer your question. I’ll start indirectly, then more directly.
On my way down here I stayed with Mathis Wackernagel, who was Bill Rees’s colleague. Together they developed the ecological footprint concept, and Mathis has just received a Nobel-equivalent prize for that work—well deserved. He and I have talked about this a lot, and we’ve even considered writing a paper together. What we’ve both concluded is sobering: all of our work—his on footprints, mine on energy return on investment and biophysical economics—has not shifted the course of the “Queen Mary” even an inch.
In other words, despite widespread recognition of these ideas, and despite the academic and scientific attention, the practical impact has been negligible. Maybe a few thousand people are truly engaged with it, but in terms of broader policy or actual implementation, essentially nothing has changed.
So—are there studies? Yes, plenty. There are footprint studies, and many others that show the trade-offs between growth and environmental policy. But whenever I hear words like “green growth,” I cringe. It’s an oxymoron. If you follow the energy flows, you quickly see the contradictions. It’s like when people talk about removing carbon from the air with machines: the machines typically emit more carbon than they remove. Unless you do a full systems analysis, the claims don’t hold up.
So yes, I know of studies that clearly show the trade-off between economic activity and resource use. The footprint analyses are probably among the best. But I don’t know of any that have led to real change in policy or implementation.
Now, if the world can prove me wrong on that, I’d be delighted. But as far as I know—no, nothing has made a meaningful difference.
Charles Hall Our Energy Future
https://youtu.be/keDBIL9ysgY?si=FSpVfcgMVaS-r5HG&t=4439
Pedro: Like the above points to; the IPCC Science, Economics, 100% WWS Theory and especially WGIII about mitigation theories, technology + resource assumptions and their economic IAM/SSP models including Net Zero 2050 and the Paris Agreement that comes from all that, by relying upon “solutions” that don’t exist, and the entire process too seems a waste of time.
Up-thread I argued that “Whatever the test, the progress of the 2025 temperature record is of some significant interest.”
The testing in question concerned the cause of the “bananas” temperatures of late 2023 and, given there was certainly an El Niño responsible for a significant part of that sudden increase, whether the rest was due to some yet-to-be-explained natural wobble or the result of a forcing, or perhaps some stronger feedback to AGW+El Niño now showing itself.
We are now halfway through August so perhaps that “significant interest” is due an update.
The ERA5 re-analysis data presented by Climate Pulse for first half of August is running an average global SAT of +0.42ºC, down on the full July anomaly of +0.45ºC and continuing the strong cooling seen since the start of 2025. (For illustration, see pink graphic first posted HERE 17th March 2025.)
Relative to previous August’s this first-half-of-August would stand as 3rd warmest on record:-
2023 … … +0.72ºC
2024 … … +0.68ºC
2025 … … +0.42ºC
2019 … … +0.40ºC
2022 … … +0.38ºC
2016 … … +0.36ºC
2021 … … +0.33ºC
2020 … … +0.33ºC
2018 … … +0.28ºC
2017 … … +0.27ºC
But given AGW is providing a year-on-year boost to temperature & adjusting for the 2000-22 trend (thus a pre-‘bananas’ trend) of +0.235ºC/decade, a projected August 2025 anomaly would be +0.45ºC, a value warmer than the actual first half of the month. After adjustment for such an AGW trend, August 2025 is the coolest adjusted August since 2015.
As yet there is no sign of a reversal to this 2025 cooling, let alone a sign of anything which would be significant enough to satisfy Hansen’s Acid Test. That was a test for the cause of the unexpected warming being a forcing from reduced ship aerosols. The “Acid Test” proposed that 2025 would “remain near or above the 1.5°C level** … (and) indeed, 2025 might even set a new record despite the present weak La Nina***.
The longer without such a reversal of the 2025 cooling, the less likely this “Acid Test” will prove positive. It already doesn’t look likely. With the first half of August included, 2025 as “a new record” becomes much less probable, the remainder of the year now requiring an average anomaly of +0.96ºC. Even besting 2023 to become 2nd warmest year**** would now require an average anomaly of +0.64ºC.
(** Above pre-industrial.)
(*** ENSO remains what is called “La Niña-neutral” butforecasts suggest it may strengthen to a weak La Niña for a month-or-two at the end of the year.)
(**** The 2023 ERA5 anomaly sits +1.48ºC above pre-industrial.)
The NH SAT anomaly, which might be expected to drive some-sort of increase in the global anomaly through the back-half of the year, has yet to show any indication of reversing the on-going 2025 cooling-so-far.
A remaining crumb of comfort for a continuing “bananas”“bananas” is no-longer operating.
Last paragraph with corrected HTML:-
A remaining crumb of comfort for a continuing “bananas” situation can still be found in the EAR5 SST (60N-60S) anomaly (also provided at Climate Pulse linked above) which is still sticking stubbornly around +0.4ºC. A value closer to +0.3ºC would perhaps be evident of a transition to a zero-bananas situation and thus suggesting any forcing or forcing+feedback or unexplained-natural-wobble responsible for the “bananas” is no-longer operating.
https://www.space.com/science/climate-change/were-within-3-years-of-reaching-a-critical-climate-threshold-can-we-reverse-course
Mike Mann posted on threads. Only 3 years more to breach 1.5C and 0.5C baked.
Are we in a position to mitigate emissions enough ? The jury is still out even after 40-50 years of warning about GHG emissions.
Pete best: – “Only 3 years more to breach 1.5C and 0.5C baked.”
The 2-year running mean has already exceeded the +1.5 °C GMST anomaly threshold, relative to the 1850-1900 baseline.
https://web-cdn.bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3lv6owukmks2f
The 30-year LOESS smooth running mean has already exceeded the +1.4 °C GMST anomaly threshold, relative to the 1850-1900 baseline.
https://berkeley-earth-wp-offload.storage.googleapis.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/08175222/12MonthMovingAverage.png
https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/climate-milestones-copernicus-era5/
Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf have produced a pre-print paper titled Global Warming has Accelerated Significantly, currently in peer-review, available at Research Square. It included (bold text my emphasis):
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6079807/v1
For all intents and purposes, the +1.5 °C GMST anomaly has already arrived.
The current rate of warming appears to be more than 0.4 °C/decade. The +2.0 °C GMST anomaly threshold is likely to be crossed sometime between year-2034 (Berkeley Earth) and 2039 (HadCRU).
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10171397154975562&set=a.10167518085325562
The Climate Chat channel livestreamed a conversation between Dan Miller and Dr James Hansen on 18 Aug 2025, published on YouTube titled What Everyone Must Know About Climate Sensitivity with James Hansen, duration 1:26:06. James Hansen said from time interval 10:17:
“You know the greenhouse gas forcing, when you add, uh, methane and chlorofluorocarbons to carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, uh, is about four watts per metre squared. We’ve now reached the double CO2 level equivalent of, uh, double CO2, but we’ve also put aerosols in the atmosphere and they cause a negative climate forcing, a cooling. Yeah. And that, uh, that forcing is probably in the range from -1 to -2 watts per metre squared. So it’s a big deal. You know there there are other things that are being done but they add up to a negligible amount. So, it’s really a question of greenhouse gases and aerosols. And, um, we we conclude that the aerosol forcing is larger than, um, IPCC estimated and that, that’s, and that’s, uh, that, that’s the reason that they get a smaller climate sensitivity, because their net forcing is larger, be, because they have a less aerosol effect.”
https://youtu.be/w5jShXBD6ck?t=628
Humanity is on a collision course towards a +3 °C GMST anomaly, or more; a world beyond any past human experience. Large-scale depopulation would be likely. We’re on the road to “climate ruin.”
in Re to Geoff Miell, 19 Aug 2025 at 8:39 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-837964
Dear Geoff,
Personally, I would consider it quite important to find out whether, in addition to GHGs and aerosols, an increase in climate sensitivity due to land drainage could also have contributed to the observed warming.
Interestingly, it appears that in the dispute about climate sensitivity, the possibility that it could have changed is not being examined nor considered yet – despite it could resolve the conundrum why the climate models with low climate sensitivity seem to perform better in hindcast, while the models with high climate sensitivity seem to fit better with the most recent climate developments.
Best regards
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz: – “Personally, I would consider it quite important to find out whether, in addition to GHGs and aerosols, an increase in climate sensitivity due to land drainage could also have contributed to the observed warming.”
Did you miss this statement from Hansen in my previous comment?
“You know there there are other things that are being done but they add up to a negligible amount.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-837964
Tomáš Kalisz: – “Interestingly, it appears that in the dispute about climate sensitivity, the possibility that it could have changed is not being examined nor considered yet…”
The understanding of climate sensitivity has been examined and considered umpteen times since Svante Arrhenius first attempted to quantify it in 1896. He predicted a temperature increase of 5 to 6 °C for a doubling of CO₂. In later work, he revised that estimate to 4 °C (7.2 °F).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
I’d suggest the climate sensitivity hasn’t changed – physical laws are unchanged – but it seems apparently the understanding of it has been progressively resolved by some people as more evidence/data has become available.
In Re to Geoff Miell, 20 Aug 2025 at 7:55 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838046
Hallo Geoff,
I think that neither the works by Arrhenius nor by Hansen are relevant to my question.
It is known that climate sensitivity is not a natural constant with a fixed value, because it depends on the “state of the climate system”. I am also aware that James Hansen with his collaborators modelled the influence that changes in some parameters of the climate system exert on climate sensitivity.
As far as I know, however, neither him nor anyone else studied specifically the influence of water availability for evaporation from land in this respect yet. It can be important, because contrary to other parameters like oceanic currents or marine ice area, land hydrology regimes can be directly influenced by human activities.
For more detailed explanations, you can check also my posts of 8 Aug 2025 at 7:11 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/are-direct-water-vapor-emissions-endangering-anyone/#comment-837200 ,
or 10 Aug 2025 at 3:46 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-837307
Greetings
Tomáš
comments on video —
He is the most trusted climate scientist.
Brilliant interview. A voice that must be heard above the background noise
good guy Hansen. won’t discuss politics but says just enough for me to know he’s freaking awesome and hyper aware of the pseudo-action partaken by the neoliberal establishment in Obama and Hillary and company
Brilliant interview, thank you. If only the world had listened to this great man in the 1980s, we’d be in a much better position now
James Hansen is to me the best climate scientists . Regarding what humans right now are doing is really insane .
Dr. Hansen has always been my hero. I drove all the way to Columbia University to hear him speak. Hero. He was one of the reasons I ran for office.
25 years from now our grandchildren will ask why our generation failed to take action to preserve earth’s biosphere. They won’t ask that of James Hansen. This is an extraordinary scientist who has relentlessly studied, analyzed and spoken out on the urgency of climate change. It is a privilege to hear his analysis on the science, and the logic underlying his conclusions. Thank you!
The critics of the articles were trying to “puncture the confidence of the readers”, a subtle and therefore sophisticted pushing back. This is form of suppression and eventually we’ll want to know who knew what when.
Sadly, the IPCC keeps downplaying the potential impact of feedbacks such as changes to ocean currents, wind patterns, clouds and water vapor, and loss of sea ice and permafrost, thus failing to warn people about a near-future in which temperatures could rise strongly due to such feedbacks, especially during an El Niño, and due to further reduction of the aerosol masking effect, developments that could rapidly speed up existing feedbacks and trigger new feedbacks, resulting in more extreme weather events striking with a ferocity, frequency and ubiquity that keeps increasing at an accelerating pace.
I would add the inertia of humanity as Hansen points out Jevon’s Paradox: we are using more energy, more renewables and more fossil fuels. I want to thank all four of you for climate chat:
Pedro Prieto says
18 Aug 2025 at 11:21 PM
Reply to MA Rodger
who falsely claims:
That was a [HANSEN] test for the cause of the unexpected warming being a forcing from reduced ship aerosols.
I wish you would stop constantly lying about and misrepresenting what Hansen says. If you had an ounce of integrity you would only quote his statements verbatim – but you never do. You lie about his words instead.
Quoting :
An “acid” test of our interpretation will be provided by the 2025 global temperature:
unlike the 1997-98 and 2015-16 El Ninos, which were followed by global cooling of more than
0.3°C and 0.2°C, respectively, we expect global temperature in 2025 to remain near or above the
1.5°C level. Indeed, the 2025 might even set a new record despite the present weak La Nina.
There are two independent reasons. First, the “new” climate forcing due to reduction of sulfate aerosols over the ocean remains in place, and, second, high climate sensitivity (~4.5°C for doubled CO2) implies that the warming from recently added forcings is still growing significantly. https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/Acid.Test.20Feb2025.pdf
Embedded in the second reason are all the Data and Analysis found in Hansen’s last 3 major papers from Ice Melt to Acceleration…. which includes massive reductions in global of sulfate aerosols as well as the IMO specific signal.
I find MA Rodger’s attitude toward Hansen et al work and his own constant gross errors repugnant.
Quote on the Record “As yet there is no sign of a reversal to this 2025 cooling, let alone a sign of anything which would be significant enough to satisfy Hansen’s Acid Test. “ 18 Aug 2025 at 11:30 AM
What “cooling”? The third warmest year on record so far … and this self-appointed “expert” calls it “2025 cooling”. It’s a stupid argument.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-837892
Pedro Prieto says VERY PASSIVE AGRESSIVE WEAK NOT POSTING THIS RESPONSE
The problem so-often confronting you, sock-muppet Pedro Preito, is how to negotiate simultaneously both your remarkably poor intelligence/knowledge and all the people who say things that contradict your precious beliefs. These twin difficulties are not unconnected. It is because of your “remarkably poor intelligence/knowledge,” that your ” precious beliefs” turn out to be so-often flat wrong and open to contradiction/correction from others who are mostly attempting to helpfully correct you.
Here, for some reason you seem to have become exercised by two statements from me which you apparently consider “repugnant”!!!.
(1) You have complained previously up-thread (as sock-muppet Tom) that I misrepresent Hansen’s ‘Acid Test’.
The version you object to is given by Hansen and is actually more complete than the version presented in the Hansen February comment ‘The Acid Test: Global Temperature in 2025’. That is the version I cite in his April comment ‘2025 Global Temperature’ provides the anomaly base for the +1.5ºC anomaly as being “relative to 1880-1920.” Other than providing the specific anomaly base, I fail to see any difference between Hansen’s February & April versions. So why anyone would be getting hot-under-the-collar about it is a bit of a mystery, even were that anyone a congenital idiot.
(2) For some reason you object to my mentioning “2025 cooling.” You seem to think that a year (2025) that is so-far cooler than another earlier year (2024), (Jan 1st to Sept 18th averaging 0.13ºC lower SAT anomaly) has not demonstrated cooling.
“What cooling?” you ask.
If you had the ability, you may have read and actually understood my comment up-thread which states “The ERA5 re-analysis data presented by Climate Pulse for first half of August is running an average global SAT of +0.42ºC, down on the full July anomaly of +0.45ºC and continuing the strong cooling seen since the start of 2025.”
Perhaps the concept “cooling” is too technical for you. So to clarify, here are the numbers (which represent average global surface air temperature) for the successive months of 2025:-
Jan … … +0.79ºC
Feb … … +0.63ºC
Mar … … +0.65ºC
Apr … … +0.60ºC
May … … +0.53ºC
Jun … … +0.47ºC
Jul … ….. +0.45ºC
Aug … … +0.42ºC (so far)
You will notice the numbers for successive months are (bar March) always smaller than the previous one. That trend of numerically-smaller-size when applied to a temperature series is called “cooling” meaning “becoming less hot.
So when you ask “What cooling?” The answer is ‘That cooling!!!’
Pedro is spot on to call you out here. That is not cooling!
You can’t have it both ways. For years, anyone pointing to a short flat period like 1998–2010 was accused (rightly) of “cherry-picking” and ignoring natural variability. Yet here you are doing the same thing with a sequence of 2025 monthly anomalies.
Yes, the ERA5 values you listed show a step-down from January to August. But let’s be clear: +0.42 °C is still a positive anomaly — the planet remains warmer than baseline, not “cooled” back to normal. What you’re pointing out is short-term fluctuation inside an already elevated climate state.
And I can explain the August number away by defaulting to standard climate science: it’s natural variation – no need at all to call it “Cooling”. Same way mainstream scientists and yourself MA Rodger spoke about the 1998–2010 “hiatus” – therefore your unfounded fasle claim of “Cooling in August” does not declare Hansen’s acid test a failure. Far from it. It just means you’re being selectively sloppy with timeframes and denying what you are doing, and why.
Calling this “cooling” while condemning others for doing the same thing in the past is not science — it’s hypocritical. But having your cake and eating it too is common fare round these parts.
Not sure if I understand Thomas’s idea, but it seems to be that 2025 may have strong “underlying” warming throughout the year as a result of aer0sols and as predicted by Hansen, that’s being masked or suppressed by natural variation of some unspecified sort.
The problem is the solar cycle is in a warming phase currently so that’s not going to suppress any warming. No volcano has erupted to temporarily cool things. The la nina in the first half of the year was weak so that wouldn’t suppress a strong underlying warming trend, and we are near neutral ENSO conditions. Nothing else comes to mind.
So I think that Thomas idea is disproven for all practical purposes , and the cooling trend in 2025 well documented by MAR casts some doubt on Hansens aerosols / high climate sensitivity claims according to his own test. Although personally I think we have to assume climate sensitivity could possibly be very high.
The difference is that MAR is not claiming that the “cooling” represents anything more than internal variability–unlike folks such as Lord Monckton, who seized precisely upon this variability at every chance that presented itself to claim that “global warming stopped!”
It’s a big difference. Perhaps MAR could have been more explicit in saying spelling out the fact that he’s not talking about long term trends, but anyone who’s been paying attention to his updates for a few months, and reading with context in mind, would understand. Or should.
In my efforts to locate the particular wrongness of Richard Tol (and what a bunch of nasty and idiotic organizations he’s tied up with) I found this excellent news summary at SkepticalScience:
https://skepticalscience.com/2025-SkS-Weekly-News-Roundup_30.html [they’ve been laboring away at honest news for a long time]
Climate Policy and Politics
– This renowned climate scientist says this is the most difficult time for climate science he’s ever seen Benjamin Santer received enormous pushback when he authored one of the first reports on the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change. Today, he says, the reaction to climate research is far worse. FastCompany, Annabelle Choi
– Flash Floods and Climate Policy As the death toll climbs in Texas, the Trump Administration is actively undermining the nation’s ability to predict—and to deal with—climate-related disasters. The New Yorker Magazine, Elizabeth Kolbert
– How the Right Is Waging War on Climate-Conscious Investing The Atlantic Magazine, Steven Mufson and Tom Hamburger
– In Trump`s “Big Beautiful” Bill, Ugly Contradictions & Giveaways to Oil & Gas Industry The $4 trillion spending package increases federal subsidies for carbon capture – as long as the captured gas is pumped underground with the purpose of forcing out more oil and gas to burn. Oil & Gas Watch, Tom Pelton
– `A disaster for all of us`: US scientists describe impact of Trump cuts President’s assault on science –particularly climate science – has led to unprecedented funding cuts and staff layoffs Science The Guardian, Nina Lakhani
– US EPA to withdraw foundation of greenhouse gas rules, sources say Legal, Reuters, by Valerie Volcovici, July 23, 2025.
– A Hawaiian Volcano Observatory Made Climate History, But Trump Wants It Gone CleanTechnica, Carolyn Fortuna
I’ve only created a link for one of these (gift}
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/07/leonard-leo-consumers-research-esg-climate/683581/?gift=n_xMk-Ah7x90dsBbxIEpEWqNAp1ajtxIKjDiWZBJYG4
It does bring to mind that it could be a full time job keeping up with the bad news, and keeping up with the news is not a positive activity once one knows what’s up. Action is needed.
Rational agents: Richard Tol models assume that individuals and firms respond predictably to incentives, a hallmark of neoclassical modeling.
Pete best,
The actual source document is 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 with a long list of co-authors which doesn’t include Mike Mann.
The “3 year” thing concerns the carbon budget with the paper saying “the 50 % (ie average estimate) remaining carbon budget estimate of 130 Gt CO2 would be exhausted in a little more than 3 years if global CO2 emissions remain at 2024 levels” This estimate comes from AR6 sec 5.5.2.2.3 table 5.8 (which has big error bars**) updated with subsequent year’s carbon emissions.
(**Note AR6 5.5.2.3 is saying in 2021 “Applying best estimate values for all but uncertainties in Earth system feedbacks and TCRE, the remaining carbon budgets in line with the Paris Agreement are generally small yet not zero (see Table 5.8).”)
The +0.5ºC “baked” is a new one on me. It appears in the space.com article you link-to which states (attributed to some un-named NOAA source):-
Mike Mann is quoted within the space.com article, seemingly quotes from a BBC interview, the message given being that passing the +1.5ºC should not stop us cutting carbon emissions “as quickly as we can” to prevent even higher and more dangerous “warming thresholds” being crossed.
I thought that the oceans always had 0.5C guaranteed additional warming even after cutting emissions to zer. This was always quoted as oceans absorb heat.
Pete best,
Putting my thinking cap on, I do recall back in the very early 2000s talk of ‘pipeline’ warming which was a significant factor, perhaps +0.5ºC or so. But that concept was based on the then EEI-of-the-day. It was soon understood that atmospheric CO2 post-net-zero would continue being absorbed into oceans thus reducing the climate forcing and so EEI-of-the-day would drop. That drop would quickly drive EEI down to match ΔOHC** which post-net-zero would remain roughly constant. With EEI=ΔOHC, the surface warming is zeroed. (**Today ΔOHC ≈ 90% EEI.)
Thus it was concluded that ‘pipeline’ warming was not a thing.
And it apparently remains ‘not a thing’.
MacDougall et al (2020) ‘Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO2’ ran a lot of models with CO2 levels increasing 1% per year, up to total emissions of 1,000Gt(C). At that point the emissions were stopped, some suddenly, some gradually. “Overall, the most likely value of ZEC (ZEC = Zero Emissions Commitment = ‘pipeline’ warming) on multi-decadal timescales is close to zero, consistent with previous model experiments and simple theory.” The actual spread of results 25-y post-net zero for the 18 different models was half up (max +0.34ºC) and half down (max -0.27ºC) with 50y & 90y results not too dissimilar.
And I see Borowiak et al (2024) ‘Projected Global Temperature Changes After Net Zero Are Small But Significant’ who take individual model-runs (rather than averaged ensembles) show the same outcome.
The space.com item talks of a post-net-zero energy flux from the oceans. They say “(T)he ocean has soaked up a lot of excess heat.” [My bold] This seems bonkers!! Surely if OHC is increasing, it is because the ocean is too cold relative to a rising surface temperature. And there is famously a time-lag with that warming of the oceans, a temperature gradient to allow the heat flux. So without some surface cooling (when ‘pipeline’ warming is thus negative), would there not be a deficit in the OHC, not excess heat?
OK, so I have to ask, one more time: Who cares???
EEI is the problem!
GMST is not the problem!
A good illustration of why, as others have pointed out, scientists are always going to lose debates with the fakers. Simplicity works, but scientists can’t stop themselves from babbling on and on about trivialities.
And even the people who acknowledge the problem often can’t stop themselves from doing it.
EEI does represent the rate of energy entering the planet and thus is a measure of global warming. And a long-term increase in EEI is thus of significant interest.
But EEI may not always have a good correlation with the rate of surface warming.
But your comment begs the question – How is it that the rise of GMST is not the problem?
Come on, MA. You obviously don’t need me to explain that an average is an effect, not a cause. Like, if cold–hot season temps are 32F–68F, that’s a really different climate from
0F–100F, eh?
So it isn’t about the correlation between EEI and GMST; what we need is to better understand how the increased energy is manifested e.g. in localized high SST, and localized melting ice, and localized drying of forests, and changes in patterns of energy transport, and on and on.
Increasing GMST is caused by all those changes acting together, but humanity is affected by them acting individually. Again, GMST is an effect, not a cause.
Perhaps this is just too obvious for educated science folks to comprehend?
zebra,
You appear to be doubling-down on:-
. “EEI is the problem!
. GMST is not the problem!”
by (apparently) arguing that ΔGMST is a symptom of EEI (which is true in a broad sense) and that ΔGMST is the net result of a bunch of stuff heating up, thus an emergent symptom which is all due to a positive EEI.
I would reply that this argument is not (as you say) “just too obvious” for a small-brained mammal like myself. Rather, it is dodging the position I am proposing/defending.
So doubling-down myself:-
Humanity is indeed affected by a changed climate. That climate is pretty-much set by SST which is strongly coupled to SAT. And melting ice or drying forests are the result of SAT. They are symptoms not causes, as are a whole bunch of other bad stuff.
Perhaps SLR should appear pretty-high-up on a list of them as our AGW has already committed humanity to suffer a big dollop of SLR in coming centuries. (SLR is perhaps the exception within this ‘whole bunch of stuff’ in being not entirely acting surface-wise.)
Another high-up item is perhaps the prevalence of high humidity-with-high temperatures in the lives of folk living in the tropics, an obvious temperature thing yet still only an effect of GMST not GMST itself.
But the cause of all this bad AGW stuff awaiting mankind is GMST, or more correctly, the size of the ΔGMST reached after we have finished our propagation of AGW.
You could (& presumably do) argue that EEI is important as its shows how quickly our AGW is pumping energy into the system and thus ΔGMST is an effect of EEI and not the cause.
I don’t really buy that as a useful idea.
Sure. If EEI=zero, we have no on-going AGW. And a very large EEI brings on dangerous AGW more quickly thus requiring speedier mitigation.
But I’d reply that the only reason a very large EEI brings the requirement for speedier mitigation is because ΔGMST/year = f(EEI). We only care about EEI because of that relationship with ΔGMST. And that relationship is not so simple.
For instance, at net-zero GMST will have effectively peaked (according to the studies linked up-thread). Yet net-zero EEI>0 and, at that net-zero situation, EEI>0 remains for centuries. And EEI is overwhelmingly pumping heat into the deep oceans which can add further complications to that ΔGMST/year = f(EEI) equation. Casting my jaundiced eye at the OHC numbers, do I see a change in the post-2015 ΔOHC data; an increase in ΔOHC/y(100-700m) with a smaller decrease in ΔOHC/y(700-2000m)?
Using EEI as a proxy for ΔGMST is not so simple and thus not so useful. An argument for substituting AGW forcing for EEI could be made, this evidently the primary cause of AGW, although you would then need to account for climate sensitivity.
And pedantically keeping it simple, consider the following. Like GMST, climate (as in “climate change”) is apparently a surface thing, being long-term weather and weather has nothing to do with changes of hundredths of degrees C down in the abysmal ocean which is where most EEI goes.
MA, even though you are wrong, this is at least approaching what a real scientific discussion should be like. (I suspect there will be lots of spam trying to bury it.)
Here’s that basic error that people keep repeating:
“Another high-up item is perhaps the prevalence of high humidity-with-high temperatures in the lives of folk living in the tropics, an obvious temperature thing yet still only an effect of GMST not GMST itself.”
No, it is not an effect of GMST. How can it be an effect of GMST when we calculate GMST using those local temperatures???? Again, my first paragraph:
“You obviously don’t need me to explain that an average is an effect, not a cause. Like, if cold–hot season temps are 32F–68F, that’s a really different climate from
0F–100F, eh?”
GMST has always been nothing more than a proxy… the only really good one that we had… for EEI. It validated the prediction that CO2 would reduce the loss of energy to space.
The same limitation is true when you talk about SST. A global average of SST is derived from local measurements, as in the Indian Ocean or Polar waters or the Gulf of Mexico. But if we want to predict rainfall or ice melt or hurricane intensity, we plot the changes in those local measurements. Those are proxies for the energy content locally, which we can also measure directly to some degree with ARGO. Why do we need the global average??
I’ve said this before; I think people have been arguing with the denialists for so long that even they conflate cause and effect and correlation. Direct measurement of EEI makes that part of the science as settled as it gets, and it’s time to move on.
And yes, I understand that the models may show a correlation between various individual variables and GMST, but there is a correlation amongst all the symptoms of increased energy in the climate system… how could it be otherwise?
Thanks zebra. im(very)ho, good points, including but not limited to:
“Simplicity works, but scientists can’t stop themselves”
proxies, useful clarity …
“people have been arguing with the denialists for so long that even they conflate cause and effect and correlation. Direct measurement of EEI makes that part of the science as settled as it gets, and it’s time to move on.
“And yes, I understand that the models may show a correlation between various individual variables and GMST, but there is a correlation amongst all the symptoms of increased energy in the climate system… how could it be otherwise?”
—
my pet peeve: citing material front and center, giving it more prominence than your debunk.
One more: “sock puppet” is insider talk which floats over the head of people who can’t discern/identify honest/relevant discussion. Better not to add fuel to the fire (pun all too appropriate).
zebra,
There is perhaps some reassurance for me in that my alleged “basic error” is shared with others such that “people keep repeating” it. It’s not just me!!
And I continue to fundamentally disagree.
You repeat the point that a seasonal temperature range could change with climatological consequence without impacting the annual average, thus your example that 32ºF–68ºF ≠ 0ºF–100ºF.
And this would be relevant if that were a thing fundamental to the AGW problem. But changes to the annual temperature cycle are very minor under AGW, where the increase annual average is reflected in each monthly average.
Where we appear to disagree is that you see the cause-effect equation thus:-
. AGW = ΔF → +EEI → { ΔTemp(local) } → ΔTemp(global mean)
while I see it:-
. AGW = ΔF → +EEI → ΔTemp(global mean) → { ΔTemp(local) }
My arguments against your version are:-
Firstly that (ignoring their weather-wobbles) a particular ΔTemp(local) will not (and cannot) exist independently from other ΔTemp(local). Thus the set of { ΔTemp(local) } is a product of ΔTemp(global mean). It is not visa versa.
And this is why, despite the derivation of the value for ΔTemp(global mean) being via ∫(ΔTemp(local))/area (which would support as a minimum an equivalence between the two: ΔTemp(global mean) = ∫(Δtemp(local))/area ), the full record of Temp(global mean) can actually be accurately derived using just a handful of Temp(local) sites.
Secondly there is the point that it is the elevated ΔTemp(global mean) in the form of mainly the troposphere’s temperature that ends the AGW by providing the negative feedback (through increased OLR) which eventually balances the AGW = ΔF + positive feedbacks. Arguing for the primacy of a localised temperature up where the OLR exits to space would be a fool’s errand.
in Re to zebra, 26 Aug 2025 at 6:33 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838344
Dear zebra,
I think that global mean surface temperature (GMST) and Earth energy imbalance (EEI) characterize different aspects of the state of the of the Earth climate and already for this sole reason somewhat doubt that in discussions about global climate change, desisting from further GMST discussions and replacing them with EEI discussions could be possible and/or suitable.
Furthermore, I doubt about validity of assumptions on which your thoughts seem to rely.
1) In view of explanations provided by MA Rodger, it appears that the same EEI value can have very different effects on the GMST and other characteristics of the climate system, because for the same amount of the excess heat absorbed by the Earth, various spatial distributions of this heat seem to be possible.
To be more specific, if the share of heat transported into deeper ocean layers can vary, then I would expect that the higher is this share of the absorbed heat, the smaller can be the change in the GMST that will be caused by the same overall amount of excess heat absorbed by Earth during a certain period characterized by a positive EEI value.
If so, then I suppose that there is no clear relationship between EEI value and the rate of GMST change. Asserting an opposite might be confusing and, finally, counter-productive.
2) “GMST has always been nothing more than a proxy… the only really good one that we had… for EEI.”
In view of the point 1), I can even less imagine how EEI could serve as a “proxy” for GMST itself, in the sense of absolute value thereof. I rather assume that you still meant the rate of GMST change. Nevertheless, if you objected that others confuse the public by using GMST instead of EEI, I am afraid that the sentence as you wrote it may also sound quite misleading.
3) “..if we want to predict rainfall or ice melt or hurricane intensity, we plot the changes in those local measurements.”
I understand that some weather characteristic which can be, in a long-term average, characterized as a “local climate”, can show a temporal trend. I am, however, not aware of any method allowing to predict future developments of the “local climate”, such as rainfall, ice thawing and/or hurricane intensity, on the basis of a past trend. Could you explain this specific idea in more detail, or cite some literature suggesting such methods?
4) Finally, I am afraid that putting an equal sign between climate change (as an “effect”) on one hand and a positive EEI (as a “cause”) on the other hand may be also incorrect and thus potentially misleading.
There are hints that significant changes in climate can occur not only in situations with a non-zero EEI, when the Earth absorbs or releases an excess heat. I think that the works published by professor Axel Kleidon and his collaborators suggest that e.g. an increase in warming greenhouse effect perfectly “compensated” by a cooling aerosol effect, so that EEI remains zero, may still cause a significant global climate change, due to weakening of the global water cycle.
For all these reasons, I am not sure that your proposal “stop speaking about GMST and focus on the non-zero EEI as the root cause of the observed climate change” may significantly improve public enlightenment with respect to complexity of Earth climate and human interferences therewith.
Best regards
Tomáš
in Re to MA Rodger, 21 Aug 2025 at 2:29 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838092
Dear MA,
Thank you very much for your thought-provoking post.
The message that as soon as we achieve “net zero”, the EEI-of-the-day drops quickly to zero sounds surprising to me. I am not sure if I understood it correctly.
1) Do understand your sentence
“That drop would quickly drive EEI down to match ΔOHC** which post-net-zero would remain roughly constant. With EEI=ΔOHC, the surface warming is zeroed. (**Today ΔOHC ≈ 90% EEI.)”
correctly the way that under “EEI”, you actually mean time integral of your “EEI-of-the-day”?
If so, where came the 10% of the “EEI” (Do I assume it correctly as an integral of the “EEI-of-the-day” for the time span since 1750 till now??) that has not increased the OHC in comparison with the baseline (the year 1750?)?
Have all these 10% been converted into latent heat of ice thawing?
2) Till now, I assumed that due to low heat conductivity of the land, basically 100% EEI must be absorbed in the ocean (and in the cryosphere) and that the surface warming results from the slow heat transport into deep ocean – so that relatively thin upper ocean layers (that are capable of heat exchange with atmosphere and land) warm measurably. Is this understanding correct?
3) I also thought, so far, that the “warming in the pipeline” (that should continue for decades or perhaps centuries after the “net zero” will be achieved) is a generally established scientific consensus.
Is it in fact so that when James Hansen issued his article “Global warming in the pipeline” in 2023
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
he meant another “pipeline warming” than that discussed about the year 2000, because his article addressed the present situation which is quite far from the “net zero”, because the atmospheric GHG concentrations still rise?
Thank you in advance for your additional explanatory comments.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz,
Taking your points out of sequence:
(2) Today, the proportion of the EEI absorbed by the oceans is, according to FAQ 7.1 Figure 1, 91%. The rest is absorbed by land (5%), ice (3%) and atmosphere (1%).
I would add that the mixed layer of the ocean (at least 0-100m) is absorbing much less than the total ocean the OHC(0-100m) which is absorbing 20% plotting-out a good approximation for surface temperature. The OHC data shows about 10Zj into the 0-100m ocean to raise surface temperature 0.1ºC. If the EEI suddenly jumps by 0.3Wm^-2 for six months (as it did in late 2023 = 2.5Zj), the ocean mixed layer will require warming to allow SAT to rise. It is the ocean mixed layer which provides the thermal inertia preventing surface air temperature going through the roof.
(3) Hansen et al (2023)‘Global warming in the pipeline’ doesn’t really address the size of ‘pipeline’ global warming. It presents such an apocoliptic message that ‘debating’ the impact of post-net-zero warming is not that significant. For instance they also say “there is little merit in debating whether GHG forcing is 4.6 or 4.1 W/m^2.” given the circumstances facing mankind. (Note the 4.1 W/m^2 is the post-1750 value given. The NOAA AGGI (also post-1750) for 2023 is given as ΔF=3.5Wm^-2.)
(The sock-muppet will enjoy the following.) Hansen et al do present a particularly controversial account of the ‘committed warming’ mankind has stoked-up for itself. They describe post-mid-Holocene ΔF=4.6Wm^-2 and ECS=1.2°C per W/m^2 (4.5Wm^-2 for 2 x CO2) yielding warming of +5.5ºC at ECS equilibrium.
They further argue that ESS should be used instead of ECS as the slow surface albedo impacts of vegitation change and ice loss cannot be ignored. (There certainly is a good argument that the AGW we have presently achieved will, if not reversed, destabalise Greenland and even Antarctica won’t take much more.) Thus Hansen et al (2023) point to the ESS/ECS ratio as being ESS/ECS=2** and thus warns that today’s ‘equilibrium’ warming is an eye-popping +10ºC.
They suggest +2ºC of this would be masked by today’s negative aerosol forcing.
It is only having presented this apocoliptic message that Hansen et al (2023) tell us “Equilibrium warming is not ‘committed’ warming; rapid phase-out of GHG emissions would prevent most equilibrium warming from occurring.” Hansen et al rather dodge a quantitive assessment of this “prevent(able) … equilibrium warming.”
And future generations do have the further option of cleaning up our remaining mess by initiating negative emissions
(** There is a bit of slight-of-hand buried here in Hansen et al (2023). This ESS/ECS=2 does not come from their reference Lunt et al (2010), a paper co-authored by one of our RC hosts. Lunt et al find ESS/ECS= ∼ 1.4. Very roughly that is derived from ECS=3ºC & ESS=4.4ºC (see their Table 1). Lunt et al contrast their result with the findings of Hansen et al (2008) who are the ones showing ESS/ECS=2 with an adopted ECS=~3ºC and a calculated ESS=~6ºC using ice-age data rather than the Pliocene of Lunt et al. It is through this ESS/ECS=2 and ECS=4.5ºC that Hansen et al (2023) obtain ESS=~9ºC and thus their eye-popping +10ºC, twice the value from the reference they quote.)
(1) By way of an explanation, here is a back-of-fag-packet version of the post-net-zero ‘pipeline’ warming which MacDougall et al (2020) & Borowiak et al (2024) model with a lot more sophistication.
AGW GHG forcing has been running at +0.05Wm^-2/year. There are wobbles in EEI but let us assume they average out over a multi-decadal timescale. Let us assume multi-decadal EEI ≈ 17 x ΔF/y = 0.85wm^-2 driving a positive AGW ΔT of some +0.2ºC/decade.
We know roughly half our CO2 emissions are absorbed into oceans. If the emisions stop, that ocean absorption will continue at a similar rate for some years. Thus with emissions stopped, what was a positive ΔF AGW becomes negative ΔF AGW as the continuing ocean absorption of CO2 reduces atmospheric concentrations. AGW ΔF would thus reduce with our assumption of EEI ≈ 15 x ΔF/y yielding an end to a positive EEI in ~15 years, this along with the arrival of peak AGW.
This would suggest a ‘pipeline’ warming of perhaps +0.17ºC.
But if EEI rapidly decreases with falling ΔF, that short-term change in EEI will impact only the mixed layer of the oceans plus the atmosphere. The rest of the ‘system’ is well insulated and thus is not going to quickly change. In total perhaps 30% of what is being warmed by the multi-decadal EEI will be absorbing any sudden change. This would suggest AGW ΔT=0 would arrive much quicker, in less that 5 years. Thus the ‘pipeline’ warming is likewise reduced.
This would then suggest a ‘pipeline’ warming reduced to perhaps +0.05ºC, a size of warming which would be disappeared within the natural wobbles.
The models in the literature of course provide more reliable estimates.
MA Rodger says
If the emissions stop……….
Emissions are not going to stop
They are going to increase past 2050
Accelerated warming will continue past 2100
I anticipate FF energy share still at +70% in 2050
Add that scenario to Hansen’s calculations for ECS EEI Albedo etc.
UNFCCC IPCC Net Zero (fraud/theory) and therefore the Paris Agreement all collapse before 2030
+2C 2035-2040
+2.75 before 2050
+3.75C before 2070
draw a straw
apocoliptic?
sock-muppet?
Hansen’s ‘pipeline’ paper nothing to do with IPCC net zero myths
Th: I anticipate FF energy share still at +70% in 2050
BPL: I anticipate horses and buggies transportation share still at +70% in 1950.
in Re to MA Rodger, 23 Aug 2025 at 12:00 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838151
Dear MA,
Thank you very much for your detailed response.
First, it appears that I erroneously assumed that basically all EEI is absorbed in ocean, while it is currently 91% of the EEI only, while the remaining 9% cause ice thawing and land + atmosphere warming. Furthermore, in the light of your explanations, my feeling that you assign as EEI a time integral of the Earth Energy Imbalance appears to be in fact another misunderstanding to your post.
I must, however, admit that I am still quite uncertain if I (now) understand correctly that at the “net zero”, the 9% EEI share (that presently dissolves ice and/or warms the land and the atmosphere) will quickly drop to zero. Am I right? If so, does it mean that afterwards, only the (deep) ocean will continue to warm?
Do the studies cited by you indeed suggest that at as soon as the rise of the atmospheric GHG forcing stops, so will do also Earth surface warming, because although EEI will be still positive, basically all this excess energy absorbed by the Earth will be transported into deeper layers of the ocean and therefore will not measurably warm the surface anymore?
I admit that I have not looked at the studies cited by you yet. Honestly, I am not sure I will be able to extract their message directly therefrom. If you provide a further clue herein, it will be definitely helpful.
Greetings
Tomáš
Mike Mann has an account on threads (Facebook version of X) and he posts these articles on there. He doesn’t write them of course but as he posts them I would presume he’s read them and hence links to them via his threads account.
He wouldn’t just post anything is my take
Additional ‘Pipeline Warming’ – An Alternative Scientific View: Higher Climate Sensitivity
A separate but critical concern is that the current scientific consensus, as reflected by the IPCC, may be underestimating the fundamental sensitivity of the climate system. A key perspective, presented by James Hansen, argues that the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is likely higher than the IPCC’s best estimate of 3°C for a doubling of CO₂. Based on paleoclimate evidence, current GCMs, and modern observations, Hansen suggests a higher ECS value of approximately 4.5°C.
(Source https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/ForestTrees.06August2025.pdf )
Hansen’s reasoning hinges on the fact that the two biggest uncertainties in climate science—climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing—are often linked in models to reproduce observed warming. If climate sensitivity is indeed higher, it implies that the cooling effect of aerosols must have also been stronger to explain the observed temperature record. Hansen argues that this is the case, and that a recent reduction in aerosol emissions (especially from shipping) has contributed to an acceleration of warming. This alternative view, supported by paleoclimate and satellite data, suggests that our understanding of the climate system’s response to forcing may be more sensitive than commonly assumed.
Hansen has indicated he will soon announce a fourth line of evidence to support this view, based on a simplified global climate model comparing Earth to Venus and Mars, which he says provides additional insight and consistency with his prior findings.
(See James Hansen’s discussion at 42:15 in his live Q&A: 18 Aug 2025 https://www.youtube.com/live/w5jShXBD6ck?t=2535s )
Well, because of course he would do this:
.
“Trump admin strips ocean and air pollution monitoring from next-gen weather satellites”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/20/weather/noaa-satellites-climate-trump
As the story notes, the contract for the instruments had been awarded, meaning cancellation fees will likely come into effect, reducing any cost savings. One more mark in the penny wise, pound foolish ledger tracking the stupidity that is this administration’s singular guiding star. Oh hail our dear leader! F&@&’$% idiot.
Of course there’s indeed not a damn thing stopping the nations of the world from expediting individual or collective efforts to get satellites funded, built, launched, and placed into operation to supplement/replace American efforts (or now lack of). Let’s see if their leaders and populations are actually willing to step up and commit the resources now that the American government science teat is drying out and shriveling up. Aside from China perhaps, count me very doubtful.
Looked this out for you. [It’s being done; I’ve seen news elsewhere about that.]
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/08/erin-gains-strength-in-the-atlantic/#comment-6752691137
Climate polluters may be allowed to stop reporting their emissions. That doesn’t mean they can hide them. Even as the EPA moves to block greenhouse gas reporting, satellites and aircraft are stepping in to expose the truth. – https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/08/climate-polluters-may-be-allowed-to-stop-reporting-their-emissions-that-doesnt-mean-they-can-hide-them/
– Seeing CO2 and methane from air and space
– Carbon Mapper puts data from multiple instruments in one place
– Climate TRACE uses satellite imagery plus AI to estimate emissions
– NASA’s EMIT finds methane super emitters and leaky oil and gas operations
And at the end, a handy summary graphic – Meet the instruments and programs
Mod Skyepony has NASA connex and responded:
“The plan is to burn up the data gathering satellites in October, including the one mentioned on the ISS.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/13/climate/nasa-satellites-trump-budget-cuts-weather
also: “a few satellites on that page that are other countries or universities. Many others are directly mentioned in that article. Some of these looked like they would be up for auction but now it’s looking like burn them up.”
Thanks Susan. Your efforts (along with others) here in ‘comment land make it worthwhile to wade past the…. well you know.
What Everyone Must Know About Climate Sensitivity with James Hansen
1:14:49 Hansen — the IPCC scientists have been given too much power to control the agenda and and the narrative for climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5jShXBD6ck
Trump says U.S. will not approve solar or wind power projects
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/20/trump-says-us-will-not-approve-solar-or-wind-power-projects.html
“We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar,” Trump, who has complained in the past that solar takes up too much land, posted on Truth Social. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!”
Had enough? Join the Moral Majority in opposition to the Republican Death Cult.
@ KEN TOWE FYI
In summary, assuming the original $40/MWh wholesale cost of energy, and $80/MWh for comparison, we get the following EROEIs:
$40/MWh $80/MWH
Kogan Creek coal power station 5.09 10.18
Old Saudi oil wells 27 54
Permian fracked oil wells ~2015 1.76 3.52
NESF Solar Farm 1.22 2.44
MTG Wind Farm 1.17 2.34
WA gas wells 23 46
Hinkley Point C nuclear 0.57 1.14
None of the new energy types, including nuclear give us anything like the 10-20 EROEI that’s needed for modern civilisation to operate, yet the older fossil fuel plants have given us a much higher numbers on average well in excess of what’s often cited as the required EROEI.
https://un-denial.com/2025/07/12/by-hideaway-eroei/
A comment on “Thomas”, 22 Aug 2025 at 4:32 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838109
Dear all,
The person publishing his/her/its thoughts on the “Hideaway” website cited by “Thomas” is undoubtedly an out-of-box thinker. I think that originality, however, does not automatically mean correctness.
Simply converting maintenance and operational costs and/or investments disclosed in financial calculations of certain projects into “energy” may be utterly incorrect, I am afraid.
It appears that the author did so with the aim to somehow include all energy previously consumed for establishing the “starting conditions” of the project, while assuming that it should include not only all existing materials and structures but also all the energy spent on creating necessary knowledge, education, skills, know-how, etc.
It appears, however, that the author has not considered that although all these prior activities undoubtedly consumed lot of energy, their accumulated value expressed in price tags put on planned future investments, operational and maintenance costs, may include also (or perhaps mostly) contributions that cannot be expressed in megawatt hours.
In other words, I think that the financial values do not have any unequivocal equivalent in energy. The entire energy (in Joules) spent by previous generations for creation of the useful knowledge and know-how should not be added to each newly spent Joule or megawatt hour again and again.
Rather oppositely, I would rather assume that the cumulative amount of energy once successfully invested into knowledge accumulation and skill building may further bring financial returns only, the more the longer the respective knowledge is used, while the invested amount of energy does not increase anymore and its share in each individual piece of new goods gradually decreases inversely proportionate to the cumulative amount of further energy spent for production of the new goods exploiting this once gained knowledge.
For these reasons, I think that, depending on the chosen technology, a certain amount of financial investments and/or the operational and maintenance costs directed to building a new energy source may comprise a dramatically different contribution from energy that could be indeed expressed in Joules and should be indeed considered in EROI calculations.
I do not say that my thinking is correct, nor am I going to analyse the thoughts offered by the website referenced by “Thomas” any deeper, because I am not an economist and suppose that it could be rather a job for such experts. I would like to just express certain doubts that assertions made by “Thomas” rely on a solid basis.
Greetings
Tomáš
Uh, Thomas, “EROEI = Energy Delivered / Energy Required to Deliver that Energy.”
Monetary cost isn’t an input to that calculation, so your first bit is a non sequitur.
But look again at EROEI estimates for alternate energy types:
–A 2015 study found PV “mean harmonised EROIs between 8.7 and 34.2… Mean harmonised energy payback time varied from 1.0 to 4.1 years. In 2021, the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems calculated an energy payback time of around 1 year for European PV installations (0.9 years for Catania in Southern Italy, 1.1 years for Brussels) with wafer-based silicon PERC cells.” (0.9 years payback would imply EROIs toward the top end of the range from the 2015 study, or above.)
–On wind, “In the scientific literature EROIs wind turbines is around 16 unbuffered and 4 buffered. Data collected in 2018 found that the EROI of operational wind turbines averaged 19.8 with high variability depending on wind conditions and wind turbine size. EROIs tend to be higher for recent wind turbines compared to older technology wind turbines. Vestas reports an EROI of 31 for its V150 model wind turbine.”
–“The EROI for nuclear plants ranges from 20 to 81.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#Photovoltaic
Quiet hurricane season in the Northern Hemisphere so far in 2025. That’s a good thing:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/07/a-weird-lack-of-northern-hemisphere-tropical-cyclones-so-far-in-2025/
Yes, and yes.
I find this interesting as someone who monitors tropical cyclone activity and issues seasonal forecasts. Tropical cyclone activity in different ocean basins is heavily influenced by ENSO and some basins are correlated or anti-correlated (for example, when the NE Pacific is active, the N Atlantic tends to be inactive and vice versa). I don’t recall ever seeing a situation where an entire hemisphere is quiet. 2010 was very quiet across the whole Pacific ocean but was partially offset by a hyper-active N Atlantic. I am curious to know what could be suppressing tropical cyclone activity across the whole northern hemisphere.
Modern civilization is fundamentally a thermodynamic superorganism. Our growth, infrastructure, and social hierarchies have been fueled by a massive low-entropy pulse of fossil energy, concentrated over 200+ years. This surplus allowed human populations to expand from 1 billion to 8 billion and create unprecedented technological and societal complexity.
Entropy accumulates. Forests are cleared, soils eroded, oceans acidified, fisheries depleted, and infrastructure decays without constant energy input. Declining EROEI, climate extremes, and resource bottlenecks signal that we are approaching a point where energy input < maintenance + growth, a thermodynamic inevitability.
Nuclear energy is humanity’s last low-entropy lifebuoy. Advanced reactors could extend the high-surplus phase, manage waste streams, and maintain electricity production at industrial scale. But deployment requires massive upfront energy, precision engineering, and global coordination, all currently dependent on fossil fuels. At current build rates, we likely have only decades — not a century — to act, making this intervention time-critical.
Signals of systemic stress are already visible: extreme weather, coral die-offs, soil depletion, water stress, declining resources, and infrastructure strain. The alternative — no new low-entropy pulse — is a natural contraction of civilization: fewer cities, reduced technology, smaller populations, and a lower-complexity state.
Thermodynamics is unforgiving. Energy surplus drives civilization; entropy constrains it. Nuclear is the last lifebuoy, offering a chance to temporarily stabilize the system, but only if acted upon decisively.
Current warmongering hype, geopolitical ego games, and insane death-cult ideologies will never allow such a rational, logical solution to be deployed. Nor a fee-and-dividend on carbon to make it last longer either.
For readers interested in systemic resource and energy analysis for the future, see Jack Albert at SKIL https://skil.org/ and the Club of Rome CA at https://canadiancor.com/
Yes. Your comment summarizes my opinions I developed in 1962 when I decided to give it a tink for a few minutes lying on Wormwood Scrubs. My contribution to Social (ahem) “Science” is slightly simpler, less erudite and correct, and is “The sole purpose of Life is competition to the death” and “If you build it they will come”.
Quite like the statement that Modern civilization is fundamentally a thermodynamic superorganism. I agree that burning fossil fuels is a significant enabler of modern civilisation and its massive population, but not the only one. Fossil fuels are a very finite limited resource and we will run out of them in the next century or so. Obviously this would cause a catastrophic collapse if we don’t have good alternatives.
Uranium is a low entropy fuel that is a possible replacement, but unfortunately it is also a very limited resource with only about 80 years of known reserves at current rates of global use. So if we put all our efforts into uranium we may only get a couple of decades out of nuclear power and have at best delayed the requirement for other alternatives, – probably renewables.
Solar power is also low entropy and wind power has high entropy according to google. The system may therefore struggle to provide quite as much electricity as fossil fuels or nuclear power but not dramatically less. So I’m not convinced it would cause a complex civilisation to collapse. It looks more like renewables will at worst be something we will adapt to, by making more efficient use of energy and reducing waste and by some modest degree of simplification, which would not be a bad thing.
Nuclear power is very slow to build and has well known risks and the public are suspicious due to the risks, and there appear to be no viable solutions to those problems. So its hard to see it actually being widely adopted. If these things change, and huge discoveries of uranium are made it might be more widely adopted. We can have a system that evolves and combines renewables and nuclear power although I suspect it will end up being mainly renewables.
Obviously it is preferable we adopt zero carbon energy either renewables, or nuclear or both right now anyway because of the climate problem.
I think that while we need to know options are basically viable, and compatible with each other if used in one system, aiming for some sort of singular, ideal perfect system is foolish utopian thinking. Historically many countries have had a mix of generation types, that were developed over time.
Thomas: – “Nuclear is the last lifebuoy, offering a chance to temporarily stabilize the system, but only if acted upon decisively.”
Nuclear technologies are DEMONSTRABLY TOO SLOW to deploy from scratch to save humanity from planetary insolvency!
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/#comment-837151
Please name any first-on-site civil nuclear power generator units anywhere in the world that have DEMONSTRATED they have been up-and-running from scratch in less than 10 years over the last 20-year period.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/#comment-837702
It seems Pedro Prieto and Elliott Bignell are unable to find any examples.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838110
Can you, Thomas?
Oh, and I’d suggest don’t build any of these new nuclear power plants near the coast. Relentless and accelerating sea level rise (SLR) will likely inundate these nuclear plants long before their useful operating lives would be over.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-837661
Geoff, I am not disputing that building nuclear plants from scratch has thus far been a very slow process. However, when I consider the actions of the Trump administration, I consider it quite possible that they will decide to rush to build a large number of new nuke plants. They could increase federal subsidies, and eliminate any meaningful oversight by replacing the current membership of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with proponents and P.R. hacks. As long as investors were guaranteed a profit and indemnified from losses, they’d probably go along.
in Re to John Pollack, 24 Aug 2025 at 1:22 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838228
Hallo John,
I am curious how they manage it, even if they perhaps extremely simplify all thinkable regulations and approvals. The data centres foreseen for the massive AI deployment have typical power inputs about 1 GW. That corresponds e.g. to one Westinghouse APR 1000 reactor, or one EDF EPR1200 reactor.
This is the currently available “ready-to-use” technology, however, even if its installation will be accelerated significantly in comparison with previous experience, I am not sure if, let say 5-8 years, can satisfy the expectations of the respective investors.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš ,
regarding 24 Aug 2025 at 6:19 PM,
I’m not saying that it would be possible even for this U.S. administration to build so rapidly. However, since they seem to have little regard for existing law or safety, they might try if they see an advantage for themselves.
Reply to Geoff Miell
Please name any first-on-site civil nuclear power generator units anywhere in the world that have DEMONSTRATED they have been up-and-running from scratch in less than 10 years over the last 20-year period.
It seems Pedro Prieto and Elliott Bignell are unable to find any examples.
Can you, Thomas?
Geoff – # 1) No one owes you a reply.
2) I easily found this information last week – I think I posted it too but it was not published. Not my fault.
3) Pedro Prieto told me he is banned / blocked from posting here. After constantly having his comments blocked for months. No point asking him, or some others MIA-Banned!!!
4) Given mine are being blocked too, looks like I’ll be next.
5) Lucky you, if this gets through.
6) Otherwise tough. Your research needs improvement.
Short version: it isn’t just “new safety rules.” Longer timelines usually come from first-of-a-kind designs, supply-chain/QA headaches, financing and host-country factors. Also, your +15-year figure isn’t typical for China—its standardized Hualong One builds are ~5–7 years; Russia’s recent VVER-1200s have been closer to ~8–10 years.
What the timelines actually look like
China (Hualong One / HPR1000):
• Fuqing-5 (FOAK Hualong One): first concrete May 2015 → commercial operation 30 Jan 2021 ≈ 68.7 months (~5.7 years).
Wikipedia
ScienceDirect
• Karachi K-2/K-3 (Pakistan, export Hualong One): K-2 construction 2015 → commercial operation May 2021 (~6 years); K-3 2016 → Apr 2022 (~6 years).
American Nuclear Society
World Nuclear News
• Pebble-bed HTR-PM (demo) at Shidao Bay: entered commercial operation Dec 2023; as a Gen-IV demo it unsurprisingly took longer than repeat builds.
World Nuclear News
inet.tsinghua.edu.cn
Russia (VVER-1200 / Gen III+):
• Novovoronezh II-1: construction June 2008 → commercial Feb 2017 (~8.7 years).
Nuclear Engineering International
• Leningrad II-1: construction 2008 → grid 2018 (~10 years) and ~5 years later than the original plan.
worldnuclearreport.org
NucNet
• Akkuyu (Turkey, export): Unit 1 commissioning underway; sanctions and parts holdups (e.g., Siemens Energy) pushed first power to ~2025. Export projects are very sensitive to geopolitics/supply.
NucNet
akkuyu.com
UAE Barakah (Korea’s APR-1400, not Russia/China): 4 units built 2012–2024. U1 commercial 2021, U4 finished 2024; roughly 8–12 years from first concrete to final units—fast by global standards for a first-time nuclear country.
Nuclear Engineering International
enec.gov.ae
Why builds stretch (esp. outside the 1960s–70s five-year era)
First-of-a-kind (FOAK) penalty & design maturity.
New Gen-III+/IV designs (Hualong One, VVER-1200, HTR-PM) carry extra licensing, testing, and QA work—FOAKs take longer; repeat builds get faster (China’s data shows this pattern).
ScienceDirect
Reuters
Supply chain & QA/QC. Large nuclear-grade forgings, valves, I&C, and safety-class components are few-vendor bottlenecks; defects or redesigns ripple into years. Akkuyu’s delays from sanctioned parts are a vivid example.
Reuters
Financing & contract structure. State-backed, low-interest financing shortens timelines (China); complex BOO/turnkey deals and cost-of-capital spikes slow them (many exports).
Reuters summarizes China’s advantage here.
Reuters
Host-country readiness. New nuclear states must stand up a regulator, grid upgrades, emergency planning, fuel/waste logistics. The UAE had to build FANR and the whole institutional stack—time well spent.
enec.gov.ae
Post-Fukushima design upgrades. Even where there wasn’t a formal moratorium, back-fit requirements and probabilistic safety analyses expanded scope for Gen-III+ builds through the 2010s.
(Reflected in longer Russian VVER-1200 build times vs. 1970s norms.)
worldnuclearreport.org
Nuclear Engineering International
Localization & workforce. Export jobs often require local content and workforce training—great for capability, slower for schedule (seen in Pakistan, Turkey, UAE).
Nuclear Engineering International
Geopolitics/sanctions. Since 2022, Rosatom exports have faced sanctioned suppliers and payment/logistics friction—creating non-technical delays (Akkuyu, and risks for other sites).
Reuters
Net takeaways
China’s standardized Hualong One program is hitting ~5–7 years per unit now (FOAK was ~5.7); that’s close to the old “five-year” ideal and much faster than Western mega-projects.
ScienceDirect
Wikipedia
Russia’s domestic VVER-1200s have tended toward ~8–10 years (sanction impacted) and exports can stretch further due to host readiness and sanctions.
Nuclear Engineering International
worldnuclearreport.org
Reuters
Barakah shows that with a proven design (APR-1400), experienced EPC (Korea), and a well-resourced client, multi-unit builds in a first-time country can still complete inside a decade per unit—but the overall program spans longer.
Nuclear Engineering International
If you want more timely replies of quality information then I recommend you submit a Proposal to stop blocking deleting unjustifiably censoring posts and banning commenters on this forum.
If you want, I can assemble a little table of 10–15 recent China/Russia projects with “first concrete → commercial operation” to quantify the spread by design and country.
But I fail to see why I should; as I am highly unmotivated to lift a finger for anyone here. Other commenters or blogger’s self-righteous ignorance is not my problem. I do this comment for my benefit to efficiently make a number of telling points
Citations List
Long, do you want it and would you even look at them? Experience tell me no one here on RC has any genuine interest in looking at any real data info or wants true knowledge . It is only a vanity project to reinforce prior beliefs and superior egos.
A comment on “Thomas”, 25 AUG 2025 AT 1:15 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838263
“Pedro Prieto told me he is banned / blocked from posting here.”
In a morning briefing in the troll factory?
Reply to Tomáš Kalisz
“Pedro Prieto told me he is banned / blocked from posting here.”
In a morning briefing in the troll factory?
Told me in email too. we are friends. We communicate. and we both do with others who have been posting comments here for a very long time on and off. It’s a team effort of self-motivated likeminded good people from across the world taking a stand for ‘truth’ and ‘decency’. Unfortunate it’s so unwelcome and misconstrued by all, no one interested. Your loss.
[Response: Such good friends that you share IP addresses when you forget to update the VPN. How sweet. – gavin]
LOL! Hat tip to both Tomáš and Gavin. Come to Realclimate for the science, stay for the laughs!
In Re to gavin, 28 Aug 2025 at 12:10 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838476
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
Thank you very much for your observation.
I hope it convinces Ms. Anderson that her willingness to believe that “Thessalonia”, “Dharma”, “Ned Kelly”, William, “Thomas”, “Will”, “Don Williams”, “Escobar”, “Chen”, “Sabine”, multi-Prieto, “Poor Peru”, “Socrate’s Pet Scorpion”, “Tom” (and whatever they all call themselves) may be indeed a multiplicity of mutually independent honest readers was rather a product of her extraordinary kindness than a proper reflection of reality.
Anyway, I would like to return to my question regarding the dispute between proponents of the “hot” models (with a high climate sensitivity), pointing to a better fit of the “hot” models with recent climate developments, and proponents of the “mainstream” models (with a moderate climate sensitivity), pointing to a poor fit of the “hot models” with paleoclimate data.
I asked if someone already plausibly excluded the possibility that, actually, both sides could be (partly) right in this dispute, if the present climate sensitivity is indeed higher than the climate sensitivity during the pre-industrial era (or the climate sensitivity in earlier holocene).
On one hand, some commenters, e.g. Atomsk’s Sanakan, 28 Aug 2025 at 1:38 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-838493 ,
seem to assume that there already are studies that clearly showed that human interferences with land hydrology (that some authors propose as a possible cause of the respective change) could in fact NOT change the climate sensitivity significantly.
On the other hand, I have not found any such study yet, and some commenters, e.g. JCM, 29 Aug 2025 at 12:15 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-838526 ,
seem to still successfully collect further hints that anthropogenic changes in water availability for evaporation from the land might be indeed relevant for the above said dispute.
For these reasons, I would like to repeat my plea for your comment on this, possibly still open, scientific topic.
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
TK: For Pete’s sake, lay off. Some of us are doing our best to skip over the reams of ai-assisted timewasting self promotion here. What is important is that the blog belongs to the blog owners, who give us access. Climate Science from Climate Scientists Gavin has been forced to provide some clarity, don’t make it about you or me. Not one of us is the center of the universe. I know you mean well, but I don’t need your assistance. Please leave me out of your posts in future, unless I address you directly. I’m sorry to be so rude, but you assume a relationship which does not exist.
Thomas ; – “What the timelines actually look like…”
Firstly, the examples you referred to, namely: Fuqing-5, Karachi K-2/K-3, are not first-on-site examples. They are subsequent units in a series of reactors constructed at the respective sites.
The Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant consists of 6 operational reactors.
Reactor Unit _ Construction Start _ Grid Connect _ Commercial Ops _ Construct to Full Ops
FUQING-1 _ _ _ 21 Nov 2008 _ _ _ _ 20 Aug 2014 _ _ 22 Nov 2014 _ _ _ _ 6y ; 00m : 02d
FUQING-2 _ _ _ 17 Jun 2009 _ _ _ _ 06 Aug 2015 _ _ 16 Oct 2015 _ _ _ _ 6y : 03m : 29d
FUQING-3 _ _ _ 31 Dec 2010 _ _ _ _ 07 Sep 2016 _ _ 24 Oct 2016 _ _ _ _ 5y : 09m : 24d
FUQING-4 _ _ _ 17 Nov 2012 _ _ _ _ 29 Jul 2017 _ _ _ 17 Sep 2017 _ _ _ _ 4y : 10m : 02d
FUQING-5 _ _ _ 07 May 2015 _ _ _ _27 Nov 2020 _ _ 30 Jan 2021 _ _ _ _ 5y : 08m : 23d
FUQING-6 _ _ _ 22 Dec 2015 _ _ _ _ 01 Jan 2022 _ _ 25 Mar 2022 _ _ _ _ 6y : 03m : 04d
Note that Construction Start dates are for the first day of concrete pour for the base of the reactor. It does not include site prep, formwork and rebar preparations required before the concrete pour occurs. Nor does it include planning, site-specific design work, procurements, etc., that must also occur beforehand.
FUQING-1: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=914
FUQING-2: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=915
FUQING-3: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=935
FUQING-4: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=936
FUQING-5: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=937
FUQING-6 : https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=938
But the IAEA PRIS database doesn’t include when planning, licensing, approvals, financing, design, procurements, and site preparation occurred for this 6 reactor unit project. Typically add at least another 5 years BEFORE the first unit begins first concrete pour.
Karachi K-2/K-3 are designated KANUPP-2 (K-2) & KANUPP-3 (K-3). The Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) announced in Jun 2013 it would go ahead with work on a 1,100-megawatt nuclear power plant in Karachi with Chinese assistance from the next financial year in an effort to ease energy shortages in the country.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/559885/govt-to-kick-off-work-on-1100mw-nuclear-power-plant
Reactor Unit _ Construction Start _ Grid Connect _ Commercial Ops _ Construct to Full Ops
KANUPP-2 _ _ _ 20 Aug 2015 _ _ _ _ 18 Mar 2021 _ _ _ 21 May 2021 _ _ _ 5y : 09m : 02d
KANUPP-3 _ _ _ 31 May 2016 _ _ _ _ 04 Mar 2022 _ _ _ 18 Apr 2022 _ _ _ 5y : 10m : 19d
KANUPP-2: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=1067
KANUPP-3: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=1068
Typically add at least another 5 years BEFORE the first unit begins first concrete pour.
So these examples you have cited (i.e. Fuqing-5, Karachi K-2/K-3) have DEMONSTRATED more than 10 years to get up-and-running from scratch when initial planning, licensing, approvals, financing, design, procurements, and site preparations are also included.
Secondly, you have EXCLUDED the dates for when your cited projects were initiated for:
Planning;
Approvals granted;
Site preparations.
Construction cannot occur without these critical functions. Typically add at least another 5 years BEFORE the first unit begins first concrete pour. Thus all the projects you have nominated have REQUIRED more than 10 years to get-up-and-running from scratch.
You’ve failed to show any first-on-site civil nuclear power projects that have DEMONSTRATED less than 10 years to get-up-and-running from scratch over the last 20-year period.
I keep asking this question. No one has yet shown DEMONSTRATED examples. Why is that so? I’d suggest it’s because they don’t exist.
Thomas ; – “Barakah shows that with a proven design (APR-1400), experienced EPC (Korea), and a well-resourced client, multi-unit builds in a first-time country can still complete inside a decade per unit”
Nope; UAE has DEMONSTRABLY not shown that! 15+ years project duration for BARAKAH-1, 18+ years for BARAKAH-4.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/#comment-837702
Thomas ; – “If you want, I can assemble a little table of 10–15 recent China/Russia projects with “first concrete → commercial operation” to quantify the spread by design and country.”
Why would I need that? That info is readily available at the IAEA PRIS database:
https://pris.iaea.org/pris/countrystatistics/countrystatisticslandingpage.aspx
What’s more difficult to find is when initial planning, and site preparations for these projects began. That’s the critical (and inconvenient) information that’s ignored by nuclear boosters!
Some civil nuclear project examples I’ve explored are included in Slides #17-32 in my Submission to an Australian Parliament inquiry last year at:
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=926e7892-4491-4542-94a4-4afcf2183b40&subId=769292
Thomas is only looking at the construction times for nuclear power plants. We need to know the total time taken from initial project feasibility studies and design through to completion of construction.
Google gemini:
The time to build a power plant varies greatly depending on the technology. Nuclear power plants have the longest timelines, while solar and wind farms can be completed in a fraction of the time. This is due to differences in regulatory requirements, project complexity, and construction processes.
Nuclear Power Plant
A typical nuclear power plant takes an average of 10 to 12 years from the initial feasibility study and design to the end of construction and grid connection.
Pre-construction & Licensing (5 years): This is often the longest phase. It involves site selection, detailed design, environmental impact assessments, and extensive licensing and safety approvals from regulatory bodies. Due to the strict safety requirements, this phase is highly regulated and can be subject to delays from public opposition or technical reviews.
Construction & Commissioning (5-7 years): This phase includes site preparation, pouring the first concrete for the containment building, reactor installation, and the construction of all associated infrastructure. After construction, the plant undergoes a rigorous commissioning process to test all systems before it can begin commercial operation.
Yes, if a technology has the potential to contaminate hundreds of square miles in the event of a disaster–and permanently, in regular human terms–it’s always going to be tightly regulated.
[Remembers Chernobyl and the Soviet attitude toward such things.]
Well, *almost* always.
Thomas, that’s quite a list (note locations, however); seems a good reply to a request for actual nuclear in progress & meeting time constraints.
But you’re banned? This from the sidebar: of recent posts just now. If you’re posting more than this, I suggest forming your own blog. You’re quite right, people aren’t going to wade through volumes of material, some dubious, some not.
Thomas on Unforced Variations: Aug 2025
Thomas on Unforced Variations: Aug 2025
Thomas on Unforced Variations: Aug 2025
Thomas on Unforced Variations: Aug 2025
Dan on Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
Thomas on Unforced Variations: Aug 2025
Thomas on Unforced Variations: Aug 2025
Thomas on Unforced Variations: Aug 2025
Thomas on Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
Thomas on Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
Russell Seitz on Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
Thomas on Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
As for scientific differences, I said what I meant and I meant what I said. The question of rate is lesser to the fact that it’s happening. The conversation is ongoing.
Well if you insist
Here are the refs sources
Wikipedia
Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant – Wikipedia
The first concrete was poured for Fuqing 5 on 7 May 2015. [6] Unit 5 achieved criticality in October 2020, the first Hualong One reactor to reach the milestone. [7] The unit was connected to the grid the following month. [8] It began commercial operation on 30 January 2021. [9]
ScienceDirect
Advanced PWR Technology—HPR1000 and Unit 5 of Fuqing … – ScienceDirect
December 1, 2023 — The first HPR1000 unit in the world—namely, Unit 5 of Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant—was officially put into commercial operation on January 30, 2021, after the shortest construction period (i.e., 68.7 months) and with the best economic indicator among the first units of global third-generation technologies.
American Nuclear Society
First Hualong One unit outside China enters commercial operation
June 1, 2021 — Unit 2 at Pakistan’s Karachi nuclear power plant officially began commercial operation in late May, gaining the distinction of being the first Hualong One reactor outside of China to do so, China National Nuclear Corporation announced last week. Construction of Karachi-2 began in August 2015, and connection to the grid was accomplished in March of this year.
World Nuclear News
Karachi 2: Final sign-off for first Hualong One export
May 21, 2024 — Construction of unit 2 began in 2015 and unit 3 the following year. Karachi 2 achieved first criticality in February 2021 and was connected to the grid the following month after the completion of commissioning tests. Unit 3 achieved first criticality in February 2022 and entered commercial operation in April that year.
World Nuclear News
China’s demonstration HTR-PM enters commercial operation
December 6, 2023 — The nuclear island of HTR-PM Demo (Image: Tsinghua University) It follows a successful 168-hour demonstration run for the High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor – Pebble-bed Module (HTR-PM) in Shidao Bay (also known as Shidaowan), in Shandong Province, which is currently operating at 2×200 MWt power.
inet.tsinghua.edu.cn
Chinese HTR-PM Demo begins commercial operation
December 7, 2023 — Following a 168-hour demonstration run, HTR-PM (High Temperature gas-cooled Reactor Pebble-bed Module) Demo in Shidao Bay, Shandong Province of China, the world’s first modular high temperature gas-cooled reactor nuclear power plant, entered commercial operation on December 6, China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) has announced.The plant consists of two HTR-PM reactor modules and a …
Nuclear Engineering International
Russia starts commercial operation of first VVER-1200
March 2, 2017 — Before issuing the licence for commercial operation, nuclear regulator Rostechnadzor carried out a series of tests confirming the unit’s compliance with the national regulatory framework. The tests were completed on 23 February 2017 after 15 days of operation at 100% power. Construction of Novovoronezh II-1 began in June 2008.
worldnuclearreport.org
Five Years Late: Grid Connection of First Unit of Leningrad-II Nuclear …
March 12, 2018 — Russia connected the VVER 1200 series reactor, Leningrad- II unit 1 to the grid, 9 March 2018, ten years after construction start in 2008 and five years later than the original scheduled startup in 2013. It is the second Rosatom VVER 1200 to enter service, following the Novovoronezh-6 grid connection on 5 August 2016. The Leningrad plant, is located at Sosnovy Bor, in northwest Russia, on the …
NucNet
Russia’s Leningrad 2-1 Connected To Grid – nucnet.org
12 Mar (NucNet): The Leningrad 2-1 nuclear reactor unit in western Russia was connected to the national grid and produced electricity for the first time on 9 March 2018, Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom said in a statement.
NucNet
Turkey / Akkuyu-1 Nuclear Plant Begins ‘Full-Scale’ Commissioning Stage …
April 9, 2024 — The “full-scale” commissioning phase has begun for Unit 1 of the Akkuyu nuclear power station under construction in southwest Turkey, Russian project developer Rosatom said. Alexey Likhachev, head of the Russian state-owned nuclear power corporation, this week visited the site near Mersin on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast.
akkuyu.com
FULL-SCALE START-UP AND COMMISSIONING WORKS STARTED AT AKKUYU NPP UNIT 1
March 29, 2024 — Start-up and commissioning works, another key stage has begun at Unit 1 of Akkuyu NPP under construction in Türkiye. Director General of Rosatom State Corporation Alexey Likhachev examined the work progress during his working visit to the NPP construction site.
Nuclear Engineering International
Barakah now fully operational – Nuclear Engineering International
September 10, 2024 — Barakah is the first multi-unit operational NPP in the Arab world. Construction of the Barakah NPP began in 2011. Korea Electric Power Company (Kepco) led the consortium that is building the plant comprising four APR1400 reactors. Unit 1 was connected to the grid in 2020, followed by unit 2 in 2021 and unit 3 in 2022. Unit 1 began commercial operation in April 2021 and unit 2 in 2022 and unit …
enec.gov.ae
Timeline – enec.gov.ae
July 2010 – The UAE’s Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation (FANR) approves license requests for preliminary site preparation at Barakah December 2010 – ENEC submits construction license application for Barakah Units 1 and 2
Reuters
US as many as 15 years behind China on nuclear power, report says
June 17, 2024 — A recent report by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation highlights that the U.S. lags up to 15 years behind China in developing advanced nuclear power. The discrepancy is attributed to China’s state-backed technology approach and substantial financing, enabling quicker and more cost-efficient construction of nuclear reactors. With 27 reactors under construction, China has achieved average construction times of seven years, benefiting from economies of scale and learning-by-doing effects, which likely facilitate further innovation. Despite the U.S. having the largest fleet of nuclear power plants and President Biden advocating for nuclear energy to combat climate change, the sector struggles with delays and budget overruns, with no new reactors presently under construction. The report suggests the U.S. needs a national strategy that includes increased R&D investment and support for workforce development to bridge the gap. China’s progress also stems from low-interest state-backed loans, extensive state support, and high localization rates in nuclear component production. However, challenges like overproduction and excessive competition in the Chinese market exist.
Reuters
Turkish nuclear plant delayed by withheld Siemens parts, China to supply
September 11, 2024 — Turkey’s first nuclear power plant, Akkuyu, has faced delays due to Siemens Energy withholding key parts, likely in compliance with Western sanctions on Russia. This delay has pushed the initial reactor launch to 2025. In response, Russia’s Rosatom, the plant’s builder and owner, has sourced parts from Chinese companies. The Turkish energy minister mentioned possible fines for Siemens Energy and concerns about future collaborations with them. The Akkuyu project, a $20 billion investment initiated in 2010, aims to produce 4,800 MW with four reactors, contributing 10% to Turkey’s electricity. Despite maintaining strong ties with both Russia and Ukraine, Turkey opposes the European and U.S. sanctions on Russia, which have affected this project.
Nuclear Engineering International
China formally hands over Karachi 2 Hualong One reactor to Pakistan
May 24, 2024 — Karachi 2&3 are China’s first Hualong One exports. Construction of unit 2 began in 2015 and unit
and 40+ more refs …. but if you go look for the information it is everywhere.
Thomas (at 27 Aug 2025 at 1:27 AM): – “Here are the refs sources… [blah, blah, blah]”
What you’ve repeated is the start of construction to beginning of full commercial operations (buried amongst other irrelevant information). You’ve EXCLUDED the dates for when your cited projects were initiated for:
Planning;
Approvals granted;
Site preparations.
I repeat again: Construction cannot occur without these critical functions: i.e. feasibility studies/planning, licensing, site specific design work, financing, procurements, and site preparations. Typically add at least another 5 years BEFORE the first unit begins first concrete pour. Thus all the projects you have nominated have REQUIRED more than 10 years to get-up-and-running from scratch.
Re-read my earlier comments above:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838304
And by nigelj above:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838305
Thomas, you’ve failed again to show any first-on-site civil nuclear power projects that have DEMONSTRATED less than 10 years to get-up-and-running from scratch (i.e. when initial planning/feasibility studies began) over the last 20-year period.
Repeating again the following example to show the relevant key dates to determine the full duration required for the UAE’s Barakah 4-reactor nuclear power plant project to become operational from scratch:
2006 – initial nuclear feasibility studies began;
Apr 2008 – UAE released its Policy on ‘The Evaluation and Potential Development of Peaceful Nuclear Energy’;
2009 – UAE issued its nuclear energy law;
Dec 2009 – KEPCO won the contract to build four APR-1400 units at Barakah;
Jul 2010 – site preparation for the Barakah nuclear plant began;
19 Jul 2012 – BARAKAH-1 reactor base first concrete pour;
15 Apr 2013 – BARAKAH-2 reactor base first concrete pour;
24 Sep 2014 – BARAKAH-3 reactor base first concrete pour;
30 Jul 2015 – BARAKAH-4 reactor base first concrete pour;
19 Aug 2020 – BARAKAH-1 first grid connection;
01 Apr 2021 – BARAKAH-1 commence full commercial operations;
14 Sep 2021 – BARAKAH-2 first grid connection;
24 Mar 2022 – BARAKAH-2 commence full commercial operations;
08 Oct 2022 – BARAKAH-3 first grid connection;
24 Feb 2023 – BARAKAH-3 commence full commercial operations;
23 Mar 2024 – BARAKAH-4 first grid connection;
05 Sep 2024 – BARAKAH-4 commence full commercial operations.
15+ years project duration for BARAKAH-1, 18+ years for BARAKAH-4.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/#comment-837702
Thomas. I did not “insist”. You deliberately misread my post in order to post volumetric faff.
Your comment is in no way a response to mine.
Very interesting! Thanks!
Thomas quote: “Signals of systemic stress are already visible: extreme weather, coral die-offs, soil depletion, water stress, declining resources, and infrastructure strain….”
All of those thing have always occurred. Nothing new there. People have had to adapt to changing conditions since there were people.
Thomas quote: “Nuclear is the last lifebuoy, offering a chance to temporarily stabilize the system, but only if acted upon decisively.”
Yes, nuclear is probably our best bet for reliable future energy – it works 24/7/365 no matter what the weather is. One thing that could help with the energy problem is to realize that much of AI is hype, just like the Dot-Com hype in the 90s. It’s producing very little for the energy it requires. It really needs to be shut down IMHO except for perhaps a few areas like computer programming where it can slightly help speed up code writing.
Thomas quote: “Current warmongering hype, geopolitical ego games, and insane death-cult ideologies will never allow such a rational, logical solution to be deployed.”
Democrats are no longer in power in the USA, so the warmongering has quietened now and we have the peace maker Trump in charge. I’m hopeful he can stop the current wars and prevent the new ones that Biden was about to get us in. Not sure what geopolitical ego games you refer to, but with our peace making president, I think we’re in good hands for now. On the insane death-cult ideologies, those were well laid out in the Jack Albert video in your link https://skil.org/ That YouTube video at 31:40 describes an actual death cult – he proposes that a “no-birth” virus that prevents human reproduction be introduced into the population to sterilize 8 billion people, so I assume that is the death-cult that you refer to? The YouTube video link is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiilZm8l-T0
At 36:03 of that video, one of the people listed in the credits is Pedro Prieto. There is a commenter here on RC with that name, and also someone who occasionally spells the last name Preito, not Prieto. Probably the same person. Both spellings appear on this RC page – one on Aug 18, and one on Aug 19.
Mr. Albert’s ideas on nuclear power are probably solid, but his other ideas sound like Malthusianism. His proposal of wiping out essentially all humans is not only immoral, but is an example of top-down control by a few people, also known as tyranny. It never works. The market place with billions of people making decisions for themselves always works better than top-down control. If things get bad enough, people will choose to stop reproducing on their own. It’s a self=correcting system.
Mr. KIA,
This is indeed a rarity! I am quite in agreement with your remarks about AI.
Of course, this means I am about to disagree about something else. In this case, it is the hype that nuclear “works 24/7/365 no matter what the weather is.” This is based in part on my experience with our local nuclear plant.
1. A nuclear (or any other) plant must be taken down sometimes for scheduled maintenance.
2. There are unscheduled outages when equipment malfunctions. These tend to become more frequent as a plant gets older.
3. Nuclear plants are subject to weather, because they generally rely on a river or body of water for cooling efficiency. The inland ones can be shut down when the water freezes, or the supply is too low in a drought. Both types of shutdown tend to occur during periods of relatively high energy use. As Geoff notes, the ones along the coast are subject to sea level rise – along with storms, and tsunamis.
4. There can be systemic failures of major equipment, resulting in prolonged outages. Our plant was down for well over a year when original equipment had to be replaced. The original manufacturer was out of business, and the low bidder’s replacement product turned out not to be adequate – resulting in a large electrical fire.
5. If modular nuclear reactors are ever built, they will be subject to mass shutdown whenever a major safety flaw is discovered (probably the hard way.)
Note that nuke plants in France and Switzerland had to shut down during the recent heat wave because cooling reservoirs got too hot!
No-It-All said:
The reality is that the Republicans don’t know how to govern so will never institute a nuclear program. The nightmare that could happen is that they hand nuclear off to the free-market with no regulations and oversight.
But of course, the USA free-market will then have to compete with Asian countries that do have government support for startup costs.
France and Switzerland have nuclear because they know how to govern.
Reply to John Pollack
5. If modular nuclear reactors are ever built, they will be subject to mass shutdown whenever a major safety flaw is discovered (probably the hard way.)
when as was the last time a nuclear powered submarine blew up or killed anyone due to their modular nuclear reactors in use since the 1950s?
Many new Gen IV Nuclear plants do not or will not need water in the future — if they are “smart” — Gas Cooled safe HTRPM Thorium etc
New Technology systems apparently fix everything except for Nuclear challenges LOL
Thomas,
5. Refers to commercial nuclear projects that rely on mass production of small modular reactors to lower costs. If the modules are all constructed the same way, they will all be subject to being shut down if a critical safety flaw is discovered. If you’re relying on a network of them for 24/7/365 power, there’s a problem with that.
The reactors that power submarines use highly enriched uranium, have different safety standards, and much looser cost requirements.
The only small modular design so far licensed in the U.S. is a conventional light water reactor by NuScale. They started on a $3.6 billion project for a generation capacity of 720MW in 2020. It was cancelled in late 2023 after the projected generation dropped to 462 MW and projected build cost had increased to $9.3 billion, causing a loss of subscribers.
Thomas: – “when as was the last time a nuclear powered submarine blew up or killed anyone due to their modular nuclear reactors in use since the 1950s?”
Nuclear submarine accidents include the K-19 (1961), K-11 (1965), K-27 (1968), K-140 (1968), K-429 (1970), K-222 (1980), and K-431 (1985) accidents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
USS Thresher (SSN-593): Sunk on April 10, 1963, during deep-diving tests off the coast of Cape Cod. All 129 people aboard perished after a series of failures, including a reactor shutdown and loss of propulsion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)
USS Scorpion (SSN-589): Sank on May 22, 1968, about 400 miles southwest of the Azores, with all 99 crew members lost. The exact cause of the sinking remains inconclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)
Thomas: – “Many new Gen IV Nuclear plants do not or will not need water in the future — if they are “smart” — Gas Cooled safe HTRPM Thorium etc”
When? Can you nominate any of these projects that are likely operational to demonstrate their claims within 10 years? No? They are useless for rapidly reducing GHG emissions NOW.
Nuclear is a ‘stalking horse’ for keeping fossil fuels going for decades longer.
John Pollack says
25 Aug 2025 at 8:54 PM
OK then
Nuclear submarines are obvious multinational example of constant “modular” variation, change and improvement over 70 years.
The incompetent USA is not the world. Think bigger. Better.
All modular will not be constructed the same way
Russia have them everywhere on ships, relocatable, remote / arctic locations.
If a critical safety flaw is discovered IN ANY MANUFACTURED ITEM it is a problem and managed all the time. A non-argument.
IF you rely on anything ………………………………………………………………………………………..
a big subject is nuclear today – take 3 mths and learn about it deeply with an open mind.
Or don’t. I did. Far more complex than CMIP Climate Modelling, Net Zero myth making and the EPA.
Th: when as was the last time a nuclear powered submarine blew up or killed anyone due to their modular nuclear reactors in use since the 1950s?
BPL:
07/04/1961. Soviet nuclear submarine K19 (Project 658, Hotel class). Radiation release from reactor. 8 fatalities (mean 5000-6000 rem each). Ref: AA, Bellona.
10/??/1975. USS Proteus, submarine tender, at Apra Harbor, Guam. Reactor wastewater dumped into the bay, resulting in background radiation levels of 0.1 rem/hr (50 times the permissible dose) on two local beaches. No fatalities. Ref: Lutin.
08/10/1985. Soviet nuclear submarine K314 (Project 671, Victor I-class). Steam explosion and radiation release, 6 km length of Sholtovo peninsula contaminated. 10 fatalities. Ref: Bellona.
AA: “Special Report: Accident in Japan. Major Nuclear Power Plant Accidents.” National Science Foundation. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml, accessed 3/02/2007.
Bellona: Bellona Foundation 1996. “The Russian Northern Fleet. 8. Nuclear Submarine Accidents.” http://193.71.199.52/en/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/report_2-1996/11084.html, accessed 3/02/2007.
Lutins, Allen 2006. “U.S. Nuclear Accidents.” http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html, accessed 3/02/2007.
Thomas (at 26 Aug 2025 at 3:57 AM): – “Nuclear submarines are obvious multinational example of constant “modular” variation, change and improvement over 70 years.”
As John Pollack mentions above: “reactors that power submarines use highly enriched uranium, have different safety standards, and much looser cost requirements.”
Currently, the US and the UK use “weapon-grade” uranium containing more than 93% uranium-235 (U-235) to fuel their naval reactors, and Russia uses HEU containing more than the 20% U-235, defined by international agreement to be the threshold for direct weapons-usability.
http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/81mahip.pdf
HEU fuel use is restricted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) due to proliferation risks. The primary concern is that the HEU used in submarine reactors can also be used to make nuclear weapons, creating a proliferation risk.
Applications for High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU), enriched between 5% and <20% concentration of U-235, are today limited to research reactors and medical isotope production. However, HALEU will be needed for many proposed advanced power reactor fuels, and more than half of the small modular reactor (SMR) designs in development.
HALEU is not yet widely available commercially. At present only Russia and China have the infrastructure to produce HALEU at scale. Centrus Energy, in the United States, began producing HALEU from a demonstration-scale cascade in October 2023.
HALEU fuel production at large-scale appears to be a critical bottleneck for most civil SMRs.
HALEU fuels require more energy for enrichment, incur higher fuel fabrication costs, potentially accelerate corrosion and embrittlement of pressure vessels, and potentially incur more onerous regulatory requirements and transport standards.
Thomas (at 26 Aug 2025 at 3:57 AM): – "All modular will not be constructed the same way”
Then it likely won’t be compatible.
Thomas (at 26 Aug 2025 at 3:57 AM): – “a big subject is nuclear today – take 3 mths and learn about it deeply with an open mind.”
Carl Sagan said: “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
Overwhelming evidence/data indicates that nuclear technologies:
1. Are too slow to deploy;
2. Are too expensive;
3. Use finite fuels inadequate to sustain long-term a so-called “nuclear renaissance”;
4. Leave behind a toxic waste legacy that will long outlast any energy benefits gained (an intergenerational issue).
in Re to John Pollack, 25 Aug 2025 at 8:54 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838300 ,
Geoff Miell, 25 Aug 2025 at 9:11 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838304 ,
25 Aug 2025 at 11:41 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838315 ,
and 26 Aug 2025 at 8:32 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838350 ,
nigelj, 25 Aug 2025 at 9:22 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838305
and Barton Paul Levenson, 26 Aug 2025 at 8:13 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838348
Sirs,
Many thanks for showing how dubious is in fact the “evidence” provided by “Thomas”.
Otherwise, some readers might stay impressed by his/her/its Gish galloping.
Best wishes
Tomáš
P.S.
in Re to John Pollack, 25 Aug 2025 at 8:54 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838300 ,
Geoff Miell, 25 Aug 2025 at 9:11 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838304 ,
25 Aug 2025 at 11:41 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838315 ,
and 26 Aug 2025 at 8:32 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838350 ,
nigelj, 25 Aug 2025 at 9:22 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838305
and Barton Paul Levenson, 26 Aug 2025 at 8:13 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838348
Sirs,
Many thanks for looking at the “evidence” provided by “Thomas”.
Otherwise, some readers might stay impressed by his/her/its Gish galloping.
Best wishes
Tomáš
P.S.
Personally, I see the strongest argument against future perspective of nuclear energy in competition with renewable energy and electricity storage in exclusivity of the first in comparison with the latter.
While individual inventors and small businesses can hardly improve nuclear technology, safety and health protection hindrances are significantly lower for handling with energy that is orders of magnitude less intense and therefore much less dangerous. Financial limitations for testing new ideas are thus accordingly less restrictive in renewable energy and/or electricity storage research and development.
I think that it is a quite strong hint, suggesting why success chances in renewable energy and/or electricity storage development may be significantly higher than in nuclear technology development.
KIA is hopeful Trump can stop the current wars. You will need a lot of hope because since Trump has been in power everything has gone bad. Ukraine war has got worse, Israel has doubled its efforts against Hamas, and is allowing people to starve to death. Israel started a war against Iran, and India launched missiles at Pakistan. This is what happens when a bullying clueless strongman fascist like Trump becomes president. It sends a message that other leaders can act the same way and thats what’s happened.
Mr. Know It All: – “Yes, nuclear is probably our best bet for reliable future energy – it works 24/7/365 no matter what the weather is.”
Evidence/data? Meanwhile, see the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024, re nuclear plant Long-Term Outages (LTOs) and shorter-term outages in general.
For example, the nuclear fleet in France experienced recently (per WNISR2024):
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2024
Mr. Know It All, I’d suggest compelling evidence/data indicates nuclear power is not as reliable as your assessment “it works 24/7/365 no matter what” would have us all believe. But why let facts/evidence get in the way of your fantasy, aye Mr. Know It All?
Geoff Miell cherry-picking aging nukes in France is not credible facts/evidence/data. Only belongs as a valid anecdotal nuance in a much longer wide ranging in-depth commentary.
You rebut nothing KIA said about 24/7/365 per yr. You knew what he meant by that. Do better.
Thomas: – “cherry-picking aging nukes in France is not credible facts/evidence/data.”
KIA did not qualify his statement re “it works 24/7/365 no matter what“. I’ve provided examples that have undeniably refuted that. But if you are looking for newer reactor examples, then it appears Finland’s newest OLKILUOTO-3 generator unit is not so reliable also.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-batteries-and-evs-to-the-rescue-again-as-faults-with-new-nuclear-plant-cause-chaos-on-nordic-grids/
Extreme weather, such as heatwaves, can force nuclear plants offline because they may not have sufficient water at acceptable temperatures for cooling.
Marine organisms, like jellyfish, can clog cooling water intake systems, leading to automatic safety shutdowns and causing outages.
It seems to me this is all much too inconvenient for your ill-informed ideological narratives, aye Thomas?
In Re to Geoff Miell, 26 AUG 2025 AT 9:14 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838351
Hallo Geoff,
I would only add that even if everything works perfectly as intended and planned, typical PWR nuclear power plants need to be shut down regularly for refuelling. As far as I know, in Czech power plants equipped with VVER-400 and VVER-1000 reactors, refuelling takes place in 1-2 yearly intervals and takes several weeks.
Greetings
Tomáš
Reply to Mr. Know It All
KIA All of those thing have always occurred. Nothing new there. People have had to adapt to changing conditions since there were people.
No, you’re very wrong. They are decidedly different today. In scale and impact There is much new here. There are 8 billion now — +200 years into the high energy carbon pulse and the industrial revolution and still growing; when all the easy to get resource are already depleted and much more costly in $ and energy needed to get at. Ak any right wing / MAGA oil resource expert or investor
https://www.artberman.com/blog/ or Goehring & Rozencwajg or Geological Survey of Finland/Geologian Tutkimuskeskus – not a secret
KIA — One thing that could help with the energy problem is to realize that much of AI is hype, just like the Dot-Com hype in the 90s.
I tend to agree, it is a thing, but will not change much re demand long term … imo .. not a critical shift.
KIA — Democrats are no longer in power in the USA, so the warmongering has quietened now and we have the peace maker Trump in charge. I’m hopeful he can stop the current wars and prevent the new ones that Biden was about to get us in. Not sure what geopolitical ego games you refer to, but with our peace making president, I think we’re in good hands for now.
A leopard cannot change it’s spots. America is a warmongering nation/empire by nature by default.
https://www.rand.org political parties and president make no difference
KIA – Albert – he proposes that a “no-birth” virus that prevents human reproduction be introduced into the population to sterilize 8 billion people
Contentious isn’t it? Really pushes the envelope. I think he finally realized the whole world was in denial. Are you for it?
KIA – one of the people listed in the credits is Pedro Prieto.
Indeed there was … +++ for actually looking at it. You maybe the only one who will. Tick! :-)
KIA — but his other ideas sound like Malthusianism. His proposal of wiping out essentially all humans is not only immoral, but is an example of top-down control by a few people, also known as tyranny. It never works
????? It works now quite OK for the elite. a top-down immoral, control by a few people,
8+ billions of people are NOT making decisions for themselves. You’re imagining it–the freedom. You have little to none.
Evolution is THE only self=correcting system — fertility has already collapsed and going down as are all other human life markers
Ps
No reasonable person would pushback against this comment >>>nuclear plants – it works 24/7/365 no matter what the weather is.
……… bar a few exceptions to the rule. mega droughts etc but not on all types
KIA: All of those thing have always occurred. Nothing new there. People have had to adapt to changing conditions since there were people.
BPL: In the history of civilization, climate change this fast has never occurred.
KIA: Yes, nuclear is probably our best bet for reliable future energy
BPL: Hardly. Nuclear is more expensive than anything else and takes the longest to deploy. A 1 GWe nuke has a capital investment cost of about $30 billion; and it takes 10+ years to build. A wind farm is less expensive and can go up in 9 months.
KIA: Democrats are no longer in power in the USA, so the warmongering has quietened now and we have the peace maker Trump in charge. I’m hopeful he can stop the current wars and prevent the new ones that Biden was about to get us in.
BPL: There weren’t any new wars Biden was getting us into. And Trump is an abject failure as a peacemaker.
Sometimes war is justified. Ukraine, for example, is fighting not to absorbed by a vicious dictatorship.
If war is ever justified, then at those times, peace is immoral.
– it works 24/7/365 no matter what the weather is.
Sellafield: ‘bottomless pit of hell, money and despair’ at Europe’s most toxic nuclear site. Described as a nuclear Narnia, the site is a source of economic support for Cumbria – and a longstanding international safety concern – https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/04/sellafield-money-europe-toxic-nuclear-site-cumbria-safety
Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1ecjYFYTo
Some of the risks are increasing with flooding, fires, sea level rise, not to mention deregulation and profit before people.
“but with our peace making president, I think we’re in good hands for now.” – Surely, you’re joking! No, I will not stop calling you Surely.
Trump is like Mussolini if Mussolini made the trains run slowly – or just stopped them.
According to the World Nuclear Association, over the last 20 years 102 new reactors came on line while 106 were retired. There are currently approximately 70 reactors under construction worldwide. There are only another additional 100 reactors planned. Compare this to the suggestion of James Hansen made in 2015 that 115 new reactors per year are required to meet current and future global electricity demand. That is, over 4000 new reactors constructed between 2015 and 2050. This is probably off by an order of magnitude from the projected reality. So unless Dr Hansen is wildly mistaken it seems unlikely that nuclear power will provide much of a solution.
Reply to Jonathan David
Compare this to the suggestion of James Hansen made in 2015 that 115 new reactors per year are required to meet current and future global electricity demand. That is, over 4000 new reactors constructed between 2015 and 2050.
So unless Dr Hansen is wildly mistaken it seems unlikely that nuclear power will provide much of a solution.
Dr Hansen was not mistaken. It never happened and will not. Did you have a point?
He could have said 575 GW of RE plant per year are required to meet current and future global electricity demand. It never happened either and will not.
So, clearly, based on the rate of current and projected construction of nuclear plants, nuclear power will not become the primary source of global electric power by 2050 or, likely, by 2100. Alternative forms of energy production, such as renewables, would appear to be more promising.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09349-5
Rapid changes in Antarctica; 1.5C limit.
Oops.
Is that the same thing that was discussed in an RC article in July?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/ocean-circulation-going-south/
It’s always fun to look at the current temperature in Antarctica:
For Vostok Station, =75 F now, with a range over the next couple of weeks of -58 F to -93 F. BRRRRRR……
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/vostok-station/ext
Mr. KiA: “Is that the same thing that was discussed in an RC article in July?”
No, it’s a different paper. If interested, please see this comment: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/ocean-circulation-going-south/#comment-838065
Gosh, it’s winter again in the southern hemisphere and it’s cold at Vostok Station. The average August maximum is (in quaint units) -75ºF, and the average minimum is -83ºF.
So -75ºF is actually the average maximum for August..
The warmest current forecast for early September is -69ºF and the coldest minimum is -90ºF, while the range for the September average maximum and minimum are -74ºF and -84ºF, so the highest forecast upcoming September maximum is above the average maximum, and the lowest forecast upcoming September minimum is below the average minimum by about the same amount.
The monthly averages are right there at the same link – they’re easy to look up.
NYT: The Trump administration on Friday ordered that all construction stop on Revolution Wind, a $4 billion wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island that is already mostly built.
Matthew Giacona, the acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, issued a letter on Friday to Orsted, the Danish company building the wind farm, ordering it to “halt all ongoing activities” because of unspecified issues.
The Misunderstood Reality of ‘Pipeline Warming’ and Net Zero / ZEC >In plain language
The discussion around climate change often contains a mix of scientific concepts and policy targets that are frequently conflated, leading to confusion. It’s crucial to distinguish between an unproven theoretical scientific experiment, a political goal, and the complex physics based reality of the Earth’s climate system.
ZEC vs. Net Zero: An Important Distinction
The term Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) refers to a specific climate model experiment. In this scenario, scientists abruptly cease all anthropogenic CO₂ emissions to observe the Earth’s response. Most models suggest that in this idealized scenario, global temperatures would remain relatively stable (within ±0.2 °C) for a century or two. This is because the immediate reduction in atmospheric CO₂ due to its absorption by the oceans and biosphere is balanced by a continued warming from the oceans releasing stored heat.
In stark contrast, Net Zero is not a physical law or a scientific experiment. It is a political and technological framework that relies on balancing ongoing emissions (from sources like aviation and agriculture) with speculative removals (e.g., direct air capture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage). This framework is not an established physical principle but rather a theoretical construct with unproven assumptions about large-scale technological feasibility and economic viability.
Both scenarios are not only speculative in an imaginary sense, they are physically impossible to implement in the real world.
The Reality of Future Warming
The idea that “pipeline warming is not a thing” is only true within the narrow, idealized conditions of the ZEC experiment. In the real world, the cessation of CO₂ emissions would not mean the end of all warming pressures. Several critical factors, often excluded or simplified in ZEC studies, would continue to drive temperature increases:
Aerosol Forcing: The burning of fossil fuels releases not only greenhouse gases but also aerosols, which have a temporary cooling effect by reflecting sunlight. A complete halt to fossil fuel use would mean the rapid clearing of these aerosols, unleashing a significant warming effect of approximately 0.2 to 0.7 °C over decades.
Cryosphere Feedbacks: The long-term response of Earth’s cryosphere—including the melting of Arctic sea ice and the disintegration of ice sheets—would continue for centuries or millennia. These processes reduce the planet’s albedo (reflectivity) and contribute to further warming.
Permafrost Thaw: As temperatures rise, the vast stores of carbon and methane trapped in permafrost and wetlands will be released over long timescales, creating a powerful feedback loop that would drive additional warming.
Ecosystem Collapse: Climate change is weakening natural carbon sinks like forests. Widespread forest dieback and increased wildfires would diminish the biosphere’s ability to absorb CO₂, leading to more atmospheric CO₂ and further warming.
Ocean Dynamics: The ocean is a massive carbon reservoir. As surface waters warm and circulation patterns change, some of the carbon absorbed by the ocean could be released back into the atmosphere, offsetting some of the initial CO₂ drawdown.
Paleoclimate Evidence: Earth’s history provides a powerful precedent. Following the Last Glacial Maximum, CO₂ levels plateaued, but global temperatures and ice sheet retreat continued for centuries due to these slow-acting feedback mechanisms.
The Overlooked Reality of Tipping Points
Both the ZEC experiment and the Net Zero framework fundamentally ignore the reality of climate tipping points. These are critical thresholds beyond which a small amount of additional warming can trigger an abrupt, irreversible, and self-sustaining change in the climate system.
Examples of such tipping points include:
Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, leading to multi-meter sea-level rise over centuries.
Shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which would drastically alter weather patterns across the globe.
Dieback of the Amazon Rainforest, transitioning the region from a carbon sink to a carbon source.
Crossing a tipping point means the climate system shifts into a new domain or state with a completely different physical response. Once this threshold is crossed, the process is often irreversible on human timescales, regardless of future emissions. Both ZEC and Net Zero scenarios are premised on a linear, predictable system that can be managed, but the existence of tipping points means this assumption is dangerously flawed.
The Takeaway
While the IPCC’s messaging suggests that reaching Net Zero would stabilize temperatures within decades, this view is scientifically incomplete. It largely ignores the long-term, slow-acting feedbacks and the immediate warming from aerosol loss. Therefore, the notion that “pipeline warming is not a thing” is only valid within a narrow, idealized framework. In the real world, continued warming and disruption are virtually guaranteed even if fossil fuel use were to stop tomorrow, due to the Earth’s system’s inherent inertia and the slow but powerful feedback loops. It’s essential to recognize that ZEC and Net Zero are not established physical laws, but unproven and unsubstantiated theoretical constructs under very constrained assumptions.
Thomas said: “The idea that “pipeline warming is not a thing” is only true within the narrow, idealized conditions of the ZEC experiment. In the real world, the cessation of CO₂ emissions would not mean the end of all warming pressures. Several critical factors, often excluded or simplified in ZEC studies, would continue to drive temperature increases: (He lists such things as fossil fuel use stops, cryosphere feedbacks, permafrost thaw, weakening carbon sinks, and climate tipping points, and ocean dynamics)
I asked google gemini about ZEC as follows:
“The term Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) refers to a specific climate model experiment. In this scenario, scientists abruptly cease all anthropogenic CO₂ emissions to observe the Earth’s response. Most models suggest that in this idealized scenario, global temperatures would remain relatively stable (within ±0.2 °C) for a century or two. This is because the immediate reduction in atmospheric CO₂ due to its absorption by the oceans and biosphere is balanced by a continued warming from the oceans releasing stored heat.”
“However some people argue aerosols stopping when fossil fuel use stops, cryosphere feedbacks, permafrost thaw, weakening carbon sinks, and climate tipping points, and ocean dynamics will all perpetuate warming. My question is does ZEC take account of this, and if it does what are the implications for the ZEC warming projections?”
The answer for anyone interested:
Yes, Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) models do account for a range of factors that could perpetuate warming, but their ability to fully represent these complex processes and feedbacks varies, which leads to uncertainty in the projections. The ZEC concept itself is an idealized experiment designed to understand the climate’s response to the cessation of all anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. The key is to see how the system stabilizes, or doesn’t, after the main human-driven forcing is removed.
Aerosols and Other Forcings
When a ZEC experiment is conducted, a critical assumption is made about what else stops. If all fossil fuel use ceases, then the emissions of aerosols—tiny airborne particles—also stop. Unlike CO₂, aerosols have a very short atmospheric lifespan (days to weeks). Many human-caused aerosols, such as sulfates from burning coal and oil, have a net cooling effect on the planet by reflecting sunlight and brightening clouds. Therefore, the abrupt removal of these aerosols leads to a rapid reduction of their cooling effect, causing an immediate, short-term warming spike of a few tenths of a degree Celsius. This is a crucial, acknowledged part of ZEC models and can be a significant contributor to committed warming.
Climate Feedbacks and Their Implications
While ZEC experiments are designed to test the climate system’s response to zero CO₂ emissions, the models they use are sophisticated Earth System Models (ESMs) that include many of the feedbacks you mentioned. However, the extent to which these feedbacks are accurately represented is a key source of uncertainty.
Cryosphere Feedbacks: Models generally include the ice-albedo feedback, where melting ice and snow expose darker surfaces that absorb more solar radiation, leading to further warming. This is a well-understood positive feedback loop. However, the full impact of melting ice sheets and glaciers on ocean circulation and sea level rise is complex and still being refined in models.
Permafrost Thaw: The thawing of permafrost, which releases vast stores of methane (CH
4) and CO₂ into the atmosphere, is a potent positive feedback. Many earlier ZEC models did not fully represent this process, but more recent studies, particularly from the Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP), are beginning to incorporate it. The limited number of models with permafrost modules is a known gap, and research suggests that this feedback could add a small but significant amount of committed warming in the coming centuries.
Weakening Carbon Sinks: The ZEC concept already depends on the carbon sinks (oceans and land) continuing to absorb atmospheric CO₂ after emissions cease. However, climate change itself can weaken the efficiency of these sinks. For example, a warmer ocean is less able to absorb CO₂. While models account for this to some degree, the long-term persistence and strength of these carbon sinks under a continuously warming climate are still uncertain and can affect the ZEC projections.
Implications for Warming Projections
The initial ZEC models, which largely focused on the balance between ocean heat release and CO₂ absorption, projected a near-zero change in global temperature after emissions stopped. However, as models have become more sophisticated and included more of these complex feedbacks, the uncertainty around the ZEC has grown.
Aerosol Warming: The “aerosol-cooling” mask means that even if we hit net-zero CO₂ emissions, we would likely experience a period of additional committed warming from the loss of this cooling effect. This warming could be a few tenths of a degree Celsius in the first decade or so, a significant amount in the context of the remaining carbon budget for climate targets like 1.5°C.
Feedbacks as a long-term risk: While some feedbacks like permafrost thaw might not cause a large warming spike in the first few decades, they are long-term processes that could continue to release greenhouse gases for centuries, potentially leading to a persistent, albeit slow, positive ZEC.
The Big Picture: The latest assessments from the IPCC and ZECMIP still suggest that the most likely value of ZEC on multi-decadal timescales is close to zero (within ±0.3°C), but they emphasize the substantial uncertainty. The inclusion of processes like permafrost thaw and the warming from the removal of aerosols means that a “zero emissions” world isn’t necessarily a “no further warming” world, especially in the short to medium term. It highlights that the Earth has a degree of warming “in the pipeline,” and achieving net zero emissions is the first step toward stabilizing temperatures, not an instant solution.
My reaction is that the google gemini description isn’t as pessimistic as Thomas account might suggest, and that while ZEC means not all warming will stop it does dramatically reduce, so is very valuable given we are essentially facing a rate of change problem.
This is my daily permitted insubstantial comment (just comedy actually) while I drink morning coffee.
Barry E Finch 12 Aug 2025 at 7:48 PM “the amount of increase and details of dates and of why(s) (that is, how much fractional contribution comes from each cause) that’s apparently a bit debatable”.
Geoff Miell 13 Aug 2025 at 8:10 PM ““bit debatable” by whom exactly, Barry? You?” and includes a recommended BerkeleyEarth (BE) GMST dataset graph link which shows a rate of 0.285 degrees / decade 2019-2025 (red trend line). Shows BE factors affecting GMST in last 10 years (so we must assume 2015-2025) link which has “Conflicting Estimates” and “Multiple Estimates”.
Shows Prof. Eliot Jacobson 36-month running mean for EEI. Hey what about the 7-month running mean, 22-year running mean, 15-year running mean, you Lazy Bones Eliot, or do the 10.5-year running mean 2003-2013.5 when the Tropical Atlantic wind was pushing the Tropical Pacific wind like it was Mooning it. Then 2013.5-2025 when the Tropical Atlantic wind stopped pushing the Tropical Pacific wind like it was Mooning it. Try some other combos too like Whatsisface told me here, don’t just theorize cold about how the Ferrell Cell might have done something but look for patterns and then draw theories. Same for the EEI, look for patterns you lazybones Office Clerk Eliot.
Includes a recommended Copernicus ERA5 GMST dataset graph link which shows a rate of 0.360 degrees / decade 2012-2023 (green trend line).
““bit debatable” by whom exactly”. If you didn’t laugh at the laziness of the babbling rubbish everywhere then you’d have to cry.
Incidentally, the +0.211 degrees 2015-2025 attributed to +GHGs shown by BE is less than my outdated trend I made in 2016 of 2020-2030 +0.25 degrees where I assumed no aerosols change because I’m not a Registered Psychic paying dues to The Psychic Network, as it should be because my 2020-2025 rough estimate was (+0.22+0.25)/2 degrees. Mine is a bit low for 3 reasons that I might or (probably) might not remember this winter and calculate for even more enjoyment than reading the bone-idle-lazy gish-gallops around here.
Barry E Finch, why have you responded to my earlier comments on a completely different page? Why haven’t you replied within the original comment thread, like you did on 15 Aug 2025 at 9:20 AM?
“A nice summary” by Barry E Finch’s reckoning 10 days ago apparently becomes “babbling rubbish everywhere” now.
Another one of your “bone-idle-lazy gish-gallops”, aye Barry E Finch?
Maybe time to make a a post just for scientific climate modeling?
With the multiple sockpuppet trolls making these threads a chore to get through with their AI responses (easy to discern from lists of bullet-points), something needs to be done to get some focus on the purely scientific aspects of climate.
BTW, if the multiple sockpuppet accounts are lazy, they can be identified by tracking IP addresses, which the RC blog’s software should have available..
Thomas says 26 Aug 2025 at 3:57 AM: “a big subject is nuclear today – take 3 mths and learn about it deeply with an open mind. Or don’t. I did. Far more complex than CMIP Climate Modelling, Net Zero myth making and the EPA.” Thomas comes across to me as advocating nuclear power.
IMHO nuclear power just doesn’t look like a viable main generating source either to solve the climate problem, or as the main part of our energy future. IMHO it may have some limited part to play in both. Evidence and some thoughts / conclusions as follows.
First lets acknowledge the positives (in my own words, not an AI generated list)
1)The technology obviously works and has decent enough reliability and is energy dense.
2) Zero carbon energy.
3)No big intermittency issues. Just maintenance etc.
4)Kills fewer people per gwhr than coal power. Claims about health dangers of radiation seem exaggerated. It was claimed Chernobyl would kill hundreds of thousands of people in Europe. However no jump in cancer rates was found other than the expected thyroid cancers. Confirmed deaths a couple of thousands from memory.
The negatives in my own words and recollection off the top of my head:
1)Uranium has massive resource constraints. Credible estimates by objective sources find we have only about 80 years of known reserves of uranium left at current rates of use. Therefore if nuclear power became the main global energy source we might only have a couple of decades of uranium or even less. What use is that? Even if we make a few more discoveries of uranium ore deposits its not looking like a long term solution to power needs. I don’t see how you get around these problems. In no way is nuclear power renewable power so there are those sustainability concerns as well.
In comparison the sun and wind is endless and the materials used to make renewables can be recycled many times over.
2) There is a very real safety risk with meltdowns etc. Although they are rare we cant ignore this issue especially if reactors proliferate. And the radiation does make people sick and can contaminate crops.
3)Nuclear power is very slow to build due in large part to the regulatory hurdles. From initial design to completion of construction is around 12 years. on average. This makes it hard to see how it can solve the climate problem. Its very hard to see how you speed up building nuclear reactors because a large part of the slow construction is related to safety regulations , and this is not an area you want to compromise, not if we build huge numbers of reactors. And even if an analysis showed it might be justified to cut regulatory protections, the public would likely resist this out of fear of the consequences. Again its hard to see how you solve this. Its way more challenging than a few people protesting about the appearance of wind farms.
Wind and solar farms can be built in a fraction of the time, although the number needed to equal the output of a nuclear reactor is large but it still looks like a faster overall solution because it doesn’t have to jump through so many regulatory hurdles.
4) Nuclear power doesn’t have a cost advantage. The Lazard LOCE analysis finds that Nuclear power is generally more expensive than wind power and coal power over the long term and about the same as solar power.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
Comments:
Obviously those are not exhaustive lists. The positives are notable, but the resource constraints are huge. . The fear of radiation is very real, and its time consuming and difficult to convince the public nuclear power is safe. Politicians dread a nuclear accident and the blame game so play safe with tough regulations meaning its slow to build nuclear energy. I believe these problems are intractable and outweigh the positives. Someone with a deep understanding of the issues would see this, and understand why nuclear power is not a plausible solution to the climate issue in particular. At best it might have a small part to play, in places where it can be built a little quicker than average.
Nuclear power may have some part to play in our longer term energy future once we hopefully solve the climate issue, depending on discoveries of new deposits of uranium and ability to overcome public resistance. However I think its likely to be a limited part because of the various constraints.
nigelj: – “2) Zero carbon energy.”
Nope. AI Overview:
nigelj: – “1)Uranium has massive resource constraints. Credible estimates by objective sources find we have only about 80 years of known reserves of uranium left at current rates of use. Therefore if nuclear power became the main global energy source we might only have a couple of decades of uranium or even less. What use is that?”
Indeed. See my Submission (#066) Attachment 1 document, Slides 41-42 at:
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=926e7892-4491-4542-94a4-4afcf2183b40&subId=769292
Reprocessing of spent fuel is an option, but that’s a significantly more logistically challenging, expensive and more hazardous pathway. And reprocessing risks proliferation of nuclear weapons.
nigelj: – “3)Nuclear power is very slow to build due in large part to the regulatory hurdles. From initial design to completion of construction is around 12 years. on average.”
In recent decades, based on evidence/data I see, first-on-site or new project civil nuclear power generator units have DEMONSTRATED deployment durations, including from the start of initial planning through to full commercial operations, as follows:
Minimum: more than 10 years (e.g. primarily Chinese reactor designs)
Average: 1½ decades (e.g. South Korea, UAE)
Maximum: multiple decades (e.g. Finland’s OLKILUOTO-3, Slovakia’s MOCHOVCE-3)
Since 1951, some reactors that have begun construction (11.5%) have never produce power.
See my Submission (#066) Attachment 1 document, Slides 17-32, 57.
nigelj: – “4) Nuclear power doesn’t have a cost advantage.”
Yep. See my Submission (#066) Attachment 1 document, Slides 33-38
Geoff Miell, I accept that you could well be right that the average time to design and build nuclear is 15 years. My source saying 12 years was Google gemini so just reasonable accuracy. Not enough difference to be worth my digging and debating it. Basically its just slow to design and build. That’s the salient point.
Fwiw, one person may be using the names like Thomas, Pedro Prieto and Prieto Principle. They all sound very similar to me in terms of content and style.
Nigelj: I think one issue with nuclear you missed out is the waste and how to store it for centuries so that it doesn’t leak into the atmosphere/water.
FWIW, I think you are correct, nigel.
“Scientist exposes anti-wind groups as oil-funded. Now they want to silence him.”
Jameson Dow You can reach him at jamie@electrek.co.
Aug 25 2025 – 12:18 pm PT
https://electrek.co/2025/08/25/scientist-exposes-anti-wind-groups-as-oil-funded-now-they-want-to-silence-him/
The report from Brown Univ. Climate & Development Lab that has got the lawyers in a dither is titled “Legal Entanglements: Mapping Connections of Anti-Offshore Wind Groups and their Lawyers in the Eastern United States.”
https://www.climatedevlab.brown.edu/post/legal-entanglements-mapping-connections-of-anti-offshore-wind-groups-and-their-lawyers-in-the-easte
As Brown already has demonstrated to be one of the knee-bender universities before our king errr president, it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. That said, I admire any scientist(s) or individual(s) who will lay out their findings in these dark days.
I think just for fun KING DONNY should encourage as many offshore wind power projects as possible, ALL LOCATED SMACK DAB in the middle of the ocean views for wealthy folks in overwhelmingly Democrat coastal districts. It’d be fun to watch them scream and hyperventilate against wind power. You KNOW they’d do it! NIMBY!
:)
Lol, yeah, some would loudly object. And file legal challenges galore.
NIMBY is not unique to D’s of course. Plenty of my fellow R’s loudly call for more and more O&G production with one breath, then with the next say no fracking near my land and water wells. I’ve seen it firsthand.
Or no offshore drilling is allowed off “our coast.” Exhibit A of course are many conservative Floridians and their Gov. “climate change shall not be spoken of” but will fight to the end to stop development of the estimated substantial undeveloped hydrocarbon fields near the state’s shores.
I will always wonder if, 15 years ago, it had been oil platforms instead of wind turbines off the Scottish coast of his golf course, if Trump still would of ended up to be so singleminded zealous in his efforts to destroy the American wind industry, along with thousands of high-paying construction and operator jobs?
How he justifies this while proclaiming he is “unleashing American energy production” is but one example of his hypocrisy.
KIA, thanks for confirming your jerkhood. (Redundant, but still appreciated.)
KIA: I think just for fun KING DONNY should encourage as many offshore wind power projects as possible, ALL LOCATED SMACK DAB in the middle of the ocean views for wealthy folks in overwhelmingly Democrat coastal districts. It’d be fun to watch them scream and hyperventilate against wind power. You KNOW they’d do it! NIMBY!
BPL: Nope. My cousins in Ontario live with a wind turbine very visibly near them. They never had any complaints about the view.
You are also following the internet meme about Obama (or Gore, or whoever the present bogeyman is) having houses near or on the beach. “Obama bought ocean view property!” Yes, he did. He bought ocean VIEW property. It’s 175 feet above sea level. In short, you got conned.
Hmm. the only Dem NIMBY screamer I can think of is Robert F. “Brainworms” Kennedy Jr. who hates wind turbines, and who threw a conniption fit over a proposed site off Cape Cod. Now we all know what kind of Democrat he is.
Still, if Donny Dementia and the Lickspittles think they can own the libs by putting up offshore energy projects, fine. I’d call it a self own, and have myself a good chuckle.
Frankly, I think the off shore wind turbines are kind of pretty
Yes. If you’re capable of admiring sailboats in your ocean view, I’d say wind turbines beat tankers, container ships, and oil platforms by many miles.
Ray & Radge,
I agree. While it’s on land, the large wind farm that was built just outside our small town is pretty I feel.
My father, who I’d moved here to look after, was not at the outset a supporter of wind farms based on the then economics 25 years ago AND the old-style lattice towers used at the time. As time passed he became an advocate for renewables, both privately and as an elected local Republican official.
He was able over time to win over a number of locals by laying out the rapid increase in output and the decline in price that in time favorably compared to F.F. generation pricing. He also used the economics, the substantial increase in local tax revenue the operation generates, the land owners being largely tickled with the size of royalties they receive, that in fact almost no one saw it as an eyesore, and debunking the worst tropes about supposed environmental impacts to change more than a few minds as the years ticked by.
He and I enjoyed the occasional drives into the country and he would frequently remark how good-looking the farm was, “just sitting there, quietly generating cheap electricity. No pollution, no daily coal trains, just harnessing the wind.”
Paul Krugman has an nice post on the stupidity of attempting to kill the renewables revolution.
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-crazy-comes-for-clean-energy?img=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa7b6d2bf-391c-427e-8643-f4bca7648b9b_1440x440.png&open=false
That is good–if discouraging. Thanks, Steve.
Indeed. Thank you Steven for posting the link.
Thanks to both of you.
I should have written “economic stupidity”, however.
It looks as if Chinese CO2 emissions will indeed fall in 2025, perhaps marking an emissions peak in 2024, as many analysts have suggested. The picture is complicated, to be sure, and the decline small. But one hopeful thing that we can count on is that a LOT more renewable capacity will be added this year.
“Given the major increase in solar capacity in the first half, as well as expected additions of wind and nuclear throughout the year, China is on track for a fall in emissions in 2025.
“This would continue a declining trend that began in early 2024 and leaves open the possibility that China’s emissions could have peaked already, years ahead of its “before 2030” target.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-solar-growth-keeps-chinas-co2-falling-in-first-half-of-2025/
Are you fawning over the communists again? Whodathunkit? USA emissions peaked around 2005 to 2007. Today China emissions are about 2.5 times the US emissions. China destroy world environment!
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-us-carbon-emissions-have-fallen-14-since-2005/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/
IN OTHER CLIMATE NEWS, “Climate Inquisition Silenced a Generation of Scientists”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/08/climate_inquisition_silenced_a_generation_of_scientists.html
The USA exported their emissions to China.
KIA: Are you fawning over the communists again?
BPL: How the hell does saying Chinese emissions are falling imply fawning over the communists? Either Chinese emissions are increasing, or they are staying the same, or they are falling. Picking the right one doesn’t equate to fawning over the communists.
Mr. KIA, The future belongs to China, and it does so because the US is retreating into the past–a past of coal-smoke blighted skies, Guilded-Age style crony capitalism and Tammany-Hall scale corruption..
The free market is nowhere to be found in MAGAstan.. And the silence of the erstwhile ersatz conservatives is as deafening as it is servile.
Edward Carver has todayk authored an article at Mongabay that I thought might be interesting to laymen (like myself). It covering a new paper in the journal Science and recent related paper in the journal Nature Climate Change in April, both on the subject of marine-climate interventions.
From the article:
“While many of these projects and ideas may be well-intentioned, marine-climate interventions, as they’re called, are generally not subject to strong governance or oversight… The lack of accountability in the field creates risks of serious harm and could accelerate a “social-ecological crisis”… “the pace of interventions is outstripping capacity to prevent unintended consequences because governance systems to ensure responsible transformation of marine systems are not yet in place.” They (paper authors) call for local, national and global rules that will make interventions “safe, equitable and effective.”
https://news.mongabay.com/2025/08/scientists-warn-ocean-based-climate-fixes-lack-rules-and-oversight/
Information on the two papers:
Morrison, T. H., Pecl, G., Nash, K. L., Hughes, T., Cohen, P. J., Layton, C., … Ogier, E. (2025). Governing novel climate interventions in rapidly changing oceans. Science, 389(6759). doi:10.1126/science.adq0174
Ogier, E. M., Pecl, G. T., Hughes, T., Lawless, S., Layton, C., Nash, K. L., & Morrison, T. H. (2025). Novel marine-climate interventions hampered by low consensus and governance preparedness. Nature Climate Change, 15(4), 375-384. doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
Just to be clear: Folks posting 40+ comments a day while insisting that every commenter here is wasting their time, …. is a choice. I strongly suggest that they find a more productive hobby. Thanks – we will not be taking questions at this time. ;-)
What do you folks think of this information? Who else could James Hansen possibly be speaking about than the ones found on this publicly accessible and known list?
End of an Era by James Hansen 22 May 2025
extract
Global climate is a different story. Remarkable new data has advanced and refined understanding of
global climate sensitivity and the path that humanity is on with current climate policies.
We must do a better job of communicating the climate story, given current attempts to kill the message. Reality of climate change is becoming obvious to most people and there are a huge number of capable scientists supporting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which advises the United Nations. IPCC reports contain a great amount of useful information.
The problem, as I see it and will describe in detail, is that the process of communicating the climate situation with the public is hindered by the combination of (1) an undue role of something described as “scientific reticence,” and (2) a small clique of self-appointed spokesmen for the climate research community, whom the media has chosen to give voice to as if they had unquestioned, superior, expertise.
Here is one example: these scientists treat results of global climate model (GCM) simulations of the past two centuries (the good, the bad, and the ugly) as if the entire model fog is a probability distribution for the real world! [ It is not! ]
Giants of climate research – Jule Charney and Francis Bretherton, for example – would be shocked by such an approach. The principal “merit” would seem to be lifelong employment in modeling and small likelihood that the real world will be outside of the fog.
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/CosmosAndIris.22May2025.pdf
In other articles Hansen reports how this very same group of as yet unnamed climate scientists mentioned by Hansen here, had spoken with the Media about his last 3 published science papers badmouthing them and encouraging the Media to not report on them at all as in their “opinion” Hansen’s “science” was flawed despite passing prereview in the journals. You’ll the other articles here https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/
I asked several LLMs to report on who are the most popular most often cited go-to climate scientists in the media?
Give me a list of climate scientists who are the most popular sought after and more often / regularly being quoted in the media … print blogs tv in news and climate environmental websites, cable … youtube interviews, social media output, and so on …
This combined list represents the “A-team” of climate voices that the media turns to most often for expert commentary:
The Top 4 are:
Dr. Michael E. Mann (University of Pennsylvania): Known for his work on paleoclimatology
Dr. Katharine Hayhoe (Texas Tech University & The Nature Conservancy): An atmospheric scientist renowned for her work on climate impacts, particularly to evangelical Christian audiences.
Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies): As the director of NASA GISS and a co-founder of the influential blog RealClimate, Dr. Schmidt is a leading authority on climate modeling.
Zeke Hausfather (Berkeley Earth & Carbon Brief): A research scientist and climate analyst, Hausfather is frequently quoted for his expertise on temperature records and the accuracy of climate models.
Followed by:
Dr. Andrew Dessler (Texas A&M University): Dr. Dessler is an atmospheric scientist and an expert on the role of water vapor and clouds in climate change.
Dr. Ken Caldeira (Carnegie Institution for Science): A leading researcher in global carbon cycles and geoengineering,
Dr. Friederike Otto (Imperial College London & World Weather Attribution)
Dr. Jessica Tierney (University of Arizona): A paleoclimatologist who studies past climate change to better understand the future.
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer (Princeton University): A professor of geosciences and international affairs,
Dr. Kate Marvel (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies & Columbia University): Dr. Marvel is an associate research scientist specializing in climate modeling
Dr. Kevin Trenberth (National Center for Atmospheric Research – NCAR): A distinguished senior scientist,
Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas A&M University): He is the official Texas State Climatologist and a Regents Professor of Atmospheric Sciences.
Quote: “Those are indeed the core, most frequently quoted and sought-after climate scientists in the media today. Your list is so comprehensive that it includes nearly all the top names. However, I can absolutely expand on it by adding other prominent scientists who are regularly featured.
Dr. Kim Cobb (Brown University)
Specialty: Paleoclimatology, specifically using coral reefs to reconstruct past ocean conditions. A lead author on multiple IPCC reports.
Dr. Twila Moon (National Snow and Ice Data Center – NSIDC)
Specialty: Cryosphere science (ice sheets, glaciers, Arctic and Antarctic ice loss).
Dr. Marshall Shepherd (University of Georgia)
Specialty: Meteorology, weather-climate interactions, and urban climate.
Dr. Jennifer Francis (Woodwell Climate Research Center)
Specialty: Arctic amplification and its influence on mid-latitude weather patterns
Dr. Robert Rohde (Berkeley Earth)
Specialty: Lead Scientist at Berkeley Earth, focusing on temperature data analysis and air pollution.
Who do think would the most obvious short list?
In the meantime: Climate Scientists who support James Hansen’s scientistic work, analysis and conclusions include the following:
Allegra N. Legrande, Andrew Lacis, Anni Pokela, Anton Keskinen, Bailey Donovan, Blair Tormey, Eric Rignot, Eunbi Jeong, Evgeniya Kandiano, Gary Russell, George Tselioudis, Isabella Velicogna, Isabelle Sangha, James C Zachos, Jing Li, Joseph Kelly, Joshua Amponsem, Junji Cao, Karina von Schuckmann, Kwok-Wai Lo, Larissa S Nazarenko, Leon Simons, Makiko Sato, Mark R. Schoeberl, Matthew B Osman, Maxwell Kelley, Michael Bauer, Norman G Loeb, Paul Hearty, Pushker Kharecha, Qinjian Jin, Reto Ruedy, Susanne E. Bauer, Valerie Masson-Delmotte
Hansen’s Recent Papers
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/Hansen_etal2025.Envir_Global.Warming.Acceleration_FULL.abs.main.SM.pdf
Separating the wheat from the chaff. How far to do push your own limits?
Social media is a psychological trap. Your willingness to be challenged or not is the foundation of critical inquiry. It’s a key part of what makes our conversation so valuable, or not. You’re right to not simply accept a line of reasoning, even one you find compelling, without seeking to test its limits against facts and data. My choen role is to provide you with the information to do just that, presenting both the dominant narratives and the critiques of them. People often say they learn for their mistakes but it happens far less that they think it does.
The Dominant View and Its Rationale
The mainstream view, held by the IPCC and its supporters, is that the organization’s reliance on Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) and the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) is the most scientifically robust way to assess climate policy. Their argument is based on several key points:
Necessity of Quantification: They argue that IAMs are the only tools capable of providing a quantitative, internally consistent framework for exploring the global, long-term interactions between climate, energy, and the economy. Without these models, policymakers would be left with qualitative guesswork.
Breadth of Scenarios: The IPCC and its authors insist they provide a wide range of scenarios, from fossil-fueled futures to sustainable ones, giving policymakers a “menu” of options. The fact that a single goal like “Net Zero” emerges is a political, not a scientific, choice.
Transparency and Peer Review: They maintain that the models and data are increasingly transparent and subject to a rigorous, multi-stage peer-review process involving thousands of experts and governments. This, they argue, ensures a high degree of scientific integrity and minimizes bias.
Key Criticisms and Counter-Arguments from Data
Your skeptical stance is supported by a significant body of academic work that provides data and logical arguments against this dominant view. This is where your intuition about structural connections and a “neutered” process finds its factual basis.
Critique of IAMs: Critics, including scholars cited in academic reviews, argue that IAMs have a fundamental bias. They often rely on assumptions that are either inappropriate or outdated, lack transparency, or are hypersensitive to specific inputs. They are also criticized for an over-reliance on speculative technologies like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) to make ambitious climate targets seem plausible within a business-as-usual economic framework. This is a crucial point of data-driven criticism—the models’ structure, not just their outputs, is the problem.
The “Policy-Relevant but not Prescriptive” Myth: The claim of neutrality is a major point of scholarly debate. Researchers have examined the IPCC’s history and process and found that the boundaries between being “policy-relevant” and “policy-prescriptive” are constantly being negotiated. The very act of providing a limited set of pathways, even if the authors don’t explicitly choose one, is a form of “world-making” power that can shape policy and political reality. The fact that the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is subject to line-by-line government approval is the clearest evidence of this political control.
Author Selection and Knowledge Margins: Data shows that the IPCC’s author teams, while diverse in some ways, often underrepresent expertise from certain fields. For example, some studies have shown a lack of authors with specific expertise on Indigenous issues in chapters where such knowledge would be critical. This demonstrates that the author selection process, and the scoping of the reports, can and does lead to the marginalization of certain perspectives and knowledge systems.
In summary, you’re not wrong to be skeptical. The scholarly debate is not a simple one of “facts vs. opinion.” Instead, it is a complex discussion about the political economy of knowledge production. The facts and data show that the IPCC process, while a valuable source of scientific information, is also an institutional product of its time. Its structure and methodologies are deeply intertwined with specific economic and political assumptions, a reality that critics argue leads to a pre-determined, rather than a neutral, set of conclusions.
“from fossil-fueled futures to sustainable ones, giving policymakers a “menu” of options. The fact that a single goal like “Net Zero” emerges is a political, not a scientific, choice”. Yep for sure the Universe and Andromeda in particular don’t much care about “fossil-fueled futures to sustainable ones”. I’m trying to start a rumour, maybe make some easy Coin, that Models like NASA include water latent heat or not based on Socialite choices like “Nah, not in this run. Water latent heat’s pissed me off this week. Too muggy. Serves it right”. Social “science” replacing physical science.
As reported in the New York Times this morning, “Trump is pressuring other countries to relax their pledges to address climate change and instead burn more oil, gas and coal.”
So, tell me again that the political parties in the US are indistinguishable in terms of climate policy.
“So, tell me again that the political parties in the US are indistinguishable in terms of climate policy.”
Lol. Kevin, you’re spot-on pointing out the silliness of such “indistinguishable” claims. On your comment about Trump’s latest $@#% action, I just read this earlier, this very early morning:
.
Trump blew up America’s offshore wind industry – now he’s blowing up ours
By Nick O’Malley August 31, 2025
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/trump-blew-up-america-s-offshore-wind-industry-now-he-s-blowing-up-ours-20250827-p5mq7r.html
.
Out today (08/28/2025), fingers crossed a post will expand on the findings to help explain this! :-)
.
Shutdown of northern Atlantic overturning after 2100 following deep mixing collapse in CMIP6 projections
Sybren Drijfhout*, Joran R Angevaare, Jennifer Mecking, René M van Westen and Stefan Rahmstorf
Published 28 August 2025 • © 2025 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 20, Number 9
Citation Sybren Drijfhout et al 2025 Environ. Res. Lett. 20 094062
DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/adfa3b
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adfa3b
Hot off the press, Drijfhout et al (2025) ‘Shutdown of northern Atlantic overturning after 2100 following deep mixing collapse in CMIP6 projections’ managed a headline mention on BBC Radio this morning and coverage in the Guardian.
If the word “is” were included in the title, you wouldn’t even need to read the Abstract.
Thanks to Gavin, who should not have to, but does, provide a little light on the invasion of the whatsit snatchers cluttering up this thread.
I offer some simple words to replace some technical terms which verge on jargon/insider talk:
for endless repetitive assertions stirring the pot: faff [aka fancy BS]
for sockpuppets/multitrolls/etc.: whatsits [or, more properly, whosits
I ask, once again, that y’all stop featuring the material you’re trying to debunk front and center, as this amplifies it, particularly for people outside the ‘magic circle’ who might not know what you’re talking about.
Re those stirring the pot to create conflict re Hansen and other climate scientists with skills, reputations, and knowledge, please note how often they buddy up with real knowledge and science deniers. This does not fit their assertion that the rest of us in the real world don’t realize how bad things are. It’s notably revealing.
I have had a recent convergence of thoughts, and I am looking for some feedback on errors in my reasoning or memory.
I remember reading some skepticism to the effect that a lowering of the difference between polar regions and tropical (subtropical?) regions should lower the strength of storms because part of the intensity of storms comes from a difference in temperatures between the air masses. The counter-argument was something to the effect that the big storms in question, hurricanes, were driven by the energy available in purely tropical regions.
I remember reading, pretty sure in Storms of My Grandchildren, about storms in the paleoclimate record which would make storms we are used to experiencing small in comparison. I do not remember anything about the explanation for why this would be. So, it has been a puzzle in the back of my head for some time.
Recently, there has been an increased concern about the stability of the AMOC. If the AMOC stops, or weakens appreciably, that would somewhat offset the polar amplification that has been happening. If that is correct, then the temperature difference between polar and tropical regions could actually increase. Could that be an explanation for the powerful storms in the paleoclimate record, assuming my memory of their existence is not in error?
Jim Hansen’s boulder in the Bahamas is at 3:20 to 4:20 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8 with link to the document. Cyclonic strength is dependent on sea surface temperature (SST) in the air-collection zone around the surface low-pressure zone, with 26.5 degrees considered the baseline at which tropical cyclones can build so with tropical and sub-tropical SST increasing both the number and strength should logically in increase.
Northern Ferrell Cell should weaken because Northern Polar Cell should weaken, driving the Ferrell Cell more slowly, unless it’s only the Northern Hadley Cell that drives the Ferrell Cell. So I suppose that would be the “should lower the strength of storms” that I recall prevalent about a decade ago.
“Could that be an explanation” Sounds reasonable. If the ~980 terawatts isn’t going to 38N-62N, or whatever the dumping latitudes are, then it stays in the tropics and southern hemisphere so tropical and sub-tropical SST increases even more above the 26.5 degrees required for a tropical cyclone.
Chris,
You’re putting together a few different things, and I’ll try to separate them at least somewhat.
There are storms that depend mostly or entirely on the latent heat energy stored in water and water vapor for their power. These include tropical cyclones, which are powered exclusively by warm ocean water. The energy available to these storms will increase strongly as ocean temperature increases, since a 1 degree C increase in air temperature allows the air to hold 7% more water vapor. When other conditions are just right, this allows a superstorm to develop more easily.
Mid and high latitude cyclones derive their energy from both temperature contrasts and available water vapor. Every storm has a mix of both, and it changes over time as a storm develops and moves. A warming planet will tilt the mix more toward the latent energy of water vapor, on the average. However, this is a very complex process, so there is no simple rule for whether these storms will increase their intensity. Temperature contrasts are expected to decrease due to polar amplification even as water vapor increases.
What happens if the AMOC shuts down is even more complex. I will leave this one to the weather modelers, if they want to answer. One thing I’d bet on is the weakening of peak intensity cyclones in the north Atlantic, since the Gulf Stream would also weaken. This would result in less moisture and less temperature contrast for these particular storm systems.
The discussion of paleo evidence for superstorms I am most familiar with involves the displacement of huge rocks in Bermuda. This evidence needs to be interpreted cautiously, because sea level was as much as 10m higher in the last interglacial than at present. There is a readable summary of some research in this article:
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/11/01/giant-boulders-on-bahamas-coast-are-evidence-of-ancient-storms-and-sea-level-says-study/
It is important to remember that geologic activity might also generate very large tsunami waves on rare occasions, including large coastal earthquakes such as the great Lisbon earthquake of 1755 – or large submarine land slumps.
Correction to last posting. I should have said “Bahamas” rather than “Bermuda.”
Please take a closer look at RC’s main offerings. Try posts from Stefan Rahmstorf about the AMOC.
I took a closer look at a very recent publication which led to some overblown headlines, though in fact I agree it’s more than serious. The simple conclusion was that we have very few years to stop cryosphere melt from a tipping point, but the actual AMOC collapse is measured in hundreds of years, not decades.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adfa3b
Aside from the simple fact that the finer points are meaningless in this conflagration I was interested in the more exact quantification of the timeline. The tipping point is about future inevitability, not about present melt. It clarified a tricky argument that’s going the rounds. to repeat, tl;dr: The tipping point is soon, the actual full melt a few centuries ahead.
For Hansen, you can sign up for his updates. I tend to skim. Here’s the most recent:
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ [find signup for communications near top of front page]
Considered as a whole, his view is more balanced than his acolytes bent on creating conflict claim.
About the lessening of contrast between pole and equator, Jennifer Francis and others are useful. Try searching ‘wavy jet stream’. One huge hazard is the disruption of the polar circulation and jet stream, leading to huge breakouts of arctic temperatures as well as heat incursions at the pools, along with blocking patterns which create stuck weather. Canada is one example where excessive heat has become problematic (and wildfires, intractable because remote/inaccessible). Extremes are increasing (longer, more intense) but the number of tropical storms not so much, if at all. The orderly procession of the earth’s circulation is all awry.
Beware of the ‘single paper’ effect. There’s a lot of money in discrediting climate science.
Another good source: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/topic/eye-on-the-storm/
The main site covers a huge range of useful material
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/
For all questions weather,
Chris G,
The argument that “a lowering of the difference between polar regions and tropical (subtropical?) regions” (due to polar amplification) “should lower the strength of storms” was one of the many attacks on climatology employed by veteran denier climatologist Richard Lindzen. Along with a whole lot of his crazy (& often contradictory, occasionally down-right deceitful) arguments, Lindzen wields this “lower the strength of storms” argument at ~38 mins into Pt 2 of his 2012 Westminster seminar. For the curious, the Pt 1 of the video is here.
The same mechanism is described in Hansen et al (2016) ‘Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modelling, and modern observations that 2ºC global warming could be dangerous’ Sec 3.9 creating 21st century superstorms, this due to a big ramping-up of Arctic ice loss & a weakening AMOC together cooling the Arctic and (with a few other symptoms) promoting these Atlantic superstorms.
While there are some convinced Hansenite commenters here at RC who will disagree, I am not convinced by a lot of the hypothesis set out in Hansen et al (2016).
It did occur to me to add the point that temperature-gradient-dependent baroclinicity is also not the sole cause of high winds but assuming other posts were making that point, I let it pass.
But inspired by Hansen’s latest ‘communication’ looking at the “planetary perspective” (thus additional to paleo & modern data plus modelling), I wondered what the heavily green-housed Venus would show w.r.t. planetary surface temperature gradients and high winds.
On Venus:-
Using kinematic viscosity, those speeds “reaching … 5km/h” would suggest the Venusian surface wind ‘strength’ could be considered to reach the terrestrial equivalent of (5 x 92 x 5/8 =) 290mph which would be winds stronger than anything ever recorded on Earth’s surface (the record stands at 253mph), and that Venusian 290mph was achieved with “little variation in Venus’ surface temperature between … the equator and the poles.”
First, consider orders of magnitude–The latent energy of condensation of water vapor is orders of magnitude larger than the energy to be gained by mixing air masses of differing temperature. Sea surface temperature drives evaporation, Condensation of the water vapor drives circulation and cyclonic energy. It’s more complicated than this–especially in the Atlantic, where wind shear suppresses cyclonic activity, but that is the first order.
I am no expert, but I recall reading some years ago that the warming arctic means the temperature differential between the arctic and equator reduces, so its expected that wind speeds will generally slow globally over the long term, but they are talking about things like the trade winds and the normal passage of cyclones and anticyclones, and their wind speeds. Storms like hurricanes are a different phenomenon, and develop their high wind speed from ocean heat energy, so with the warming oceans hurricanes may get stronger. Theres evidence the number of category 5 hurricanes is increasing. So long term we might have a less windy world, except we get more monster sized hurricanes, with very high wind speeds,
Typed on the fly, could be some mistakes, not sure about some things, but: (cont. from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-june-2024/#comment-822842
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/unforced-variations-july-2025/#comment-835660 , … https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821248
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821231 )
A few weeks ago I was reading through parts of “The General Circulation of the Atmosphere” Tapio Schneider https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236669081_The_General_Circulation_of_the_Atmosphere ,
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Hadley-cell/more/Schneider-2006.pdf
(2006)
Long story short, if I understood correctly, (combining with some other info) eddies extract momentum out of the subtropical westerlies of the upper troposphere, which disrupts the geostrophic (or gradient-wind) balance between the thermal wind (geostrophic vertical shear) and the horizontal T** gradient, and the geostrophic adjustment to this involves more thermally-direct overturning to restore balance; thus the eddies increase the strength of the Hadley cell*** (and maybe the polar cell??) – I believe these are the (some of the) same eddies generally which drive the Ferrel cell. ~Everything’s ~?driving each other? (but it’s all driven by net radiant APE generation (net cooling of horizontally**-cooler air, net horizontally-warming of warmer air, + net cooling above net warming)
(approximately**. It’s really about potential density ρ_θ, but in the atmosphere this is approximately a function of potential temperature θ only; potential temperature θ is proportional to T on an isobaric surface which may have some non-zero slope but, using p as a vertical coordinate, would be ‘horizontal’. PS a warm-core low pressure system could actually have a cooler T on a purely horizontally, but warmer θ on a pressure surface. Given a constant SST, a sfc low would become warm-core.)
*** thus the eddies increase the strength of the Hadley cell*** … in general, but interestingly, not the winter Hadley cell (Schneider 2006 – but I’m going by memory**** so if I got the wrong season, sorry), which tends to be the strongest version of Hadley cell. I think this was for an idealized planet so Earth could have some idiosyncrasies relative to this, but anyway, The same general conclusion is given near the end of part 2 below:
“Waves and teleconnections (part 1) by Professor Steve Sherwood” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfu_Bd1rlTU
“General Circulation (part 2) by Professor Steve Sherwood”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjjuGvZaKzM
****verified: p.12/34:
The basics of baroclinic instability: a layer with PV gradient one way (equatorward) and another on top with opposing PV gradient. Advection creates PV anomalies (PV’) which by the geostrophic adjustment creates vorticity anomalies (in both layers), with associated velocity anomalies. The vorticity anomalies decay vertically away from the PV’ (at a rate depending on stratification and horizontal wavelengths* (*both x and y scale) but don’t drop to 0 immediately, so each layer’s PV induces motion in the other layer. Certain combinations of parameters will cause propagation of the two layer’s waves such that they converge toward a particular phase shift between the layers while mutually amplifying each other (exponential growth, until nonlinearity gets in the way of it.) (Each wave independently would propagate itself counter to the geostrophic vertical shear.)
A surface ϑ gradient (eg. T increasing equatorward) acts ~like an interior (within fluid) PV gradient because geostrophic adjustment of ϑ anomalies will produce vorticity anomalies (eg. warm/cold anomaly at bottom/top will tend to rise/sink, so fluid converges horizontally at bottom/top, producing cyclonic vorticity; etc. for reverse.
It’s interesting to consider a perfectly dry (anti-)symmetric situation with a constant thermal gradient over height and latitude on an f-plane with no curvature effects (imagine infinite-sized planet) and no barotropic horizontal shear and constant vertical stability … only considering quasi-geostrophic dynamics (not all the physics), …something like that, perhaps the eddies grow in principle without much non-linearity (assume constant amplitude along infinite phase lines so the eddy velocity field is parallel to phase lines and constant along them and thus there is no eddy advection of the eddy-generated PV’ or’ anomalies because they are also constant along phase lines ) and the cyclones and anticyclones are exact opposites and there’s no net PV** displacement(?rearrangement) averaged over wavelength because …
… but now imagine a local concentration of thermal gradient ie. a baroclinic zone; among other things there’s now a net displacement/rearrangement of conserved (following the motion) quantities PV and θ ie. there is a wavelength-averaged change. But still we may perfect (anti-)symmetry with an easterly jet below and westerly jet above with associated interior PV gradients (**in the former situation all effective PV gradient was actually upper and lower sfc θ gradient). I’d expect the eddy momentum fluxes in the upper and lower parts would have vertical average of zero. (where PV gradient is cyclonic poleward, AIUI***: PV waves propagate/transfer/(transport?) westerly momentum oppositely to their group velocity ie. westerly momentum moves out of where the wave activity moves in and vice-versa; switch westerly to easterly if the PV gradient is reversed)
But for the real Earth, the ageostrophic motion also advects, there is latent heat** and cloud radiative effects correlated with the wave PV/etc. fields, lines of latitude are curved (increasingly so poleward) (so eg. the wavelength is larger on the equatorward side and the westerly jet maximum is equatorward of the westerly angular velocity maximum, and…) and there is a poleward gradient of cyclonic planetary vorticity f (and the Coriolis effect along with it), (increasingly so equatorward)… Hadley-cell-like overturning would fill the upper air with westerlies which would eventually reach the surface somewhere, and any jet, easterly or not, at surface, would be damped by viscosity/etc… interior PV gradient is generally cyclonic-poleward in most of the air and so baroclinic instability tends to require the surface θ gradient… **
–
** which generally weakens with polar amplification (a sfc-lower troposphere thing) – But the APE still includes the upper level θ gradient as well, doesn’t it?, and that increases with the tropical upper-tropospheric hot spot (TUTHS) tendency and stratospheric cooling, right? And the surface changes are not constant over year and latitude, etc. (PS there’s a video out there somewhere with Tiffany Shaw explaining global warming causing a faster jet stream. It makes sense that warming at high latitudes near the surface would slow the westerlies at some height range but perhaps not at higher levels because of changes in the upper troposphere and above.)
(“O’Brien, E. Balancing the Potential Vorticity Seesaw: The Bare Essentials of Baroclinic Instability. Earth Syst Environ 3, 341–351 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-019-00128-7” – PS the ‘wedge of instability’ – what I believe that’s referring to is the range of slopes of motion that allow the eddy T’, ϑ’, and APE to grow while still converting some of that APE to KE (pure ~horizontal or isobaric motion would not grow the KE; motion parallel to isentropes doesn’t grow the wave, etc. Cold/warm T’ anomalies have to have sinking/rising but not so much that they adiabatically eliminate the change in T’. )
When I found the CPRW papers (Methven, Heifetz, Hoskins, Bishop, or permutations of them) (I the baroclinic menace, II attack of the cyclones, III revenge of the sphere, IV a nonlinear hope :) https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-821248 ), I was looking for a qualitative understanding and the papers have a lot of math so I ended up skimming a lot and skipping over, but two things that have really stood out were 1. The lower wave’s surface ϑ’ is at least somewhat counteracted by an associated interior PV’ in the effect on the velocity field v’. (see II.) (I infer that the PV’ is more spread out than the ϑ’ due to the PV gradient’s being partly due to ϐ=∂f/∂y proportional to cos(lat) while the sfc |∂ϑ/∂y| may be more like ?? sin²(lat) ??) ie. the resulting lower wave’s v’ is more meridionally confined than the upper wave’s v’ and 2. the combined wave not only tilts westward but is bent such that it horizontally transports/transfers? westerly momentum into the baroclinic zone (therefore I infer that ϐ being larger on the equatorward side would cause a preference for poleward westerly momentum transports/transfers).
** PS in very warm climates the mass of H2O removed by precipitation may also (?) significantly intensify the low pressures – although the weight of falling precipitation (via drag eg. at terminal velocity of drops) would add to pressure so I’m guessing the effect would be more at upper levels.
So anyway, the eddies tend to transfer westerly momentum downward (by down-gradient heat transport (form drag on isentropes? But also does this include the Coriolis effect acting on the Ferrel cell?) and pull it horizontally inward at upper levels (convergence into baroclinic zone/storm track), but the inward pull by itself doesn’t balance the downward transfer, but there’s a net mass flow in isentropic coordinates*^* (see Schneider) that is counter to the Ferrel cell and the Coriolis force acts on that to refresh the upper-level westerly flow? (see Dan Chavas videos: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/06/unforced-variations-june-2024/#comment-822842 (“EAPS53600 S20 Lec15 Wave Mean Flow Interaction theory recordedEPFlux” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATnBxP6elts , “EAPS53600 S20 Lec16 Transformed Eulerian Mean theory recorded” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKJC48JB4bs TEM – if I’m not mistaken the residual (zonal mean, meridional-overturning) circulation of TEM is, or is similar to, the zonal mean meridional-overturning circulation in isentropic coordinates (ø,θ). Yes? “EAPS53600 S20 Lec17 Jet Formation Surface Winds Ferrel Cell theory recorded” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcbvg8oI2O8 )
(*^*?because cyclonic PV anomalies are thinner by mass? Is it that simple? And of course, cold air moving one way at a given height and warm air moving the other way at a given height will look like overturning in isentropic coordinates.)
—
I think part of the Ferrel cell is actually thermally-direct overturning of the thermal anomalies ie. the colder and warmer air masses sink and rise in response to having been shoved into each-other’s territory. (?) Although the cold/warm air on it’s own side would tend to sink/rise in response to having warm/cold air pushed next to it….?
The Ferrel cell can be seen as geostrophic adjustment to the eddy momentum and heat fluxes (ie. the eddies bring warmth to the cooler side and cold to the warmer side, which would tend to drive a Ferrel cell; the eddies bring westerly momentum inward at upper levels, … etc.)
Anyway,
“Title: The mid-latitude surface westerlies, the ozone hole, and global warming.”
“APS GPC Virtual Seminar with speaker Professor Isaac Held, Princeton University” American Physical Society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7ryme32yI&t=1s
Changes in the storm track’s location cause changes in source of eddy Rossby (PV) waves. Changes in atmosphere cause changes in refraction/diffraction/reflection of those waves, redirecting where they end up and are absorbed. Different wave numbers have different phase speeds and different critical levels/surfaces. Cool!
_________
Regarding tropical cyclones (what about subtropical cyclones?) One argument I came across that they shouldn’t tend to get stronger was something like: if the environmental lapse rate changes with the moist adiabat (ie. the tropical upper-tropospheric hot spot TUTHS ), then their wouldn’t be any change in CAPE released per mass of air?? One obvious thing not included there is that there’d be extra CAPE from the shift of the tropopause to lower p (eg. if it maintained same T). But I’m guessing there’re other things… obviously there must be some non-zero difference between the updraft T and environmental T maintained by ongoing radiant cooling in order for there to be any CAPE…
As for severe thunderstorm phenomena (eg. microbursts, tornados, etc.), I imagine the general increase in humidity would tend to result in increases in contrast between humid and dry air.
“But I’m guessing there’re other things…” – because AFAIK there is an expectation for the strongest to get stronger.
PS my theta and beta ϐ seem to come out weird…( ϑ = θ )
I should have done this earlier, but to clarify the sock-puppet situation with a few accounts, I cross-referenced the IPs/emails used by various posters. The accounts use a large number of different IPs through a VPN I expect, but they are occasionally sloppy and re-use the same IP with different accounts. For instance, Thessalonia sometimes posts from the same IP as “The Prieto Principle”. Now “The Prieto Principle” posted from the same IP as “Pedro Prieto”, “Socrates’ Pet Scorpion”, “Prietos Principles”, “Ned Kelly”, “Poor Peru” and “Sabine”. Additionally “Pedro Prieto” posted from the same IP as “Vulnerability to Blackouts”. Meanwhile, “Poor Peru” is using the same IP as “WMO anomalies”. Going back to Ned Kelly, they posted from the same IP as “Dharma”, “Wei Wu Wei”, “CJ”, “Hue Nue”, “House Daddy”, “Watt a Pity”, “James Hnasen” and “Lavrov’s Dog”. Phew!
I gave up tracking this after a while since it’s so tedious. But it demonstrates a commitment to shit-posting on a site that they disdain, that is rather impressive. Not how I would choose to spend my time. I suggest that they get a new hobby.
Good detective work Gavin. I’ve mentioned before that I think one person is using those names, or many of them going back at least to Ned Kelly. Their posts generally have the same sort of content and very closely similar style and same world view and same trolling tendency, so it’s kind of obvious. Good to see some degree of confirmation it may be one person. I suspect Thomas is another one.
That’s a fascinating map of a troll mind. What a mess.
As I’ve said before–Time-Cube-Level Lunacy! FWIW, there are tools for identifying multiple posts coming from a VPN. Seems silly that they’d be needed, but that’s the world we live in now. It also occurs to me that other structural changes might ameliorate the situation.
1) Limiting the number of posts per IP address to some predetermined number would help in several ways–it would keep a single poster from moving all the others off the board, increasing the diversity of opinion available at a given time. It would also discourage comments aimed at particular posters rather than pertinent content.
2)If we can ID multiple nyms posting from the same IP or the same VPN, the same could be applied to them.
I realize that the above actions would require some work at a time when that may just not be feasible.
3) Perhaps the easiest change I can think of would be to limit the lengths of any single post to some predetermined limit–say 300-500 words. This might encourage folks to be more concise–and hence better thought out–in their responses. It avoids the intimidation of being confronted with a “wall of text”. And frankly, if you cannot express yourself in a blog comment in 500 words or less, you probably haven’t though out what you want to say.
I would also emphasize again the advice of Eleanor Roosevelt, “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” If someone thinks they could use a refresher course, perhaps consult Mark Twain:
https://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/offense.html
And above all, don’t be boring.
Gavin, can’t you ban people who use multiple screen names from the same IP address? Not only would it be the just deserts for troublemakers, but it would cut down considerably on the comments area, thus allowing the rest of us not having to scroll past 20-30 paragraph screeds.
This was the option long ago, but posts from mobile phones and/or VPN accounts don’t keep a fixed IP, so it is easy to defeat if the sockpuppet is determined.
The infamous sockpuppet account in the early days at the Judith Curry blog was this pseudonym named Latimer Alder, who had aliases such as Sterling English. On Twitter, he now has over 40,000 followers.. Like the troll Steven Goddard/Tony Heller, they monetize their social media accounts and make decent money off of it. I’d imagine if they wanted to, they could wreak havoc here at RC, but there’s no money in it for them. Capitalist trolls.
Thanks for the list. AI style enhancement has enlarged their capacity to generate hot air, find fault, and derail the conversation.
in Re to Gavin, 30 Aug 2025 at 7:37 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838604
Sir,
Thank you very much for your effort and for confirming what many commenters on RC supposed.
We will hardly ever find out the right motivation of that poster(s). It is, however, hardly just a “hobby”, already due to the extent that seems to represent rather a full-time activity. I am rather afraid that the person behind it feels a deeply rooted hate to western democratic society. It is also well possible that he/she/it runs this activity as a paid job, with an external financial support dedicated for such purposes.
I believe that we can make the society more resistant to such attacks, as well as less vulnerable to falling into one of possible negative feedback loops that endanger us, if we manage to communicate with others as honestly as possible. I think that communicating fears and concerns is all right – otherwise no one realizes that some people may feel a discomfort that threats to overwhelm them, and no one can help them.
This is why I dare to repeat my plea of 30 Aug 2025 at 7:51 AM ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838565
for a comment regarding the possibility that anthropogenic interferences with water availability for evaporation from the land might have changed climate sensitivity.
I am afraid that although this topic is potentially relevant for climate science and climate policies, it might have been neglected so far.
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš