This month’s open thread. Please stick to climate-related topics and refrain from abusive behavior.
Reader Interactions
281 Responses to "Unforced variations: Nov 2025"
Comment Policy:Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.
Would weakened AMOC interact badly with positive cloud feedback? “Examining ~200,000 possible combinations of model subensembles, this multi-objective observational constraint narrows the cloud feedback uncertainty among climate models, nearly eliminates the possibility of a negative tropical shortwave cloud feedback in CO2-induced warming, and suggests a 71% increase in the tropical shortwave cloud feedback.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-53985-w
Nigel to Adam’s Lea (sole) example of Killian being “largely correct”
“ you think Killian is largely correct as follows: “If we carry on with BAU, I would not at all be surprised to see societal collapse on a global scale and a huge death toll as the consequences of unsustainable living and trashing the biosphere finally hit hard”.
I.e. Adam’s sole example of Killian being largely correct …. is a statement so vague that untestable. And because of its vagueness it brings NOTHING to the discussion that we haven’t already known for DECADES – that BAU could ultimately cause societal collapse and huge death toll has been widely shared concern for decades now – without this we wouldn’t have Kyoto, Paris or IPCC. So there is NO originality, NO new insight, and without any falsifiable argument – NOTHING to justify tie spending one’s time reading it in any detail.
Particularly that when Killian tries to go beyond meaningless vague truisms -into numbers or offering alternatives – that’s when he really goes off his rocker:
– he claimed the exponential growth of SLR – failed to prove it
– he claimed the 5% probability of extinction due to climate change – couldn’t come up even with a single source – so instead 0- he put the onus of finding these sources – on his critics
– he claimed that converting to regenerative agriculture would be our salvation – failed to show any testable numbers of the expected global reductions CO2 concentration, WHILE still producing enough food for human population
– he ignored the questions whether his revolutionary global changes (replacing all agriculture with the regenerative one and massive reduction of the non-food per capita emissions) would be FAST ENOUGH – e.g. to bring us to the net zero IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DECADES
– he ignored the questions about the necessary MECHANISMS – HOW are you going to transform the entire global agriculture and civilization on such a short-time-scale
So he offers no numbers, no concrete answers, no feasible political and social mechanism to accomplish the dramatic change that’s necessity he advocates. The road to hell is paved with great vague ideas.
The doomers like Killian, Miell or Mo the Multi-face have the complex of the Prophet Who Has Been Telling Us This for (“Years”, “Over a decade now”), But We Never Listen. To be such a Prophet your vision must be stark – say, 5% chance of extinction of human race, the collapse of the human civilization, Armageddon, the Rupture – because what’s the Glory in predicting “it will probably will be quite bad”.
And either you believe unwaveringly your Prophet or your are a non-believer that is – an enemy – sofor them its always: “black or white”, “all or nothing”, “my way or the highway” – our Prophets of Doom reject the realistic GOOD in favour of their theoretical PERFECT – reject the combination of the already existing technological, market, and political mechanisms – either as “too little too late”. or as a diversion from THEIR “real” perfect solution. Where the perfect solution may be one or more from the following
– regenerative agriculture
– extermination of >90% of human population to bring the remaining population below its Earth’s carrying capacity for us
– increasing Earth’s evaporation, instead of ‘artificial overemphasis [on the reductions of] a trace gas”,
– Global Revolution – to overthrow the capitalism and market system
– creation of the New Man – who will be willing to sacrifice oneself and their families for the benefit of [ Idea, Party, Humankind ] – a Homo sovieticus ver. 2.0
So for me, I try not to waste my time reading the mass productions of our RC Prophets. of Doom – if I see them its mainly through the replies of other people and even then it’s like a car crash that you couldn’t look away.
in Re to Piotr, 1 Nov 2025 at 10:36 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841427
Hallo Piotr,
Thank you for your post, to that I have three following comments.
1) I think that there are at least two, although mutually intertwined, substantial distinctions between the Multitroll and the others:
While people like Geoff Miell and Killian O’Brien are (quite like you) concerned with climate and societal developments, are afraid of civilization collapse and try to mobilize the public and the policy makers for a counter action, the Multitroll hides both its true identity as well as its true intention. This intention is, contrary to others and for whatever reason, DESTRUCTION of the society wherein we live and subjugation of the world to rulers of Russia.
I therefore highly appreciate the recent pause in Multitroll’s activity, most likely caused by general ban of its last embodiment (“Mo”) by the moderators.
2) Irrespective how silly might be the idea of climate mitigation by artificial enhancement of terrestrial evapotranspiration, I think that at least the effort to clarify how well the present climate science understands the role of evapotranspiration in Earth climate regulation (and whether it considers anthropogenic interferences with land hydrological regimes as an independent climate forcing) still makes sense.
Reasoning: If these interferences anyhow contributed to the present climate change, either directly, by enhancing the Earth energy imbalance (EEI), or indirectly, by increasing Earth climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHG), we should at least strive to prevent or restrict such harmful interferences in the future.
3) I do not think that the effort described in point 2) anyhow disproves or counteracts the efforts for restriction of anthropogenic GHG emissions. I understand your concern about possibly harmful competition for limited resources. I think, however, that you should also consider the risk that if anthropogenic disruptions inflicted to land hydrological regimes indeed contributed and/or contribute to the present climate change substantially, the present focus of mitigation efforts (almost) exclusively on GHG emissions may finally prove inefficient.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz:
“1. I think that there are at least two, although mutually intertwined, substantial distinctions between the Multitroll and the others:”
I don’t think these are significant – by their fruits you shall know them –
a) all three, G. Miell. Killian and Mo the Multiface, attack the credibility of climate science and as such, are bedfellows with the deniers
b) Killian and Mo the Multiface, dismiss the good in favour of their own perfect – dismiss existing technologies and policies as a distraction/diversion from their perfect solutions . G. Miell does seem to have any alternative solution – so he goes with whatever Hansen mentions.
c) NONE of the three can show a feasible path to their goals – no mechanisms, no proof of the effect large enough and rapid enough to bring the global net zero in the next few decades,
d) all three promote doom and thus instead spurring people into action – promote the opposite apathy and abandoning any efforts – if nothing we can do, short of extermination of 7.5billions of humans. abandoning market system and/or Communism – will ever be enough t0 then why even try? Which puts them again into bed with fossil fuel interests who would love to apathy toward their actions
e) all three use the same methods as the deniers – cherry-picking a starting point and then making proclamations of the rate of AGW based on the short term data (3 year avg. of Killian a few years to 15 yrs average to claim “hiatus in AGW after 1998”
f) all three are what Lenin called – “useful idiots” of Russia and other FF interests – they extreme predictions and their extreme “solutions” – are then used by FF interests to discredit by association – all climate science and activism, particularly those who don’t agree with doomers extreme claims and extreme solutions
g) all three have minds closed – they are physically unable to admit that they may have been wrong and when proven wrong -disappear or change the subject and/or pose as victims of bullying and character assassination
Given these similarities – they differences in arguments and style are cosmetic, while they possible difference in motives – whether financial, ideological or psychological – don’t really matter to me – by their fruits, not their motivations, you shall know them
in re to Piotr, 3 Nov 2025 at 5:18 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841500
Hallo Piotr,
We can definitely discuss if Geoff Miell correctly interprets and evaluates available scientific evidence. I think, however, that his practical actions, at least his presentations that he, with a significant effort, assembled for public discussion about climate mitigation organized by Australian parliament, can be seen rather as quite exemplary active citizenship than as a destructive “doomism” or “denialism”.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: Geoff Miell correctly interprets and evaluates available scientific evidence. think, however, that his practical actions, at least his presentations that he, with a significant effort, assembled
How is this supposed to invalidate my criticism of him ??? By their fruits, not their significant efforts, you shall know them.
And his fruits are poisonous – helping the deniers to attack the credibility of the mainstream science; using, thus validating, the deniers dishonest methods (cherry-picking a data or a specific scenario that supports their ideology), providing his doomer’s claims for the deniers to use to discredit by association the climate science – with deniers presenting doomers claims and predictions as if they were representative of climate science and therefore implying that scientists are like doomers – manipulate the scientific data to fit ideological narrative, and when challenged – unable to support their claims, unable to admit it, nor change their position in response to that failure – and the spade is called a spade = portray themselves as victims of “bullying and character assassination”.
With his fruits poisonous, I don’t think the “significant effort” he put to grow and distribute these fruits – is something to be counted in his favour..
in Re to Piotr, 4 Nov 2025 at 9:56 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841553
Dear Piotr,
I am not sure that it is a fair comparison when you describe the “fruits” offered by Geoff Miell and by anonymous Multitroll as equally “poisonous”.
I think that although the “fruits” they both serve may be often the same (e.g. publications by James Hansen claiming 5m sea level rise till the end of 21th century as a significant, serious risk), it may be just the context in which they do so that still makes a difference.
I still have not found any hint against my belief that Geoff Miell wrote his petitions to his elected deputies with the aim to express honestly his concern raised by the said claims and to motivate the responsible policy makers to take measures suitable for mitigating the perceived risk.
Oppositely, the Multitroll packs the same claims into a skilfully crafted mixture with half-truths and brazen lies created and spread by enemies of the society wherein he lives, with the aim to deceive, mislead, demotivate and finally destroy the same. I therefore think that the similarity you perceive is only superficial and the difference becomes rather clear if you examine and compare in detail not only their “fruits” alone but also the way how they are served.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
Should you assign as “their fruits” the entire output of a person on this website, then I respectfully disagree that the “fruits” served by Geoff Miell are the same as those served by the Multitroll. While I definitely agree that the fruits served by the Multitroll are poisoned by deliberately added lies, the fruits served by Geoff Miell may perhaps be sometimes untasty or even rotten, but I do not think they could poison anyone.
Tomas Kalisz: “ I am not sure that it is a fair comparison when you describe the “fruits” offered by Geoff Miell and by anonymous Multitroll as equally “poisonous”. ”
What difference does it make? Would you serve your daughter a tea laced with cyanide because it is not “equally poisonous” as a tea laced with polonium 210 ?
Piotr yes there are astonishing similarities between Killian, Mutli Troll and Geoff Miell. However I will add one nitpick,. All three are indeed doomers in the sense you seem to mean of embracing the most extreme climate predictions (?). But doomer is generally being used in climate discussions to mean someone who thinks things will be so catastrophic and locked in that theres no point doing any mitigation , or that nothing will save us. M Mann uses the term that way.
Killian and Geoff Miell certainly dont think things are hopeless and have each promoted various solutions, Geoff Miells being the more conventional. Only Multi troll has suggested its all hopeless. So are your categories just a bit too over simplified? Are there perhaps warmists, catastrophists, doomers and denialists?
Nigel: “Killian and Geoff Miell certainly dont think things are hopeless”
Since their extreme scenarioes assume crossing tipping points beyond which hardly anything can be done, and because neither of them has even a remotely feasible way to avert it – then the doom is IMPLIED.
And all the negatives associated with it, including the central one – sowing the apathy in the public: if the future is so bad and there is no feasible way to avert it – then what’s the point of doing ANYTHING – let’s enjoy what we have and after us – Deluge!
Which makes theirs a self-fulfilling prophecy – the apathy they had sown assures that it is the worst-case scenario that gets realized.
Piotr: – “g) all three have minds closed – they are physically unable to admit that they may have been wrong and when proven wrong -disappear or change the subject and/or pose as victims of bullying and character assassination”
And here you were recently claiming: “NGLs are not crude oil nor condensate.”
neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands”.”
…and when proven that you were wrong about your claims that “shale oil” or “oil sands” were NOT crude oil nor condensate, you remain unable to admit that you are wrong, change the subject, and double down on misrepresenting all and sundry who dare to challenge your ideologies/perspectives/fantasies.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840478
I apologised for misspelling John Pollack’s surname.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840415
Piotr, when have you ever admitted (let alone apologised for) anything you have been wrong about? Never?
Tomas Kalisz:
2) Irrespective how silly might be the idea of climate mitigation by artificial enhancement of terrestrial evapotranspiration,
Tsk, tread carefully, Tomas …. Your guru JCM – does NOT consider it “silly”. quite the opposite –
his entire claim to fame is built on the presumption that it is NOT silly, but wise and ahead of its time (given the reluctance of the climate scientist to follow his ideas).
And an antidote to climate scientists’ “ artificial overemphasis on a trace gas” that JCM blames for the wholesale destruction of Earth’s ecosystems:
“ It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the [influence] of trace gas [CO2]” [(c) JCM]
in Re to Piotr, 7 Nov 2025 at 7:18 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841788
Hallo Piotr,
Thank you for returning to my comments of 2 Nov 2025 at 9:41 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841442
As far as I know, JCM’s stewardship efforts are directed rather to maintaining the functions of natural ecosystems, because he believes they are important generally and may be, specifically, important also for the stability of Earth climate towards anthropogenic perturbations. I am not aware that he has ever promoted “climate mitigation by artificial enhancement of terrestrial evapotranspiration”, at least if you do not consider as the “artificial enhancement” his efforts for restoration of soil health and for stabilization of other natural ecosystems.
It is my understanding that with his words “artificial overemphasis on a trace gas”, JCM expressed certain frustration that climate science has not identified any clear link yet between unperturbed natural ecosystems on one hand and resilience of Earth climate system against anthropogenic emissions of non-condensing greenhouse gases. I think that he believes that his practical experience does corroborate this idea, although there is no theoretical support therefor.
It may be somewhat funny that, as I have recently written in my post of 8 Nov 2025 at 12:49 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/raising-climate-literacy/#comment-841811
the recent “climate literacy” guide
https://lunacreates.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Climate-Literacy-Guide.pdf
on one hand emphasizes the narrative that the anthropogenic climate change is caused solely by anthropogenic emissions of non-condensing greenhouse gases, and on the other hand, somewhat illogically, asserts importance of “indigenous knowledge” – without any explanation what does the “indigenous knowledge” mean nor how it should be implemented into climate policies.
I thus construed my unsupported speculation (that functioning ecosystems may stabilize Earth climate) as something that might be perhaps like beliefs of the indigenous people. Although I have never met any indigenous people and cannot say if they would (or would not) agree, I think that the experience of practitioners like JCM could be somehow comparable with their “indigenous knowledge”.
Greetings
Tomáš
Western scientism often impedes recognition of ancient wisdom because such knowledge does not neatly translate into the numerical models such as “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity” which summed up the whole issue in 19 pages back in 1967. It was appealing precisely because it reduced the climate problem to something numerically stable and solvable with 1960s computers if assuming hydrologies follow passively and predictably as a consequence of GMST. It’s easy to lose sight that nature is far more complex than what any numerical scheme is capturing.
Outside the confines of model land, we have superimposed 100 million hectares annually direct land degradation, from which we know parameterized coupled models appear largely biophysically insensitive, and along with it the system’s ability to maintain cooling and moistening flux day after day (and season after season).
It is through biophysical function that the moistening flux persists rather than being cut short. Much less about bursts and episodic stalls of high intensity whiplash, but rather stable continuous and cascading flows. An increased duration 5% is associated with 1 or 2 additional days per month that would otherwise be missing, and must therefore be associated with a smoothing of hydrological and temperature extremes in addition to broader circulatory patterns. Comparable effects occur spatially, where flows are often concentrated at parcel perimeters rather than distributed evenly across the whole. It’s not so far-fetched intuitively, but extremely complex computationally. This is where the clash of traditional wisdom and academic epistemologies results in systemic dysfunction in the decision making apparatus.
That it has become inconceivable to consider the consequences of having destroyed roughly 10 billion hectares of productive, nutrient- and moisture-cycling landscapes since the industrial revolution already, and its potential to alter Earth energy flows by even 1%, is itself a striking and important point for debate. It seems to me that argument from futility is a common trap, where because a problem seems intractable that therefore it doesn’t exist. None of these things are about engineering something new, but awareness of what has been lost. If there is any controversy, one can be assured that conserving the duration of moistening flux is demonstrably achievable through simple experiments, even in one’s own garden.
It’s easy to lose sight that nature is far more complex than what any numerical scheme is capturing. Especially when one’s career or internet trolling reputation and long term income is reliant upon one’s artistic numerical scheme reigning supreme.
JCM: ” Western scientism often impedes recognition of ancient wisdom
Would you be appropriating any specific non-Western ancient culture today, or would it be more the run of the mill “Western climate science – bad” type of sermon?
JCM:” It’s easy to lose sight that nature is far more complex than what any numerical scheme is capturing.”
I haven’t met ANY modeller arrogant enough to think that in their models they captured all the nature’s complexity. Models take a tiny subset of “nature” and within it try to reproduce the major features of the subset, and get some idea about relative importance of various factors. As the modellers say: “All models are wrong, but some are useful” – the way the modelling of Lague et al., that YOU brought up here and promoted, was “wrong” – since they didn’t recreate nature in all its complexity – but “useful” – they examined two extremes to estimate the MAXIMUM effect of altering evaporation from land (the actual will be a fraction of this range). This has proven useful , confirming that we simply can’t make a significant dent in AGW by increasing evaporation from land – as EVEN such a massive sacrifice like abandoning of ALL agriculture – would have resulted in …. a mere fraction of 0.3K reduction in AGW.
No wonder that seeing it – JCM
– disavowed his OWN SOURCE,
– contemptuously derided Lague et al., and by extension – all climate modelling, as: “ imaginary process mechanisms [using] rules about how things ought to be ”
– and blamed the “up 40% of Earth’s land being degraded” on …. climate modellers.
Comparing to THAT – the current “impeding recognition of ancient wisdom” is small potatoes.
In Re to JCM, 11 NOV 2025 AT 11:10 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841919
Dear JCM,
I believe that the science will, step by step, find ways how to research the influence of ecosystem stability on Earth climate, to be able to clarify how important this influence is. I am afraid, however, that this process can require decades. It might be therefore important that the “indigenous knowledge” (that functioning ecosystems may be indeed important for climate stability) is not only declared but indeed seriously considered and implemented already now in the climate policies, although it may look, from the viewpoint of the present climate science, as unjustified and/or unnecessary. I think that this approach could be helpful anyway, at least as a useful precaution securing that we stay on the safe side and will not miss something important.
Best regards
Tomáš
JCM: Western scientism often impedes recognition of ancient wisdom
BPL: This is the sentiment that has had India replacing mathematics with “Vedic arithmetic,” Mao’s China promoting acupuncture and folk medicine while its leaders used western medicine, and inspires homeopathy and a dozen other pseudosciences. The term “scientism” in itself is often used by these people as an equivalent to “science,” which it is not. Science is not an ism. We use science because it works, not because we’re “[w]estern.” Science works in the east, too.
Thank you for the various responses. It’s not surprising to encounter claims of exclusive authority over knowledge, and I’m not here to challenge science or the expert-advice model itself. However, when it comes to environment in particular (of all things), there is great value in fostering dialogue between different knowledge systems, especially those grounded in lived reciprocity with the land as teacher, whereupon landscapes are the existential foundation of all things. It has become increasingly evident how land has been marginalized as a passive host within expert discourse on climate and environmental hazards, often quite literally masked out in illustration and storylines. This serves as a clear example of how expert and numerically tractable logics have produced serious blind spots and imbalances, probably even bordering on disrespect, and leaving much to be desired in understanding, recognizing, and responding to the conditions we actually inhabit.
Exemplified is with the style of scientific confidence statements, such as Hansen’s recent claim that he excludes the IPCC best-guess 3C ECS estimate with >99% confidence. But what does this even mean? Such statements are conditional, valid only within a narrowly defined set of assumptions, and not holistic truths about the world. Scientists interpret them cautiously, and most actually disagree, because within a model-bound, technoscientific, or Western-empiricist framework, it is entirely possible to disagree with a >99% confidence claim. Recognizing the conditional and scoped nature of such statements is essential if expertise is to be exercised with humility, and if our frameworks of knowing are to remain open to broader, holistic, and grounded perspectives, including the attribution of environmental hazards.
JCM: Western scientism often impedes recognition of ancient wisdom
BPL: This is the sentiment that has had India replacing mathematics with “Vedic arithmetic,” Mao’s China promoting acupuncture and folk medicine while its leaders used western medicine,
see also Lysenko’s campaign against the Western/ imperialist science of “genetics”.
And lets no forget the AIDS death toll in South Africa – in which the minister of health
prefered local treatment of AIDS based “garlic, lemon, olive oil and beetroot” over the
Western drugs.
Or the death toll of the US anti-scientist sentiment – rejecting social distancing and vaccinations, while promoting Ivermectin, or drinking bleach.
I would suggest that JCM – with his attacks on the MOST effective way to mitigate AGW -GHG reductions, and advocating shifting of the research and resources toward the LEAST effective way (increasing evaporation) – fits right there.
Tomas Kalisz: As far as I know, JCM’s stewardship efforts are directed rather to maintaining the functions of natural ecosystems
Explain then JCM’s blaming the collapse of these natural ecosystems on “ the artificial fixation and overemphasis of a trace gas {GHGs]“.
HOW is JCM’s attacking the MOST effective way to mitigate AGW (GHGs reductions) and promoting in its place the LEAST effective one (increasing evaporation by many 10,000s km^3 of water/yr from the …. unknown source – most of the accessible ground waters are already severely overdrawn) – a “stewardship” of natural ecosystems?
With “stewards” like JCM, who needs the sworn enemies ?
in Re to Piotr, 9 Nov 2025 at 11:44 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841850
Hallo Piotr,
Although I am not sure if JCM attributed the damage of natural ecosystems to “the artificial fixation and overemphasis of a trace gas {GHGs]“, I think that an example of a such harmful “overemphasis” may be subsidies for fossil fuel replacement with so called “biomass”, wherever they incentivize forest logging for fuel pellets.
I am not aware that JCM has ever attacked reduction of anthropogenic GHG emissions by meaningful means, such as fossil fuel replacement with solar and/or wind energy, impovements in energy efficiency, and like.
As regards the possibility that unperturbed ecosystems maintained higher evapotranspiration rate, I think that conservationists argue that this (supposedly) higher rate was self-sustainable.
Indirect evidence for originally higher evapotranspiration rate (and, in parallel, higher precipitation, resulting in a stable humid hydrological regime) in originally forested regions may be the circumstance that the change of the logged and/or burned forests into landscapes with drier hydrological regimes seems to be irreversible in many regions. I am, however, afraid that nobody knows whether it might apply also for the global sum of evapotranspiration, as it appears that there are no reliable global reconstructions of past evapotranspiration nor precipitation yet.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: “ I am not sure if JCM attributed the damage of natural ecosystems to “the artificial fixation and overemphasis of a trace gas {GHGs] .”
Read the damn text and stop making up increasingly absurd excuses for JCM:
===== JCM, UV, 5 Jun 2024 at 8:24 AM ==============
” Join me in celebrating world environment day today June 5th 2024! This year focuses on land restoration, halting desertification and building drought resilience under the slogan “Our land. Our future”. UNCCD reports up to 40 percent of the planet’s land is degraded and annual net loss of native ecologies continues unabated at >100 million ha / decade. This is a profound forcing to climates and puts our communities at risk. It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas and aerosol forced model estimates.”
==== end of JCM post ==============================
So JCM takes the UN report on “ up to 40% of Earth land being degraded” and uses it to bash with it … the climate modellers and their “ artificial fixation and overemphasis” on the role of GHGs and accuses them of “denying or actively minimizing” these consequences of their modelling (i.e. that” “up to 40% of Earth land being degraded”).
If after reading all that – you are STILL …. “ not sure ” who was the intended target of JCM’s attack, nor that it is a continuation of JCM’s “Anything but GHGs”, sorry “Anything but … some trace gas” denialism, then I can’t help you. Nobody can.
in Re to Piotr, 11 Nov 2025 at 10:32 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841918
Hallo Piotr,
I agree that it would be too straightforward, if someone drew a direct link between the present level of climate science understanding to climate change on one hand and massive soil degradation on the other hand. I think that majority of climate scientists does science, nor agriculture or other forms of soil management. I also do not suppose that majority of climate scientists participates in definition and/or implementation of climate policies.
Of course, public discussion about climate science may influence policy makers. Nevertheless, I do not remember that JCM has mentioned modellers or any other profession or specific group of people. I therefore think that he allegedly blaming climate modellers for soil deterioration may be rather your subjective interpretation of his remark. I am afraid that the only person who can clarify if JCM’s remark addressed a specific group or profession is JCM himself. If you would like to know, why don’t you ask him?
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz: – “Piotr asked if the rate of the sea level rise (SLR) was between 40-60 mm within the single year 2022, I think.”
Geoff Miell : Quite clearly SLR wasn’t anywhere near that magnitude in 2022, so it’s quite clear to me, Piotr was attempting a straw man fallacy
Let’s get the facts straight::
– Geoff Miell: “ MWP1a [produced] mean SL rates of roughly 40–60 mm ” And arrogantly continues: “ Why is difficult to accept that the global mean rate of SLR would continue to accelerate over time to similar magnitudes?”
– I answered: “Because we don’t have the couple km of ice over half of North America and portion of Eurasia to melt (the contribution of Antarctica and Greenland to MWP1a SLR was minor)”
– Geoff M.: “ you have no imagination for and ignorance about the possibilities, as per usual.[…] Hektoria Glacier on the Antarctica peninsula, shrunk by nearly 50% in Nov – Dec 2022 ”
Which would have disprove my point about the lack of enough ice melt ONLY IF
that Hektoria Glacier provided COMPARABLE amount of melt as annual MWP1a melt – i.e. SLR 40-60 mm/yr. HENCE was my reply to that “Hektoria Glacier” argument::
Piotr: “[And as a result of this 50% shrinkage of the Hektoria Glacier ] HAS the global sea level increased by 40–60 mm, maybe more” in 2022?
Obviously IT WASN’T – thus proving that the Hektoria argument was a dud – since
even 50% shrinkage of Hektoria DIDN’T produce enough water to come even close
to the 40-60 mm/yr of MWP1a.
But Geoff Miell, too thick to understand even such a STRAIGHTFORWARD argument,
and convinced that he has the upper hand – attacks:
“ so it’s quite clear to me, Piotr was attempting a straw man fallacy – a type of logical fallacy where someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it appear easier to attack. I observe Piotr misrepresents people’s arguments here at RC often. That’s Piotr’s MO.
Geoff “I admit to my mistakes” Miell
Piotr (at 13 Nov 2025 at 1:43 AM): – “Let’s get the facts straight::
– Geoff Miell: “ MWP1a [produced] mean SL rates of roughly 40–60 mm ” And arrogantly continues: “ Why is difficult to accept that the global mean rate of SLR would continue to accelerate over time to similar magnitudes?”
– I answered: “Because we don’t have the couple km of ice over half of North America and portion of Eurasia to melt (the contribution of Antarctica and Greenland to MWP1a SLR was minor)””
I suspect you are too lazy to read things that are inconvenient for your narratives. Here’s what I posted (at 12 Nov 2025 at 3:23 AM) in response to your earlier comments:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841942
Piotr (at 13 Nov 2025 at 1:43 AM): – “Obviously IT WASN’T – thus proving that the Hektoria argument was a dud – since
even 50% shrinkage of Hektoria DIDN’T produce enough water to come even close
to the 40-60 mm/yr of MWP1a.”
But a similar melt rate for a collective of larger land-based ice masses, like Thwaites, Haynes, Pope, Smith & Kohler glaciers, that are already speeding up, and are not that far away from Hektoria, would be significant contributors to a faster rate of SLR, as glaciologist Eric Rignot suggested in 2019.
But it seems to me that you, I-never-admit-my-mistakes Piotr, are (willfully?) far too clueless to grasp this.
Where have I stated that global sea level increased by 40–60 mm, maybe more, in 2022, Piotr? Hint: Nowhere.
Where have I suggested that the shrinkage of the Hektoria Glacier on the Antarctica peninsula in Nov-Dec 2022 has contributed to 40–60 mm/year SLR, Piotr? Hint: Nowhere.
You are misrepresenting again with straw man fallacies, as per usual.
And you are repeating the same misrepresentations as you did at 13 Nov 2025 at 1:06 AM:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841970
Geoff Miell @13 Nov 2025 at 7:07 PM
Geoff Miell said: “Why is difficult to accept that the global mean rate of SLR would continue to accelerate over time to similar magnitudes (40 – 60mm year)?”
Because you can’t invoke MWP1a because there was vastly more ice back then to melt as we previously stated. More ice to melt = potentially faster yearly rates of melt.
And because the fact that Antarctica melting completely would raise sea levels by 56.6 metres doesn’t mean it would necessarily happen at 40- 60mm per year. It would take Antarctic about 10,000 years to melt completely at high rates of warming. (Antarctic ice sheet wikipedia) That is an average of 5.66mm per year and this is the most likely rate of melt. Anything up around 40 – 60mm is very speculative at best.
And because Hansens theories of the Antarctic potentially causing 30 – 40mm SLR per year are very speculative and full of assumptions, and its higher than what happened from Antarctic alone during MWP1a. Its thought to have contributed about 10mm per year. Most of the SLR came from the huge northern ice sheets,
Therefore while I think SLR could be quite fast, its a bit difficult for me to accept global SLR could be as high as 40 – 60mm year, as a trend sustained over many years.
Nigelj (at 14 Nov 2025 at 3:29 PM): – “Because you can’t invoke MWP1a because there was vastly more ice back then to melt as we previously stated. More ice to melt = potentially faster yearly rates of melt.”
I think you are ignoring that currently, the GMST is hotter now (i.e. +1.4-1.5 °C relative to Holocene preindustrial age) than when the MWP1A event occurred around 14,700 to 13,500 years ago (i.e. circa -4 °C relative to Holocene preindustrial age) – that’s circa 5.5 °C warmer.
See Kaufman, D. S. and McKay, N. P.: Technical Note: Past and future warming – direct comparison on multi-century timescales, Clim. Past, 18, 911–917, Figure 1
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/18/911/2022/cp-18-911-2022-f01-web.png
Hotter temperatures mean a faster melt rate.
Nigelj (at 14 Nov 2025 at 3:29 PM): – “And because the fact that Antarctica melting completely would raise sea levels by 56.6 metres doesn’t mean it would necessarily happen at 40- 60mm per year. It would take Antarctic about 10,000 years to melt completely at high rates of warming. (Antarctic ice sheet wikipedia) That is an average of 5.66mm per year and this is the most likely rate of melt. Anything up around 40 – 60mm is very speculative at best.”
Is it “very speculative at best”? Are you a glaciologist, Nigelj?
The global mean rate of SLR in 2024 was 5.9 mm/year. We’re already at your so-called “average of 5.66mm per year […] most likely rate of melt”. What makes you think the global mean rate of SLR can’t go any faster?
Meanwhile, glaciologist Professor Dr Jason Box, from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, said in 2024:
“Now if climate continues warming, which is more than likely, then the loss commitment grows. My best guess, if I had to put out numbers; so by 2050, 40 centimetres above 2000 levels; and then by the year 2100, 150 centimetres, or 1.5 metres above the 2000 level, which is something like four feet. Those numbers follow the dashed-red curve on the IPCC’s 6th Assessment, which represents the upper 5-percentile of the model calculations, because the model calculations don’t deliver ice as quickly as is observed. If you take the last two decades of observations, the models don’t even reproduce that until 40 years from now.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jpPXcqNXpE&t=110s
Since year-1900, global mean sea level has risen about 23 cm, and about 9 cm since year-2000.
To get to 40 cm of global mean sea level rise (GMSLR), relative to the year-2000 baseline by 2050, REQUIRES an additional 31 cm more of SLR over the next 25 years. A constant rate of 5 mm/year over 25 years is only going to give 12.5 cm more SLR – that’s not going to cut it. A CONTINUED ACCELERATION of the global mean rate of SLR is REQUIRED, with 10 mm/year sometime in the 2030s and 20 mm/year in the 2040s. A 10-year doubling curve seems to fit close enough.
By the 2050s, the global mean rate of SLR may well double again to 40 mm/year.
Clearly, NOAA suggests 2 m SLR relative to the year-2000 baseline is possible by year-2100. To get there requires the global mean rate of SLR to continue to accelerate to over 40 mm/year sometime in the early second half of the 21st century. This is just simple mathematics.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
https://www.climatecodered.org/2025/10/australias-climate-assessment-fails-on.html
Australian Antarctic scientist Andrew Klekociuk says five metres is possible this century.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/sea-level-change-australias-antarctic-climate-scientist-says-bondi-could-be-under-five-more-metres-of-water-within-the-century/d67f51ec-8f2c-4de4-a3e5-0f2ebe68c19d
Geoff Miell 13 Nov 7:07 PM “I suspect you are too lazy to read things that are inconvenient for your narratives”
I suspect you are too dense to understand what you read (e.g. don’t understand how even own sources do not support your 40-60mm/yr claim – see below) and are too conceited to allow to yourself the possibility that you are not right (admitting ONCE a trivial mistake in spelling – doesn’t count). And here are the facts on which I have built my opinion about you:
===============================
1. Geoff Miell: “ MWP1a [produced] mean SL rates of roughly 40–60 mm ” And arrogantly continues: “ Why is difficult to accept that the global mean rate of SLR would continue to accelerate over time to similar magnitudes?”
2. I answered: “Because we don’t have the couple km of ice over half of North America and portion of Eurasia to melt (the contribution of Antarctica and Greenland to MWP1a SLR was minor)”
3. Geoff Miell: “ you have no imagination for and ignorance about the possibilities, as per usual.[…] Hektoria Glacier on the Antarctica peninsula, shrunk by nearly 50% in Nov – Dec 2022 ”
4 me: “Has then the global SL increased by: “40–60 mm, maybe more” in 2022?”
5. Geoff Miell: “That’s YOUR clear straw man! Relative to what baseline? Since year-1900, global mean sea level has risen about 23 cm.”
6. Even Tomas, with whom I rarely see eye to eye: explained it to Geoff: “within the single year 2022”.
7. Geoff still doesn’t get it: “Quite clearly SLR wasn’t anywhere near that magnitude in 2022, so it’s quite clear to me, Piotr was attempting a straw man fallacy”
8. Me explaining to Geoff the meaning of his OWN arguments:
“[The 50% shrinkage of Hektoria Glacier in 2022] would have disproven my point about the lack of enough ice melt ONLY IF that Hektoria Glacier [and all other glaciers] provided COMPARABLE amount of melt as annual MWP1a melt – i.e. SLR 40-60 mm/yr. ”
By your own unwitting admission, they DIDN’T: “ Quite clearly SLR wasn’t anywhere near that magnitude in 2022″ Geoff M.] , thus your analogy of the near future replaying MWP1a SLR “40-60 mm/yr or more “- is, to put it mildly …. not as strong as your derision tone toward the readers would demand (derisive tone demands ironclad proofs).
9. Geoff Miell: “ I suspect you are too lazy to read things that are inconvenient for your narratives. There’s more than enough ice mass available to melt [in] The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) 3.3 metres) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) ( if it completely melted 7.4 metres) ”
Let’s see:
3.3m + 7.4m = 10.7m . The MWP1a was 16-25 m. Over 400 yrs.
How long to completely melt both WAIS and GrIS, pumpkin?
WAIS hasn’t melted during the 15,000 years of the current deglaciation.
Neither was Greenland. At current temps it would take – 10,000-20,000 yrs?
Only if we continued current emission rate it might be gone by 3000. But to do so by 3000 our CO2 would have to be 3000 ppm, – at those levels I suspect a 10 m of SLR is not our biggest problem …
And EVEN under such implausibly high levels of Co2 – the rate would be …. < 11mm/yr, i.e. NOWHERE NEAR your "40-60 mm/yr or more".
Why is it so difficult to accept“, Geoff ?
Geoff Miell @15 Nov 2025 at 3:29 AM
Nigelj: (at 14 Nov 2025 at 3:29 PM): – “Because you can’t invoke MWP1a because there was vastly more ice back then to melt as we previously stated. More ice to melt = potentially faster yearly rates of melt.”
Geoff Miell: I think you are ignoring that currently, the GMST is hotter now (i.e. +1.4-1.5 °C relative to Holocene preindustrial age) than when the MWP1A event occurred around 14,700 to 13,500 years ago (i.e. circa -4 °C relative to Holocene preindustrial age) – that’s circa 5.5 °C warmer….Hotter temperatures mean a faster melt rate.
Nigelj: Then why did the strong post glacial SLR almost stop about 8000 years ago? Why did sea levels fall over the last 1000 years? Given those periods are all warmer than during MWP1a in absolute terms? See the problem?
https://courses.ems.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/millennia-of-sea-level-change/
Instead what actually causes sea levels to start rising is a warming pulse that upsets the equilibrium between ice melt and snow accumulation. This is what happened during the post glacial period and particularly during MWP 1a, and since around 1900 to 2025. We don’t know for sure how much warming happened during MWP1a but its thought to be robust warming similar to RCP8.5 or possibly higher.
Nigelj (at 14 Nov 2025 at 3:29 PM): – “And because the fact that Antarctica melting completely would raise sea levels by 56.6 metres doesn’t mean it would necessarily happen at 40- 60mm per year. It would take Antarctic about 10,000 years to melt completely at high rates of warming. (Antarctic ice sheet wikipedia) That is an average of 5.66mm per year and this is the most likely rate of melt. Anything up around 40 – 60mm is very speculative at best.”
Geoff Miell: Is it “very speculative at best”? Are you a glaciologist, Nigelj?The global mean rate of SLR in 2024 was 5.9 mm/year. We’re already at your so-called “average of 5.66mm per year […] most likely rate of melt”. What makes you think the global mean rate of SLR can’t go any faster?
Nigelj: No I’m not a glaciologist. But it is still speculative. Hansens studies are full of speculation. I don’t have to be an expert to see that. You are talking about global SLR from all ice sheets and glaciers. I was talking about Antarctica alone. So apples and oranges comparison. And Ive never suggested either cant go faster, but what makes you think global SLR would get to to 40 – 60mm per year for a long period of time? You are making the claim so the onus is on you to prove your case.
You are also cherrypicking SLR in one year 2024. Its risky using data from one year and assuming it would continue especially as SLR in 2024 was driven to some extent by the big el nino.
Geoff Miell: Meanwhile, glaciologist Professor Dr Jason Box, from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, said in 2024:“Now if climate continues warming, which is more than likely, then the loss commitment grows. My best guess, if I had to put out numbers; so by 2050, 40 centimetres above 2000 levels; and then by the year 2100, 150 centimetres, or 1.5 metres above the 2000 level, which is something like four feet. Those numbers follow the dashed-red curve on the IPCC’s 6th Assessment, which represents the upper 5-percentile of the model calculations, because the model calculations don’t deliver ice as quickly as is observed. If you take the last two decades of observations, the models don’t even reproduce that until 40 years from now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jpPXcqNXpE&t=110s
Nigelj: This is not in dispute and is not remotely comparable to your claims SLR could be 5M this century.
Geoff Miell: Since year-1900, global mean sea level has risen about 23 cm, and about 9 cm since year-2000. To get to 40 cm of global mean sea level rise (GMSLR), relative to the year-2000 baseline by 2050, REQUIRES an additional 31 cm more of SLR over the next 25 years. A constant rate of 5 mm/year over 25 years is only going to give 12.5 cm more SLR – that’s not going to cut it. A CONTINUED ACCELERATION of the global mean rate of SLR is REQUIRED, with 10 mm/year sometime in the 2030s and 20 mm/year in the 2040s. A 10-year doubling curve seems to fit close enough.By the 2050s, the global mean rate of SLR may well double again to 40 mm/year.
Nigelj: Yes obviously, but once again you have to give a plausible physical reason why that would happen. I do note you have given a link to some videos at the end of your post so I will try to have a look at those.
Geoff Miell: Clearly, NOAA suggests 2 m SLR relative to the year-2000 baseline is possible by year-2100. To get there requires the global mean rate of SLR to continue to accelerate to over 40 mm/year sometime in the early second half of the 21st century. This is just simple mathematics.
Nigelj: Yes I accept that’s all possible, and extremely concerning, but that is based on all ice sheets and glaciers on the planet melting. I thought you were arguing that Antarctica alone melting would potentially cause 40 mm – 60mm SLR per year, which doesn’t sound viable as previously stated. Sorry if I misinterpreted you.
But its all still well short of 5M by the end of 2100, which is what you were arguing originally. That would require massive acceleration is SLR later this century well above 40 – 60 mm year. I remain sceptical about that and Hansens analysis.
in Re to Geoff Miell, 15 Nov 2025 at 3:29 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842049
Dear Geoff,
With respect to your assertion
“Hotter temperatures mean a faster melt rate.”,
I would like to turn your attention to explanations provided by MA Rodger on 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
and amended on 11 Sep 2025 at 9:12 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/unforced-variations-sep-2025/#comment-839174.
It appears that the studies cited by him in his post of 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 ,
namely
MacDougall et al (2020) ‘Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO2’
and
Borowiak et al (2024) ‘Projected Global Temperature Changes After Net Zero Are Small But Significant’
show that it is not the temperature what drives glacier melting but rather absorption of sunlight in the ocean and in glaciers themselves. Both these processes can run basically isothermally.
This knowledge may imply important differences between the ice thawing at times of the meltwater pulse and the present ice thawing. There was not only significantly bigger ice volume available for melting, but also significantly higher area of the ice exposed to the sunlight, and not only in high latitudes as presently, but also in lower latitudes strongly exposed to the sunlight.
Therefore, I am afraid that you compare incomparable, and the same may apply for the scientists you cite.
I have a feeling that the results of MacDougall, Borowiak and others, suggesting that there may be rather a trade-off between global mean surface temperature (GMST) rise and sea level rise (SLR) than a direct proportion therebetween, may not be fully considered yet by many experts publicly discussing and interpreting their research in various disciplines related to climate science, including also glaciology.
Best regards
Tomáš
Nigelj (at 15 Nov 2025 at 3:32 PM): – Then why did the strong post glacial SLR almost stop about 8000 years ago? Why did sea levels fall over the last 1000 years?”
GMST began stabilizing circa 11,700 years ago, reaching a peak circa 7-6,000 years ago, and then began a slight decline to the beginning of the industrial age (i.e. circa 250 years ago), from where it began rising again. See Figure 3 in Darrell Kaufman et al. (2020) titled Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
Nigelj (at 15 Nov 2025 at 3:32 PM): – Given those periods are all warmer than during MWP1a in absolute terms?”
The warmer the GMST gets, the more tipping points are crossed. It seems the tipping points for the destabilization of WAIS and GrIS have apparently only recently been passed.
Nigelj (at 15 Nov 2025 at 3:32 PM): – No I’m not a glaciologist. But it is still speculative.”
I’d suggest it would be unwise to dismiss the POSSIBILITY. Glaciologist and climate scientist Professor Eric Rignot was in discussion with Dan Miller in a YouTube video published on 17 Nov 2025. Here’s some of what was said:
0:17:57 Eric Rignot: “So I see these studies and it, it, it gives me a little jolt, uh, a little warning that we should be very careful not to be too conservative about how fast, uh, some of these glaciers could retreat. The glaciers in the peninsula are doing this right now – 8 kilometres per year. Uh, so that’s a much bigger threat if this happens on Pine Island and, and Thwaites Glacier, and then this…”
0:18:24 Dan Miller: “But again, because of the distance involved you’re saying at a kilometre a year, maybe it’s 100 years but if it was going at four then is it, is it 20, 30 years?”
0:18:34 Eric Rignot: “10 kilometres per year? I would have to look at my map. I haven’t done the exercise. I’ve never dared, uh, imagine that these glaciers could retreat that fast. So, uh, I don’t know, but certainly within this century.”
0:18:49 Dan Miller: “Oh, okay. Well that’s, that’s a, that’s a big deal. And, and by the way, so let’s talk about. Let’s say it does, well, when it happens, because you know it’s like inevitable, but it’s this century? Next century? And it collapses. How much does that contribute to global sea level rise?”
0:19:03 Eric Rignot: “So, Thwaites and Pine Island, you know they’re, they are, they are brothers and sisters, hold a potential sea level rise of 1.2 metres.”
0:19:16 Dan Miller: “Okay. So, about four, four or five feet.”
0:19:21 Eric Rignot: “Yeah. But, uh, if, if they collapse, they will trigger the collapse of the rest of West Antarctica; they will sort of eat the rest of West Antarctica from, from, from, from behind. You know, instead of the frontal section of the rest of Western Antarctica collapsing, they will be collapsing from behind. And that’s a 3 metre, ah, potential sea level rise from West Antarctica.”
https://youtu.be/iarx9Pibnic?t=1077
Nigelj (at 15 Nov 2025 at 3:32 PM): – Yes I accept that’s all possible, and extremely concerning, but that is based on all ice sheets and glaciers on the planet melting.”
Nope. Not all ice sheets, yet… WIAS and GrIS are apparently on a trajectory to completely melt, albeit likely over multi-century/millennia timescale. Kilimanjaro permanent ice is at the point of going. The Earth System is currently committed to more than 20 m SLR.
It seems so far, some of the EAIS is still stable, but if global warming continues, it will likely destabilize too in the not too distant future.
Nigelj (at 15 Nov 2025 at 3:32 PM): – But its all still well short of 5M by the end of 2100, which is what you were arguing originally.”
The Sweet et al. 2017 paper’s Abstract begins with:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/sw03000d.html
Since year-1900, global mean sea level has risen about 23 cm, and about 9 cm since year-2000. SLR has already arrived at the minimum projected level of 9 cm five years before year-2030 waypoint, per Sweet et al (2017) projections.
I think 2+ m SLR is likely by year-2100. To get there REQUIRES a global mean rate of SLR of 40 mm/year in the early second half of this century. That’s simple mathematics.
Whether 5 m or “several metres” SLR by year-2100 happens, or not, is less likely but as Eric Rignot suggests: “we should be very careful not to be too conservative about how fast … some of these glaciers could retreat.”
Plan for the worst, hope for the least worst outcome.
But I’d suggest the heat will likely get us/humanity first well before SLR becomes catastrophic.
https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/heat
Piotr, I agree with your comments about Killian. He once claimed that Detroit could be fully self sufficient in food grown in parks and waste space and gardens etc,etc. He didn’t provide any proof. I posted a one page quite detailed analysis showing there was only enough usable space for about 20% of their food needs. That message was not well received ha ha but he couldn’t prove me wrong and I think KM posted a similar analysis same time mine appeared. Nothing wrong with self sufficiency of course and posting speculative ideas, but what really annoys me is even when his claims are numerically debunked he goes on defending them or deflecting.
Yup. It was telling to see Killian pretend studies showed a 5% chance of human extinction from anthropogenic climate change, only for Killian to bravely run away when asked to show those studies.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-841207
Yes, I recall that episode, Nigel. To be honest, I wanted Killian to be right about that, but the available space just wasn`t there when I looked at the numbers.
We appear to be living in a variation of the Minoan Warm Period. This observation is based on a 3500-year cycle I found while studying the Sun and Jovian planet orbits. Imagine my surprise when I went looking for it in the GISP2 ice-core data and discovered this:
https://localartist.org/media/temperature_sliding.gif
I think it’s the Sun. What are your thoughts?
What about the Sun? That is, what specific parameter concerning the output of the Sun has changed? By how much has it changed? In which direction? How has that parameter change affected the Earth’s climate?
Hint: You can “think” whatever you want. It means nothing. Science demands data.
A single quasi-repeat sequence does not a cycle make.
Robert Cutler typed (some standard ignorant rubbish). See at Earth (GLOBALLY not regionally) average temperature for the last 22,000 years until 2010 CE at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqtZdnpfgIc from 5:26 to 7:50 (plot at 7:00) and refute that with verifiable physical science (quantities) Bob.
Not really. You continue your usual practice of not checking your claims using out-of-sample testing, i.e. hindcasting temperature trends for time-periods outside of those you used to claim a cycle. Your supposed cycle would fail that out-of-sample testing. And if by “Minoan Warm Period” you mean 1700–1400 BCE, then you’re incorrect. Earth is globally warmer than it’s been for at least the past 125,000 years, with industrial-era global warming not being the result of a 3500-year cycle:
The GISP2 image you linked is irrelevant. GISP2 is for one location in Greenland, not the globe. And GISP2 ends by 1855, i.e. by 95 years before present, where “present” means 1950. So GISP2 does not include most industrial-era global warming. Dave Farina cites sources on that from 39:54 of this video.
And people have told you multiple times why it’s clear that changes in solar output did not drive most industrial-era global warming, especially warming since the 1960s (ex: reduction in total solar irradiance, stratospheric cooling that increases with increasing height, mesospheric cooling, thermospheric cooling, reduction in diurnal temperature range). I’ve explained this to you on Twitter/X. Strange that you’re here acting like people have not answered you on this.
All, thanks for taking the time to reply. Your replies are exactly what I expected from the regulars on this site. My highest hope was that at least one person here would exhibit intellectual honesty and curiosity and openly admit they found the result interesting. Oh well.
BTW, as I’m still trying to figure out how variations in solar activity only affect temperatures at one site in Greenland, I chose not to mention that the 3500-year pattern can also be found in the IntCal20 data
Have a great day.
RC: My highest hope was that at least one person here would exhibit intellectual honesty and curiosity and openly admit they found the result interesting.
BPL: Nope. Not one person here has your kind of intellectual integrity.
Robert Cutler said:
”
Alas, some of us have tried, but you intentionally closed the discussion at your GitHub repo forum. I recommended that you try cross-validation here:
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/issues/2
You can’t have it both ways. Griping about not getting feedback and then getting uppity about the feedback and doing the equivalent of blocking. Good luck trying to get it published with that attitude.
BTW, nice programming structure. Clear that you have some skill at that. But put something up on GitHub and be prepare to get some feedback.
It’s a shame that Paul forced me to block everyone from posting issues on my GitHub account.
I had politely requested that he only post issues related to the code. He chose not to honor my request and then posted on this site, as a reply to my comment, an open call for people to spam my Github account with criticisms.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/#comment-814516
I never block for a difference of opinion, but I won’t tolerate people who lack civility.
Robert Cutler, Analyze the following time series of ordered pairs {t,y}
1,2
2,7
3,1
4,8
5,2
6,8
7,1
8,8
9,2
10,8
Is this series periodic? If so, what is the period? Predict the next y value to occur in the series. Then we can discuss periodic forcings.
Seriously Ray? Took about 2 seconds. Would have take one, but I wasn’t sure if the comma was a decimal point.
exp(1) = 2.7182818284590500
Let’s address my plot now . Do you see any periodicity? If so, how do you explain it? I’ll add that the data can be shifted two 3500-year cycles and is still matches, except that warming ends in 2150 instead of 2200.
I looked at your plot. I agree with Paul Pukite. It’s a quasi-cycle. It is completely out of phase at roughly 3400 and 1600 BCE, with a maximum juxtaposed to a minimum, in addition to the modern period. To convince me you’re onto something, you’d need to come up with a compelling physical mechanism for why your cycle works some of the time, and is completely the opposite of what happened at other times.
I say “compelling” because post hoc explanations for why and when a purported cycle fails to hold up are generally balderdash.
With that kind of erratic behavior, you’d need a lot of cycles to do a statistical analysis that showed you weren’t just eyeballing a curve to find a piece of it that pleased your fancy.
John Pollack, there’s little doubt in my mind that the Jovian planets modulate solar activity, exactly how I don’t know; there’s much we don’t understand about the Sun.
The interactions of the Sun and Jovian planets are quite complicated, and time-varying. There are many cycles with similar periods that cluster around solar system resonances. For example, I’ve identified at least 6 different 900-year “Eddy” cycles. The 3500-year cycle involves four of those 900-year cycles interacting with other cycle patterns I’ve also identified.
This plot is provided only as an example of complexities I’m exploring; it captures one type of orbital interaction.
https://localartist.org/media/GISP2corr.png
The exact 3500-year value I use for plotting is derived from the orbits of the Sun and planets as estimated in JPL Horizons solar system data. I never tweaked the cycle length to match the ice-core data. I wouldn’t describe the 3500-year cycle as a post hoc explanation; I found the cycle pattern in orbital data and then went looking for it in the GISP2 ice-core records.
I have reason to suspect the 3500-year cycle is actually a harmonic of a much longer cycle, so when I saw the out-of-phase sections my first thought was to double-shift the temperature record. Of course, there isn’t enough Holocene data to get much of an overlap after a double shift, so the phase-inverted sections are currently unexplained. While unexplained, they are not out of character for the types of interactions found in orbital data.
What’s interesting is that, while a 3500-year shift did not provide any alignment of D-O events, a double shift did produce an interesting result which may be partially explained by interactions with one of the many 1500-year cycles I’ve also identified.
https://localartist.org/media/temperature_sliding2x.gif
For convenience, here’s the 3500-year shift posted earlier.
https://localartist.org/media/temperature_sliding.gif
Robert Cutler, have fun, but be aware that you are on a well-trodden path. There is a long history of trying to connect earthly weather and climate to variations the sun and other solar system bodies, mostly fruitless. The outstanding exception is the verification of Milankovitch cycles detailed in the classic Science paper “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages” by Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton https://doi.org/10.1126/science.194.4270.1121
Their research featured a thorough spectral analysis conducted on long sediment cores –
well before the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores became available.
Piotr, I appreciate it that you are covering more of the many missing causal links and fallacies in Robert Cutler’s overall chain of reasoning.
I decided to focus on the cycles because I have had a lot of experience with cycle hunters in meteorology. Cycles hold a strong fascination for some people. Perhaps it is because they can be easy to find, but tend to be very loosely connected with physical causes. That also means they usually fail when tested. A weather forecaster gets a fast education when basing long-range predictions on cycles. One ends up being totally, ridiculously wrong if they aren’t causally rooted. That’s why I was noting that some of Cutler’s 3500 year offset peaks corresponded to troughs. That’s a big warning sign that you’re on the wrong track.
The proposed 3500 year cycle is also testable by using other data, such as ocean sediment cores or tree rings. If a significant modulation in solar output was occurring, it should also show up in systemic variations in the calibration between radiocarbon dating and absolute dates.
Of course, there are real cycles (other than the obvious seasonal and diurnal ones) that are causally rooted, but subject to enough noise that the outcomes aren’t always consistent in timing or effects, such as ENSO and the QBO.
Cycle hunting isn’t confined to meteorology, either. Financial predictions and astrology come to mind. If a cycle doesn’t work out, the hunter tends to keep on looking, or shift the goalposts, rather than questioning the method. I expect nothing different in this case.
So far no one has offered an alternative explanation for the periodicity in the GISP2 ice-core data. That leaves the orbits of the Sun and Jovian planets as the best explanation.
Before anyone starts to attack the GISP2 data, consider that the same periodicity can be found to varying degrees in other proxies, at different locations, using different dating methods. Note the same phase inversion in both proxies at -1550 BC,
https://localartist.org/media/TiancaiLakeGISP23500.png
As for Milankovitch cycles, they don’t explain a 70k-year cycle so people generally ignore that spectral line in their data. They also usually ignore the 400k-year rmodulation on eccentricity. It’s not difficult for me to predict that many of you will choose to ignore periodicities in climate data. That won’t make them go away.
Here’s my 3-cycle harmonic model of the glacial cycle.
https://localartist.org/media/EPICA3term2.png
Here’s a 12-cycle model that I built to better estimate the cycle periods.
https://localartist.org/media/EPICA12term.png
To promote the Robert Cutler 3.5k GISP2 cycle into something more than an exercise in curve-fitting will, I would suggest, take a bit more work than he appears to think.
The idea that this 3.5ky cycle originates from consideration of a 3.5ky cycle found elsewhere should be encouraging. (That is, if it were purely some theorising initiated by spotting this 3.5ky ‘cycle’ in the GISP2 data, it would not be. So seeing talk of planets being “the best explanation” is not encouraging.)
But that’s about the sum total of the encouraging news.
❶ This GISP2 data doesn’t extend much beyond a single cycle before the ice age appears. Mind, there are bits of this GISP2 temperature record pre-Holocene that isn’t all Dansgaard–Oeschger events, bits long enough to potentially show these alleged 3.5k cold periods and any other wobbles considered part of the cycle. That would surely be better analysis than the mentioned attempts to line up the actual Dansgaard–Oeschger events.
❷ There is the problem mentioned up-thread by Robert Cutler of these wobbles are “only affect … one site in Greenland.” And it’s perhaps not just a “one site” problem. This data provided by The Arctic Data Center includes NGRIP & NEEM ice core data from other Greenland sites with those prominent cold wobbles appearing far noisier (along with slower warming into the Holocene), wobbles which are also far noisier in the GRIP2 data presented. (See Fig 1 of Martin et al (2024) although Fig 2 is probably clearer.)
❸ If there is a sign of the cycle appearing in IntCal20 data as stated up-thread, it does need properly presenting. (I don’t see the Lake Tiancai data as convincing.)
❹ The NEEM data does run back to the Eemian. Would it show any signs of a 3.5ky cycle back then when the Holocene data apparently does not?
❺ It isn’t clear what parts of the similarities of the GISP2 series presented are being lauded as part of the 3.5ky cycle. And given the cycle is seen as being a “3500-year cycle involves four … 900-year cycles interacting with other cycle patterns,” setting out exactly what is being seen as part of the cycle is surely required.
The similarities of the GISP2 data when shifted 3.5ky makes for an interesting feature but making more of it does require a lot more work.
You’ve never studied Fourrier analysis, have you?
It’s just climastrology and mechanism-free curve fitting that requires willfully ignoring evidence debunking it.
John Pollack 8 Nov: “ Robert Cutler. […]there is a long history of trying to connect earthly weather and climate to variations the sun and other solar system bodies, mostly fruitless. The outstanding exception is the verification of Milankovitch cycles detailed in the classic Science paper “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages” by Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton https://doi.org/10.1126/science.194.4270.1121
John, because of the intellectual capacity of Robert Cutler, you probably should have been explicit in pointing that this “ exceptional verification of Milankovitch cycles” DOES NOT offer any support R. Cutler’ attempt to disprove human responsibility for the AGW, as clearly stated in his opening thesis:
R, Cutler: ” We appear to be living in a variation of the Minoan Warm Period. ”
Sliding a graph of an only tangentially relevant data to the right, Mr. Cutler – proves nothing.
Other than perhaps – the similarity to that famous “Family Guy” Peter Griffin maneuver ? ;-)
But back to your main reason for being here: the intellectual FRAUD you promote with your
” We appear to be living in a variation of the Minoan Warm Period:
1. relies on the fallacy that if climate had changed before human impact then humans can’t possibly change the climate. That’s akin to saying that an arsonist caught with two empty gas cans, his eyebrows singed, at the origin of a forest fires – COULDN’T POSSIBLY started this fire because “fires had been burning long before humans”
2. relies on missing the reality that large changes in T in the past despite limited change in the amount of solar energy arriving at Earth – point to the importance of FEEDBACKs in amplifying even small external signals. And since these feedbacks (particularly ice albedo and water cycle feedbacks) are still in place today – having massively amplified the past small changes in solar forcing, they also amplify TODAY the (much larger!) forcing by human emissions of GHGs.
Therefore, the lesson from prehuman warming periods is OPPOSITE to that promoted by the deniers – it proves that today’s climate is MUCH MORE, not less, sensitive to human actions. As already seen in the CERES data – the warming from the increasing GHGs has been greatly AMPLIFIED by the cloud feedback.
3. relies on NOT providing the non-human MECHANISM that would have caused the sharp increase in global temperature in the last 50+ years
4. relies on comparing apples and watermelons – LOCAL is not GLOBAL, Mr. Cutler, ergo you CAN’T compare the magnitude and rate of LOCAL warming in …. some location on Greenland, with the magnitude and rate of the GLOBAL warming measured over the entire globe – you can’t pretend that these are comparable data.
I guess the peer-review of your fellow professional climatologists from
“https://localartist.org” didn’t pick on that last point, eh? ;-)
In Re to Piotr, 9 Nov 2025 at 12:44 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841831
Hallo Piotr,
With respect to your point 2, you know that I speculated that present climate sensitivity may be higher not only in comparison with pre-human climate but that it could change (increase) even during holocene. Anyway, there seems to be no study yet directly addressing this question, and the dispute between “hansenites” and supporters of a moderate climate sensitivity suggests that both opposite camps basically suppose a constant climate sensitivity at least during holocene.
Recently, I had an exchange with a climate modeller who confirmed that designing a study directed to my question (how strongly terrestrial hydrological regime influences climate sensitivity) is a technically feasible task, although not easy. He told me that it is rather question of sufficient resources.
Greetings
Tomáš
Re. “…there’s little doubt in my mind that the Jovian planets modulate solar activity, exactly how I don’t know; there’s much we don’t understand about the Sun. ”
The fact that there is little doubt in your mind over said hypothesis is your problem.
Again, which specific solar parameters have changed? By how much? In which direction? Through what mechanism?
As one of my profs was wont to say, “Labor in the laboratory is valuable. Oratory is not.” Nor is “thinking” with “little doubt”.
MA Rodger
I’ve plotted the data you referenced. Do you see any evidence of an underlying 3500-year periodicity?
Note that the GISP2 data is a different temperature reconstruction from the one I used before.
https://localartist.org/media/NGRIPCores3500shift.png
Robert Cutler,
As I set out within my previous comment on this issue (saying ” It isn’t clear what parts of the similarities of the GISP2 series presented are being lauded as part of the 3.5ky cycle.”), what you mean by “peroidicity” requires explanation. This remains an important omission.
As you perhaps might expect, the version of GISP2 temperature reconstruction presented by ‘Arctic Data Center’ doesn’t really show much general difference relative to the NOAA/WDS version you previously presented. (The NOAA/WDS version was more smoothed and the calibration of both temperature and time had been tweaked differently.) So if you ‘see’ this periodicity in the NOAA/WDS version, it will likely still be visible in the ‘Arctic Data Center’ version.
Whether these “peroidicity” features remain ‘significant’ is another matter.
Presumably what is the major 3.5ky feature, the three temperature dips at 8.2ky, 4.7ky & 1.2ky bp; this feature of “peroidicity” does take a significant hit with this ‘Arctic Data Center’ version. (See graphic of comparison HERE POSTED 12/11/2025) The three wobbles were quite prominent in the NOAA/WDS version, showing as the three coldest periods of the last 10ky. In the ‘Arctic Data Center’ version, the most recent pair are almost disappeared into the general series of wobbles. (They are entirely disappeared in the NGRIP & NEEM ice core records.)
Meanwhile the earliest one at 8.2ky remains prominent, not only in GISP2, but also NGRIP and NEEM. This should be no surprise. It is a reasonably well known event with a global footprint. It even has its own Wikki page with no mention there of this cooling being associated with a 3.5ky cycle but rather it (and the associated SLR) are seen as resulting from melt-water lake discharge.
My conclusion remains unchanged – establishing the existence of a planetary 3.5ky cycle showing within climate data “does require a lot more work.”
MA Rodger, I assumed the meaning of periodicity was clear in the context of the data presentation. I apologize if it wasn’t.
I’m not talking about a individual features like the temperature dips. Though if you look at the left set of plots you’ll see that sudden warming at the end of the Younger-Dryas (9700BC) lines up within 100-years of the warming of the “8.2k event” at 6200BC.
The shifted 6200BC event lines up with the dip at 2700BC. One more shift gets to 800AD also known as the Dark Ages. A little less than 900-years later, the LIA lines up with a shifted 1900BC cool period.
What I’m actually trying to show is that much of the pattern in a site’s temperature proxy repeats after 3500 years. Here’s an expanded graph to make it easier to see. The right-hand plots now only display the last 3000 years. The repetition is especially easy to see in the NGRIP data (center, right plot).
Expanded: https://localartist.org/media/NGRIPCores3500shiftZoom.png
Full: https://localartist.org/media/NGRIPCores3500shift.png
When looking at this data, bear in mind that the exact 3500-year shift that I use was chosen based on the Sun and Jovian orbits. It has not been fit to the data; all plots are shifted by the same value.
The amplitudes of the shifted features are less of a concern than the timing. The state of planet has been changing since the start of the Holocene, so I don’t expect perfect matches. I also suspect that the solar cycle rhymes rather than repeats every 3500 years; there are much longer cycles involved. Now throw in proxy uncertainties and it’s actually pretty amazing that the match is as good as it is.
Robert Cutler,
The “meaning of periodicity” was unclear and this remains the situation. You say you are “not talking about a individual features like the temperature dips” and “what I’m actually trying to show is that much of the pattern in a site’s temperature proxy repeats after 3500 years.”
One point that is raised by your last comment is the actual cycle length of this periodicity. It is being driven by planets that orbit like metronomes. Okay, this is then filtered by solar activity which may not sync in immediately with the metronomic driving and this may lead to short delays or perhaps even a mis-firing of the driving event. Whether, as your comment appears to suggest, ‘delays’ could stretch to “within 100 years” seems a bit too much of a stretch to me.
But all that said, what is the metronomic cyclic length? Maybe it is exactly 3,500 years but I would assume that this nice round number is a short-handed approximation for an actual length. So what is that exact cycle length?
As for this “meaning of periodicity,” at one extreme it could be a cycle of planetary tides that are actually defining the level of solar activity, the ‘full pattern’ version. At the other extreme, it could be simply one or more events that give the solar activity a kick every cycle, the ‘singular/occasional event’ version.
You say you are ” trying to show … that much of the pattern in a site’s temperature proxy repeats after 3500 years” and that you are “not talking about a individual features like the temperature dips.” This suggests you are favouring more of a ‘full pattern’ version.
However, the “meaning of periodicity” you are proposing cannot be assumed and does require defining.
MA Rodger
The cycle has a very precise value which will be made public at some point in time. If anyone wanted to reverse engineer the cycle from proxy data, or my plots, they could probably get within 10-20 years of the number. That would be accurate enough for anyone with an ounce of motivation and basic spreadsheet skills to go looking at other proxies.
The “within 100 years” comment is specific to Younger-Dryas. The Earth was coming out of a much longer cold state so a bit longer warming delay is to be expected.
The 3.5kyr pattern mostly repeats. As I said, there are longer cycles involved.
The solar system is best thought of as a self-organizing resonant system which includes the Sun as a resonant element. This is why Neptune, which has no chance of solar tidal forcing due to the distance, still plays a significant role in modulating solar activity. While orbits are elliptical, planetary conjunctions are impulsive. Bell and striker.
https://localartist.org/media/BarySpectrum2.png
” cycle of planetary tides”
Please recall that the amplitude of planetary tides as compared to lunar tides directly on the Earth is 10,000X less. Now, the planets do have a bigger effect on the Sun obviously, but as has been said, this is also a secondary effect, as the planets can only impact the processes of the magneto-dynamo — and that’s a research problem that will have to be solved independently before it is mature enough to have any impact on climate prediction.
Just imagine if the Sun did have a satellite orbiting it that had the relative impact that the Moon had on the earth? What would that do to the Sun? What would a Jupiter orbiting at 0.076 AU — inside Mercury’s orbit, extremely close to the Sun (roughly ⅕ Mercury’s distance) cause? Enormous disruption would be the least of it.
Which gets to the elephant in the room — the impact of lunar and solar tides on the Earth is so big and the nonlinear response so strong that all the cycles have folded and aliased many times over and that’s why Earth scientists treat the whole topic with a 20 foot pole. Or do they even realize this, and instead naively think that because the cycles don’t match the conventional tidal periods, it can’t be lunar? Richard Lindzen was the originator of the latter belief, having written extensively on this topic in the late 1960s and 1970s. Blame him.
Mathematicians and physicists studying fluid dynamics will dive right in to try to solve these kinds of problems. Consider the Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics algorithm:
https://github.com/pukpr/pukpr.github.io/tree/master/examples/pysindy
RC: Neptune, which has no chance of solar tidal forcing due to the distance, still plays a significant role in modulating solar activity.
BPL: I’ll believe it when I see it. Submit your work to a peer-reviewed journal; then we’ll talk.
Robert Cutler,
Given your reply above, I would suggest that you are prematurely come here as you evidently have yet to collect all your solar cycle findings and properly set out your ducks in a row. Here is not the place for such premature discussion as the data being presented extends beyond climatic data which is so inconveniently polluted by ice-ages. Indeed the available data extends so far that the climatic data does not feature in, for instance, Wu et al (2018) ‘Solar activity over nine millennia: A consistent multi-proxy reconstruction’.
And while you may find a shifting of their decadal sunspot reconstruction by 3,500-or-so years (as per the graphic here – POSTED 16th November 2025), be mindful that there are folk (eg Cameron & Schüssler (2019)) who raise the potential for ‘coincidence’ within such data series and suggest it is possible (or even likely) that the 11-year Schwabe Cycle is the only real cycle and that all the other putative cycles are due to intermittent stochastic variation within the cycle. (Your illusive ~3,500y cycle is longer than those considered thus.)
MA Rodger
I started with this animation showing what happens with a 3.5kry shift:
https://localartist.org/media/temperature_sliding.gif
I then presented what happens with twice that shift:
https://localartist.org/media/temperature_sliding2x.gif
I then evaluated data from different sites:
https://localartist.org/media/NGRIPCores3500shift.png
You’re not really interested in whether the offset is 3.500 or 3.501 kyrs, And to be honest, it doesn’t matter. If I’d discovered the cycle in the temperature data first, I’d be searching for it in orbital data because there’s nothing on earth that can keep a beat that accurately.
I haven’t evaluated the Wu data, but I have performed the same offset analysis on a TSI reconstruction by (Steinhilber 2009). It’s also based on 10Be data from ice cores. It confirms the 3.5k pattern, complete with a phase inversion between 1500 and 2000 BC.
I doubt you believe my results are coincidence. You’re smarter than that. If I was randomly shifting a noisy time series looking for correlation I might entertain some of your comments. I’m not even fine tuning the offset. Your arguments don’t apply.
I think we’re done here. Thanks for the conversation.
So you again failed in your attempts to disinform.
Robert Cutler My highest hope was that at least one person here would exhibit intellectual honesty and curiosity and openly admit they found the result interesting. Oh well.
i.e.:
– Robert Cutler: “2+2 = 13.65″
– people on RC: ” this is wrong”
– Robert Cutler: “not a single person here have exhibited intellectual honesty and curiosity to admit that they found the result interesting. Oh well”
In the thread on the putative vanishing sea ice, I flippantly cited “Clippy” as an example of the poor judgment shown in the past by Bill Gates (to be fair, he’s also made some good decisions–e.g. identifying malaria as a serious obstacle to development in the tropics). But there is a reason why Clippy has been on my mind–namely, that the current dominant AI models–Large Language Models (LLM)–really are only about two evolutionary steps beyond Clippy, while at the same time consuming VAST amounts of energy.
I am actually a fan of AI–I think it is potentially a tremendous boon for society. However, I think the reliance on LLMs and efforts to turn LLMs into a Artificial General Super-Intelligence are a big mistake. First, LLMs are inherently susceptible to hallucinations–that is, when they get beyond the constraints imposed by their training dataset, they start to bullshit. Add to this that in general, their training dataset is limited to easily accessible, public domain material, and you have a technology that can produce a competent but shallow survey of just about any topic, but is completely unreliable if you try to dig deeper. Indeed, I could get the same from an average college sophomore with a term paper due the following day. And all this at a huge cost in electronics, dollars and energy–not to mention unemployment of all those college sophomores and their equivalents.
Add to this the possible harms that can come if these models are ever in situations where they are really in control. Imagine an AI with a boss like Elon Musk in charge of the nuclear arsenal suddenly becoming a “Mechahitler”. The absolute last thing we need is an glitchy AI revolution pushed forward by billionaires who are advocating it simply because it is the “next big thing”.
I’d like to introduce a topic here that was pounded into our heads when I was in the Peace Corps: Appropriate Technology (AT). AT was the basic idea that there was an optimal technological solution for a problem in a given society. It didn’t have to be brand new or shiny. It just had to work and benefit the society over all without subverting the values of the society generally. Why install photovoltaics to drive blowers to dehydrate and preserve the season’s excess mango crop when you could use passive solar food driers at a fraction of the cost that would be available to everyone?
In the same sense, why implement an Artificial super-intelligence that doesn’t significantly outperform the average human worker and even more important doesn’t give you anything innovative and beneficial. There are AI technologies out there that are already producing new drugs and new materials that would be effectively impossible to develop with the human mind just due to the volume of calculations required. However, these are not broad, but instead, specialized AIs–supplementing rather than replacing human brains. The human brain is already a pretty good general intelligence. We don’t need one made of silicon. What we need is appropriate AI technology.
The same also applies to industrialization of developing countries. If they choose appropriate technologies that bring benefits to the whole population, they can reach prosperity without making the same mistakes the current crop of industrial countries have made. There is no reason for them to match us in terms of per capita energy consumption. There is no reason for them to produce energy with the same obsolete, polluting technologies we do. There is no reason for capital and wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few. There is no reason why a path to prosperity–true prosperity–cannot be sustainable.
Yes! Thank you for making these points; I agree that’s a sensible/rational/moral approach. ( ) (See also/cont. from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/unforced-variations-sep-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-839785 … https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/unforced-variations-sep-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-840054 ,
“We’ve Lost Control of AI” – SciShow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90C3XVjUMqE )
(I do wonder if AI art would be of particular benefit to people with mind-blindness.???)
Thanks for the SciShow reference. He’s particularly good.
I think that Bill Gates represents the nicer end of the “business as usual” spectrum that is in an enormous race to develop LLMs into an AGI system. As you noted, they are willing to enlist absolutely huge amounts of energy to run the necessary data centers. That extra energy will be coming mostly from fossil fuels for at least the next 5-10 years ( and probably a lot longer if modular nukes don’t work out to power them.)
The clearest picture emerges if you look at the amount of money being spent. From the front page of the Nov. 1-2 WSJ “Silicon Valley’s largest companies are already planning to pour $400 billion into artificial intelligence efforts this year. They all say it’s nowhere near enough.” Contrast that to the amount of money being spent on food and health assistance to poor nations, scientific research, green energy, climate mitigation, or just about anything else. This spending dwarfs anything short of the governmental spending to maintain the current human power structure through military and social programs.
Why spend so much money? Aside from the sci-fi version of idolatry in attempting to construct a mighty AGI computer, it comes down to owning the means of production. If I can replace a bunch of workers with a machine that appears to be under my corporate control, it’s an exciting project worth the money and effort. At the mere prospect, all thoughts of staying within any bounds on FF emissions have been quickly abandoned. As a side project, or maybe just a necessary sop, we can throw enough money at the poor to keep them more-or-less quiet. Or maybe it would just be cheaper to bring in the troops when the riots start.
I don’t see how you get to appropriate AI technology from where we’re heading.
Ray , in correctly focusing on LLM training as an obstacle to AGI evolution :
“In general, their training dataset is limited to easily accessible, public domain material, ”
you may be overlooking one serious constraint- training datasets are limited to and skewed in favor materials that are physically robust enough to scan and upload, and concentrated in libraries and archives using commonplace cataloging systems.
The economic constraints than limit journal access to most of the quarter of a million or more in print also keep much of the science published before the rise of the internet out of circulation.
Opinion piece by George Monbiot yesterday in The Guardian expands nicely on points Ray and several of us have made about Gates’ motivations and reasoning in writing his letter to the COP30 folks.
Amongst the links in the article was one to a study published a few years ago in Perspectives in Politics which “found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the great majority.” Not exactly a shocking revelation of course, but the study offers insights into these folks thinking I thought might be interesting and seems (imo) to be just as, if not more so, prevalent today.
“Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans
Benjamin I. Page, Larry M. Bartels, and Jason Seawright
https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/jnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf
Link to The Guardian article:
“I wish we could ignore Bill Gates on the climate crisis. But he’s a billionaire, so we can’t”
George Monbiot Last modified on Sat 8 Nov 2025 07.43 EST
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/08/bill-gates-climate-crisis-billionaire-essay-cop30
A question on the idea of climate change mitigation and/or coral reef protection by artificial hydrosol creation, described in the article “Bright Water: Hydrosols, Water Conservation and Climate Change”
https://bravenewclimate.com/files/bitstream/handle/1/4737323/seitz_brightwater_sequence-1.pdf
and in patent application US 2010/282441
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100282441A1/en
mentioned by
Russell Seitz, 10 Aug 2025 at 2:56 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/#comment-837289
—
Dear Dr. Seitz,
In your comment of 18 Aug 2025 at 7:53 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/the-endangerment-of-the-endangerment-finding/comment-page-2/#comment-837873 ,
you refer to Dr. Thomas Goreau allegedly pursuing (or having pursued) your idea.
As I think that the proposed concept definitely deserves a practical proof, I tried to find out if the idea has already been tested in a field experiment. Although Dr. Goreau indeed seemed to consider the idea,
https://globalcoral.org/_oldgcra/ring_of_bright_water.html
a report on coral protection from the year 2018
https://sites.rutgers.edu/coralbase/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2019/02/NAS-interim-report.pdf
does not mention any field experiments already arranged to prove this concept.
A Perplexity search that I made additionally for field experiments directed to coral reef protection also failed to reveal any information that your proposal has been pursued further.
Are you sure that it has been (or is being) examined, irrespective whether by Dr. Goreau or by anyone else?
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
Here is the ResearchGate link page for the 2011 Climatic Change paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225164197_Bright_water_Hydrosols_water_conservation_and_climate_change/citations?latestCitations=PB%3A397304964
the present citation count is 98. At last account Tom Goreau was focused on coral restoration in the SE Caribbean in the wake of Hurricane Beryl
Russell Seitz Here is the ResearchGate link page for the 2011 Climatic Change paper
the devil in geoengineering is in the details:
– any proof-of concept ocean experiments that the microbubbles can be created and sustained in an effective way? Or do you rely on the non-existing yet technologies?
– what’s the effect of the reducing solar radiation entering the water on marine life (brightening of the ocean surface comes at the cost of darkening of the water column)?
– What’s the effect on ocean stratification?
– Wouldn’t one of your selling points, the reduction in evaporation, cause … fewer clouds, and thus offset some? all? increase in the water albedo, if not outweighing it and therefore causing a net warming?
All that in addition to the common criticisms applying to ANY geoengineering scheme (not resulting in the GHG reduction) – of not addressing (and in fact demotivating for addressing) ocean acidification, and the need to sustain it forever – the moment you stop – all the pent-up heating potential no longer masked by the elevated albedo would rapidly increase GMST, thus robbing species the time to adapt to the much warmer conditions?
But heck, at least it beats Mr. KiA idea of covering the ocean with 4-5 feet thick plates of styrofoam, reinforced with plastic or fiberglass … ;-)
in Re to Piotr, 11 Nov 2025 at 12:03 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841920
Hallo Piotr,
I share your doubts about solar radiation management (SRM), and would like to add the objection raised by professor Axel Kleidon, who infers from thermodynamics that “cancellation” of the Earth energy imbalance caused by greenhouse gases by shading Earth with mirrors or aerosols would have been on expense of a global water cycle weakening. It is strange that this objection seems to be mostly ignored in reports and/or review articles dealing with SRM.
For me, the idea proposed by Dr. Seitz seemed to be, however, still appealing, due to its potential applicability on a local or regional scale only – e.g. in ponds, or for coral reef protection.
That is why I still think that it might deserve a proof in field experiments and strive to learn why it has not happened yet.
Greetings
Tomáš
in Re to Russell Seitz, 10 Nov 2025 at 4:46 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841876
Dear Russell,
Thank you very much for your reply and for the provided link.
I have checked the references, however, have not found a mention about testing your proposal in a practical field experiment.
I suppose that if your company Microbubbles caried out at least some tests in ponds, e.g. to prevent undesired evaporation of water stored for irrigation
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325150235_Engineer_solar_solutions_locally_to_save_water
the respective results could have also provided a strong incentive for further testing in marine environments. Unfortunately, I have not found any relevant information on your company website.
May I ask what impeded or prevented such experiments? Was it lack of interest from potential customers / public authorities / grant agencies, and related lack of funding?
Best regards
Tomáš
re Paul Pukite : https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-841266 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-841316
(see https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-841301 )
1 The Orbital/Rotational Geometry:
In the oscillation of lunar declination δ (the latitude of the sublunar point on Earth (point at which Moon appears directly overhead ie. at zenith)), the tropical month is dominant. If the Moon’s orbit were not inclined 4.99° – 5.30° to Earth’s orbit around the Sun (ecliptic), δ would oscillate (not exactly sinusoidally, AFAICT) from −23.44° to +23.44° and back over a tropical month. The draconic month is superimposed on this, creating a ~ 1/18.6 yr beat frequency ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Inclination_to_the_equator_and_lunar_standstill ) – it’s not simply a linear superposition of two (not exactly*? sinusoidal) components, though; eg. as I recall from one of my earlier explanations on the matter, there is a timing wobble over the 18.6 yr period.
(apr-2024/#comment-820883 , dec-2024/#comment-828414 , /#comment-828125 )
You could try to argue that some part of the system is simply more responsive to one frequency than another, but your mathematical symmetry justification is just not justified. In addition to two principle contributions to a δ cycle, there’s the anomalistic month. Any modulation cycle of either the semidiurnal and diurnal tidal components as well as the zonally-symmetric component would (aside from geographical/etc. effects) also be zonally symmetric in principle – the first two are not zonally symmetric at any one time, but consider their effects integrated over their cycles (solar and lunar days and half days (as seen on Earth)) (see 2nd -next paragraph).
Note the helical paths (δ of Moon and Sun, and sublunar/subsolar longitude on Earth(‘s rotating frame of reference)).
2 Tidal bulge shape (see also end of comment)
The ‘raw’(*1) equilibrium tidal bulges (RETB) (ie. the local vertical displacement h of surfaces of constant gravitational potential energy per unit mass), in linear(*2) approx., can be decomposed into a semidiurnal, diurnal, and zonally-symmetric component; the amplitude of the semidiurnal part is maximum at δ=0°, and goes to 0 as δ goes to ±90°; The diurnal part is max. at δ = ±45°, going to 0 as δ goes to 0°, ±90°. zonally-symmetric component amplitude is 0 at δ or ø = ½ acos(⅓) ≈ 35.2644°, reversing sign across those values (As neither the Moon nor Sun ever exceeds δ = ±30°, we can note that the minimum amplitude of this part occurs at the lunistices (esp. major standstills) and solstices, respectively; also, the range is therefore less than the amplitude at δ = 0°).
None of these components have a zonally-average that is asymmetric across the equator, because of course they add to form a tidal bulge shape (RETB) that has mirror symmetry across the low tide great circle (α = 90°). But this is from a linear(*2) approx., which has errors. For (RETB linear approx.) A ≈ maybe ~ 53 or 54 cm (lunar; solar A is a bit less than half of lunar A AIUI at least for average R_EM (Earth-Moon) = 385,000 km and…)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon# :
average R_EM (Earth-Moon) = 385,000 km
R_EM semi-major axis = R_EM0 = 384,748 km
R_EM apogee = 405,507 km
R_EM max. apogee = 406,700 km
R_EM perigee= 363,300 km
R_EM min. perigee = 356400 km
Using R_EM min. perigee ≈ 0.926 R_EM0 ≈ about 55.9 Earth radii = (R_EM / r),
[ (R_EM / r) ±1 ] ÷(R_EM / r) ≈ 1.0179, 0.9821 (dif. ∆≈ 0.0358);
squares and their ∆: 1.0361 , 0.965 , 0.072
cubes and their ∆: 1.055 , 0.9473 , 0.107
and the ratio of the cubes R_EM0³/ R_EMmin.perigee³ ≈ 1.26
So we can
Multiply the original A (~54 cm) by 1.26 , getting 68 cm
For a rough estimate of the difference in the two high tide’s h, I’d take (10.7 % of A) ÷ √2 to get 7.57 cm.
But the difference in mass will be smaller because the closer bulge has less area. Based on the shift in the low tide, sin(∆α) = r/R_EM ≈ 0.0179 is a fraction of hemisphere that is shifted from one side to the other of the low tide (?**)(***based on where a ray from the Moon is tangent to Earth’s surface), so the closer bulge would be (1−r/R_EM) ÷ (1+r/R_EM) ≈ 0.965 of the farther in terms of area, but actually less than that because the deformation would be smooth (the whole low tide band would shift and the difference in areas of higher tide would be proportionately greater)… going by area covering a solid angle as seen from the Moon’s center, … 1.107÷√2 * [(0.965÷1.0361)÷√2] ≈ 1.031 (if I used ratios 1.055/0.9473 * (0.965÷1.0361), I get 1.036 ) … so maybe 3.6 % of 68 cm … 2.448 cm effective equivalent ∆h … but in case I screwed that up, let’s try 7.57 cm. 7.57 over, um, maybe ~1/4 of a hemisphere (=pi*r^2), moving through a great circle of … say 10 km height (10 km * 2*pi*r), that’s a displacement of ~ 7.57 cm * (6371 km or … use 6378 km) / 20 km = 24.141 m. Multiply by an f = 1E−4 per s (characteristic of midlatitudes) to get 2.4 mm/s, which is ~ 1/10,000 the amplitude of the QBO if I recall correctly. (And f is smaller towards the equator, and δ would remain within ±30° so some of the asymmetry would be lost in the zonal average. Also, the tidal forcing on the atmosphere depends on the equilibrium tidal bulge (ETB) minus the underlying response of the solid and liquid Earth, although there’s some gravitional feedback from the tidal mass, and it won’t be aligned perfectly with ETB (time lag, geography/inhomgenieties), etc.)
OTOH, if we consider the displacement for the zonally-symmetric tide…
———————-
(*1) ‘raw’(*1) equilibrium tide link texthttps://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817865 :
“h = height of equilibrium tide (displacement of geopotential surface which would be at sea level), without feedback from gravity of tides”
(lost track of link:) “A is ‘raw’ equilibrium bulge height = difference between highest and lowest displacements of a geopotential surface, not including gravitational feedback (of the mass redistribution caused by/of the tides”
(*2) linear approx. uses the gradient of the components of the Moon’s (or other tide-raising mass’s) gravitational acceleration/field g_m, evaluated at the center of the Earth (where g_m = g_m0), to compute the spatial variation in g’(r,ø,λ) = g_m−g_m0.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817865 :
Patrick, Why are you torturing yourself with those scribbles? Look, my GFD argument hinges on impulse driven alignment of the seasonal cycle with a strong lunar component. Guess what? It’s the same sort of alignment that occurs with generic (i.e. non-location-specific) lunar eclipse modes. Out of the tropical, anomalistic, and draconic lunar cycles, it’s well known that only the draconic cycle sets the synchronization. IOW, lunar eclipse modes are fundamentally aligned to the draconic cycle, because node alignment is the geometrical precondition for eclipses. You can argue to your heart’s content that only the tropical cycle has any significance, but all I’m doing is pointing out that wavenumber=0 phenomena such as QBO are much more tuned to the aliased draconic/annual cycle. As it should be, because QBO is also independent of longitudinal location. (also for the geophysical Chandler wobble, as I am also rightly proud to have discovered)
This is a YouTube animation I made showing the pattern of when the QBO reversal kicks in:
https://youtu.be/KHX6xBEcUcU
Now, for the other indices that I am modeling, ranging from the geospatially narrow sea-level sites to the wider ENSO climate indices, a mix of tropical and draconic cycles play more of a role. This always leads to a clear 18.6 year cycle in the overall modulation, with the anomalistic cycle also showing a significant component, often showing a an additional 6 year or 4.4 year modulation. The 6-year modulation is a beat frequency between the draconic cycle and the anomalistic cycle. Significantly this 6-year cycle is under intense scrutiny as being unexplained in several global instrumental readings =>
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Earth+%226-year-cycle%22
But will they even consider a lunar causal factor? No, and I’ve tried as a part of the open review process on several of these articles.
This is the issue with emergent discoveries — you can go back and bang your head against the wall reciting the known geometry for the orbit of the moon (which stands correct) but when it comes down to it, it won’t contribute anything new, as you’re just beating a dead horse. Only by the application of a perturbation to the system (annual impulse, non-linear modulation, etc) will an emergent behavior arise in a model. For example, no one in the tidal analysis discipline uses any of the textbook lunar gravitation force weighting factors as a first-principles algorithm — as you are implying they should. Why? Simply because it doesn’t calibrate correctly to real world measurements. Instead, what they do is apply a multiple linear regression or spectral analysis decomposition to identify and calibrate the weights of the various tidal factors for the short term. And these require constant re-calibration from month to month and year to year as you will find on any the tidal chart prediction web sites. So for the regional sea-level monitoring sites I am modeling for this project (https://pukpr.github.io/results/image_results.html), the results are cross-validating that this approach can be used for the long term!
So the real issue is that no one (in a practically significant way, a deep dive so to speak) has looked at the margins of the lunar/annual synchronization problem statement. Richard Lindzen obviously hasn’t, otherwise he would have pointed out it’s suitability as a QBO forcing model. That’s all Lindzen’s fault, not mine, so don’t go blaming me for turning over rocks that they apparently wished to remain undisturbed. I am just cranking out cross-validation after cross-validation, N times over.
And just wait for the AI models to kick in.
BTW, feel free to place any of the above into an LLM prompt and see how it responds.
h = A [ cos²(α) – H]
dV = h dA = A [ cos²(α) – H] · ( 2ϖ·r sin(α) ·r·dα )
= 2ϖ·r² · A · [ ½ { 1 + cos(2α) } ·sin(α) – H sin(α) ] · dα
= 2ϖ·r² · A · [ ½ sin(α) + ½ sin(α) cos(2α) – H sin(α) ] · dα
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trigonometric_identities#Product-to-sum_and_sum-to-product_identities )
= ϖ·r² · A · [ sin(α) + ½ {sin(3α) + sin(−α) } – 2H sin(α) ] · dα
= ϖ·r² · A · [ sin(α) + ½ {sin(3α) − sin(α) } – 2H sin(α) ] · dα
= ϖ·r² · A · [ ½ {sin(3α) + sin(α) } – 2H sin(α) ] · dα
→∫_0^α₀→
V(α₀) = ϖ·r² · A · [ – ⅙ cos(3α) – ½ cos(α) + 2H cos(α) ] |_0^α₀
= ϖ·r² · A · [ ⅙ + ½ − 2H – ⅙ cos(3α₀) – ½ cos(α₀) + 2H cos(α₀) ]
= ϖ·r² · A · [ ⅔ – ⅙ cos(3α₀) – ½ cos(α₀) + 2H { cos(α₀) – 1 } ]
V(180°) = 0 = ϖ·r² · A · [ ⅔ + ⅙ + ½ – 4H ] = 4ϖ·r² · A · [ ⅓ – H ]
H = ⅓
oops! Notation error fixed: (A~1 m , r= 6371 km or 6378 km, depending…)
h = A [ cos²(α) – H]
dV = h d{Area} = A [ cos²(α) – H] · ( 2ϖ·r sin(α) ·r·dα )
= 2ϖ·r² · A · [ ½ { 1 + cos(2α) } ·sin(α) – H sin(α) ] · dα
= …
ϖ is supposed to be pi = π
V(α) = ϖ·r² · A · [ ⅔ – ⅙ cos(3α) – ½ cos(α) + ⅔ { cos(α) – 1 } ]
= ϖ·r² · A · [ – ⅙ cos(3α) + ⅙ cos(α) ]
= ⅙ ϖ·r² · A · [ cos(α) – cos(3α) ]
——— —– —–
Let 0 = ϖ·r² · A · [ ½ {sin(3α) + sin(α) } – ⅔ sin(α) ]
½ sin(3α) + ½ sin(α) = ⅔ sin(α)
½ sin(3α) = ⅙ sin(α)
3 sin(3α) = sin(α)
α ≈ 54.736° , 125.264° , … ( 90° − α ≈ ±35.264° , …)
V(α) = ⅙ ϖ·r² · A · [ cos(α) – cos(3α) ]
≈ ± 0.2566 ϖ·r² · A
0.2566 π·r² · A ÷ (2πr · z)
= 0.2566 r · A ÷ (2 · z)
0.2566 · 6371 km · 1 m ÷ (2 · 7 km) ≈ 117 m
117 m · 1E−4 s¯¹ = 1.17 cm/s
Oops! Should have calculated horizontal displacement amplitude ∆χ (range is 2× as much) using the vertical area 2πr·sin(α) · z at the same α (of max |V|), α_{max|V|} ≈54.736° , 125.264° :
∆χ ≈ 0.2566 π·r² · A ÷ (2πr·0.8165· z) = 0.2566 ·r · A ÷ (0.8165· 2·z)
≈ 143 m
∆χ = ⅙ [ cos(α) – cos(3α) ] · ϖ·r² · A ÷ (2πr· sin(α)· z)
= { ⅙ [ cos(α) – cos(3α) ] ÷ sin(α) } · r · A ÷ (2 · z)
But max ∆χ seems to be at 45°, ≈ 152 m (smaller sin(α)). 2Ω·∆χ ≈ 2.2 cm/s ~ max horizontal speed, either directly (semidiurnal frequency of ∆χ (not accounting for slightly longer “solar and lunar days and half days (as seen on Earth)”) or by max f, if ∆χ_max occurred near ø = ±90°
Ω ≈ 7.29212 E-05 s¯¹ ≈ 2π ÷ (86164.1 s)
“2.2 cm/s ~ max horizontal speed” amplitude
→·2Ω, → =1.61 E-06 m/s²
1 m · 9.81 m/s² · 2π ÷ (π · 6378 km) ≈ 3.076 E-06 m/s²
…
…
I should have used the symbol ∆z above to be more clear: as it is the span and not the position that matters.
Anyway, for a 1 m ETB (equilibrium tidal bulge) the pressure gradient acceleration amplitude (~3.1 E-6 m/s²) is roughly 2× the acceleration amplitude that would be needed to keep up with the ETB (semidiurnal) applied to an equivalent 7 km layer at Earth’s surface, from which I conclude that the atmosphere c/would have ∆χ of significant fraction of above values. ∆χ would be altered by the Coriolis effect.
(I remembered the scale height is ~7 km; the e-folding height of – density or pressure? (not same because atm. not isothermal over z, but anyway) – would be the thickness of a constant density layer of the same mass path of all overlying air (relative to any z). This would work at all heights (though scale height will vary with T).
So this series of calculations is not about trying to calculate would will happen but rather to get a sense of the potential magnitude of effects.
Cross-equatorial flow can result in a significant easterly tendency if the displacements are large enough – ie. if the fluid traverses a region where f is significant before getting to the equator.
Re …“ lunar eclipse modes. Out of the tropical, anomalistic, and draconic lunar cycles, it’s well known that only the draconic cycle sets the synchronization.”… Feels like a goalpost change. You talked about δ, so I considered δ.
“ For example, no one in the tidal analysis discipline uses any of the textbook lunar gravitation force weighting factors as a first-principles algorithm — as you are implying they should.” I’m not involved in that work, but I get that when the universe runs the computer model for you, complete with all the details of ocean bathymetry, sandbars and the like, then it’s nice to take advantage of that – Such as by using analog computers to run Fourier analysis (“The Most Powerful Computers You’ve Never Heard Of” – Veritasium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgF3OX8nT0w )… TBC
(lost track of link:) “A is ‘raw’ equilibrium bulge height = difference between highest and lowest displacements of a geopotential surface, not including gravitational feedback (of the mass redistribution caused by/of the tides”: Link found! https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821362
Patrick, All bets are off in estimating the magnitude of effects when dealing with gravity-assisted modulation of a stratification whereby the stratification is defined by slight density differences. This leads to what is called a reduced gravity environment; and with a much smaller effective gravity=g’ , any tidal motion becomes much more pronounced. This is not quite a reciprocal relationship to the delta difference of layers, but that’s the progression. The other behavior that emerges is that the phase speed of internal waves slows down as the square root of g’, so that it will favor the longer-period tidal factors — i.e. monthly instead of the daily(diurnal) tidal cycles, the latter of which will get filtered out as the phase speed of the internal waves can’t keep up to the diurnal cycles.
So this is the case with the ocean’s thermocline and also with stratospheric layers, both showing very slight density differences and thus highly sensitive to reduced effective gravity. Do you think any of this is well known?
There always can be terminology disconnects. What I do is consider all the effects and then do the model pattern matching to observations. I believe I have taken account each of the fundamental cycles and the significant harmonics and cross-harmonics. One needs to realize that once a non-linear mixing is applied, the number of harmonics will quickly multiply and their magnitudes will rise from being imperceptible to contributing more strongly to the response.
The lesson in all this is that you can’t fall into the trap of working from a first-principles calculation of expected magnitudes. One has to pattern match against observed time-series and then rigorously cross-validate fitted models against held-out intervals and compare to related observations, whereby the common-modes of forcing aren’t expected to change much. The impact of such a unified/universal model is that it will cover a lot of ground, and thus explain many of the reversion to the mean properties of different climate indices and longer-range tidal variations measured at a number of coastal stations with sufficient data (at least 75 years worth from my experience).
Carl Sagan once said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, so I’m not expecting anyone to accept all this blindly. That’s why I keep pushing for a cumulative solution — since none of this can be verified via controlled experiments, the best approach is to keep archiving a repository of modeling results.
Recent results here:
https://gist.github.com/pukpr/7d256e5595ff435421431d48d1df8d19?permalink_comment_id=5850760#gistcomment-5850760
and
https://geoenergymath.com/2025/11/05/amo-dat-p/
Correction:
amplitude of whatev · 2π ÷ (period or wavelength) = amplitude of (slope or rate of change of) whatev
(1 m / 2) · 9.81 m/s² · 2π ÷ (π · 6378 km) ≈ 1.538 E-6 m/s²
Multiplying by 0.535±0.005 gives 0.815 – 0.831 µm/s², which roughly matches what I remember (well, I remember the first non-0 digit was 8) for the semidiurnal component of |g’| for the Moon @ average R_EM (Earth-Moon) = 385,000 km, which I think gave the A ~ 53 or 54 (?) cm RETB (A = high – low).
Patrick, We’re dealing with fluid dynamics here, so the identification of orbital forcing modes is just a start. No need to calculate the amplitudes exactly. The right-hand side of the dynamics is found directly from data rather than assumed from first principles. That idea is a key building block for separating base forcing, intrinsic dynamics, and additional terms that might be latent. Classical fluid dynamics involves this intermediate layer, referred to as a stream function, in solving Navier-Stokes or simplified variations such as Laplace’s tidal equations (LTE) which are set up specifically for MET and climate research.
Back when I was researching for my book Mathematical Geoenergy, I tried to solve the LTE under reduced dimensionality conditions and came up with a nonlinear formulation that existed as an analytical closed-form expression. These are also called reduced-order models (ROM). Since that time I have been searching for the parameters and forcing that best represents the dynamics of the data. Sometimes this is relatively easy, such as for the QBO where the non-linear form appears fairly mild , most likely only a perturbation of a linear form. Where it’s more difficult is in cases of ocean dynamics such as the varying mean sea-level height extremes and ultimately in behaviors such as ENSO.
To get an idea of the mind-blowing aspect in all this , watch YT videos by Steven Brunton, where he explains approaches to modeling the fluid dynamics and this hidden latent layer. He is the smoothest technical speaker I’ve ever watched, and is applying all this to machine learning. Lots of room for improvement in this area.
Watch this space.
The important aspect of the QBO findings is that the hidden latent layer of the fluid dynamics formulation is more exposed for stratospheric media than for the denser fluid at the ocean’s surface or subsurface thermocline. The low inertia, high compressibility, and rapid adjustment of the atmosphere means that any forcing will directly generate internal oscillations, whereas denser fluids have a much larger inertia and so will evolve with complex lag factors.
So as a premise, consider that the base pattern found for the QBO, consisting of a strong draconic cycle interacting with an annual impulse, means that it provides a starting point of the hidden latent layer that could potentially be used in modeling oceanic climate cycles (such as ENSO, NAO, etc) or extended sea-level height variations. I would not expect that the oceanic response would be nearly as linear as that for the stratospheric QBO response, and further that it could be highly nonlinear given the phase lags, nodes, and internal standing waves observed in the ocean.
Given that background, I will provide a few links to show how this has shaken out. The first is a post where I applied a common latent forcing to model AMO, which was calibrated from a model of the long-term sea-level variation at a coastal site on the Baltic at Warnemunde: https://geoenergymath.com/2025/11/05/amo-dat-p/
Second is a GitHub Gist thread from a variety of SLH sites and other climate indices. Note that all these share very similar hidden layer forcings — the tidal factors all track shown by correlated tidal forcings and histograms of tidal factor amplitudes:
https://gist.github.com/pukpr/7d256e5595ff435421431d48d1df8d19
Last is a thread circling back to QBO, showing how similar all the latent forcing layers are across the models, and thus validating and making interpretable the starting point of the closer to linear QBO:
https://gist.github.com/pukpr/0b7ac85fad1ea36f65a9b50d6c30958b?permalink_comment_id=5856989#gistcomment-5856989
This is the best possible outcome as Brunton describes the importance of creating interpretable and generalizable models of fluids. There is a real physical meaning here, which hasn’t been touched and scrambled via a neural net training session.
https://youtu.be/NxAn0oglMVw
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841456 :
Correction: (concerning the effect of nonlinear tidal g’ for the Moon @ R_EM min. perigee = = 356,400 km)
“7.57 over, um, maybe ~1/4 of a hemisphere (=pi*r^2), moving through a great circle of … say 10 km height (10 km * 2*pi*r), that’s a displacement of ~ 7.57 cm * (6371 km or … use 6378 km) / 20 km = 24.141 m.”
That’s actually ½ a hemisphere equivalent. In light of farther math, a better estimate may be ⅓ hemisphere (⅔ of what was calculated), though this would be largely cancelled by changing from a ∆z = 10 km to ∆z = 7 km. Of course I expect the displacement would then again be smaller, taking other things into account…
Speaking of terminology, I believe you had used the term “mountain torque” to refer to the tidal torque exerted on Earth’s asymmetrical geological (near-surface) mass distribution. Just so you’re aware, others may use it to refer to angular momentum exchange between the atmosphere and solid Earth via pressure variations between different slopes of topographic features:
“Mountain Torques and the Equatorial Components of Global Angular Momentum” – Joseph Egger, Klaus-P. Hoinka (2000) https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/57/14/1520-0469_2000_057_2319_mtatec_2.0.co_2.xml
https://psl.noaa.gov/psd1/review/Chap04/sec3_body.html
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~nnn/LAB/DEMOS/karman.html :
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000GL011829
https://en.termwiki.com/EN/mountain_torque#:~:text=The%20torque%20about%20a%20given%20axis%20exerted%20on,of%20pressure%20on%20two%20sides%20of%20a%20mountain.
Trying to determine the expected amplitude of an effect can be frustrating considering the wide dynamic range possible depending on the resonant characteristics of the behavior. and containing structure Just considering tides, which on a daily basis can range from a foot or two (esp in Mediterranean) to over 10 meters. What I am looking at modeling is the residual mean as it varies from year-to-year. In that context there is typically a standard deviation of from 5 cm to 15 cm, which is quite weak in comparison to the daily range. So, it’s really the fingerprint in the measured cycle and not the amplitude that is the key identifier. Just consider in forensics, doesn’t matter how weak the fingerprint smudge is — if there is enough of a pattern of lines to measure, one can work with it.
It’d really the direction of the vestiges that need to be worked out. Is it the result of a remote ENSO that causes the temporal pattern or are these coincidental variations due to a common-mode nonlinear tidal mechanism at work.? Being only the widths of a couple of thumbs, it’s not difficult to intuit that some tidal mechanism is being amplified to produce such a small relative change in mean sea-level. For ENSO , that would be intuited by the reduced effective gravity at the thermocline. And all this would be happening in unison.
Sure beats the brain-dead sunspot model of variations that should have been given last rites long ago, yet commenters elsewhere in this RC thread are being baited by Robert Cutler in still engaging with it. This goes to the model of human interaction that it is easier to swat away at easy-pickings rather than getting down and doing the challenging signal processing and fluid dynamics which is admittedly out of reach for most people to grasp.
From EOS on Halloween:
“In Arctic Soils, Methane-Eating Microbes Just Might Win Out over Methane Makers
Methanotrophs, including those that capture methane from the air, seem to outcompete methanogens in dry environments, a new study shows.”
https://eos.org/articles/in-arctic-soils-methane-eating-microbes-just-might-win-out-over-methane-makers
–Just might– is completely unquantified according to the article, but it notes the research is based on Arctic soil sampling that began in 2010, so let’s say a good start in examining the conditions. The article also links to the paper, which I’m not looking at right now, and two parts of the EOS article that were interesting were that there’s not a lot of species diversity among the samples (my guess is colder climates are less species-rich generally) but another interesting bit was they noted that the iron-rich water from all that glacial scraping is also leading to iron-consuming bacteria outcompeting methane producers in appropriate conditions. (That bit was in a separate paper they mention, which studied the Copper River Delta..)
I’m not going to let the article headline’s “just might” get me relaxed about what will happen as the Arctic thaws, but at least researchers are starting to fill in blanks. And also bringing back old song lyrics to match:
b fagan, thanks for bringing microbes into the conversation. It may be a thin hope against the magnitude of the problems we face (becoming all too real in our daily lives), but it’s something. The idea of scientific collaboration is under attack, but scientific open borders have been of great benefit to all of us.
here are some (overlapping) links (I saw something else recently, but have forgotten where, related to those undersea vents (where, as I understand it, much of modern life began))
Microbiology Leaders Launch Global Climate Change Strategy – https://asm.org/press-releases/2025/september/microbiology-leaders-launch-global-climate-change
Microbes without borders: uniting societies for climate action – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12459658/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK613918/ [sadly government repositories of knowledge are being dismantled at speed by the predatory ignoramuses in charge]
Hi Susan, yeah – I posted because it’s something that would be useful for us to know, but certainly too early to know if the methane eaters will outdo the methane exhalers.
Microbes without borders? Well, from reading your links, methane metabolisms in thawing soils is somewhere the world’s microbiologists can inform us – as one link said: “actively seeking microbiology-informed insights to address critical knowledge gaps in existing climate solutions.”
The press releases themselves read like the kind of organization-speak I’ve never liked, but to have microbiology research working towards solving problems – I can’t argue with the premise. Every aspect of how our outsized impact on the biosphere needs lots of reconsideration.
Geoff Miell “ MWP1a occurred around the time of an abrupt Northern Hemisphere warming of 4–5 °C giving mean rates of roughly 40–60 mm. Why is difficult to accept that the global mean rate of SLR would continue to accelerate over time to similar magnitudes (or maybe more) occurring during the MWP1a?”
Because we don’t have the couple km of ice over half of North America and portion of Eurasia to melt (the contribution of Antarctica and Greenland to MWP1a SLR was minor)?
And we don’t have massive meltwater lakes that suddenly find a way to drain into the ocean ?
And that’s “why it is difficult to accept your 10-FOLD (or maybe more) increase of SLR over today’s value?
Some difficult awful news on climate change and a pair of news stories on the Lancet report:
https://lancetcountdown.org/2025-report/
.
“Rising heat kills one person a minute worldwide, major report reveals
Biggest analysis of its kind finds millions are dying each year from combined effects of failure to tackle climate crisis”
Damian Carrington Environment editor
Tue 28 Oct 2025 20.01 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/29/rising-heat-kills-one-person-a-minute-worldwide-lancet-countdown
.
“Climate change inaction being paid for in millions of lives every year, global findings suggest”
by Lancet
edited by Sadie Harley, reviewed by Robert Egan
October 28, 2025
https://phys.org/news/2025-10-climate-inaction-paid-millions-year.html
A quick question: how does recent acceleration of AGW (with projections by Leon Simons of reaching 2⁰C of warming by 2035 and 4⁰C by 2084, for instance) relate to Transient Climate Response and ECS? If I understand correctly, reaching some sort of (transient) equilibrium can take from decades (for TCR) to centuries (for ECS), yet this didn’t stop Leon from linearly extrapolating rate of warming from Rahmstorf & Foster (2025) and other people taking it as given.
Am I missing something here? Leaving our (somewhat controversial) future capacity of burning cheap FFs aside, what physical mechanisms would need to be at play to achieve such huge GMST increase in just 59 years?
Julian, it’s simply meaningless cherry picking by Leon Simons. There’s significant natural variations and an unnatural variation been going on. The ocean is a big deal of course. Rahmstorf & Foster (2025) concludes (I paraphrase perfectly in case bods not following don’t follow scientific jargon) “we don’t have a clue whether warming the next 15 years will be a higher rate or a lower rate than the last 15 years). My own input effort if I ever get to it will be a suggestion that 2014 CE be upward adjusted by 0.065 degrees for the unnatural variation.
Barry E Finch: – “Rahmstorf & Foster (2025) concludes (I paraphrase perfectly in case bods not following don’t follow scientific jargon) “we don’t have a clue whether warming the next 15 years will be a higher rate or a lower rate than the last 15 years).”
Why paraphrase when you could quote exactly what Stefan Rahmstorf & Grant Foster wrote in their pre-print paper for all to see for people to make their own conclusions? You wouldn’t want to put your own spin on it, aye Barry?
From line 72 in the Stefan Rahmstorf & Grant Foster (2025 preprint):
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6079807/v1
The +1.5 °C GMST anomaly (relative to pre-industrial age) “will” be exceeded “by late 2026”, based on the datasets examined by Stefan Rahmstorf & Grant Foster.
Whether the Earth System continues to warm beyond exceeding the +1.5 °C GMST anomaly “at such a fast pace”, or slows, or continues “accelerating to even faster rates”, I’d suggest, is dependent on how much more GHGs humanity continues to emit into the atmosphere, and whether we/humanity begin atmospheric carbon drawdown and/or solar radiation management (SRM) methods at large-scale, over the next few decades, or not.
Julian,
Leon Simons is not in any way a reliable climate commentator, more ‘shock-jock’ than somebody to be trusted.
His projections for timing +2°C, & +4°C AGW thresholds are easily created but should have been set against other data (eg CMIP6 models) but Simons’ message generally is that the likes of CMIP6 are nonsense and the world has already stoked a right-royal AGW Armageddon.
AGW is deadly-serious enough without such exaggeration.
Looking at CMIP6 numbers, they show AGW has been running cooler than expected since 2000 with the ‘raw’ GMST running at +0.18°C/dec 2000-15. That’s zero acceleration since the 1980s. Meanwhile CMIP6 models were showing acceleration, perhaps +0.25°C/dec 2000-15, and rising. If there is some sense to such a stark GMST-CMIP6 discrepancy, a simplistic consideration would suggest we were due a correction, a period of rapid warming at a rate which would not be representative of the underlying rate of AGW.
In addition, we have yet to grasp the cause of the “bananas!!” temperatures of 2023-24 and the resulting implications for 2025-&-beyond.
Rahmstorf & Foster (Pre-Print) ‘Global Warming has Accelerated Significantly’ is an interesting diagnostic. It shows a statistically-significant GMST acceleration when it is MLR-adjusted for SolVol&ENSO. But these ‘adjusted’ underlying AGW rates for 2015-24 (≈ 0.4°C/dec) include the 2023-24 “bananas!!” (Rahmstorf & Foster do say their adjustments are “approximate so it is possible that, for instance, the effect of El Niño on 2023-24 temperatures is not completely eliminated”) and also include that 2005-14 rate which after adjustment (2004-15 at ≈ 0.2°C/dec) remains well below that modelled by CMIP6.
But such blather doesn’t address the question “What physical mechanisms would need to be at play to achieve such huge GMST increase in just 59 years?”
It would require some feedback mechanism to increase in strength to make such a nonsense of the CMIP6 modelling. And for that there are a few ‘usual suspects’.
One ‘usual suspect’ which is sort-of invoked by Leon Simons has at least a whiff of some evidential basis in the increasing EEI seen in the CERES data”. If the EEI can be lain at the door of marine pollution regs (& I don’t see that), it would not provide a giant new climate feedback. But if it is a new amplification of cloud feedback running riot, that could perhaps be the start of something big enough to massively increase the rate of AGW through coming decades.
I’m sure other ‘usual suspects’ could be invoked (separately or collectively) if you want to scare the horses. But perhaps first an understanding of the 2023-25 “bananas!!” would be a more responsible approach.
MA Rodger,
Eh, so at the end of the day, it’s still comes down to figuring out those pesky 2023-2024 years. Guess we’ll just have to wait a bit more for definite answers what happened back then.
Thank you for a reply, much appreciated!
“those pesky 2023-2024 years. Guess we’ll just have to wait a bit more for definite answers what happened back then”. Well, either you found the peer-reviewed paper by Matthew H. England to be credible or you didn’t. Same point as that for the paper 11 years earlier (my 0.065 degrees that I can’t find time for).
Julian, there’s huge self-contradiction by Leon Simons on the very topic that is his self-stated Expert Topic. A reliable physical scientist definitely shouldn’t contradict himself so hugely on the matter of his-her own Expert Topic. It’s only self-contradiction though if Leon Simons agrees about his expert topic with James Hansen and other co-authors in Jim Hansen’s group,
Dr. James Hansen, Lead Author and Director, Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions, Columbia University Earth Institute
Dr. Pushker Kharecha, Deputy Director, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Columbia University Earth Institute
Dr. Susanne Bauer, Climate Researcher, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
If Leon Simons substantively disagrees with these scientists above then my criticism of Leon Simons self-contradiction is incorrect, but I’ve not come across Leon Simons criticizing the work of those 3 scientists above, which work obviously makes nonsense of Leon Simons’ prediction, itself supposedly based on Grant Foster & Stefan Rahmstorf definitely-a-non-prediction.
‘Musk will get richer, people will get unemployed’: Nobel Laureate Hinton on AI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Hf-o1SzL4
Oh for God’s sake, can we please stop boosting Silicon Valley AI doomers? I admit I’ve only skimmed through this video (I can hardly put up with AI BS nowadays), but he’s yapping about the exact same things as other AI doomers do: that soon (how soon?) AI will outsmart us, it’ll replace hundreds of millions of workers and we won’t be able to control it. Reality however, is different – the current overinvestment in DCs and GPUs for LLMs (and other models based on Vaswani et al. architecture from 2017) is deeply unprofitable and have yet to yield meaningful returns. AI models aren’t improving exponentially and the industry writ large is in deep stagnation with no sensible path to profitability, showing ever more blatant signs of a speculative bubble.
If you’re worried about AI, don’t be. I deeply believe there are more pressing matters to spend our energy on than listening to whatever BS AI boosters preach from their Ivory Towers. AI in its current (and even future, since LLMs are a technological dead end) state is not and will never be a threat.
Geoff Hinton is not an AI doomer. Sadly, “AI doomer” is a label which includes two very different groups of people. The idea behind the religion of AI is to harvest all the energy in the universe and preserve a few gazillionaires for eternity, replacing themselves (and us) with machines. The other group are concerned with present effects (the coming market bubble collapse) and downsides of said project of replacing ourselves with machines.
I’ve posted this useful review before:
https://archive.ph/4CSJV – “Fresh off a Ph.D. in astrophysics, science journalist Adam Becker moved to Silicon Valley with an academic’s acclimation to hearing the word “no.” “In academic science, you need to doubt yourself,” he says. “That’s essential to the process.” So it was strange to find himself suddenly surrounded by a culture that branded itself as data-oriented and scientific but where, he soon came to realize, the ideas were more grounded in science fiction than in actual science and the grip on reality was tenuous at best. “What this sort of crystallized for me,” says Becker, “was that these tech guys — who people think of as knowing a lot about science — actually, don’t really know anything about science at all.”
“In More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity … 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.”
For anyone interested: The A.I. Bubble Is Coming for Your Browser: Artificial-intelligence startups, like the makers of the “smart” web browser Dia, are being acquired for vast sums. But it’s not yet clear which products can transcend the hype. – https://archive.ph/xMvFp
I was a Computer Programmer for mathematical-scientific 1968-1973 and for engineering-control-monitoring with some Commercial 1973-1996 and I was simultaneous amused & annoyed when that Windfall Boondoggle “Millennium Bug” hit the News. Fancy making huge, easy profits by looking through and fixing Rubbish computer programs you wrote that couldn’t even do the trivially-simple thing of handling dates & times properly for numerous decades. Making huge profits off your own gross incompetence. Amused obviously and annoyed that I wasn’t in on the Scam for quick, easy ripoff money. I wrote all date-times to work for 32,768 days (90 years) from 1950 CE if they needed retrospective and from the date I wrote the Program if not. I figured if it breaks after 90 years and they sue me for incompetence I’ll deal with it then. If computers were cheaper I’d have written to work for 1,073,741,824 days.
Geoff Miell: “ And here you were recently claiming: “NGLs are not crude oil nor condensate.” “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands”.” …and when proven that you were wrong about your claims that “shale oil” or “oil sands” were NOT crude oil nor condensate, you remain unable to admit that you are wrong,”
Could you be any more confused? Let me help:
1. It was YOU, not me, who “ recently claimed: “NGLs are not crude oil nor condensate.”
2. The legend of the graph you QUOTED, states: “ [Oil production] includes crude oil, shale oil, oil sands, condensates and NGLs
If they are listed separately, then it isn’t it OBVIOUS that “ NGLs are NOT crude oil nor condensate.?” The same question for NGLs and condensates”
Or too complicated for you, let me simplify it- It’s like if I said “Common orchard fruit include apples, pears and plums”, and then you lectured me: “apples are not pears, nor plums”
You see the absurdity of that, right?
3. GM: “ when proven that you were wrong about your claims that “shale oil” or “oil sands” were NOT crude oil nor condensate “
Are you even reading what you write? It’s like:
“I. Geoff Miell. have proven that Piotr ‘s claim: “ apples are NOT prears nor plums ” to be wrong!” ;-)
And based on such a grotesque logic you lecture me how it is you who proved me wrong and how it is I who “ remains unable to admit that I are wrong, changes the subject, and doubles down on misrepresenting all and sundry who dare to challenge your ideologies/perspectives/fantasies. ? ;-)
Ladies and Gentlemen, Geoff Miell, in a nutshell.
P.S. Geoff Miell: ” I apologised for misspelling John Pollack’s surname (and gives a link to it … ;-)]
Boo-hoo, cry me a river – there is nothing at stake in this apology – its a trivial typo, and it is not like you had an option to get out on technicality (John knows the spelling of his own name). The real test is whether you are able to admit being wrong in a consequential case – say when were accusing the opponent:
remains unable to admit that you are wrong, changes the subject, and doubles down on misrepresenting all and sundry who dare to challenge your ideologies /perspectives/ fantasies.
on the basis of your lapses in your logic and/or in your comprehension. [see above].
I guess we will see whether you are able to take responsibility for your action, or will it be … as usual.
Piotr, it’s clear to me you live in an alternate reality. Your Gish gallop BS-fest fools only you. And your diatribes continue to distract from my question:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841525
Steve Bannon once famously declared that the way to win in politics is to “flood the zone with shit.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/steve-bannon-jan-6-trial-arguments/
It seems to me Piotr is following Steve Bannon’s advice.
Geoff Miell: “ Steve Bannon once famously declared that the way to win in politics is to “flood the zone with shit.” It seems to me Piotr is following “Steve Bannon’s advice.”
It seems to me that Geoff Miell, unable to defend his nonsensical accusations, tries to shoot the messenger via by association with Steve Bannon.
And to make it better, in the same thread in which he put himself up as a paragon of the ability to apologize for being wrong. Geoff Miell – everybody! ;-)
But no, my challenge to your intellect and ethic – cannot be waived off by associating me with …Steve Bannon. And here is that challenge, for the record:
=====
Geoff Miell: “ when proven that you were wrong about your claims that “shale oil” or “oil sands” were NOT crude oil nor condensate
Except you proving me wrong is only in your head: the legend of the graph you QUOTED yourself in your “proof” states: [Oil data] include crude oil, shale oil, oil sands, condensates and NGLs”
See? If shale oil, oil sands and NGLs are LISTED SEPARATELY from “crude oil”, then they CAN’T “be crude oil”, can they?
Ergo, your imagining yourself triumphantly having me proven wrong about my claim that “shale oil” or “oil sands” were NOT crude oil” is just a measure of your delusions.
=====
And on that baseless belief that you have “proven [me] wrong” you went … full Bannon on me, to use your own source – you “flooded the zone with shit””:
G Miell: – Gish gallop BS-fest”
– “[ flooding the zone with shit.”
– “ [when proven that you were wrong] you remain unable to admit that you are wrong, change the subject, and double down on misrepresenting all and sundry who dare to challenge your ideologies/perspectives/fantasies.”
Looks like an apt, if unwitting, self-diagnosis, Mr. Miell.
Piotr, your comments on 8 Oct 2025 at 5:46 PM included:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840465
Piotr, you stated that “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands”” in relation to crude oil and condensate. I proved that “shale oil” AND “oil sands” are a form of crude oil in my response at:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840478
There is nowhere in my comments where I claim NGLs are crude oil or condensate. You even quote me stating: “NGLs are not crude oil nor condensate.”
It seems to me you are attempting to rewrite history by substituting some figment of your fantasy. That’s what you seem to do often here.
And you made this claim: “all three have minds closed – they are physically unable to admit that they may have been wrong and when proven wrong -disappear or change the subject…”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841500
It seems to me you are the one projecting your own apparent character flaws.
It seems to me you continue to be physically unable to admit you are wrong because you certainly haven’t acknowledged at all you were wrong when you, Piotr, (NOT me) made the statement: “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands”” in relation to whether they are crude oil or condensate.
Piotr, how many times are you going to continue to argue over your inability to admit you are wrong? How many more times are you going to flood the zone with your BS?
Geoff Miell “ There is nowhere in my comments where I claim NGLs are crude oil or condensate. You even quote me stating: “NGLs are not crude oil nor condensate.”
Duh … That’s because NOBODY was arguing that YOU, G. Miell “claim NGLs ARE crude oil or condensate” My argument was on you saying the OPPOSITE! And THAT’S WHY I “ quoted [you] stating “NGLs are not crude oil nor condensate”, Sherlock.
Geoff Miell “ I proved that “shale oil” AND “oil sands” are a form of crude oil in my response ”
You proved nothing. Definitions are NOT facts – they are subjective categories so you CAN’T “prove them” wrong or right.
The ONLY thing you COULD prove – would be a logical inconsistency WITHIN the opponent’s argument – namely, that their use of these categories CONTRADICTS the definitions THEY source used..
Which obviously is NOT the case here: the Our World In Data graph I referred to – keeps “crude oil” as a SEPARATE category from “shale oil” or “oil sands”, ergo – according to the
definitions in that graph – “shale oil” or “oil sands” are NOT “crude oil”.
And YOU should have known – since it was YOU who lectured ME, arrogantly throwing the legend of teh Our World In Data graph in my face:
Geoff Miell Oct. 6: Piotr, did you check what was included as “oil” in the Our World In Data graph? No? [Oil data] Include crude oil, shale oil, oil sands, condensates and NGLs ”
See?
So you would have “proven me wrong” ONLY if you caught me using the Our World In Data data in a way INCONSISTENT with the legend of the graph. But I didn’t, so you can’t.
So all your huffing and puffing:
– ” Gish gallop BS-fest”
– “[ flooding the zone with shit.”
– “your inability to admit you are wrong? How many more times are you going to flood the zone with your BS?”
– “ [when proven that you were wrong] you remain unable to admit that you are wrong, change the subject, and double down on misrepresenting all and sundry who dare to challenge your ideologies/perspectives/fantasies.”
is founded on your inability to understand what you read, on your tortured logic, and on your projection of your cognitive and ethical faults onto the opponents.
Or in the words of the Bard – yours is “ tell of an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.”
P.S. Instead trying to relitigate the discussion you have lost already a month ago – how about you concentrate on the newer challenges to you claim – like the one in which I have countered your arrogant:
“ Why is difficult to accept,/i> ” [the 40-60 mm/yr SLR in, “maybe more” in the near future] see reply in Piotr 3 Nov at 7:06 AM
Piotr (at 7 Nov 2025 at 6:57 PM): – “Duh … That’s because NOBODY was arguing that YOU, G. Miell “claim NGLs ARE crude oil or condensate” My argument was on you saying the OPPOSITE! And THAT’S WHY I “ quoted [you] stating “NGLs are not crude oil nor condensate”, Sherlock.”
Again, where have I claimed NGLs ARE crude oil or condensate, Piotr? Please provide any link(s) and relevant quote(s). You even quoted me:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840465
It seems to me you are bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS.
You (NOT me) then stated:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840465
I’d suggest that would be news to the entire petroleum industry. It seems to me you are clearly ignorant of this, and now it seems you are going further and further down the rabbit hole to attempt to deny you are clearly ignorant and wrong, so that you can continue to deny you are clearly ignorant/wrong.
Piotr (at 7 Nov 2025 at 6:57 PM): – “You proved nothing. Definitions are NOT facts – they are subjective categories so you CAN’T “prove them” wrong or right.”
Definitions ARE mutually agreed by relevant parties. Next you’ll claim ‘white’ is NOT ‘white’. Or the fundamental dimensions we use to describe the world, whether it’s the SI system or imperial system, or other systems of measurements are “NOT facts”. Or driving on a particular side of the road for a given jurisdiction is “NOT facts”.
You’re attempting to move the goal posts to avoid admitting you are undeniably wrong. How convenient for you, but it just shows to me that you are acting entirely in bad faith.
Piotr (at 7 Nov 2025 at 6:57 PM): – “Which obviously is NOT the case here: the Our World In Data graph I referred to – keeps “crude oil” as a SEPARATE category from “shale oil” or “oil sands”, ergo – according to the
definitions in that graph – “shale oil” or “oil sands” are NOT “crude oil”.”
Again, you highlight your continued willful ignorance. I stated:
Petroleum geologist Art Berman stated:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840478
And the Alberta Energy Regulator states:
https://www.aer.ca/understanding-resource-development/resource-development-topics/oil-sands
Who does one believe; the petroleum industry, Art Berman, et al.; or the willfully ignorant, clueless Piotr?
Piotr (at 7 Nov 2025 at 6:57 PM): – “…is founded on your inability to understand what you read, on your tortured logic, and on your projection of your cognitive and ethical faults onto the opponents.”
It seems to me you are describing your own inabilities and shortcomings.
I’m intrigued why the moderators of RC continue to allow you, Piotr, to comment in regard to this matter. I guess they are perhaps allowing you ‘enough rope to hang yourself’ with your tortured logic, fantastical world view, multitudes of misrepresentations, character assassinations, bullying, Gish gallops, etc., so that all the world may see who you really are.
Piotr (at 7 Nov 2025 at 6:57 PM): – “P.S. Instead trying to relitigate the discussion you have lost already a month ago – how about you concentrate on the newer challenges to you claim – like the one in which I have countered your arrogant:…”
Um, lost how? It seems you missed this ongoing thread from my comments at:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-841425
Meanwhile, the Hektoria Glacier on the Antarctica peninsula, shrunk by nearly 50% in just two months (i.e. Nov – Dec 2022) to mark the fastest retreat recorded in modern history – and the way it happened could have big implications for global sea level rise.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/hektoria-glacier-fastest-retreat-in-history/dc0aacbc-7342-48da-bcd4-3a2b11a80d50
It seems to me, you have no imagination for and ignorance about the possibilities, as per usual.
– Geoff Miell 6 Nov “ There is nowhere in my comments where I claim NGLs are crude oil or condensate. You even quote me stating: “NGLs are not crude oil nor condensate.”
– me: 7 Nov “NOBODY was arguing that YOU, “claimed that NGLs ARE crude oil or condensate”. My argument was based on you saying the OPPOSITE! And THAT’S WHY I quoted you stating “NGLs are not crude oil nor condensate” “, Sherlock.
– Geoff Miell 9 Nov. “Again, where have I claimed NGLs ARE crude oil or condensate, Piotr?? Please provide any link(s) and relevant quote(s).
[ enter FACEPALM emoji here]
If my argument is based on NGLs NOT being crude oil, and I am perplexed why would you attack me for that given that you yourself said “GM: “ NGL s” are NOT crude oil ” then … why on Earth would you demand from ME, that _I_ prove that you said that …… ” NGLs ARE crude oil” !???
Can you read, Mr. Miells?
G. Miell: “It seems to me you are bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS. You (NOT me) then stated: “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands”.https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10 ….
Duh – NOBODY claimed otherwise, Genius. See the original exchange:
– GM: “NGLs are not crude oil nor condensate”
– Piotr: “neither are “shale oil” nor “oil sands”
Geoff Miell reads the above and
1) demands that I prove that he said that …. “NGLs ARE crude oil or condensate”
2) and lectures me: You (NOT me) then stated: “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands”.
AS IF I ever claimed otherwise….
So all the “Gish gallop bullshit” is only in YOUR self-“bamboozled” head, Mr. Miell.
And if you CAN’T understand EVEN such a simple exchange – then what’s the hope for anything even slightly more nuanced? As in my previous post, below):
===========================Piotr Nov.7 =======================================================
Geoff Miell “ I proved that “shale oil” AND “oil sands” are a form of crude oil in my response ”
Piotr: You proved nothing. Definitions are NOT facts – they are subjective categories so you CAN’T “prove them” wrong or right. The ONLY thing you COULD prove – would be a logical inconsistency WITHIN the opponent’s argument – namely, that their use of these categories CONTRADICTS the definitions THEIR source used. But THAT you could prove not:
the Our World In Data graph I referred to – keeps “crude oil” as a SEPARATE category from “shale oil” or “oil sands”, ergo – according to the definitions in that graph – “shale oil” or “oil sands” are NOT “crude oil”. And should know – it was YOU who lectured ME, arrogantly throwing the legend of the Our World In Data graph in my face:
Geoff Miell Oct. 6: Piotr, did you check what was included as “oil” in the Our World In Data graph? No? [Oil data] include crude oil, shale oil, oil sands, condensates and NGLs ”
So you would have “proven me wrong” ONLY if you caught me using the Our World In Data data in a way INCONSISTENT with the legend of the graph. But I didn’t, so you can’t.
So all your huffing and puffing:
– ” Gish gallop BS-fest”
– “[ flooding the zone with shit.”
– “your inability to admit you are wrong? How many more times are you going to flood the zone with your BS?”
– “you are bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS”
-“you are acting entirely in bad faith”
-“t he willfully ignorant, clueless Piotr”
– “ you remain unable to admit that you are wrong, change the subject, and double down on misrepresenting all and sundry who dare to challenge your ideologies/perspectives/fantasies.”
etc. etc. etc.
is founded on YOUR inability to understand what YOU read, on YOUR tortured logic, and on YOUR projection of YOUR cognitive and ethical faults onto the others.
Or in the words of the Bard – yours is “ tale of an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.”
===============================================================================
Piotr: – “If my argument is based on NGLs NOT being crude oil, and I am perplexed why would you attack me for that given that you yourself said “GM: “ NGL s” are NOT crude oil ” then … why on Earth would you demand from ME, that _I_ prove that you said that …… ” NGLs ARE crude oil” !???”
Clearly, you remain bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS. MY argument with YOU, Piotr, is about YOUR claim (NOT mine) that:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840465
…in relation to “shale oil” or “oil sands”. And what’s the ENTIRE basis of YOUR claim? YOU claim that “shale oil” or “oil sands” ARE NOT crude oil nor condensate, per YOUR earlier comments:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841787
It’s just YOUR unilateral ASSUMPTION that the Our World In Data graph you referred to separates “shale oil” and “oil sands” from “crude oil”, so “shale oil” or “oil sands” can’t possibly be “crude oil”. That’s the basis of your entire WRONG claim! You don’t provide any compelling evidence/data to support your unilateral wrong ASSUMPTION/CLAIM because there isn’t any. And despite the evidence/data I’ve presented to the contrary YOU continue to double down on your false claim.
And what is the data source for the Our World In Data graph you referred to?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-production-by-region
I note that the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2025 includes page 23, headlined Oil: Crude oil and condensate production in thousands of barrels per day*, which includes in the fine print at the bottom of the data table:
Geoff Miell, crude oil is not shale oil. Crude oil is defined as oil extracted from large underground reservoirs. Shale oil is defined as oil extracted from pores and fissures in certain rocks, or from keragin. Your source doesn’t say they are the same. Only that crude and shale oil are both forms of oil. I’ve heard shale oil called unconventional crude.
Geoff Miell Clearly, you remain bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS. MY argument with YOU, Piotr, is about YOUR claim (NOT mine) that: “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands”
Poor Geoff GPT, get himself into a logical loop and can’t get out. For the n-th time:
– NOBODY claimed that it was you, Geoff Miell, who said: “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands”,
– and NOBODY claimed that it was you, Geoff Miell, who said “NGLs ARE crude oil or condensate”
Therefore, as long as you, Geoff Miell:
– keep stating the obvious, as if anybody claimed otherwise:
(GM: “ MY argument with YOU, Piotr, is about YOUR claim (NOT mine) that: “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands” )
– demand that I provide you the “links and quotes” of what …. nobody ever claimed: (GM: “ Again, where have I claimed NGLs ARE crude oil or condensate, Piotr?? Please provide any link(s) and relevant quote(s)“)
– use YOUR failure to read/understand even the simplest of points as a chance to fault … me: (“ “you are bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS”; “you remain bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS”; “Gish gallop BS-fest”, “How many more times are you going to flood the zone with your BS?” “ “flooding the zone with shit”, “the willfully ignorant, clueless Piotr”)
– and see nothing wrong with any of that – then what’s the point in trying to explain to you other, slightly less OBVIOUS, points?
That’s like trying to teach a hamster the multiplication table.
Geoff Miell Clearly, you remain bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS. MY argument with YOU, Piotr, is about YOUR claim (NOT mine) that: “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands”
Poor Geoff GPT, got himself into a logical loop and can’t get out. For the n-th time:
– NOBODY claimed that it was you, Geoff Miell, who said: “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands”,
– and NOBODY claimed that it was you, Geoff Miell, who said “NGLs ARE crude oil or condensate”
Therefore, as long as you, Geoff Miell:
– keep stating the obvious, as if anybody claimed otherwise:
(GM: “ MY argument with YOU, Piotr, is about YOUR claim (NOT mine) that: “neither are “shale oil” or “oil sands” )
– demand that I provide you the “links and quotes” of what …. nobody ever claimed: (GM: “ Again, where have I claimed NGLs ARE crude oil or condensate, Piotr?? Please provide any link(s) and relevant quote(s)“)
– use YOUR failure to read/understand even the simplest of points as a chance to fault … me: (“ “you are bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS”; “you remain bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS”; “Gish gallop BS-fest”, “How many more times are you going to flood the zone with your BS?” “ “flooding the zone with shit”, “the willfully ignorant, clueless Piotr”)
– and see nothing wrong with any of that – then what’s the point in trying to explain to you other, slightly less OBVIOUS, points?
That’s like trying to teach a hamster the multiplication table.
Nigel: Geoff Miell, crude oil is not shale oil. Crude oil is defined as oil extracted from large underground reservoirs.
Nigel, wanna bet whether Geoff’s response will be, say: “You are right, Nigel. I apologize for the DOZEN(S?) of invective-laden screens of text on …. whether “shale oil is crude oil or not”, and disproving statements …. nobody made, INSTEAD of addressing the original argument.” ? ;-)
And for the reference, my original argument, and the reason Geoff presumably joined this thread, was that we have NOT reached “peak OIL” (not “crude oil”, just “oil” ), hence Julian implying that we don’t have to worry about GHG mitigation, because we will run out of fossil fuels before any serious damage is done – repeats deniers misinformation.
Nigelj (at 11 Nov 2025 at 2:03 AM): – “Geoff Miell, crude oil is not shale oil.”
You don’t provide any evidence/data to support your baseless OPINION, while completely ignoring my EVIDENCE of examples from the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy (2025), US EIA, and Art Berman.
Nigelj (at 11 Nov 2025 at 2:03 AM): – “Shale oil is defined as oil extracted from pores and fissures in certain rocks, or from keragin.”
Re-read what the US EIA states about US tight oil (aka shale oil). US shale oil is a feedstock for crude oil refineries, though it is often a light, sweet crude that is blended with other types of crude to create a mix that refineries can process.
Oil shale (as distinct and separate from shale oil) is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing kerogen, an organic matter that is a precursor to crude oil that can be converted into liquid hydrocarbons like synthetic oil through heating. Large deposits exist globally, but oil shale is currently not a commercially viable product in most places due to high costs and environmental impacts, although some countries like Estonia and China are actively producing from it
Nigelj (at 11 Nov 2025 at 2:03 AM): – “Your source doesn’t say they are the same.”
Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy (2025), page 23 does.
US Energy Information Administration (EIA) does.
Art Berman does.
And then you contradict yourself with this statement: “I’ve heard shale oil called unconventional crude.“
Geoff Miell @ 12 Nov 2025 at 6:27 AM
Nigelj : (at 11 Nov 2025 at 2:03 AM): – “Geoff Miell, crude oil is not shale oil.”
Geoff Miell: “You don’t provide any evidence/data to support your baseless OPINION,…”
Nigelj: Yes I did. I gave you the commonly accepted definition of crude oil, that its oil drilled from large oil reservoirs and that the definition of shale oil is its extracted from fissures and pores in shale rocks by processes like hydraulic fracking. Or extracting keragin. Therefore crude oil and shale oil are different. Just to confirm this I asked both Google Gemini and MS copilot whether crude oil is shale oil, and both said no, and both gave lengthy lists of explanations and reference sources.
Couple of definitions:
EIA: Crude oil: A mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural underground reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing …
EIA: Tight oil ( Shale oil) : Oil produced from petroleum-bearing formations with low permeability such as the Eagle Ford, the Bakken, and other formations that must be hydraulically fractured to produce oil at commercial rates. Shale oil is a subset of tight oil.
Nigelj: “(at 11 Nov 2025 at 2:03 AM): – “Your source doesn’t say they are the same.”
Geoff Miell: “Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy (2025), page 23 does.”
Nigelj: Your source says. “Production of crude oil and natural gas is sometimes called conventional production or unconventional production.” This is implying shale oil is crude oil, on the basis of chemical composition being the same or very similar (apparently there are small differences). So I accept in that sense you are right.
So whether we consider crude oil the same as shale oil depends on context, whether 1) we are talking chemical composition or 2) extraction process and geology. The context of the earlier discussions between you and Piotr seemed to suggest the extraction process and geological formations was pertinent. So I was going with that.
I think you have written some good posts, so this is just one of those points of disagreement. Nothing more.
Nigelj (at 12 Nov 2025 at 2:59 PM): – “Therefore crude oil and shale oil are different.”
Nope. They are only different in terms of the geology they may reside in before extraction. They are both characterized as hydrocarbons that exist in liquid phase in natural underground reservoirs and that remain liquid at atmospheric pressure. They are both feedstocks for crude oil refineries.
The US EIA defines Crude Oil as:
Geoff Miell @ 12 Nov 2025 at 11:39 PM, I’m not disputing that chemically crude oil and shale oil are the same. All I’m saying is in certain contexts crude oil and shale oil are considered different. Surely you can see this straight away in the table Piotr mentioned that listed crude oil, shale oil, gas, etc, etc.? in that table they are of course differentiating on the basis of extraction methods and geology. “Crude oil” has become commonly used to denote oil conventionally drilled from large reservoirs , and we are stuck with that convention. Perhaps the table should have said “conventional crude”, shale oil, etc. I don’t know how else to say it. Google gemini has clearly concluded the same looking at multiple sources
The geology and extraction process is indeed relevant because the context of the initial discussions between you and Piotr was about peak oil, and what types of oil that included or didn’t include in terms of whether its conventional oil or fracked etcetera.
Nigelj (at 13 Nov 2025 at 4:46 PM): – “I’m not disputing that chemically crude oil and shale oil are the same. All I’m saying is in certain contexts crude oil and shale oil are considered different.”
So, you are disagreeing with what the US EIA definition of what crude oil is? Yes?
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/TblDefs/pet_crd_api_tbldef2.asp
So, you are disagreeing with what the Energy Institute includes as crude oil + condensate on page 23 in their Statistical Review of World Energy 2025? Yes?
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
US petroleum geologist Art Berman stated on 3 Feb 2025:
https://www.artberman.com/blog/peak-oil-requiem-for-a-failed-paradigm/
So, you are disagreeing with Art Berman about what is included as crude oil? Yes?
https://x.com/aeberman12/status/1722833614625190110
Nigelj (at 13 Nov 2025 at 4:46 PM): – “Surely you can see this straight away in the table Piotr mentioned that listed crude oil, shale oil, gas, etc, etc.? in that table they are of course differentiating on the basis of extraction methods and geology.”
Nope. Refineries—crude’s only buyers—don’t care about artificial categories. They pay for oil that meets their specifications, whether it’s conventional or unconventional crude oil. But try getting Piotr to accept that and admit ignorance, and it seems now for you too, aye Nigelj?
Geoff Miell @13 Nov 2025 at 9:41 PM
“So, you are disagreeing with what the US EIA definition of what crude oil is? Yes?”
No I’m not. Obviously crude oil and shale oil are essentially the same products ok? Ive already said that they are chemically the same!
The only substantive difference is how they are extracted and the geological formations so you have conventional crude oil that is drilled form large reservoirs, and unconventional crude oil that is fracked from within rocks (like shale oil).
However the term conventional crude is often SHORTENED to just crude oil. Piotr posted a list saying crude oil, shale oil, etc, etc so in that list and in that context crude and shale oil are considered DIFFERENT, on the basis of extraction and geology. Or they wouldnt have used different words. Its rather obvious surely.
All the world’s problems can be solved in a garden – Mollison or Lawton. Knowing Geoff, he likely stole it from Mollison.
But their causes can be found in an oil barrel. – Me, just now..
Prompted by….https://x.com/Williamgallus/status/1986054212510163250
Hat tip to John Mashey: Merchants of Doubt film: Merchants of Doubt (2014) … A documentary that looks at pundits-for-hire who present themselves as scientific authorities as they speak about topics like toxic chemicals, pharmaceuticals and climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRWEqbl1wmk
Sadly, fans of these merchants are now infesting RealClimate with long-discredited claims. This might help, if one could get them to watch it.
Australia has so much electricity from solar power that it is going to start offering free electricity to everyone for at least three hours during the day as the wholesale price of power goes negative.
https://bsky.app/profile/marklemley.bsky.social/post/3m4wrops4fs26
While Australia represents a climatic region more extreme than the U.S. Southwest, this blend of solar, wind and batteries looks to have potential, especially as polluting energy sources such as coal, oil and gas become ever more expensive relative to renewables. Full article here:
https://electrek.co/2025/11/04/australia-has-so-much-solar-that-its-offering-everyone-free-electricity-3h-day/
Thanks DOAK for sharing that. If effectively put into action by the Aussies it will be not only be nifty for them, but represent an example for others to follow as renewable energy continues ramping up.
P.S. If you hear dull thump sounds, that’s probably utility executives throwing their phones against the wall upon hearing this news! ;-)
P.S.S. Gosh, I’d quite enjoy sharing this news with a certain President, lol.
It’s not everyone in Australia getting 3 hours fee electricity, even though it’s often headlined that way in the media.
It’s for people who are are in two-and-a-bit states (New South Wales, South Australia and the south-eastern part of Queensland), out of 6 states and 2 territories, and even in the states that will implement the scheme, only people with newer interval-recording meters will get it (though it’s possible to ask to have their meters upgraded). It doesn’t actually start until July 2026.
It may be extended to cover more of the population later. I can’t get it, because I live in the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra), and it’s not yet part of the scheme. The second most populous state, Victoria, which has about 1/4 of the national population, isn’t getting it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-04/solar-sharer-free-energy-three-hours-outlier-states/105968998
The fact that it’s happening is actually not really great news, because it points to the fact that Australia doesn’t yet have sufficient storage capability to use that excess daytime solar energy at times when the energy would actually be worth money, so it’s trying to shift demand.
Developing that storage is in Australia’s energy planning out to 2050, but we’re still quite a way off getting there.
https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp
Regarding the Bill Gates memo …
It’s worth noting that Gates has been a major funder of global warming denial. The memo amounts to little more than plagiarizing Bjorn Lomborg’s tired old propaganda … which is unsurprising considering that Gates has funded Lomborg’s denialist “think tank” for years, to the tune of $3.5 MILLION ….
“Bill Gates’ charity has donated more than $3.5 million to a think tank run by the Danish academic and climate crisis denier Bjørn Lomborg … donations went to the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which … was created by Lomborg, who for years has argued in op-eds, lectures, and broadcast media that there are more important global issues to prioritize than climate change … Those views align closely with a controversial memo Gates recently published …”
https://www.desmog.com/2025/11/05/bill-gates-donated-climate-denier-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center/
Fascinating (imo) autopsy report (1st link below) looking at the implementation of clean energy provisions of legislation by the prior U.S. administration, as reported by Politico on Nov. 4th (2nd link):
.
“Implementing Federal Clean Energy Programs: Lessons Learned from DOE & Partner Agencies”
https://energyimplementation.github.io/implementation-report.pdf
.
“Slow rollout throttled Biden’s big clean energy ambitions, former staffers say”
By KELSEY TAMBORRINO and JESSIE BLAESER
11/04/2025 05:00 AM EST
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/04/rollout-throttled-biden-big-clean-energy-00634316
Zack Labe (now at ClimateCentral) provides useful data and visuals which communicate clearly:
https://zacklabe.com/arctic-sea-ice-extentconcentration/
Not content with monkey-wrenching US climate action, the Maladminstration uses ‘gangster-like’ bullying tactics to do the same to mitigation action on the high seas:
https://nuancematters.substack.com/p/trump-kills-an-international-plan
Hi Kevin. Wonder if the 12 month postponement is to allow the nations who favor adoptance to hold their finger in the air a year from now and see what the U.S. midterms indicate about the popularity of Trump and his policies for the remainder of his term?
The Editor Got a Letter From ‘Dr. B.S.’ So Did a Lot of Other Editors. The rise of artificial intelligence has produced serial writers to science and medical journals, most likely using chatbots to boost the number of citations they’ve published. – https://archive.ph/w9AAr#selection-511.0-515.175
We are experiencing a concomitant volume of BS comments here at RealClimate. Go figure! Are you not entertained?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxqpNuqluFc
Reuters gets it right: COP30: The latest in climate science, from faster warming to coral collapse
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/cop30-gathers-whats-latest-climate-science-2025-11-09/
Summary
– Global temperatures rising faster, sea levels increasing rapidly
– Coral die-off marks first climate tipping point, Amazon and Atlantic current at risk
– US climate work hit by Trump plans to cut, but other countries still spending on science
….
SCIENCE UNDER ATTACK
The U.S. administration under climate-denying President Donald Trump is hoping to slash funding for agencies that collect and monitor climate and weather data, worrying a scientific community that says U.S. leadership will be hard to replace.
Trump’s 2026 budget request, yet to be approved by Congress, proposes halving the annual budget for NASA Earth Science to about $1 billion and cutting NOAA’s spending by more than a quarter to $4.5 billion while eliminating its climate research arm, among other cuts.
Elsewhere, however, public science spending is increasing, with record budgets for science research in China, the UK, Japan, and the European Union. The EU also last month opened its real-time weather data monitoring to public access.”
[note: I continue to think that RealClimate is ill served by giving a platform to persistent and prolific fake skeptics/climate deniers, who are returning in force thanks to the generosity of the people they seek to undermine, and enhanced by those who cannot resist arguing endlessly with them.]
Thanks, Susan. Sharing that one.
Geoff Miell “ MWP1a occurred around the time of an abrupt Northern Hemisphere warming of 4–5 °C giving mean rates of roughly 40–60 mm. Why is difficult to accept that the global mean rate of SLR would continue to accelerate over time to similar magnitudes (or maybe more) occurring during the MWP1a?”
Piotr Nov. 3 “Because we don’t have the couple km of ice over half of North America and portion of Eurasia to melt (the contribution of Antarctica and Greenland to MWP1a SLR was minor)? And we don’t have massive meltwater lakes that suddenly find a way to drain into the ocean ? And that’s “why it is difficult to accept your 10-FOLD (or maybe more) increase of SLR over today’s value?”
Geoff Miell Nov. 9: “ Meanwhile, the Hektoria Glacier on the Antarctica peninsula, shrunk by nearly 50% in just two months (i.e. Nov – Dec 2022). […] you have no imagination for and ignorance about the possibilities, as per usual.”
Brave words (your lecturing others on “no imagination and ignorance”) because if you miss the proof – then they turn against you. So let’s put you to the test:
HAS the global sea level increased by 40–60 mm, maybe more” in 2022?
So whose ignorance and arrogance have you just unwittingly proven, Mr. Miell?
Piotr: – “HAS the global sea level increased by 40–60 mm, maybe more” in 2022?”
That’s YOUR clear straw man! Relative to what baseline?
Since year-1900, global mean sea level has risen about 23 cm, and about 9 cm since year-2000.
Since continuous satellite altimetry measurements began in Jan 1993, the global mean rate of SLR has increased from around 2 mm/year (in 1993) to almost 6 mm/year (in 2024). That’s certainly more than a doubling and closer to a tripling of the rate of global mean SLR over the period of a little over three decades of satellite altimetry data. Where’s the rate of SLR going to be with 4 decades of satellite altimetry data? I wouldn’t be at all surprised by somewhere around 8-10 mm/year. Time will tell…
And while the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) continues to remain for our planet in a net energy gain state, planet Earth will continue to warm further. A world that continues to warm means a faster and faster melt rate for land-based ice AND a higher ocean thermal expansion, which means a faster and faster rate of SLR.
And the harbingers of accelerating ice mass loss continue to accumulate, for examples: Larsen A (in 1995), Larsen B (in 2002), Conger–Glenzer (in 2022), Hektoria Glacier (in 2022); that I’d suggest clearly don’t bode well for Thwaites, Haynes, Pope, Smith & Kohler glaciers, that are already speeding up, that would be significant contributors to SLR, as glaciologist Eric Rignot suggested in 2019.
Piotr: – “So whose ignorance and arrogance have you just unwittingly proven, Mr. Miell?”
I think you continue to unwittingly prove your lack of imagination for and willful ignorance about the possibilities of a global mean rate of SLR accelerating to 40–60 mm/year within this century. Last time I checked there’s another 75 years 1 month and less than 3 weeks to go before year-2100 is done.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a global mean rate of SLR of 10 mm/year sometime in the 2030s, and 20 mm/year by 2050. That equates to around 40-50 cm of SLR relative to the year-2000 baseline by year-2050. Beyond that, who knows?
What about 2 m SLR by 2100? I think on our current SLR trajectory, that’s highly likely the minimum.
What about 4 m SLR by 2100, as glaciologist Eric Rignot suggests is possible? It’s happened before during the Meltwater Pulse 1A event, and the Earth System is currently warming at a similar rate to the one in the Northern Hemisphere during the MWP1A event.
What about 5-“several” metres SLR by 2100, as James Hansen suggests is possible? I’d suggest Hansen seems to have a track record of highlighting climate trends long before others do that in time are proved correct.
Whether it happens within these suggested timeframes, or later, or not at all, I’d suggest depends on whether humanity takes aggressive actions to cool down planet Earth very soon, or humanity continues predominantly with BAU. I think within the next 5-10 years, satellite altimetry data for global mean SLR will likely provide a good indication how close reality will be to my current SLR expectations.
It’s not over yet… The Earth System is already committed to >20 m SLR, albeit over a multi-century/millennia timeframe. Unless we/humanity aggressively cool down planet Earth, then we will lose our current coastlines due to inundation from relentless and accelerating SLR.
” to almost 6 mm/year (in 2024)” == outrageous cherry picking of warm, shoaled, expanded ocean surface waters caused by a large and apparently weird El Nino. Worthy of the very best Fossils, Tom Nelson, CDN John Robson, Sir Chris Lord Monckton of Garters, any of them. I can’t remember whether Piotr said I was wrong with weird or with ironic but he’ll be correct even when Piotr says very comical non-thought-out things about ice, so I’ll agree with the Piotr for a quiet life.
Barry E Finch: – “” to almost 6 mm/year (in 2024)” == outrageous cherry picking of warm, shoaled, expanded ocean surface waters caused by a large and apparently weird El Nino.”
Barry, the global mean rate of sea level rise (SLR) was 5.9 mm/year (i.e. almost 6 mm/year) in 2024. That’s the reality, despite your denial.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-025-00667-w
And while the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) continues to remain for our planet in a net energy gain state (i.e. energy equivalence of about 980,000 ‘Hiroshimas’ per day of planetary warming, per CERES satellite data), planet Earth will continue to warm further. A world that continues to warm means a faster and faster melt rate for land-based ice AND a higher ocean thermal expansion, which means a faster and faster rate of SLR.
The Laws of Physics are not negotiable.
Re: “Barry, the global mean rate of sea level rise (SLR) was 5.9 mm/year (i.e. almost 6 mm/year) in 2024. That’s the reality, despite your denial.“
No, it’s your incorrect analysis, which you’ve been called on several times. It’s again like you’re trying to find new people who lack the knowledge to see through what you’re doing, instead of you revising your position in light of evidence that showed you were wrong. Competent experts do not calculate the rate of sea level rise based on one year. That’s because shorter time-periods are more prone to bias from random factors, such that they are not representative of longer-term trends. Hence why a source you cited noted that “[e]very year is a little bit different.” It is a statistical error to claim a significant changepoint, whether acceleration or deceleration, based on data that short (Beaulieu 2024). Otherwise, you end up with absurdities like Bjorn Lomborg claiming a rate of sea level rise of 0 mm/year:
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 12 Nov 2025 at 11:41 AM): – “No, it’s your incorrect analysis…”
Nope. It’s not my analysis. It’s EVIDENCE of REALITY from Hamlington et al. (2025) in their paper titled Sea level rise in 2024:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-025-00667-w
It’s EVIDENCE of REALITY from NASA:
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/282/nasa-analysis-shows-unexpected-amount-of-sea-level-rise-in-2024/
Per the WMO’s State of the Global Climate 2023, figure 6, included the global
mean decadal rate of SLR was 4.77 mm/year for the period Jan 2014 to Dec 2023, with an acceleration rate of 0.12 ± 0.05 mm/year².
https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-global-climate-2023
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 12 Nov 2025 at 11:41 AM): – “It’s again like you’re trying to find new people who lack the knowledge to see through what you’re doing, instead of you revising your position in light of evidence that showed you were wrong.”
And while the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) continues to remain for our planet in a net energy gain state (i.e. energy equivalence of about 980,000 ‘Hiroshimas’ per day of planetary warming, per CERES satellite data), planet Earth will continue to warm further. A world that continues to warm means a faster and faster melt rate for land-based ice AND a higher ocean thermal expansion, which means a faster and faster rate of SLR. To deny that is to deny the Laws of Physics.
That’s what’s being OBSERVED NOW that it seems to me you (and some others here at RC) simply refuse to accept! I think you are a DENIER OF REALITY!
Re: “Nope. It’s not my analysis.“
It is your analysis, since you’re the one calculating sea level rise based on 1 year. You were already shown that experts instead calculate the trend based on longer time-periods like a decade, leading to a robust trend. Your own source notes that calculations based on one year are not robust.
Re: “A world that continues to warm means a faster and faster melt rate for land-based ice AND a higher ocean thermal expansion, which means a faster and faster rate of SLR.“
That doesn’t mean the increase for each year will be greater than the increase for the previous years since shorter-term trends are noisy and non-robust. The topic is not whether sea level rise acceleration occur. The topic is you exaggerating acceleration and exaggerating the rate of sea level rise by calculating a non-robust trend based on 1 year.
Re: “I think you are a DENIER OF REALITY!“
I think you don’t know how to calculate a robust trend. It’s a bad idea to calculate a trend based on 2 years, let alone based on 1 year like you’re doing. You’re just pulling the doomer/doomist version of Lomborg’s skeptic trick:
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 13 Nov 2025 at 6:48 PM): – “It is your analysis, since you’re the one calculating sea level rise based on 1 year.”
Nope. Hamlington et al. (2025) did the analysis and reported it in their paper titled Sea level rise in 2024, NOT me. I’ve just highlighted their rate of SLR for year-2024 findings.
NASA also reported the same rate of SLR findings, NOT me. I’ve just highlighted their findings too.
It seems to me you are denying the findings of Hamlington et al. (2025) and NASA, and are attempting to misattribute their findings to me.
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 13 Nov 2025 at 6:48 PM): – “The topic is you exaggerating acceleration and exaggerating the rate of sea level rise by calculating a non-robust trend based on 1 year.”
Is it a “non-robust trend”? Or is it a portent of what’s already arrived or soon to come (i.e. annual global mean rates of SLR in the 5.0-8.0 mm/year range over the next 5 years)? I’m sure we’ll find out in the fullness of time.
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 13 Nov 2025 at 6:48 PM): – “It’s a bad idea to calculate a trend based on 2 years, let alone based on 1 year like you’re doing.”
I’m not. I’m looking at satellite altimetry data over a span of time from 1993 through 2024 – that’s 32 years of data. Per the World Meteorological Organization report titled State of the Global Climate 2023, in Figure 6, the global mean rate of SLR was:
• 2.13 mm/year for the decadal period Jan 2003 to Dec 2012;
• 3.33 mm/year for the decadal period Jan 2003 to Dec 2012;
• 4.77 mm/year for the decadal period Jan 2014 to Dec 2023;
Also included in Figure 6 at the top-left corner was:
https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-global-climate-2023
According to the IPCC’s AR6 WGI, the average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 mm/year between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 mm/year between 1971 and 2006.
So I’d suggest with an eye on the general acceleration rate specified of 0.12 ± 0.05 mm/yr² for the 32-year period of satellite altimetry data, then around 1993, the rate of SLR was trending just under 2.0 mm/year, and for 2024, it should have been trending around 5.3-5.4 mm/year, but we know that it was actually 5.9 mm/year because it was a record warm year.
So, the global mean rate of SLR has certainly more than doubled, and has also certainly increased by more than 2.5 times since 1993, based on multi-year acceleration trends. And yes, I recognize rates of SLR are ‘noisy’.
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 13 Nov 2025 at 6:48 PM): – “You’re just pulling the doomer/doomist version of Lomborg’s skeptic trick…”
Nope. I’m looking at what the data is telling me. Are you, or are you refusing to see anything that doesn’t fit your reticent narrative?
Yes or no:
Was it appropriate for Bjorn Lomborg to cherry-pick two years to claim a pause in sea level rise?
Yes or no:
Is it appropriate for you to cherry-pick one year to claim an acceleration of sea level rise?
I predict those questions will be dodged.
It’s clear that neither Hamlington 2025 nor NASA treat a single year as being the sea level rise (SLR) trend. In fact, Hamlington 2025 explicitly distinguishes the SLR trend from the value from one year:
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 15 Nov 2025 at 12:29 AM): – “Was it appropriate for Bjorn Lomborg to cherry-pick two years to claim a pause in sea level rise?”
Bjørn Lomborg cherry-picks data to argue that the economic impacts of climate change are overstated. Critics say Lomborg’s work, particularly his book Cool It, oversimplifies the issue by downplaying negative consequences and emphasizing climate adaptation over mitigation, even while acknowledging climate change is real and human-made.
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 15 Nov 2025 at 12:29 AM): – “Is it appropriate for you to cherry-pick one year to claim an acceleration of sea level rise?”
I reject the premise of your question. I repeat, I’m looking at satellite altimetry data over a span of time from 1993 through 2024 – that’s 32 years of data. The global mean rate of SLR has certainly more than doubled, and has also certainly increased by more than 2.5 times since 1993, based on multi-year acceleration trends.
I’d suggest the only way to settle the argument is with more data.
I think the global mean rate of SLR will continue on an accelerating trend. I wouldn’t be at all surprised by annual global mean rates of SLR likely being observed in the 5.0-8.0 mm/year range over the next 5 years (i.e. up to and including 2030), putting the decadal mean (for the period Jan 2021 to Dec 2030) at somewhere about 5.7-6.0 mm/year. We’ll know in the fullness of time once the additional data becomes available. Until then, it seems we will continue to agree to disagree.
You didn’t answer the questions. No, I’m not asking for a likely AI-generated reply that does not actually address the question. So again:
1) Yes or no:
Was it appropriate for Bjorn Lomborg to cherry-pick two years to claim a pause in sea level rise?
2) Yes or no:
Is it appropriate for you to cherry-pick one year to claim an acceleration of sea level rise?
Your reply to the first question was a review of Lomborg’s general work and his book. It’s not answering the specific question on what he did for those two years with respect to sea level rise (SLR) trend.
Your reply to the second question is gaslighting. Anyone reading the thread can see you calculating a 5.9 mm/year SLR trend by cherry-picking one year: 2024. Again, your cited sources don’t do that since that short of a time-period generates a non-robust trend especially susceptible to noisy variability. So they instead calculate the SLR trend using longer time-periods, like a decade.
I predict you’ll dodge the questions again.
In Re to Geoff Miell, 10 NOV 2025 AT 8:51 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841892
Hallo Geoff,
Piotr asked if the rate of the sea level rise (SLR) was between 40-60 mm within the single year 2022, I think.
As regards the committed sea level rise, I think that my greatest benefit from reading Real Climate comments may be the learning that, actually, there may be rather a trade-off between the rise of global mean surface temperature (GMST) on one hand and the SLR on the other hand, than a SLR commensurate to the GMST rise, as you seem to suppose. In other words, it appears that if a given level of Earth energy imbalance (EEI) from CO2 injection causes a strong and quick GMST rise, the smaller will be the cumulative SLR when the EEI finally falls to zero. Oppositely, a very short CO2 Impulse quickly falling to the “net zero” should cause a very small cumulative GMST increase and almost all “excessive’ heat absorbed by the Earth until the EEI falls to zero should convert into SLR.
At least in this respect, “zebra” seems to be right whenever he emphasizes that we should strive keeping the EEI as low as possible.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz: – “Piotr asked if the rate of the sea level rise (SLR) was between 40-60 mm within the single year 2022, I think.”
Quite clearly SLR wasn’t anywhere near that magnitude in 2022, so it’s quite clear to me, Piotr was attempting a straw man fallacy – a type of logical fallacy where someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it appear easier to attack. I observe Piotr misrepresents people’s arguments here at RC often. That’s Piotr’s MO.
IMO, based on the available evidence/data I see to date, I’d suggest there’s more than enough time within the remainder of this century for the possibility for the global mean rate of SLR to accelerate to around 40–60 mm/year, but it’s dependent on whether we/humanity continue predominantly BAU and where the terminal magnitude of GMST anomaly relative to pre-industrial age is reached later this century. The Earth System is currently on a collision course towards a +3 °C GMST anomaly, or more; a world beyond any past human experience. At current rate of warming, the +2.0 °C GMST anomaly threshold will likely be crossed before 2040.
Tomáš Kalisz: – “As regards the committed sea level rise…”
I’d suggest you see/hear glaciologist Professor Jason Box at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6QIDJIcUQ&t=927s
Re: “At current rate of warming, the +2.0 °C GMST anomaly threshold will likely be crossed before 2040.“
No, 2.0°C would be crossed between 2045-2050. So before 2050, not before 2040. You’ve had evidence on this shown to you. Yet you reflexively exaggerate climate change, likely to suit your preferred policy narrative. You keep exaggerating even after people cite evidence showing you’re wrong. It’s like you’re trying to find new people who don’t know enough to see through what you’re doing. The same pattern occurred with your exaggerations on sea level rise. How long are you going to keep doing this? Anthropogenic climate change is bad enough without doomer/doomist exaggerations.
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 12 Nov 2025 at 11:16 AM): – “No, 2.0°C would be crossed between 2045-2050.”
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 (from line 57):
And from line 72:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6079807/v1
So, based on the Foster and Rahmstorf 2025 preprint, the +1.5 °C GMST anomaly “will” be exceeded “by late 2026”, and at current rate of warming (i.e. “more than twice” “a rate of 0.15 – 0.2 °C per decade”, meaning more than 0.3-0.4 °C per decade) means the +2.0 °C GMST anomaly is likely to be crossed sooner than 2038 to perhaps no later than 2042.
If the current rate of warming increases further, then the likely crossing of the +2.0 °C GMST anomaly threshold would be sooner (i.e. before 2040), and alternatively, if the current warming rate reduces, then the likely crossing would be later (i.e. after 2040).
Professor Eliot Jacobson posted on 4 Oct 2025 (including a graph):
https://bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3m2epenz2es2q
For a warming rate of 0.35 °C/decade maintained, and the +1.5 °C GMST anomaly threshold crossed in 2026, then the +2.0 GMST anomaly threshold would be crossed in 2040. If the warming rate continues to accelerate faster, as current trends suggest, then the +2.0 GMST anomaly threshold would be crossed before 2040.
So I think my statement: At current rate of warming, the +2.0 °C GMST anomaly threshold will likely be crossed before 2040; is backed up by compelling contemporaneous evidence/data.
And what’s driving this accelerated rate of warming? It’s a darkening planet and an increasing EEI.
https://bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3lzo64rvnas2t
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 12 Nov 2025 at 11:16 AM): – “You keep exaggerating even after people cite evidence showing you’re wrong.”
Nope. I’m citing compelling EVIDENCE/DATA that it seems to me you appear to choose to ignore/deny.
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 12 Nov 2025 at 11:16 AM): – “The same pattern occurred with your exaggerations on sea level rise. How long are you going to keep doing this?”
What exaggerations? I’m highlighting compelling statements from NOAA, WMO, NASA, Professor Jason Box, Professor Eric Rignot, Dr James Hansen, etc., about POSSIBILITIES, that it seems to me are inconvenient for your apparent ideological narratives of ‘lukewarmism’, which I’d suggest is a form of climate science denial.
Tomáš Kalisz: – “Piotr asked if the rate of the sea level rise (SLR) was between 40-60 mm within the single year 2022, I think.”
Geoff Miell : Quite clearly SLR wasn’t anywhere near that magnitude in 2022, so it’s quite clear to me, Piotr was attempting a straw man fallacy
Let’s get the facts straight::
– Geoff Miell: “ MWP1a [produced] mean SL rates of roughly 40–60 mm ” And arrogantly continues: “ Why is difficult to accept that the global mean rate of SLR would continue to accelerate over time to similar magnitudes?”
– I answered: “Because we don’t have the couple km of ice over half of North America and portion of Eurasia to melt (the contribution of Antarctica and Greenland to MWP1a SLR was minor)”
– Geoff M.: “ you have no imagination for and ignorance about the possibilities, as per usual.[…] Hektoria Glacier on the Antarctica peninsula, shrunk by nearly 50% in Nov – Dec 2022 ”
Which would have disprove my point about the lack of enough ice melt ONLY IF
that Hektoria Glacier provided COMPARABLE amount of melt as annual MWP1a melt – i.e. SLR 40-60 mm/yr. HENCE was my reply to that “Hektoria Glacier” argument::
Piotr: “[And as a result of this 50% shrinkage of the Hektoria Glacier ] HAS the global sea level increased by 40–60 mm, maybe more” in 2022?
Obviously IT WASN’T – thus proving that the Hektoria argument was a dud – since
even 50% shrinkage of Hektoria DIDN’T produce enough water to come even close
to the 40-60 mm/yr of MWP1a.
But Geoff Miell, too thick to understand even such a STRAIGHTFORWARD argument,
and convinced that he has the upper hand – attacks:
“ so it’s quite clear to me, Piotr was attempting a straw man fallacy – a type of logical fallacy where someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it appear easier to attack. I observe Piotr misrepresents people’s arguments here at RC often. That’s Piotr’s MO.
Geoff “I admit to my mistakes” Miell
Re: “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.“
You were already debunked on this. But as usual, you repeat your pre-determined script, while acting like you were not rebutted.
Again, the actual global temperature trend is ~0.26°C/decade, leading to 1.5°C being crossed around 2029/2030 and 2°C being crossed between 2045-2050:
Foster and Rahmstorf are not calculating the actual global temperature trend. They’re calculating the trend after removing the impact of changes in solar irradiance, volcanic emissions, and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation. They call that their “adjusted” trend. Their claim of statistically significant acceleration, and the extrapolation you cite from them, are for that adjusted trend, not for the actual global temperature trend. You’d know that if you read their pre-print more closely:
Not even Foster thinks the actual global temperature trend is as high as you claim. He’s aware that the actual global temperature trend can differ from the adjusted trend due to non-anthropogenic factors. This is something you refuse to acknowledge, no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you:
Re: “Professor Eliot Jacobson posted on 4 Oct 2025 (including a graph)“
That’s a BlueSky comment. It does not rebut the peer-reviewed research cited above showing the global temperature trend is ~0.26°C/decade. That BlueSky comment does not even state its methodology for calculating the trend, unlike the research I cited above. Jacobson claims to be using Copernicus / ERA5 data, when I already showed you above that Copernicus / ERA5 shows a trend of ~0.26°C/decade. Again:
Re: ” […] it seems to me are inconvenient for your apparent ideological narratives of ‘lukewarmism’, which I’d suggest is a form of climate science denial.“
I already told you I’m not a lukewarmer after you asked. You acting like you were not told this says a lot about you.
Re: “So, based on the Foster and Rahmstorf 2025 preprint, the +1.5 °C GMST anomaly “will” be exceeded “by late 2026”“
The Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C level is based on the long-term trend, not an individual year, as explained several times. That 1.5°C level is on pace to be crossed by around 2029/2030, not by 2026:
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 13 Nov 2025 at 7:43 PM): – “You were already debunked on this. But as usual, you repeat your pre-determined script, while acting like you were not rebutted.”
All I see is your reticent narrative. Why is your Forster 2025 paper (which my browser warned was a Suspicious link) any more definitive than other papers that suggest a significantly higher recent warming rate? For examples:
1. J.E. Hansen, P. Kharecha, M. Sato et al., “Global warming has accelerated: are the United Nations and the public well-informed?” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 67(1), 6–44, 2025, where per Sidebar 1:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494
In a communication titled 2025 Global Temperature, by James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha, dated 15 Apr 2025, included Figure 5. (a) Global and (b) Sea Surface Temperatures (Base = 1880-1920), where it shows:
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/2025GlobalTemperature.15April2025.pdf
2. Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf (2025 preprint) per previous comment.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6079807/v1
Is it because the higher warming rates just don’t fit with your reticent narrative?
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 13 Nov 2025 at 7:43 PM): – “Not even Foster thinks the actual global temperature trend is as high as you claim.”
Again, you misattribute the findings of Hansen et al. (2025) and Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf (2025 preprint) to me. I’m just highlighting the findings of Hansen et al. and Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf.
The Copernicus graph shows a 30-year linear trend: “The increase for the last thirty years, from 1995 to 2024, is 0.26 ± 0.05°C per decade.” But since 2010 the linear best fit rate is significantly higher.
Clearly, we are not going to agree on this until more data emerges.
I’d be happier if the 30-year linear trend remained at 0.26 ± 0.05°C per decade? That gives humanity more time to act. But what if the 30-year linear trend skewed higher (towards what Hansen et al. are suggesting is appearing to be an emerging trend) as more data accumulates? How would you feel about your ignoring/rejecting these warnings?
Yes or no:
Are the quoted passages below for the adjusted trend (i.e. the trend after removing the impact of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, volcanic emissions, and total solar irradiance) instead of the unadjusted/actual global temperature trend?:
I predict that question will be dodged, since the right answer of ‘yes’ would require you to admit error.
Re:: “However, the rate of warming itself is increasing and is forecast to reach 0.40°C per decade by the early 2030’s.“
Yet Foster says this is unlikely and plans to re-write his pre-print accordingly:
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 19 Nov 2025 at 4:50 AM): – “Yet Foster says this is unlikely and plans to re-write his pre-print accordingly:…”
Thank you for drawing my attention to Foster’s op-ed. Included in his piece are these comments (bold text my emphasis):
I think you, Atomsk’s Sanakan, are dragging your feet on “accepting the truth of it”. And it seems to me you continue to ignore Hansen’s “surprising claims”, who as Foster suggests in his op-ed has an exemplary record of “hitting the nail squarely on the head.”
And then there’s this:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/05/28/how-fast-is-the-world-warming/
But how close to 95% confidence is the data for “statistical significance”? Per Foster + Rahmstorf (2025 preprint), lines 29-31:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6079807/v1
So, two datasets exceed 90% confidence. Are they just exceeding 90% or are they closer to 95% confidence? And where are the other three datasets at? Foster + Rahmstorf don’t say, but Foster does say “it’s close” to the 95% confidence level. Talk about splitting hairs.
Would you go into a building with a 90% confidence of collapsing, but not at or above 95%? Would you cross a bridge with a 90% confidence of collapsing, but not at or above 95%? Would you get on a plane with a 90% confidence of crashing, but not at or above 95%?
And what’s driving this accelerating warming?
* Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations keep rising:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/global_trend.png
* The 36-month mean rate of atmospheric CO2 growth is now at record high (i.e. 7.874 ppm per 36 months):
https://bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3m5kjbcdmuk2q
* Per CERES data to Aug 2025, the 36-month running average for Earth albedo just hit yet another new record low, now at 28.701%:
https://bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3m5vt7hkq4c2b
* And the 36-month running average for the EEI is currently at 11.2 ‘Hiroshimas’ per second:
https://bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3m5yhfcn7bs2b
Per the C3S global temperature trend monitor (which you referred to in an earlier comment), updated in recent days, the threshold cross-over date has shrunk a little further, from Feb 2043 (with data up to Dec 2010) to Apr 2029 (with data up to Oct 2025).
https://apps.climate.copernicus.eu/global-temperature-trend-monitor/?tab=plot
What will more data bring forth? It seems to me you aren’t interested in finding that out because your mind is apparently already closed to it.
Atomsk: “ Foster writes “For my best estimate, I’ll say the rate is 0.33 -.1 +.2 °C/decade (i.e between 0.23 and 0.53, best guess 0.33). I intend to re-write the final paragraph in order to emphasize that I don’t expect the world to continue warming at such a high rate and I don’t expect it to accelerate further.”
Geoff Miell, sarcastically to Atomsk:
“ Thank you for drawing my attention to Foster’s op-ed. Included in his piece are these comments (bold text [GM’s] emphasis) “ I’m hardly the first to suggest this, but in my opinion, until now the scientific community has been dragging its feet accepting the truth of it. […] I can’t help but remember how many times he has made surprising claims which inspire skepticism, only to end up hitting the nail squarely on the head.
Are you familiar with Hitchen’s razor, Mr. Miell? “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”.
The quote you boldfaced provides NO EVIDENCE whatsoever (stating that “Hansen believes” proves nothing) but instead is a SUBJECTIVE OPINION of a person who admits on the subject matter of his opinion: “I’m not as up-to-date as I’d like” and who publishes it as an open-ed.
Do you really believe that this OUTWEIGHS Atomsk quote referring to the SPECIFIC falsifiable author’s own conclusion from his analysis of the data, destined to be submitted to the peer-review journal ???
And outweighs so obviously that you gloat thinking that Atomsk unwittingly handed you your long-sought VICTORY : “ Thank you for drawing my attention to Foster’s op-ed. Included in his piece are these comments (bold text [GM’s] emphasis)“?
You’re still dodging the questions you were asked, Geoff Miell.
Again, yes or no:
1) Did the Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print state that it did not detect recent statistically significant acceleration of the global temperature trend through 2024?
2) Did Beaulieu 2024 state that it did not detect recent statistically significant acceleration of the global temperature trend through 2023?
3) What is the recent global temperature trend when the appropriate statistical tests are done, such as in Forster 2025?
4) Are the quoted Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print passages linked below for the adjusted trend (i.e. the trend after removing the impact of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, volcanic emissions, and total solar irradiance) instead of the unadjusted/actual global temperature trend?:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842047
As you likely know, Piotr, there’s almost no chance of getting through to him because he’s more interested in his preferred ideological narrative than in accuracy. So he’s not going to learn about topics that have been repeatedly explained to him, such as statistical significance / false positive rate, selection bias / the multiple testing problem, misuse of broken/discontinuous trends, endpoint bias, the actual global temperature trend vs. the trend with the impact of ENSO + TSI + volcanos removed, etc. He’ll just keep peddling his analyses that screw up on these topics, no matter how many times he’s corrected.
Piotr (at 13 Nov 2025 at 1:06 AM): – Let’s get the facts straight::
– Geoff Miell: “ MWP1a [produced] mean SL rates of roughly 40–60 mm ” And arrogantly continues: “ Why is difficult to accept that the global mean rate of SLR would continue to accelerate over time to similar magnitudes?”
– I answered: “Because we don’t have the couple km of ice over half of North America and portion of Eurasia to melt (the contribution of Antarctica and Greenland to MWP1a SLR was minor)””
I suspect you are too lazy to read things that are inconvenient for your narratives. Here’s what I posted (at 12 Nov 2025 at 3:23 AM) in response to your earlier comments:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841942
Piotr (at 13 Nov 2025 at 1:06 AM): – Obviously IT WASN’T – thus proving that the Hektoria argument was a dud – since
even 50% shrinkage of Hektoria DIDN’T produce enough water to come even close
to the 40-60 mm/yr of MWP1a.”
But a similar melt rate for a collective of larger land-based ice masses, like Thwaites, Haynes, Pope, Smith & Kohler glaciers, that are already speeding up, and are not that far away from Hektoria, would be significant contributors to a faster rate of SLR, as glaciologist Eric Rignot suggested in 2019.
But it seems to me that you, I-never-admit-my-mistakes Piotr, are (willfully?) far too clueless to grasp this.
Where have I stated that global sea level increased by 40–60 mm, maybe more, in 2022, Piotr? Hint: Nowhere.
Where have I suggested that the shrinkage of the Hektoria Glacier on the Antarctica peninsula in Nov-Dec 2022 has contributed to 40–60 mm/year SLR, Piotr? Hint: Nowhere.
You are misrepresenting again with straw man fallacies, as per usual.
I note details aren’t your thing, are they, aye Piotr?
And then there is this chestnut:
– Geoff Miell: “ you have no imagination for and ignorance about the possibilities, as per usual. Hektoria Glacier on the Antarctica peninsula, shrunk by nearly 50% in Nov – Dec 2022”
– Piotr: “the 50% shrinkage of Hektoria DIDN’T produce enough water to come even close to the 40-60 mm/yr of MWP1a.”
-Geoff: “ But a similar melt rate for a collective of larger land-based ice masses, like Thwaites, Haynes, Pope, Smith & Kohler glaciers, that are already speeding up, and are not that far away from Hektoria ”
Are you with a straight face claiming that “ Thwaites, Haynes, Pope, Smith & Kohler glaciers ” have “SIMILAR MELT RATE” to the Hektoria glacier losing nearly 50%” of its ice in 2 month time ???
And this is a type of reasoning and knowledge that use to conclude you have a massive intellectual and ethical superiority over others:
– “I suspect you are too lazy to read things”
– “details aren’t your thing, are they, aye Piotr?”
– ” you, I-never-admit-my-mistakes Piotr, are far too clueless to grasp this”
and:
– ” You are misrepresenting again with straw man fallacies, as per usual.”
– “Gish gallop BS-fest”
– “[ flooding the zone with shit.”
– “your inability to admit you are wrong? How many more times are you going to flood the zone with your BS?”
– “you are bamboozled by your own Gish gallop BS”
-“you are acting entirely in bad faith”
-“t he willfully ignorant, clueless Piotr”
– “ you remain unable to admit that you are wrong, change the subject, and double down on misrepresenting all and sundry who dare to challenge your ideologies/perspectives/fantasies.”
(c) Geoff ” I admit to my mistakes” Miell
By their arguments you shall know them. Ladies and Gentleman – Geoff Miell.
Re: “All I see is your reticent narrative.“
Because you don’t read and understand the papers cited to you, nor the points made to you.
Re: ““Global warming has accelerated: are the United Nations and the public well-informed?”“
1) You didn’t show a numerical trend.
2) It ends in 2023. Forster 2025 ends in 2024.
3) Broken/discontinuous, trend
Re: ““In a communication titled 2025 Global Temperature”“
That’s not a peer-reviewed paper. The peer-reviewed literature goes over the problems with using that sort of broken trend. Use of a broken trend can lead to the false impression of a trend change, whether acceleration or deceleration. It’s also likely non-physical, a feature it shares with your exaggerated projections of sea level rise acceleration:
Re: “Is it because the higher warming rates just don’t fit with your reticent narrative?“
It’s because you don’t know how to evaluate what you cite.
Re: “Again, you misattribute the findings of Hansen et al. (2025) and Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf (2025 preprint) to me.“
No, it’s attributed to you. You’re the one claiming the section you quoted from ‘Rahmstorf + Foster’ is for the global temperature trend. You’ve already been shown it’s instead for adjusted trend, i.e. after removing the impact of volcanic emissions, ENSO, and total solar irradiance. You simply refuse to honestly admit your mistake, if it’s even an honest mistake instead of deliberate.
Re: “But since 2010 the linear best fit rate is significantly higher.“
It’s not significantly higher. You have not run any tests of statistical significance, but instead just eye-balled a broken trend. The ‘Rahmstorf + Foster’ pre-print you cited does run a statistical test of the global temperature trend, and explicitly states the result is not statistically significant. You will, of course, once again conflate the global temperature trend with the adjusted trend, even though the difference has been explained to you several times:
Atomsk’s Sanakan: – “Because you don’t read and understand the papers cited to you, nor the points made to you.”
Because it seems to me the papers you offer clearly support your apparent reticence, and you reject any peer-reviewed papers that are apparently inconvenient for your reticence.
In the peer-reviewed Hansen et al. (Feb 2025) paper titled Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?, it begins with:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494
Atomsk’s Sanakan, are Hansen et al. correct, or not, re the statements directly referred above? Yes or No?
In your earlier comment you referred to:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-841996
It’s clear to me (but apparently not to you) that the Earth System rate of warming has accelerated from 0.18 °C/decade to 0.26 ± 0.05°C/decade for a 30-year or more linear trend.
You also referred to the C3S global temperature trend monitor, which shows how close we are to reaching a global warming threshold of 1.5 ˚C. By adjusting the slider one can see how with more data available the date of the breach threshold for the +1.5 ˚C GMST anomaly keeps significantly reducing, and for an extrapolation with data up to:
* Dec 2000, where the GMST anomaly was at +0.76 ˚C, the breach threshold was estimated on Dec 2041;
* Dec 2005, where the GMST anomaly was at +0.87 ˚C, the breach threshold was estimated on Jan 2040;
* Dec 2010, where the GMST anomaly was at +0.95 ˚C, the breach threshold was estimated on Feb 2043;
* Dec 2015, where the GMST anomaly was at +1.04 ˚C, the breach threshold was estimated on Mar 2042;
* Dec 2020, where the GMST anomaly was at +1.24 ˚C, the breach threshold was estimated on Dec 2031;
* Sep 2025, where the GMST anomaly was at +1.40 ˚C, the breach threshold was estimated on May 2029.
https://apps.climate.copernicus.eu/global-temperature-trend-monitor/?tab=plot
Per the C3S global temperature trend monitor, the threshold cross-over date has shrunk more than a decade earlier, from Feb 2043 (with data up to Dec 2010) to May 2029 (with data up to Sep 2025). Atomsk’s Sanakan, do you agree? Yes or No?
What would more data bring for how close we are to reaching a global warming threshold of 1.5 ˚C for a 30-year linear mean rate of warming? Using the Copernicus ERA5 dataset, relative to the 1850-1900 baseline, for a 30-year Loess running mean:
* +0.50 °C GMST anomaly breached in 1985;
* +0.75 °C GMST anomaly breached in 2000 (15 years after 1985, periodic mean warming rate 0.16 °C/decade);
* +1.00 °C GMST anomaly breached in 2011 (11 years after 2000, periodic mean warming rate 0.23 °C/decade);
* +1.25 °C GMST anomaly breached in 2020 (9 years after 2011, periodic mean warming rate 0.28 °C/decade);
* +1.40 °C GMST anomaly breached in Feb 2025.
https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/20240209-Copernicus-loess-year-month-v2.jpg
* +1.43 GMST anomaly breached in Oct 2025 (5 years after 2000, periodic mean warming rate 0.36 °C/decade).
https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/climate-milestone-counts/
Rahmstorf + Foster (preprint 2025) stated: “it will exceed the 1.5°C limit by late 2026 in these data sets.” I’d suggest unless there’s a significant reduction in the current rate of warming observed since 2020, between now and 2027, it seems to me Rahmstorf + Foster may well be proved correct. Time will tell, at least by the end of 2026.
Clearly, we are not going to agree on this until more data emerges.
You’re still dodging.
Again, yes or no:
1) Did the Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print state that it did not detect recent statistically significant acceleration of the global temperature trend through 2024?
2) Did Beaulieu 2024 state that it did not detect recent statistically significant acceleration of the global temperature trend through 2023?
3) What is the recent global temperature trend when the appropriate statistical tests are done, such as in Forster 2025?
4) Are the quoted Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print passages linked below for the adjusted trend (i.e. the trend after removing the impact of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, volcanic emissions, and total solar irradiance) instead of the unadjusted/actual global temperature trend?:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842047
Two of your core tactics are to calculate non-robust trends without doing the appropriate statistical tests (ex: changepoint analysis), and conflating the global temperature trend vs. the adjusted trend. You also use that first tactic when discussing sea level rise. The above questions expose those tactics. So you dodge the questions.
Hansen does not do the appropriate statistical tests and instead commits the errors noted in the papers cited to you. You neither read nor understood those papers. For example: he uses broken/discontinuous trends that are not physically realistic, he cherry-picks a year for a breakpoint without correcting for the degrees of freedom he had in selecting a breakpoint (i.e. selection bias or the multiple testing problem), endpoint bias, etc.
Beaulieu 2024 and the Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print instead do the appropriate statistical tests. They find no statistically significant acceleration of the global temperature trend. Your usual “Time will tell” excuse doesn’t work since the data for running the statistical tests is already available. Hence why the tests were able to run on data through 2023 anc through 2024.
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 17 Nov 2025 at 6:24 PM): – “You’re still dodging.”
You’re dodging my questions. I don’t think you’re acting in good faith.
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 17 Nov 2025 at 6:24 PM): – “Beaulieu 2024 and the Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print instead do the appropriate statistical tests. They find no statistically significant acceleration of the global temperature trend.”
Um, so you’re implying the Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print title: Global Warming has Accelerated Significantly, is false advertising for the content of the preprint paper, aye Atomsk’s Sanakan? Yes?
And the Abstract includes from line 6:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6079807/v1
Looks to me like you refuse to accept the outcome of Rahmstorf + Foster’s “appropriate statistical tests”. Yes?
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 17 Nov 2025 at 6:24 PM): – “Your usual “Time will tell” excuse doesn’t work since the data for running the statistical tests is already available.”
Mmm, the Rahmstorf + Foster’s “appropriate statistical tests” show that, per the title: Global Warming has Accelerated Significantly. And I’d suggest more data would provided an extended dataset to provide further clarity. But it seems to me you aren’t interested in finding that out because your mind is apparently already closed to it. How’s that for cherry picking, aye Atomsk’s Sanakan?
Atomsk’s Sanakan, it seems to me your mind is also closed to the POSSIBILITY of multi-metre SLR by year-2100. Glaciologist Eric Rignot suggests: “we should be very careful not to be too conservative about how fast … some of these glaciers could retreat.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iarx9Pibnic&t=1077s
Re: “Um, so you’re implying the Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print title: Global Warming has Accelerated Significantly, is false advertising for the content of the preprint paper, aye Atomsk’s Sanakan? Yes?”
I’m implying that you neither read nor understand what you cite, nor do you honestly admit when you’re wrong.
Again, yes or no:
1) Did the Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print state that it did not detect recent statistically significant acceleration of the global temperature trend through 2024?
The fact that you still refuse to answer ‘yes’ shows that you’re not to be trusted when you discuss climate science.
Re: “Here we account for the influence of three main natural variability factors: El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. The resulting adjusted data show that after 2015, global temperature rose significantly faster than in any previous 10-year period since 1945.”
That quote is for the adjusted trend, which is not the same as the global temperature trend. The abstract makes that clear, as does the main text of the pre-print. For the umpteenth time, these trends are defined as:
– the global temperature trend: the observed temperature trend, which includes the impact of El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation
– the adjusted trend: the trend after excluding the impact of El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation
Yet you persist in trying to mislead people into thinking the adjusted trend is actually the global temperature trend. Hence why you still dodge the question below.
Yes or no:
4) Are the quoted Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print passages linked below for the adjusted trend (i.e. the trend after removing the impact of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, volcanic emissions, and total solar irradiance) instead of the unadjusted/actual global temperature trend?:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842047
Foster makes this even clearer on his blog:
So the adjusted trend is not the global temperature trend. It’s instead the trend after removing the impact of ENSO, volcanic eruptions, and solar variation. This adjusted trend is close to the anthropogenic trend, though the adjusted trend includes the effect of non-anthropogenic factors other than those 3 non-anthropogenic factors the authors adjust for.
At this point, an honest person would answer ‘yes’ to question 4 below instead of dodging the question. But not everyone is honest.
Yes or no:
4) Are the quoted Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print passages linked below for the adjusted trend (i.e. the trend after removing the impact of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, volcanic emissions, and total solar irradiance) instead of the unadjusted/actual global temperature trend?:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842047
And a 5th question, given Geoff Miell’s response elsewhere that still dodges the 4 questions.
Yes or no:
5) Did Foster say he did not expect global warming to continue at a rate as high as 0.33°C/decade and that he did not expect warming to accelerate further?
The right answer to questions 1, 2, 4, and 5 is ‘yes’. The right answer to question 3 is ~0.26°C/decade. It shouldn’t be hard for an honest person to answer those questions.
1) Did the Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print state that it did not detect recent statistically significant acceleration of the global temperature trend through 2024?
2) Did Beaulieu 2024 state that it did not detect recent statistically significant acceleration of the global temperature trend through 2023?
3) What is the recent global temperature trend when the appropriate statistical tests are done, such as in Forster 2025?
4) Are the quoted Rahmstorf + Foster pre-print passages linked here for the adjusted trend (i.e. the trend after removing the impact of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, volcanic emissions, and total solar irradiance) instead of the unadjusted/actual global temperature trend?
Geoff Miell says
19 Nov 2025 at 6:23 PM
Foster’s op-ed. is very old news. Cherry picking is the only thing these trolls have left. Besides insults and lies. They hate Hansen with a vengeance. A combination of jealousy adhd and bitterness.
You should pause and note that you will never get any support or agreement here from anyone no matter how accurate your material is, especially from those holding very old phd degrees.
Lleim.So are you saying because something is old it is wrong? Are you being serious?
AS asked simple yes no questions and perfectly reasonable questions. Geoff Mielle responded like a slippery, evasive politician. For whatever reason.
AS made some criticisms of Hansens methods. I dont know if hes right, Your response didnt bother to address any of these criticisms at a technical level. Instead you accuse people of hating Hansen, and being liars and trolls and having very old PhD degrees. This is a mixture of insults and ad hominems. Do you understand why that’s not very convincing.
Lleim.So are you saying because something is old it is wrong? Are you being serious?
AS asked simple yes no questions and perfectly reasonable questions. Geoff Mielle responded like a slippery, evasive politician. For whatever reason.
AS made some criticisms of Hansens methods. I dont know if hes right, Your response didnt bother to address any of these criticisms at a technical level. Instead you accuse people of hating Hansen, and being liars and trolls and having very old PhD degrees. This is a mixture of insults and ad hominems. Do you understand why that’s not very convincing.
Something strange happened. I will post this again.
“Lleim” says: Cherry picking is the only thing these trolls have left. Besides insults and lies. [..] A combination of jealousy adhd and bitterness.
Very apt description of Mr. Miell. And of your post – zero falsifiable
arguments, all arrogant opinions about others. Then again you write what you know, Mr. …. Miell-backwards, eh?
So is this a case of you complimenting yourself, or are you using somebody’s else’s name as a … “tribute” to him (as Multitroll famously justified his use of Pedro Prieto’s name).
Lleim: – “You should pause and note that you will never get any support or agreement here from anyone no matter how accurate your material is, especially from those holding very old phd degrees.”
I think that’s correct for most of the regular commentators here at RC below the featured articles.
Meanwhile, Professor Stefan Rahmstorf warned at ATLAS25 that:
“So, if we continue on a high emissions path, that is like, almost certain that will shut down the AMOC. Overall, if we, yeah, if we take all the models, that is more than 50, and look at the probabilities: which ones shut down; which ones don’t shut down the AMOC; then with high emissions, then 70% of them actually have a, a shutdown, that includes those that haven’t been continued beyond 2100, but where we conclude the AMOC is so weak that it basically is beyond the tipping point, and would have shut down, had these people continued their model simulations.
Uh, for intermediate emissions, uh, we now have a 37% risk of shutdown, and even the low emissions is sticking to the Paris Agreement, uh, we still have a 25% chance of shutdown.
And I, I have studied the AMOC stability question since 1991 – almost 35 years now – and for 30 of those years, we have all in the community considered that a low probability but high impact risk – probability less than 10% – I have always argued that is far too high. I mean, would you board a plane that has a 5% chance of crashing? Probably not. So, um I always argue we need to do something about this even if the risk is only 5%. Now, that is the best probability estimate that we have, and, um, I was shocked when I first saw those results. I’m a, I’m a co-author on that paper, but when I was first shown these model results, uh, I was really shocked. And I have, uh, just mentioned I have been at the Nordic Tipping Week and we have seen new results that mean that probably the real probabilities are higher, because people have tested which of these many models look the most realistic compared to observational data. And unfortunately the kind of good models, the most realistic ones are the ones where the AMOC weakens most. And that’s why this is the probability across all models whether good or bad. And if you just take the good models even for immediate, intermediate emission scenario the probability of shutting down the AMOC is way above 50%. That is really depressing. I’m sorry about that.”
https://youtu.be/HKBTZ324COA?t=621
A shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) would be catastrophic for European agriculture due to plummeting winter temperatures, decreased rainfall, and the collapse of arable farming. Without the AMOC, northern Europe’s temperatures could drop by 5-15 °C, and summer droughts would increase, potentially making staple crops like wheat and maize impossible to grow.
It seems to me some commentators here at RC are willing to gamble that the Earth System warming rate is not accelerating based entirely on not reaching the magic 95% confidence level, while Foster, one of the co-authors of a study, states “it’s close” to that level. I’d suggest they are also willing to gamble the future of human civilisation with similar crazy, illogical arguments.
As “Lleim” is “Miell” spelled backwards, this is either a sock puppet for GM, or, more likely, someone trying to make us think that. In any case, let’s not take “Lleim” too seriously.
This isn’t a question of policy. It’s a question of statistical significance in science. In climate science, medical science, etc. statistical significance is usually set at ‘p < 0.05’, i.e. an alpha or false positive rate of less that 0.05 (or < 5%). It’s a pre-determined threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis of no change in the global temperature trend. Being pre-determined prevents subjective/biased attempts to skew the analysis in favor of (or against) claiming an increase in the global temperature trend.
That is not the same as the policy or behavioral question of whether one would board a plane, enter a building, cross a bridge, etc. You conflate the scientific question with the policy question, Geoff Miell, because you bring your policy/ideological bias to how you interpret science. You’ve done that before:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842206
You also misunderstood what ‘95% confidence’ means. It doesn’t mean there’s 95% chance of acceleration. It’s instead closer to meaning there is a 5% chance that the results observed would occur by chance. Only two of the five datasets exceeded 90% confidence (i.e. ‘p < 0.10’), and all of them fell short of exceeding 95% confidence (i.e. ‘p < 0.05’). The more datasets that are tested, the greater the likelihood one of them exceeds 95% confidence by random chance, even if the null hypothesis is true. That’s the multiple testing problem. So the fact that all five datasets still failed to exceed 95% confidence gives one even more justification for not rejecting the null hypothesis of no change in the global temperature trend.
Anyway, my 5 questions are still there for you to answer:
The right answers were given here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842227
Finally, I wouldn’t be surprised if Lleim is another sockpuppet account of the multi-troll:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840541
Re: “They hate Hansen with a vengeance. A combination of jealousy adhd and bitterness.”
I don’t hate Hansen, Lleim. Disagreement is not the same thing as hatred. You’re likely a sockpuppet account of a frequent poster on here who idolizes Hansen, to the point that they lash out against any criticism of Hansen’s claims:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840541
I agree with Hansen when I think he’s right, and disagree with him when I think he’s wrong. That included rebutting misrepresentations of his sea level rise projection:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/but-you-said-the-ice-was-going-to-disappear-in-10-years/#comment-840889
And saying Hansen’s 1988 warming projection was correct:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/12/how-good-have-climate-models-been-at-truly-predicting-the-future/#comment-751704
So you can drop the idol worship where you insult anyone who dares disagree with Hansen on anything. It’s fine for folks to disagree with his incorrect method for checking for global warming acceleration:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842139
Geoff Miell said: “It seems to me some commentators here at RC are willing to gamble that the Earth System warming rate is not accelerating based entirely on not reaching the magic 95% confidence level, while Foster, one of the co-authors of a study, states “it’s close” to that level. I’d suggest they are also willing to gamble the future of human civilisation with similar crazy, illogical arguments.”
You are jumping to unfounded conclusions. AS rightly challenged your use of a time series ending in 2024 an anomalously hot year, and your claim that the temperature trend had accelerated. This is just scientists demanding accuracy and precision. It does not logically follow that he is necessarily gambling that everything is just fine and we should do nothing. Especially given the underlying AGW trend has definitely accelerated with statistical significance. This acceleration is being temporarily masked by natural variation (?).
Lleim: – “You should pause and note that you will never get any support or agreement here from anyone no matter how accurate your material is, especially from those holding very old phd degrees.”
Geoff Miell – “I think that’s correct for most of the regular commentators here.”
Agreeing with the mirror, Mr. Miell? ;-) Misery loves company …
Lleim: “ They hate Hansen with a vengeance. A combination of jealousy adhd and bitterness.”
Atomsk: “I don’t hate Hansen, Lleim. Disagreement is not the same thing as hatred. I agree with Hansen when I think he’s right, and disagree with him when I think he’s wrong. ”
Exactly. What do YOU do, Mr. “Lleim” ? Or the latter can never ever happen?
You and Ffoeg Lleim-backwards, are using Hansen as a drunkard uses a flashlight – not for enlightenment, but to smash the opponents heads.
Given that – I am not sure whether Hansen appreciates you invoking his name in the defense of your claims and your quality of arguments.
Reminds me the Bulgakov’s “Master and Margarita”, toutes proportions gardées, where the Jesus-like character is troubled by how his teachings may be distorted:
” there’s one with a goatskin parchment who follows me, follows me and keeps writing all the time. But once I peeked into this parchment and was horrified. I said decidedly nothing of what’s written there. I implored him: Delete it. P: well. not really;-): Burn your parchment, I beg you! But he tore it out of my hands and ran away”
===
in Re to Barton Paul Levenson, Nigelj, Piotr, Atomsk’s Sanakan with respect to “Lleim”
Sirs,
There is very strong multitroll flair indeed. I think that the IP address used by this new account may deserve a check, as it appears that so far, this simple method was quite efficient for proving identity with former multitroll embodiments.
Greetings
Tomáš
Re: “It seems to me some commentators here at RC are willing to gamble that the Earth System warming rate is not accelerating based entirely on not reaching the magic 95% confidence level, while Foster, one of the co-authors of a study, states “it’s close” to that level. I’d suggest they are also willing to gamble the future of human civilisation with similar crazy, illogical arguments.“
I’ve said for awhile that warming is probably accelerating, but has not yet reached the threshold for statistical significance. And I’ve stated when I think that statistical significance will be achieved, Geoff Miell. You, in contrast, repeatedly use their pre-print to claim global warming already significantly accelerated, even after you’ve been repeatedly shown you’re wrong on this. For example:
I’m saying their pre-print does not show the global temperature trend significantly accelerated. It instead shows the adjusted trend significantly accelerated, i.e. the global temperature trend after removing the impact of ENSO, changes in solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions. That’s what questions 1, 2, and 4 here were about.
The 95% confidence level is their threshold for significance. So by admitting that threshold was not reached, you’ve implicitly admitted that they did not show significant acceleration of the global temperature trend. You could admit that explicitly, instead of misrepresenting the discussion as being about being “willing to gamble the future of human civilisation“.
The remaining issue is then what the ongoing global warming trend is. You’ve misrepresented their adjusted trend of ~0.40°C/decade in table 1 as being the global temperature trend. You then used that adjusted trend to claim
And to claim:
I’m saying the ongoing global trend is closer to ~0.26°C/decade, such that the Paris Agreements 2.0°C level would be crossed between 2045-2050, not before 2040. This entails that there’s more time for that level to be avoided. That’s what questions 3, 4, and 5 here were about.
So, Geoff Miell, try actually addressing the points I’m making, instead of erecting straw men that I’m not arguing for. You could address the points by, for instance, answering the 5 questions here. If this is still unclear, then there’s a PubPeer thread here explaining the pre-print in more detail.
Atomsk’s Sanakan (at 21 Nov 2025 at 8:55 PM): – “I’m saying the ongoing global trend is closer to ~0.26°C/decade, such that the Paris Agreements 2.0°C level would be crossed between 2045-2050, not before 2040.”
And yet earlier you quoted Foster:
For my best estimate, I’ll say the rate is 0.33 -.1 +.2 °C/decade (i.e between 0.23 and 0.53, best guess 0.33).
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842195
And now it seems Foster’s revised estimated warming rate (i.e between 0.23 and 0.53, best guess 0.33 °C per decade) is now apparently inconvenient for your estimate of an “ongoing global trend is closer to ~0.26°C/decade”, aye Atomsk’s Sanakan?
And Foster’s “best guess 0.33” °C per decade in my estimation is a significantly larger number compared with “a rate of 0.15 – 0.2 °C per decade during 1980-2000“.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6079807/v1
Interestingly, Foster also wrote:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/05/28/how-fast-is-the-world-warming/
Dr Robert Rohde tweeted on 13 Jun 2025 (including a temperature anomaly graph for the period 1980 through mid-2025):
https://x.com/RARohde/status/1933194527285661736
Extrapolating the BE 30-year smooth curve suggests the +1.5 °C GMST anomaly threshold likely crossed sometime in 2027, and the +1.8 °C anomaly threshold likely crossed sometime around 2035, if the trend continues.
And why wouldn’t the global warming trend continue?
* Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations keep rising:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/global_trend.png
* The 36-month mean rate of atmospheric CO₂ growth is now at record high
(i.e. 7.874 ppm per 36 months):
https://bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3m5kjbcdmuk2q
* Per CERES data to Aug 2025, the 36-month running average for Earth albedo just hit yet another new record low, now at 28.701%:
https://bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3m5vt7hkq4c2b
* And the 36-month running average for the EEI is currently at 11.2 ‘Hiroshimas’ per second:
https://bsky.app/profile/climatecasino.net/post/3m5yhfcn7bs2b
* The Amazon is becoming a carbon source due to a combination of deforestation and climate change.
Perhaps you are hoping for a major volcanic eruption to slow the rate of global warming down? It’s always a possibility, but that’s likely only to have a temporary delaying effect.
Meanwhile, it seems the Earth System is likely to cross at least 5 tipping points already at the +1.5 °C GMST anomaly, per Johan Rockström’s presentation:
* Greenland Ice Sheet collapse;
* West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse;
* Tropical coral reef die-off;
* Northern Permafrost abrupt thaw;
* Barents Sea ice loss.
https://youtu.be/Vl6VhCAeEfQ?t=575
Johan Rockström said:
“Now sure, there is scientific uncertainty here, as you see from these graphs, but there’s one red thread in science for humanity in the scientific message. And it’s this: the more we understand of the Earth’s system, the higher is the risk.”
https://youtu.be/Vl6VhCAeEfQ?t=624
Atomsk’s Sanakan, it seems to me your demand for a much higher certainty (i.e. at least 95% confidence) before accepting there’s a real threat is ignoring the glaring escalating “real risk of destabilising life support on the entire planet.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-f9hqBgdbA
I’d suggest you are willing to gamble with the future of human civilisation by ignoring the escalating extreme, ruinous risks.
Geoff Miell, you’re exaggerating, as usual. Multiple people have told you what’s wrong with your claims on sea level rise. Yet you keep saying them anyway, hoping to find new people who don’t know better.
– https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840686
– https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840114
– https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/10/unforced-variations-oct-2025/#comment-840268
Citation required for “What about 4 m SLR by 2100, as glaciologist Eric Rignot suggests is possible?”.
– Geoff Miell: “MWP1a [produced] mean SL rates of roughly 40–60 mm Why is difficult to accept that the global mean rate of SLR would continue to accelerate over time to similar magnitudes (or maybe more) occurring during the MWP1a?”
– Piotr: “Because we don’t have the couple km of ice over half of North America and portion of Eurasia to melt (the contribution of Antarctica and Greenland to MWP1a SLR was minor)”
– Geoff: “you have no imagination for and ignorance about the possibilities, as per usual.[…] Hektoria Glacier on the Antarctica peninsula, shrunk by nearly 50% in Nov – Dec 2022”
– Piotr: “[And as a result of this 50% shrinkage] HAS the global sea level increased by 40–60 mm, maybe more” in 2022?
-Geoff: “That’s YOUR clear straw man! Relative to what baseline?”
Nov-Dec 2021. Your “40-60 mm” are per YEAR, you know that, right?
But feel free to roll your eyes “ That’s YOUR clear straw man! and lecture ME on my “ lack of imagination and willful ignorance ”
And portray yourself as a paragon of integrity, able to admit when he is wrong (apparently, once you didn’t deny that you …. accidentally misspelled opponents name!)
Piotr: – “– Piotr: “Because we don’t have the couple km of ice over half of North America and portion of Eurasia to melt (the contribution of Antarctica and Greenland to MWP1a SLR was minor)””
There’s more than enough ice mass available to melt to drive substantial sea level rise (SLR). The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) contribution to SLR through its potential for a large and rapid collapse, could raise global sea levels by up to 3.3 metres (10.8 feet). Glaciologist Eric Rignot suggested in a 2014 paper that the WAIS has already passed its tipping point, so it’s already committed to melting, unless the Earth returns quickly to a cooler GMST.
The Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) contribution to SLR through melting and calving, which adds water to the ocean, if it completely melted, would raise global sea levels by approximately 7.4 metres (24 feet). Some climate scientists suggest the tipping point for the GrIS is around +1.6 °C GMST anomaly. On current rate of warming, the +2.0 GMST anomaly threshold is likely to be exceeded before 2040.
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) has the potential to raise global sea levels by about 53.3 metres if it were to melt completely.
WAIS (3.3 m) + GrIS (7.4 m) completely melting contributes a total of about 10.7 m SLR. Plus a portion of the EAIS is also committed to melting already at current GMST anomaly, so I’d suggest there’s more than enough ice mass available to melt to drive a rapid rate of SLR by 2100.
NOAA published an article dated 22 Aug 2023 by Rebecca Lindsey headlined Climate Change: Global Sea Level. It included this statement:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
And included is a graph of future sea level rise pathways with different amounts of global warming:
https://www.climate.gov/media/14136
Clearly, NOAA suggests 2 m SLR relative to the year-2000 baseline is possible by year-2100. To get there requires the global mean rate of SLR to continue to accelerate to over 40 mm/year sometime in the early second half of the 21st century.
Piotr: – “Nov-Dec 2021. Your “40-60 mm” are per YEAR, you know that, right?”
What drugs are you on, Piotr? What’s the significance of “Nov-Dec 2021”, Piotr?
Where have I stated that global sea level increased by 40–60 mm, maybe more, in 2022, Piotr? Hint: Nowhere.
Where have I suggested that the shrinkage of the Hektoria Glacier on the Antarctica peninsula in Nov-Dec 2022 has contributed to 40–60 mm/year SLR, Piotr? Hint: Nowhere.
You are misrepresenting again with straw man fallacies, as per usual.
I note details aren’t your thing, are they, aye Piotr?
Piotr: – “And portray yourself as a paragon of integrity, able to admit when he is wrong (apparently, once you didn’t deny that you …. accidentally misspelled opponents name!)”
I admit to my mistakes; you, Piotr, clearly don’t. You just run away, or change the subject. And it seems to me you falsely accuse others of character flaws that you apparently display yourself.
“Glaciologist Eric Rignot suggested in a 2014 paper that the WAIS has already passed its tipping point, so it’s already committed to melting, unless the Earth returns quickly to a cooler GMST”. You are playing both sides of the fence there but not because you’re undercover Fossil but because you’ve never done even basic studying of ice sheets like the few dozen hours I’ve put into it. (evidently because you’re 100% Social and 0% physical science, ironically same as the Fossil). I didn’t read the Paper but Eric said answering questions in the video (paraphrasing) “I’m not sure what a ” tipping point” is but we think the WAIS is already in a state of irreversible retreat”. Eric doesn’t mean “unless the Earth returns quickly to a cooler GMST” because humans are NOT going to trigger the next glaciation period early to stop SLR. Eric means that this is a Done Deal, the WAIS, is now a goner over the next several hundred to several thousand years. Humans choose the time line depending on where they settle the GMST and ocean temperature. Honest humans are supposed to figure out time-line approximations using science and that is what you’ve never done, not here on RC Web Log Site anyway.
Barry E Finch: – “I didn’t read the Paper but Eric said answering questions in the video (paraphrasing) “I’m not sure what a ” tipping point” is but we think the WAIS is already in a state of irreversible retreat”. Eric doesn’t mean “unless the Earth returns quickly to a cooler GMST” because humans are NOT going to trigger the next glaciation period early to stop SLR. Eric means that this is a Done Deal, the WAIS, is now a goner over the next several hundred to several thousand years.”
I’ve noticed on a few occasions at RC that you, Barry, are too lazy to quote what’s actually said, and “paraphrase” what you think was said. From the video of the the April 2019 General Meeting of the American Philosophical Society:
26:16 Steve Berry: “Steve Berry, University of Chicago. Is it possible to estimate, ah, when there might be a critical point with the, that’s irreversible.”
26:33 Eric Rignot: “Yeah. That’s a very good question. A lot of us look at the tipping points, right? The unfortunate reality of climate change is that we are very good at recognizing tipping points once we pass them.” [audience laughs]
26:51 Eric Rignot: “Ah, so I think in Greenland, we passed them. Ah, we started to disturb the marine-based glaciers in the, in irreversible fashion. And I think in West Antarctica, in 2014, we made the announcement that we thought this retreat was irreversible. So, the tipping point is, is behind us for some of these systems, but there’s a lot of tipping points, right? Ah, the biggest tipping point in my opinion is if we start destabilizing the glaciers in East Antarctica. Then if we, if we do commit to that, multiple-metres sea level rise. That’s, that’s a really bad thing.”
https://youtu.be/DnOykSCOf0c?t=1578
Definition of a tipping point:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tipping%20point
If you take a tray of ice blocks from your fridge and put them out on the kitchen sink exposed to room temperature (presumably above the melting point of those ice blocks) then those ice blocks will have passed their tipping point for melting, and those ice blocks will melt irreversibly over a period of time, unless you put those partially melted ice blocks back in your fridge to stop the melting process.
Likewise, as Eric Rignot suggests, the WAIS and GrIS have apparently passed their respective critical tipping points for GMST anomalies, and so long as the GMST stays above these respective thresholds then the WAIS and GrIS will irreversibly melt over time. If the Earth System begins to cool down to below those GMST thresholds then the WAIS and GrIS would stop melting and sea levels would stabilize.
Barry, what do you think has been happening to ice sheets and sea levels as the Earth System has warmed and cooled over time?
https://johnenglander.net/chart-of-420000-year-history-temperature-co2-sea-level/
RC UV above “And what’s driving this accelerated rate of warming?”
“sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures“. I suggest it happened in 2013/2014,
Feb 2014 Quote: “This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures“.
Feb 2014 Quote: “The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers.
Feb 2014 Quote: “A Shift in Western Tropical Pacific Sea Level Trends during the 1990s Mark A. Merrifield University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii “Pacific Ocean sea surface height trends from satellite altimeter observations for 1993–2009 are examined in the context of longer tide gauge records and wind stress patterns.
“It started in 1995 AD when the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started having higher average speed due to a warming tropical Atlantic Ocean surface due to the global warming. All kinds of big climate items took a radical rate increase within a very few years of that:
– Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds have increased 30% (1 m/s) since 1995 AD
– Arctic Ocean summer sea ice extent loss rate massively increased at 1997.5 AD as seen in a plot at 9:15 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCEawfpDoD0
– Arctic region warming at latitude 67N 1958-2019 sped up to +0.94 degrees / decade from a lower earlier rate ~1996-1998
– Humongous El Nino 1997/8 AD
– GMST increase slowed. ENSO change caused the “pause” or “hiatus”.
– The ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly rate DOUBLED at ~1999 AD (reason for the “pause/hiatus” in GMST 2002-2015)
– GMST ==El Nino years== started pulling ahead of La Nina faster at +0.23 degrees / decade vs +0.165 degrees / decade
– Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) mass loss took a doubling
– Perhaps the Antarctic circumpolar westerlies began strengthening & tightening then but I haven’t pinned ENSO as the cause yet”
Scientist paper quote: “Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014
Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso
“Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.”
“If the Earth System begins to cool down to below those GMST thresholds then the WAIS and GrIS would stop melting”. No, as I indicated in another recent comment. This is what glaciologists mean.
At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nOZwCitHgg
However, that isn’t the video that I recall (neither the one you cited).
It might be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVEM1cgMc1s
or possibly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z69uV11wI5A
Barry E Finch, I know what video I’ve cited, because the link is provided below the transcript segment in my comments.
But Barry, it seems to me you don’t cite what you are “paraphrasing” from. It could be anything, or a figment of your own imagination.
It’s no good offering private videos (i.e. the last two) that are not available to view for those without a login access.
Here’s Elizabeth Kolbert from The New Yorker (unpaywalled link): Governments and Billionaires Retreat Ahead of COP30 Climate Talks. Worldwide, every other week seems to bring a new climate-related crisis. Increasingly, the response has seemed to be a dulled acceptance. – https://archive.ph/H8LZx
“A report issued last month by more than 150 scientists warned that the world’s coral reefs are fated to die off; even under the “most optimistic” scenarios, ocean temperatures will be too high for them to survive. The Amazon rain forest and the Greenland ice sheet, the report stated, may similarly be destined for “irreversible collapse.”
“In the first six months of this year, the cost of climate-related disasters in the U.S. set a new record: $101 billion. (Though the Trump Administration has stopped keeping track of such costs, the nonprofit group Climate Central has continued to gather the data.) [also, here at EoTS]
….
“Brazil’s target, too, has been criticized as insufficient. And, just a few weeks ago, the Brazilian government decided, for the first time, to allow oil drilling near the mouth of the Amazon.
….
“Bill Gates weighed in with a memo to COP delegates. In it, Gates noted that the world’s poorest people are also the most vulnerable to the effects of rising temperatures. But, he said, these people have more acute problems than warming—namely, being poor. Therefore, he argued, money now spent on reducing emissions would be better spent on encouraging economic growth: “Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.”
{Lomborg (let’s all (mostly those already well off) get rich & fix it later) is Gates’ authority, and makes large amounts of money by gaming people who don’t want to face reality. See Secular Animist cite DeSmog: https://www.desmog.com/2025/11/05/bill-gates-donated-climate-denier-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center/ >$3.5 million!]
“It is understandable, in the age of Trump, that people—billionaires included—would want to focus on more tractable problems than climate change, even if those problems are as immense as global poverty.
“After 30 years—or 33, if you’re counting from Rio—it’s hard not to be discouraged by all that has, and hasn’t, happened. But there is no getting away from climate change. All other problems, poverty included, are linked to it and will be exacerbated by it. The notion that you can alleviate suffering in a world of uncontrolled warming isn’t just shortsighted, it edges toward magical thinking.”
” people—billionaires included—would want to focus on more tractable problems” I’m eating breakfast at 5 am, when I relax & read, including coffee. I don’t appreciate coffee from my nose messing the keyboard. On the GMST I suggest, approximately, taking 1995 to 2014. rotate anti-clockwise until 2014 is 0.065 degrees higher. Make linear trend fits through 1995-2010 and 2010-2026 and that’ll be fair approximation for the multi-decadal trend, although 2010-2028 would be better (but not available at this time).
This just came out: A negative result on whether planet tides affect the sun meaningfully:
Do Planets Affect the Behavior of the Long-term Solar Activity?
MM Katsova, VN Obridko, DD Sokoloff, NV Emelianov
arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.03889
The monthly updates of temperature data I usually follow are looking a bit lonely these days. Copernicus has posted for October with surface data and UAH has posted with TLT. (It seems the drought may be over after the so-far forty-days-&-forty-nights in the desert.)
After a warm September (due in the main to Antarctic temperatures), the warm October was a more widespread affair. The latest Copernicus daily numbers at ClimatePulse show anomalies dropping with the start of November. And the latest daily SST 60N-60S anomaly is shown below +0.3°C for the first time since early March 2023, that being also below the pre-“bananas!!” long-term trend values. These SST anomalies are a lot less wobbly that SATs I would argue more indicative of the actual state of global temperature. Yet these SSTs do still wobble and one swallow does not a summer make!!
UAH TLT also showed a warm September but in both NH & SH. The October anomaly remains unchanged from September, a drop in the NH, a rise in the SH.
The UAH Oct global TLT anomaly of +0.53°C is unsurprisingly the third warmest Oct after the “bananas!!” years (2023 +0.79°C, 2024 +0.75°C), but much closer to the now-4th-placed Oct 2017 (+0.47°C).
For a comparison of SAT/SST & TLT 2022-to-date, see the yellow graphics at the foot of “Banana!!” Watch.
Some ‘innocent’ fun (cartoon good too): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/nov/07/why-does-everyone-keep-picking-on-billionaires-at-least-they-stand-up-for-what-they-believe-in#comment-173025151
GazzaFromGrongGrong
I am the very model of a champagne-swilling billionaire,
a pillar of pollution with some major fossil-fuelling flair,
or maybe I’m a tech bro out there demonstrating expertise
in fleecing hordes of people on the internet with practised ease,
but either way I’m happy in my bubble of entitlement,
a member of the world elite, the very well-off one per cent
exploiting suckers left and right so we can go on profiting
from living in an atmosphere that lets us do most anything.
I’ve been to Mar-a-Lago where our king so great and glorious
ensures that our empowerment is constantly victorious,
a hedonistic orgy where we millionaires and billionaires
can party on regardless of the sorry state of world affairs,
but poverty and raging wars don’t matter when you’re filthy rich
as long as money can be made to scratch our economic itch
by doing heaps of cosy deals and flogging off a lot of goods,
for we must put the focus on maintaining all our livelihoods!
A propos :
https://x.com/RussellSeitz/status/1987965892580569174
For those still using Xter, there are some other amusing entries from Russell, whose humor and high literacy are often not only fun but interesting.
Awesome!
Some links about science I wanted to share; I think these relate to scientific literacy/metaliteracy, and the scientific method:
Tibees: “Carl Sagan’s Guide to Not Being Fooled” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YvPyUhjnEw
* Sabine Hossenfelder: “Flat Earth “Science” — Wrong, but not Stupid” *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2cc (*At the time I watched this video, I was unaware of her more problematic work (eg. “Sabine is Wrong Again: Capitalism Would’ve Killed Penicillin” Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7XAxiJGJdg , https://www.patreon.com/posts/89594488 , eigenchris “Why Sabine Hossenfelder’s video on transgender teens is misleading” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URpE-xZnQnk … I still think this linked video is good (also her video about quantum decoherence, and free will (2 vids)– well, the 2nd of those had an apparent misinterpretation of what people (presumably) mean when they say ‘we just need the will to do it’ [it = mitigate anthropogenic climate change: energy technology transition, land use etc…] – they (presumably) don’t mean it will happen magically through force of will alone)
Parkrose Permaculture: “Billy Nye’s big fail can teach us a lesson about MAGA” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJgRjwhbVuI (communicating the science of climate change)
Hank Green:
“About Those Aliens…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP9qYWhbSuQ
“Why it’s Never Aliens” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZYSjqr6mIc
(also https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838115 – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/critiques-of-the-critical-review/#comment-838161 )
* Sabine Hossenfelder: “Flat Earth “Science” — Wrong, but not Stupid” Link Fixed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2cc
New Zealand has recently changed its methane reduction target, based on the “latest science”. Various scientists made public comments.
“How methane heats the atmosphere is a bit like pouring water on a sponge. If the sponge is dry, even a small amount of water makes it damp. If the sponge is already saturated, adding more water has little effect.
“Similarly, methane’s warming impact decreases at higher concentrations (and is influenced by nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas) because the relevant infrared absorption bands become saturated.
“Because atmospheric methane concentrations are continuing to increase – driven largely by emissions from other countries – steeper cuts to New Zealand’s emissions alone would have little impact on total atmospheric heating.”
Would anyone like to explain to me “saturation” in this context? Please bear in mind I am nearly 83 and becoming senile. (I thought the altitude at which methane molecules lost energy to space just kept rising as the methane level rose, thus radiation slowed as per Stefan-Boltzmann.)
[Response: There is no saturation. Radiative forcing from CH4 goes up like the square root of concentration so, sure, each marginal addition has a smaller effect but it all adds. The human impact of CH4 depends on total emissions, so even those of NZ make a difference. The argument being made that NZ is only small and therefore should do nothing, is fundamentally incoherent and immoral. All emissions can be split into smaller and smaller units and thus by this logic, no-one needs to ever do anything. It’s just BS. – gavin]
I measured it off a plot probably MODTRAN Web tool in 20913 and I recall either 19 w/m**2 or 21 w/m**2 as the global heater Forcing of the wavelengths shared by CH4, N2O, H2O. I would call that “saturated” unless there’s some wavelength absorb-manufacture broadening I don’t know about. Depending on clouds that “saturated” state would heat the ecosphere by ~20 degrees which is the hottest it’s been in the ~540 My record so big-body Life would need to all be very different from now. So it’s the band overlap with N2O (H2O gas is only a feedback, I don’t know how it features, complicated) that is your relevant point not any “saturation” (unless you’re good with all present large-body species getting wiped out).. From 2013 notes:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
Table 1. Expressions for Calculating Radiative Forcing IPCC (2001)
Constant Gas Radiative Forcing
ΔF (W/m**2)
α = 5.35 CO2 α * ln(C/Co)
β = 0.036 CH4 β * (M **½ – Mo **½) – [f(M,No) – f(Mo,No)]
ε = 0.12 N2O ε * (N **½ – No **½) – [f(Mo,N) – f(Mo,No)]
λ = 0.25 CFC-11 λ * (X – Xo)
ω = 0.32 CFC-12 ω * (X – Xo)
The subscript “o” denotes the unperturbed (1750) global abundance
f(M,N) = 0.47 * ln[1 + 2.01/10**5 * (M * N) ** 0.75 + 5.31/10**15 * M * (M * N)**1.52]
C is the CO2 global measured abundance in ppm, M is the same for CH4 in ppb, N is the same for N2O in ppb, X is the same for CFCs in ppb
Co = 278 ppm, Mo = 722 ppb, No = 270 ppb, Xo = 0
Masters/Henson Eye on the Storm (Yale Climate Connections):
The Caribbean has a super-hurricane problem: Caribbean nations face an increasing threat from super hurricanes, which can cost a significant fraction of their GDP. Climate change is expected to make the strongest hurricanes stronger.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/11/the-caribbean-has-a-super-hurricane-problem/
Solar power in Jamaica: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:wznrpi4wyqhcv5onowp3lmcs/post/3m5ezytj5w22j
& Bob Marley:
“The lyrics, eerily appropriate to Hurricane Melissa’s impact on Jamaica, gave me a chill. Here’s an excerpt:
“If you listen carefully now you will hear
This could be the first trumpet
Might as well be last
Many more will have to suffer
Many more will have to die
Don’t ask me why
Things are not the way they used to be”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj9holHsi90
The Caribbean has a super-hurricane problem?
No. Wrong. That’s a First-World problem — your kind of problem.
The people of the Caribbean have a sustainable living problem, rooted in a lack of effective adaptation strategies for extreme weather and extreme heat.
They don’t “have a super-hurricane problem” because there is absolutely nothing they can do to affect the existence or intensity of hurricanes. That part is not — and never has been — within their sphere of influence.
What they do have is a sustainable housing, infrastructure, agriculture, and water-security problem. They urgently need governance and planning systems capable of meeting those needs in a world where super-hurricanes are now a recurring reality. Either that, or they will be forced into migration and displacement.
Caribbean people don’t need to “fix” hurricanes or global warming.
It’s not their problem. It never was.
The nations and empires that caused the climate crisis are the ones who must fix it — by removing carbon from the atmosphere and paying climate reparations so Caribbean communities (and the rest of the world) have the means to adapt sustainably.
T: They don’t “have a super-hurricane problem” because there is absolutely nothing they can do to affect the existence or intensity of hurricanes.
BPL: A problem is not defined by not being able to handle it. It’s still a problem, even if you can’t do anything about it.
Thomas:
You didn’t bother to read it, did you? Just change the subject and bring on the pitchforks, that’ll fix it.
Masters and Henson have been working to increase the world’s knowledge for many decades and add value on a regular basis.
New related muti author study: “Climate change enhanced intensity of Hurricane Melissa, testing limits of adaptation in Jamaica and eastern Cuba”
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/b10ca97e-ab3c-4d59-b22e-b2948d963a45/content
@Gavin. Thanks. I left a “reply” yesterday but didn’t receive a “waiting for moderation” so it must have disappeared into the aether.
To be fair the new ministerial panel was tasked with giving a methane reduction target for no further warming based on 2017.
The argument seems to be we don’t ask motorists to take responsibility for past warming due to CO2 so why should we ask farmers to do so for methane. Provided there is no increase in methane emissions there is very little warming. Therefore the target 24-47% by 2050 recommended by the Climate Change Commission was altered to 14-24%. (There is a very powerful farming lobby in NZ.)
The problem is the number of cows almost double between 1990 and 2017, and although the number of sheep halved (~10% increase in methane) the nitrous oxide increased 50% due to the increased urine and use of fertiliser associated with industrial dairying. Over 100 years CH4 is 30 times worse than CO2 but N2O is 300 times. There is also a problem with nitrates in the ground water.
Now the conservative government has emasculated the Climate Change Commission but reckons we’re on track for carbon net zero. Ten millions cows are taking flying lessons.
The comment about “saturation” knocked me off balance and when I inquired nicely the scientist answered, “The panel didn’t set the target” and nothing more. Well, if I were asked how many widgets a factory needed to manufacture in a day to make a profit and I determined X, I would not say I hadn’t set the target.
Whatever the “saturation” means in the context of the scientist’s comment remains unclear to me.
Dennis Hoirne: “Over 100 years CH4 is 30 times worse than CO2 but N2O is 300 times”
Which is misleading when used to compare the importance to AGW – because for that – the Global Warming Potential (GWP) has to be multiplied by each respective gas concentr. increase since preindustrial.
That’ s why CH4 contribution to AGW is are almost 3 times HIGHER than that of N2O DESPITE having 10 time LOWER GWP (30 vs 300).
DH: “ Provided there is no increase in methane emissions there is very little warming.”
What do you mean by it?
Dennis Horne,
Your initial inquiry about “saturation” of the GHG effects with rising levels of atmospheric methane required a reasonably trivial answer. As our host said – “There is no saturation.”
To be clear, there is no realistic point where an increase in methane concentrations will fail to increase the GHG warming. However GHGs do generally have a stronger molecule-for-molecule GHG effect at lower concentrations. Thus the strength of CO2 molecule-for-molecule famously halves for a doubling of concentration. (That holds true from 10ppm up to about 2,000ppm, above which CO2 begins to work strongly in additional frequency bands.)
Atmospheric methane levels are tiny compared with CO2 (2ppm to 420ppm) and this low concentration is the reason for the effective GHG power of methane being seen as being greater. In an apples-for-apples comparison, CO2 is actually the stronger GHG.
Your enquiry was quoting one of nine expert reactions to the change in NZ methane emissions targets. Here Laura Revell, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Canterbury with the “sponge” analogy was evidently wrong.
@MA Rodger. Thanks. I avoided names to avoid embarrassment – a scientist I admire tells me she is a very good scientist. Note, she is a lead author for the seventh assessment IPCC report.
I did email two members of the ministerial panel who lowered the recommended range 24-47% from the Climate Change Commission to 14-24%. I have no reason to believe the new target range has been calculated wrongly according to the task: methane emissions for no further warming. My concern was only the “saturation”. It appears to be one of those “children will never see snow again” type comments.
Actually I was annoyed the government had caved in to the farming lobby and wanted to “have a go”. As I said, the only answer I got from LR was, “The panel didn’t set the target”, but I received a great deal more from the other scientist involved – whom I rather suspect instigated the review of “the latest science” in the first place.
Of course NZ should be reducing emissions. Sadly this conservative government abolished the BEV subsidies (paid for by a surcharge on gas guzzlers) and other measures to reduce CO2 (like building cycle lanes). Both the prime minister and then minister of transport are fundamental/evangelical Christians – rare in this country – so goodness knows what goes on in their heads.
Talking methane and farming – essential for New Zealand’s standard of living it seems – the problem might disappear when precision fermentation produces cheap dried milk powder – probably the root cause of our high biogenic methane emissions.
I have one question. The forcing decreases logarithmically or whatever with concentration, but is that when measured in a container and remains true in the atmosphere? The atmosphere has no boundary. It seems to me intuitively that since the radiation to space is related to the fourth power and the molecules losing energy to space are rising then it’s not something easily determined.
Dennis Horne,
You ask about the measurement of AGW’s strength with rising GHG which “decreases logarithmically or whatever” – “Is that when measured in a container and remains true in the atmosphere?”
The phenomenon of AGW** is certainly not “measured in a ‘container.”
The underlying physics would be “measured” and the implications for AGW derived through models – eg Myhre et al (1998) who first derived the 5.35 in the equasion ΔF = 5.35 In(C/C0).
…
**The GH-effect works in an atmosphere, or at least a ‘thick’ atmosphere with temperature gradients.
The planet Mars with zero GH-effect, for instance, has about the same amount of CO2 as Earth. The difference is that the Mars atmosphere is almost all CO2 and so thin that it has no capacity for any temperature gradient. Conversely Earth’s is just 0.04% CO2 making Earth’s atmosphere 2,400-times more massive and thus providing temperature gradients.
For a GH-effect increasing with increasing GHG, the defining measure is the temperature of the altitude at which a particular wavelength of IR is emitted into space – thus the need for a temperature gradient to power the GH-effect.
If you add more GHG, the altitudes of IR emission out into space will increase (at some point on the IR specrtum). On Earth, while those altitudes are still rising up within the troposphere, a rising altitude will mean a lower temperature at the emission altitude, and thus less IR leaving the planet due to 4th-power Stefan–Boltzmann. Less exiting IR, so the whole planet will need to heat up to regain thermal balance.
On Earth, this becomes more complicated when part of the emissions altitude for that GHG passes the thermopause and enters the stratosphere. Up in the stratosphere the temperatures begin to rise with altitude and thus the emitted IR will increase with added GHG, cooling the planet, the opposite of AGW.
When the spectrum of Earth’s IR emissions is graphed (eg HERE), CO2’s 15-micron absorption band shows a central spike due to emissions altitudes up in the strarosphere. This is the most absorbent part of the band. With more CO2, that spike will slowly grow into a pyramid-shape (see Fig 5 Zhong &. Haigh 2013), its increasing size representing a cooling effect that counteracts the additional GH-warming elsewhere in the band.
On its own, this central spike/pyramid would pretty-much lead to CO2 ‘saturating’ as more-&-more of the emissions of the 15-micron waveband pass into the stratsphere. But a further absorption band becomes significant at about 10-microns (where O3 operates) which continues to grow and act within the troposphere.
For the curious, playing on the University of Chicago MODTRAN model can be quite informative.
Dennis Horne I avoided names to avoid embarrassment – a scientist I admire tells me she is a very good scientist.
how …. considerate of you – given your somewhat incoherent and often incorrect arguments, being identified as the source of your “admiration” … is not necessarily a compliment.
Now, being identified as somebody telling others about herself that “ she is a very good scientist would be even a WORSE embarrassment – in science tooting your own horn too obviously is frowned upon – it’s not a declaration I am the very model of a modern Climate Scientist but the strength of one’s arguments that decides.
D. Horne “Note, she is a lead author for the seventh assessment IPCC report.
[…] I have no reason to believe the new [CH4] target range has been calculated wrongly ”
Noted – two fallacies within the span of 3 sentences ;-) – an “appeal to authority” AND “argument from incredulity”.
Dennis Horne “My concern was only the “saturation”. It appears to be one of those “children will never see snow again” type comments.
Whose comment “appears to be one of those “children will never see snow again”.
Surely not Laura Revell’s since you admire her and seem to agree with her conclusion that the warming effect of CH4 is saturated or nearly saturated
That leaves our host, Gavin Schmidt – ” There is NO saturation. Radiative forcing from CH4 goes up like the square root of concentration so, sure, each marginal addition has a smaller effect but it all adds. ”
How would _that _ be akin to alarmists claims “children will never see snow again” ???
My most concise version so far:
I like to approach the physics of GHE (the greenhouse effect) through visualization – imagine you have (colorized?) heat vision, and the atmosphere is like an incandescently-glowing fog (thickness varying with local conditions and over the spectrum) above an incandescently glowing surface.
Each point in your vision corresponds to a point on your retina; If you focus at infinite distance (as opposed to any point in space) and trace the rays from that point back through your eye, through the lens and pupil, cornea, and any corrective lenses or optical tools you are using, the rays come out parallel, forming a cylindrical line of sight (LOS) with constant cross-sectional area A (barring any additional macroscopic refraction/etc.) over distance s.
The emission and absorption of photons (particles of light which move as waves) are described by quantum mechanics, with Einstein Coefficients etc.*†*, but when occurring within a volume, can be parameterized and visualized as a locally-random*‡×* distribution of tiny opaque blackbody objects (OBOs), one per unit of material (eg. molecule), which absorb all light they intercept and emit a glow from their surfaces with a radiance (brightness) according to their temperatures (T) given by the Planck function B_ν(T) (hotter = brighter). Each OBO emits and absorbs energy at a rate equal to the local average rate per unit of material, for each type of material (the parameterization is errorless in principle, ie. within the limits of statistical behavior being able to match probability, and assuming LTE or LEDNLIE *‡L*). The sizes of OBOs can vary greatly over the spectrum so the following visualization generally requires considering one frequency (or approximately, a narrow band of the spectrum) at a time.
(OBO sizes can also vary with polarization, but that’s of little concern for understanding the GHE. They also depend on T (through the ratios of state populations, Einstein Coefficients etc. stuff *†*), and pressure p and T (line broadening); the later is important (esp. p) in producing large changes over height.)
The (orthographically-)projected area of an OBO is the absorption cross section (σ_a) per unit of material. Often (in particular, for atmospheric gas molecules, cloud droplets, and any locally-random particles whose orientations are randomized), the σ_a are isotropic, ie. the same size over all directions, as if the OBOs where spheres.
Going out over distance s, the area A across LOS gradually fills in with the projected areas of those OBOs (*?of their?* absorption cross sections σ_a), glowing with their B_ν values. As that area is filled in, a corresponding fraction of farther cross sections are hidden by closer cross sections. Thus the total cumulative cross-sectional area, divided by A, which is called optical thickness or optical depth τ, can exceed 1 (and often get much larger). The fraction of A which gets filled in by visible (not hidden) cross-sectional area can only approach 1; the fraction of A yet to be filled in over a distance s is the transmittance, and it decays exponentially over τ.
The visible cross-sectional area is what you see; the area-weighted average of their radiances (brightnesses) B_ν is the radiance (brightness) L_ν you see coming from that direction. The distribution of that visible cross-sectional area over distance s is called an emission weighting function (EWF). The concept of an effective emitting level (EEL) is a sort of weighted-average location of the EWF *∞*.
(transmittance is the fraction of cross-sectional area at s which is visible.)
(Note it is the fractional coverage of A which matters; lensing by refraction would magnify (by changing A over s) both opaque and clear areas equally, and thus not affect τ, except through redirection of LOS into a different path. The (real part of) the refractive index n_r of Earth’s atmosphere ≈ 1, ie. very nearly the same as a vacuum as in ≈Space. Use n_r at POV for all B_ν … https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-823801 )
(In τ-space, the EEL is at τ = 1; note that the EEL for a vertical (up or down) radiant flux density is a weighted average for all the EWFs over a hemisphere of directions; in τ-space this flux-EEL (EEL_fd) is at τ = ⅔ measured vertically if conditions are PPIA*†P‡*. These EEL positions are centroids of the corresponding EWFs; due to various nonlinearities, the positions’ temperatures (T) may not match the brightness temperature T(L_ν) of the radiance or flux density. *∞* Others may define EELs to be located such that they do match?, but that obscures the causal relationships. See the EELs{_fd} “Flotsam and Jetsam” ( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/06/unforced-variations-jun-2025/#comment-834660 – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/06/unforced-variations-jun-2025/#comment-834815 ))
τ measured vertically can be a useful coordinate (I use τ_{vc} to specify this usage); one can get a sense of how radiances and radiant flux densities, and net radiant cooling, would be distributed based on a graph of B_ν(T) over such a τ_{vc} (at least for PPIA*††*). The Earth’s surface can be approximated*‡±* as a perfect blackbody surface, which is equivalent to an infinite isothermal (constant T) optical depth. Looking up, Space (above the top of the atmospheric (TOA)) looks like a perfect blackbody surface near 0 K (cold black). Thus, so long as T is not close to 0 at TOA, there will be a discontinuity in the graph of B_ν(τ_{vc}) @ TOA. For isotropic σ_a, net radiant cooling is proportional to B_ν – the average over all directions (whole sphere) of L_ν; this is associated with curvature, relatively optically-thin extrema, and discontinuities, in the graph of B_ν(τ_{vc}) (at least for PPIA *†P‡*) (PS heating is negative cooling, downward is negative upward. ( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811930
)
A vertical net flux density past your location (POV) requires some directions look brighter than others, in particular the radiances coming from some directions are greater than what’s coming from the opposite directions. Increasing the opacity, ie. increasing the concentration of cross-sectional area (eg. by increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas (GHG)) reduces how far you can see. When the temperature varies only one way over height (ie. only increases or decreases over τ_{vc} or is otherwise constant)*‡~*, the difference between the upward and downward flux densities shrinks as the two EEL_{fd}s get closer to your POV, and ultimately the net flux density goes to 0, as all the radiance you see is coming from right next to you, where the material is at the same T. This is saturation. But for GHGs, even when saturation occurs at the strongest parts of their absorption bands, increasing their concentrations still causes changes in the radiant fluxes in the weaker parts of their absorption bands (where their σ_a are smaller). If you think of the spectral bandwidth outside (the more obvious part of) such a band as a window, the effect is like that of closing the window. Within the window of a GHG, ≈ all net radiant cooling/heating is done by clouds, the surface, escape of the flux to Space (upward flux @TOA), or other GHGs, etc; Closing this window (by widening the bandwidth exceeding some level of opacity from that GHG) tends to reduce the net fluxes among those other emitters/absorbers (incl. Space). When saturation is approached, net radiant cooling/heating goes toward 0 because the directionally-averaged ambient brightness approaches the same value as the glow emitted by σ_a. Significant net radiant cooling/heating by a gas requires moderate opacity contributed by that gas and not too much from anything else at a given location. (Net radiant cooling/heating requires the OBOs be able to see far enough to see OBOs of different brightnesses (with the difference not averaging to 0 over (direction·σ_a), but there must be OBOs (ie. some concentration per unit heat capacity of the air).)
( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811930
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811932 – …
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-812156 – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-812157 )
*‡~* – more complicated T profiles can result in some reversals of trends as the opacity of the air goes from 0 to ∞; the net flux density may go up and then down, it may switch sign (change direction), etc.; the net radiant cooling may do likewise. Where there is a transparent space (a layer) at your POV (where GHG or cloud/etc. are not being added) with a T difference across it, then the saturation net flux density is non-zero (this will be a discontinuity in the graph of B_ν[τ_{vc}], with significant net radiant cooling/heating on either side).
*†* https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-823793 – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-823794 ; https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-826352 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-dec-2024/#comment-828355
*‡×*- locally-random because of probabilistic nature of the emission and absorption of photons by the smallest units of material; this is true even if those units form a crystal structure (for thermal and visible and some UV AFAIK; at shorter wavelengths… well, X-ray diffraction is a whole other subject from what is being discussed here…) – for larger units of material (eg. cloud droplets), the cross-sections may be located as those individual units, but typically that is still effectively locally-random. “locally” in that the number density or mixing ratio/etc. can and generally will vary, or remain constant, in a determined manner over space.
*‡L* “LEDNLIE (“lead/lede-‘n-lie/ly”) (Local Equilibrium Distribution of Non-Latent Internal Energy)” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-826352 my own acronym – ( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-817441 – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-817442 ; https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/unforced-variations-july-2025/#comment-835660 – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/unforced-variations-july-2025/#comment-835665 ; https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-823976 )
*†P‡* https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-dec-2024/#comment-827879 :
– my own acronym
(*‡±*Earth’s surface does reflect or scatter some thermal (~LW) radiation, particularly where there are dry rocky surfaces. Atmospheric scattering can be neglected for LW radiation, AIUI. More generally, (elastic) scattering within a volume can be visualized as due to scattering cross sections σ_s (you could imagine infinitely-faceted mirror balls); their fractional area-coverage would also add to τ, and they would redirect some portion of the EWF outside the LOS. A partially transparent, partially reflecting, etc., surface likewise can be visualized as being covered by suitable fractions of areas of pure properties, randomly arranged… An LOS can branch… etc. Some particular wavelength-scale arrangements of material will produce interference effects and they effects of their parts won’t operate independently, whereas independence of the individual scatterings and absorptions and emissions of photons has been assumed here. Did I get this paragraph right?; … https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-823976 )
… “and pressure p and T (line broadening); the later is important (esp. p) in producing large changes over height.” → I’ve read p dominates in line broadening all the way up to ~ 30 km which I remember being near 1% of sfc. p. (thus above ~99% of the mass of the atm.)
…“the projected areas of those OBOs (*?of their?* absorption cross sections σ_a) – uncertainty noted for possible caveat with refractive lensing? Just break the σ_a into a bunch of separate areas if necessary?
Also skipped over some caveats about how the eye and visual perception work (eg. the projected area of the pupil presumably changes with direction over the retinal area, so…)
Human color vision is very low in spectral resolution so you can’t see the graphs of absorption bands over the spectrum without actual graphs… Imagine if we could see pitches of sound in a visual field – our brains would melt, I suppose, but you could listen to the spectra of the upward and downward flux densities (tilt sideways, head set…by converting eg. … (4 µm (2500 cm¯¹) to 128 µm (78.125 cm¯¹) is 5 octaves (map to 1280 Hz to 40 Hz puts 15 µm (≈667 cm¯¹) @ 341.3 Hz (actual photon is at ≈ 20 THz).
CO2 band widening – Thanks for those links, MA Rodger! – see also: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml ,
https://romps.berkeley.edu/papers/pubdata/2020/logarithmic/20logarithmic.pdf
“Why the Forcing from Carbon Dioxide Scales as the Logarithm of Its Concentration”
David M. Romps, Jacob T. Seeley, Jacob P. Edman
&
https://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/ATLAS/zenith-absorption ( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811964 – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811967 : “ – note the roughly triangular shape of the log(CO2 optical depth) graph centered near 667 cm-1 (15 microns). I believe this is for US Standard Atmosphere – not sure how much CO2 (ppm) it’s based on.” … “ – yes, it is based on US Standard Atm. Should I assume CO2 level for 1976?”… “– default has log(optical depth) as vertical axis; note most of Earth’s surface and atmospheric emission is in wavenumbers < 2500 cm-1 (4 microns); an approximate cutoff between solar-dominated and terrestrial-dominated bands is somewhere between 2000 and 2500 cm-1 (5 to 4 microns). This is looking vertically through the whole atm. Relative to air in total, H2O is concentrated in the lower troposphere; O3 is more concentrated in the stratosphere. Line strengths and line broadenning vary with height.”)
re MA Rodger – actually, Mar’s GHE is non-zero, just weak. There are vertical temperature variations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars#Vertical_structure
There is good information about the effects of p (in line broadening) on CO2’s absorption spectrum in
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml ,
https://romps.berkeley.edu/papers/pubdata/2020/logarithmic/20logarithmic.pdf
“Why the Forcing from Carbon Dioxide Scales as the Logarithm of Its Concentration” :
Given the spacing between the individual lines, the parts where σ_a is increased with increasing p dominate the bandwidth, and there is a ?rough? tendency for for this to be proportional to p, from which (given that CO2 is ≈ well-mixed (at least away from sfc?; all the way up to ~ turbopause AFAIK)), I get τ_{vc,CO₂} (measured downward from TOA) ∝ p² there (so the stratosphere and above, being ~ 15 % of the mass global average (~10% to 30% ?) would be ~ 2.25 % (~ 1 % to 9 % ?) of the total τ_{vc,CO₂} (less including H2O, clouds, etc in τ_{vc}).
Setting other effects (T) aside, the p proportionality would put Mars’ total τ_{vc, CO₂} at ~ (610 Pa/1013 mb) ≈ 0.602 % of Earth’s, but of course in Earth’s atmosphere, the vast majority of molecular collisions (I’m under the impression that p line broadening is mostly collional broadening, as opposed to the quasi-static sort) are with N₂ or O₂, which move faster than CO₂ at a given T, so…
clarifications/corrections:
…“ For isotropic σ_a, net radiant cooling is proportional to
B_ν – the average over all directions (whole sphere) of L_ν
; this is associated with curvature, relatively optically-thin extrema, and discontinuities, in the graph of B_ν(τ_{vc}) (at least for PPIA *†P‡*)”…
___________
… “more complicated T profiles can result in some reversals of trends as the opacity of the air goes from 0 to ∞; the net flux density may go up and then down, it may switch sign (change direction), etc.;”
→
more complicated T profiles can result in some reversals of trends as the opacity of the air goes from 0 to ∞; the net flux density may increase and then decrease, it may switch sign (change direction), etc.
… “the net radiant cooling may do likewise.”
In a general sense, not necessarily or in general following the same pattern as the net flux density; also, inversions (change in sign of lapse rate over height) are not necessary to get more complex patterns in net radiant cooling graphed over opacity…
(specifically, mass absorption coefficient k_a for the air
= absorption cross-sectional area per unit mass of air [m²/kg]
= Σ_i ( n_i · σ_{a,i} ) ÷ ρ_{air} )
…(from 0 to ∞) than a simple increase in magnitude from 0 (transparency limit), a single peak, followed by a decrease back to 0 (saturation limit). There can be sign switch(es), etc. PS the saturation limit is finite non-zero at a sharp bend in B_ν(mp) (mp = vertical mass path) ie. a lapse rate discontinuity (sfc? approx. for edges of dense clouds or layer of humidity but when you zoom in…), and infinite at a B_ν(mp) discontinuity (TOA, …))
________
… “Within the window of a GHG, ≈ all net radiant cooling/heating is done by clouds, the surface, escape of the flux to Space (upward flux @TOA), or other GHGs, etc; Closing this window (by widening the bandwidth exceeding some level of opacity from that GHG) tends to reduce the net fluxes among those other emitters/absorbers (incl. Space).”
→
Within the window of a GHG, ≈ all net radiant cooling/heating is done by clouds, the surface, or other GHGs, etc; Closing this window (by widening the bandwidth exceeding some level of opacity from that GHG) ?
tends to? reduces the net fluxes among those other emitters/absorbers (incl. Space).For LW: escape of the flux to Space (upward flux @TOA) = total column net radiant cooling.
I could probably clarify/correct a few other parts but I think that’s good enough for now (I’ll save a refined version for my blog)
Above, I was generally referring to net radiant cooling per unit mass:
…“ For isotropic σ_a, net radiant cooling (spectral), per unit mass (of air)
=
4π sr · ( B_ν – L_{ν 4π} ) · k_{a air}
where
L_{ν 4π} = the average over all directions (whole sphere = 4π sr) of L_ν
— — —
“PS the saturation limit is finite non-zero at a sharp bend in B_ν(mp) (mp = vertical mass path) ie. a lapse rate discontinuity (sfc? approx. for edges of dense clouds or layer of humidity but when you zoom in…), and infinite at a B_ν(mp) discontinuity (TOA, …))”
The tendencies of net radiant cooling per unit mass just described assume increasing opacity in equal proportion on both sides of a sharp bend (ie./eg. uniform doubling), except where one side is isothermal, as the slope of B_ν(τ_{vc}) is fixed (at 0) in that case. Otherwise… eg. adding CO2 to the air at the edge of a hypothetical sharply-defined cloud would tend to ease the bend in B_ν(τ_{vc}) by uneven changes in ∂τ/∂(mp)… Okay I think I covered this point well-enough.
Note I’ve been considering effects of opacity with the T profile held fixed, as one does in computing IRF (T statistics and seasonal/daily patterns and corresponding unforced variations in opacity eg. clouds,H2O – unless one is modeling the impact of those components as if they were forcings – etc. held fixed etc.)
Clarifying in case some bod browsing here doesn’t know, MAR’s “That holds true from 10ppm up to about 2,000ppm” is because these formulae are empirical (trend fits) and not like precise (or ultra-extremely precise) mathematical formulae e.g. circumference = diameter * pi for circle or hypotenuse**2 = side 1**2 + side 1**2 for a right-triangle, and MAR gives the “domain” for CO2 over which the empirical formulae (trend fit) is accurate enough for its purpose. I’ve not seen or heard that described but it’s obvious that adding 1 molecule to an Earth atmosphere already having 1 molecule will not heat Earth ecosphere by ~4 degrees. It’s a bulk formula.
I can’t resist noting that if Earth atmosphere had 1 molecule CO2 and 1 more molecule CO2 was added each year then after 15 years Earth would have 16 molecules CO2, a doubling period of 3 years 9 months and a scientist would point out that Earth has 16 times the CO2 it had 15 years ago.
Barry E. Finch: “ I can’t resist noting that if Earth atmosphere had 1 molecule CO2 and 1 more molecule CO2 was added each year then after 15 years Earth would have 16 molecules CO2, a doubling period of 3 years 9 months and a scientist would point out that Earth has 16 times the CO2 it had 15 years ago.”
This sounds more like a Geoff or a Killian, than a climate scientist. The scientist would discuss your molecules of CO2 ONLY if there were enough of them to make a difference in the climate.
MARodger: “ low concentration is the reason for the effective GHG power of methane being seen as being greater.
As James Carville would say – ” “it’s the concentration, stupid” …
MAR: “ In an apples-for-apples comparison, CO2 is actually the stronger GHG.
Thank you, MA, you made my day. It is for the explanations like these that I am staying on RC, the deniers and doomers be damned.
I mean I knew about the reduction of per molecule warming with increasing CO2 conc., but it didn’t think to extend it to other GHGs. Like you did with CH4 above.
But would it work ALSO for the less abundant GHGs like N2O and CFCs? I ask, because even your “famous the CO2 molecule-for-molecule halving for a doubling of concentration – holds true from 10ppm up”.
So if you conc. is in 100s ppb (N2O) or in 100s of pptrillion (CFC) – would a similar tendency be still there or their conc. are so low that each molecule is at its max. warming potential (i.e. others are so scarce that they don’t interfere with given molecule ability to absorb IR)?
But IF it still holds in some shape not only for CH4, but also at lower conc. GHGs- then:
– At the risk of driving a stake through Dennis’s heart – what’s the apples-for-apples comparison of CH4 with N2O?
– And how about them apples, the CFCs? What’s the apples-for-apples comparison of molecule of CO2 vs molecule of CFCs?
Piotr,
I assume you refer to Chester James Carville Jr. with his oft-attributed catchphrase “It’s the economy, stupid.” Unlike the catchphrase, he’s not someone who is known this side of the pond.
The apples-for-apples thing is not entirely straightforward as the various GHGs often act in overlapping wavelengths. And, with the formulae being empirical, they can be applied (or maybe the verb should be ‘appled’) well beyond their intended region. Also, while apples-for-apples may give one answer, oranges-for-oranges may give the opposite. (While CO2 remains stronger than CH4 at 400ppm but with the difference markedly less than at 2ppm.)
The CH4 – N2O comparison perhaps isn’t so difficult at realistic concentrations as their concentrations are not so massively different (6-to-1). Thus the likes of Figure 2 of Etminan et al (2016) profiles forcing curves for the two with overlapping concentrations (specifically 333ppb to 523ppb). Those graphics suggest a forcing from N2O(333→523) of +5.3Wm^-2 with CH4(333→523) +1.6Wm^-2.
As well as the difficulties presented already, a CFC – CO2 comparison would have to negotiate the different species of CFC (CFC-12, CFC-11, CFC-113 & CFC-115) which makes it a rather tiresome chore for what is likely a flippant question.
One of my normal go-tos, the NOAA AGGI, lump CFCs/HCFCs into a single bucket. IPCC AR5 Ch8 & AII are often other helpful go-tos, but wold require a bit of straightening-out for a comparison. MODTRAN, which works line-by-line and for CO2 does so in the ppb-range without objecting (& likewise CH4 in ppm ranges), doesn’t input CFCs.
MAR: “apples-for-apples for N2O(333→523) of +5.3Wm^-2 with CH4(333→523) +1.6Wm^-2.”
Thank you, MA. So it is 3 times worse per molecule than CH4, (Not 10x worse as Dennis implied). And thanks for explaining of complexities for CFCs (I have thought it would be a long shot anyway).
Global Carbon Project 2025 Pre-Print Report is out with links to the ‘budget’ numbers.
The 2024 CO2 emissions (FF+LUC-cementation) are given as 11.46Gt(C) up 0.8% on 2023. The FF component saw a 1.3% increase 2024 above 2023 while the preliminary 2025 FF CO2 emissions data “suggest” a 1.1% increase 2025 above 2024.
@Piotr queries
“Over 100 years CH4 is 30 times worse than CO2 but N2O is 300 times”.
Gas by mass.
“ Provided there is no increase in methane emissions there is very little warming.”
Because methane does not accumulate if you do not increase emissions the atmospheric level does not increase so there is only a very small increase in temperature above the warming already caused – there is a small increase due to other changes in the atmosphere.
Maybe I could have just said “very little extra warming” over and above what has already been caused.
Dennis Horne: “ Provided there is no increase in methane emissions there is very little warming.”
Piotr: “What do you mean by it?”
Dennis Horne:” Because methane does not accumulate if you do not increase emissions the atmospheric level does not increase
Err … it’s not correct: You CAN have CONSTANT emissions and still have CH4 “accumulating” (when your constant emissions are larger than the sinks). But the same rule applies to N2O , so I am not sure where are you going with that (in your contrasting CH4 and N2O).
DH: “ Maybe I could have just said “very little extra warming” over and above what has already been caused”
Yes, you should have – since the +16% of warming since preindustrial (see MAR post) is not exactly “ very little “. But neither is you current “extra warming” – the current (5yrs) rate is “9%” – not that “ very little ” either, particularly when you compare it with N2O – 6%.
So again, I am not sure how 9% gets CH4 off the hook, and 6% gets N2O on the hook?
But if you insist on current/instantaneous effect ONLY ( “ extra warming over and above what has already been caused“) – then why in an earlier argument on GWP you used … 100 yr time scale, and instead of instantaneous?
DH: “ Over 100 years CH4 is 30 times worse than CO2 but N2O is 300 ” [IPCC-5 puts it at 265]
Yet, if you used instantaneous GWP0 – CH4 would be not 30, but 120, while N2O probably stays the same. Being 2.5 times better per kg, does not look as impressive as 10 times? ;-)
So, is your selecting the timescales that happen made CH4 look better – a bug or a feature ? ;-)
I’m pretty certain what I said, in the context of what I said earlier, is perfectly clear to nearly everybody. I surmise your need is to chastise rather than clarify. Good luck and count me out.
Dennis Horne: “ I’m pretty certain what I said, in the context of what I said earlier, is perfectly clear to nearly everybody. ”
Your problem is not that your post is NOT understood, but that it WAS understood. That’s why I challenged the intellectual honesty of your claims with falsifiable arguments. You had chance to disprove them:
– by showing WHY do you think being 9% of the AGW in the last 5 year
gets CH4 off the hook and why being 6% gets N2O on the hook
– by showing that you didn’t cherry pick the timescales to suit your overall narrative: “CH4 good, N2O bad”.
Unable to falsify ANY of the falsifiable criticisms of your claims, you tried to shoot the messenger, and announced you exit, signalling how you are above …. defending your public claims made on a discussion group. ;-)
If you can’t stand the heat, Dennis, don’t start fires. Or find yourself a forum where nobody would question your claims.
@Piotr: “CH4 contribution to AGW is are almost 3 times HIGHER than that of N2O…”
Do you mean 3 times that of N2O
OR
3 times HIGHER than – that is say 4 times that of N2O
Dennis Horne,
An accurate assessment of the relative GHG contributions to AGW requires consideration of the time-period to be analysed.
Since pre-industrial, NOAA’s AGGI puts them as:-
CO2 +66%, CH4 +16%, N2O +6%, Others +12%.
Over the last 5 years they sit at:-
CO2 +79%, CH4 +13%, N2O +9%, Others -1%.
Dennis Horne: “Do you mean 3 times that of N2O OR 3 times HIGHER than – that is say 4 times that of N2O?
I didn’t say “Higher BY three times”, so I meant 3x, not 3x+x. As per Google: “Three times larger” can be interpreted in two ways, but the most common and mathematically precise interpretation is that a size is three times as big as another.”
Why do you ask – causing 3 times the warming of N2O gets CH4 off the hook?
Hooks? Are you fishing? Ask Google “What 3 times higher means”:
AI Overview
The phrase “three times higher” is ambiguous in common usage, as it can be interpreted in two different ways.
In precise mathematical or technical contexts, the meaning depends on whether the phrase implies:
Interpretation 1: Four times the original amount (300% increase)
This is the literal interpretation where “three times higher/more” means you add three times the original amount to the original amount.
Interpretation 2: Three times the original amount (200% increase)
This is a common colloquial use, where “three times higher/more” is used interchangeably with “three times as high/much as”.
Because of this widespread confusion, style guides for publications like The New York Times and National Geographic advise against using phrases like “times higher” or “times greater” to avoid misinterpretation. To be perfectly clear, it is recommended to use “three times as much as” (for 3x the amount) or specify the total percentage increase.
===
I am sure I am just as good at nitpicking as you are. So if you demand perfection in every sentence I suggest you start closer to home.
Piotr 16 Nov. “Why do you ask – causing 3 times [instead of 4 times] the warming of N2O gets CH4 off the hook?”
Dennis Horne: “ Hooks? Are you fishing?”
Ask your AI Overview what “getting off the hook” could possibly mean on a group discussing climate change. Hint – we are NOT discussing … removing a hook from a fish called “CH4”.
Dennis Horne: “Ask Google “What 3 times higher means””
I had. In the post you are “replying” to:
====
P: 16 Nov “As per Google: “Three times larger” can be interpreted in two ways, but the most common and mathematically precise interpretation is that a size is three times as big as another.”
====
So no need to take your AI Overlord’s name in vain (to reinvent the wheel).
I have already clarified to you in which of the two possible ways I had meant it: P. 16 Nov: “I meant 3x, not 3x+x.”
And I implied that to your pro-CH4 narrative – it does not matter whether CH4 is 4 times AS BAD as NO2 or 3 times – it is still much WORSE – ergo you CAN’T defend CH4 emission by pointing finger at N2, I quote:
– Piotr 16 Nov. :”Why do you ask – causing 3 times [instead of 4 times] the warming of N2O gets CH4 off the hook?”
To which your response was:
– Dennis Horne: “Hooks? Are you fishing?”
Absolute crackerjack piece by David Ferris in Politico on the complex story of government efforts and development of a U.S. EV charging network:
“Why Trump Couldn’t Stop the Electric Vehicle Dream
We never got those promised EV chargers — but we did get a future for EVs.”
By DAVID FERRIS
11/14/2025 05:00 AM EST
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/11/14/electric-vehicle-ev-charging-stations-biden-00641188
James Hansen has told Newsweek that has revised his verdict on COP 30, and the UN’s focus on cutting emissions:
“In order to avoid large sea level rise and global chaos, we need to cool off the planet.”
I am in no position to disagree:
Geoff Miell says
15 Nov 2025 at 3:29 AM
above at
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842049
An interesting discussion.
fyi see Late Quaternary meltwater pulses and sea level change: LATE QUATERNARY MELTWATER PULSES AND SEA LEVEL October 2018
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328314252_Late_Quaternary_meltwater_pulses_and_sea_level_change_LATE_QUATERNARY_MELTWATER_PULSES_AND_SEA_LEVEL
conclusion includes
During the first (MWP1Ao from 19.5 to 18.8 ka BP), relative sea levels rose by up to 10 m at sites — GMSL probably rose at a rate of around 10 mm a 1
The second rise (MWP1A from 14.8 to 13.0 ka BP) was also registered globally with relative sea levels rising by at least 20 m — these areas the sea level rise may have reached a rate more than 40 mm a 1 at times
The third period of enhanced relative sea level rise is dominated by MWP1B (11.5–11.1 ka) — The rise of up to 16 m at rates of up to 45 mm a 1 is comparable to MWP1A.
Of course, almost everything in that paper and others is purely speculative. Nevertheless, they also stated:
However, more recent and
alarming views are presented by Hansen et al. (2016) and
DeConto and Pollard (2016) who suggest that multi-metre
rises in GMSL could occur by the end of this century driven
by catastrophic break up and drainage of considerable parts
of the present ice sheets. They argue that the Atlantic
Meridional Overturning Circulation and Southern Ocean
Meridional Overturning Circulation are slowing (see Thornal-
ley et al., 2018) and will increase ocean stratifi cation and
concentrating warm water near ice shelves and fl oating ice
margins. This will rapidly melt these, producing the con-
ditions for ice sheet collapse. Resolution of the contrasting
views from IPCC and those by Hansen et al (2016) and
DeConto and Pollard (2016) is clearly of enormous policy
interest for climate change adaptation and in support of rapid
climate mitigation strategies.
You may like to check
DeConto Pollard 2016 Contribution of Antarctica to Past and Future Sea Level Rise
Polar temperatures over the last several million years have, at times, been slightly warmer than today, yet global mean sea level has been 6–9 metres higher as recently as the Last Interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago) and possibly higher during the Pliocene epoch (about three million years ago). In both cases the Antarctic ice sheet has been implicated as the primary contributor, hinting at its future vulnerability.
Antarctica has the potential to contribute more than a metre of sea-level rise by 2100 and more than 15 metres by 2500, if emissions continue unabated.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2823837-DeConto-Pollard-2016-Contribution-of-Antarctica/
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331200073_Data_and_Modeling_Evidence_for_multiple_Episodes_of_abrupt_Mass_Loss_from_the_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet_during_the_last_Deglaciation
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331199253_Abrupt_changes_in_climate_and_ice_sheets_during_glacial-interglacial_cycles
noting —
Major retreat events occurred during times of global meltwater pulses, indicative for a possible AIS contribution of Meltwater Pulse 1A of several m. Flux rates of iceberg-rafted debris indicate that onset of each AID happened very fast, usually within one or two decades, and continued for centuries. Accompanying ice-sheet modeling indicates a close relationship of iceberg calving and grounded ice-mass loss on decadal to multi-decadal time scales.This newly detected, substantial deglacial dynamics of the AIS contradicts earlier assessments (Bentley et al., 2010; Mackintosh et al., 2014) and the postulated rapid pace challenges current ice-sheet and climate models (Feldmann and Levermann, 2015; Golledge et al., 2015) and needs to be tested against them. Our findings for the changing past raise concerns that current instabilities observed for large parts of the West AIS (Rignot et al., 2014) may indeed indicate irreversible retreat that is already on the way.
Flip a coin?
Thomas: “ An interesting discussion. fyi see Late Quaternary meltwater pulses and sea level change”
… which would be relevant to the discussion you are praising, in which Geoff Miell extrapolates the melt rates from the cherry-picked by him periods of deglaciation onto the near future – ONLY if the current/near future meltwater pulses were driven by COMPARABLE conditions as those in late Quaternary.
They are NOT – their SLR was mainly driven by melting of the NO LONGER EXISTING Laurentide and Eurasian ice sheets. And each of these pulses happened at different GMST, each of them in turn different than the (unknown) future GMST, which determines how quickly the remaining at the time ice would be melting.
In short – the MWPs situation WAS SO different THEN than it is today or in the future – that only an extremely naive or extremely disingenuous person would use it to make QUANTITATIVE claims as:
Geoff Miell: “MWP1a [produced] mean SL rates of roughly 40–60 mm Why is difficult to accept that the global mean rate of SLR would continue to accelerate over time to similar magnitudes (or maybe more).”
No man ever steps in the same river twice, much less if the second time he steps into … a different river from another continent with a very different topography and very different climate.
So the “40–60 mm/yr” extrapolation of the past onto the future – gives us a meaningless number, actually worse than meaningless – MISLEADING – for it promises quantitative knowledge, where there is none.
“West AIS (Rignot et al., 2014) may indeed indicate irreversible retreat”. It’s about rates. Eemian estimated 6–9 metres over 300-700 years. It’s definitely not practical (wrong species I got born into) to extend the 6–9 metres beyond 700 years, that’s a done deal, and perhaps already physically impossible to extend the 6–9 metres beyond 700 years. Humans can definitely get that somewhat below the 300 years because humans have the technology to do that (same as the 6 million dollar man, stronger, faster but without superior hearing) and I’m certain that humans will get that somewhat below the 300 years because the sole purpose of Life is competition to the death.
“An Amazon climate summit built on contradiction, creating unease for California delegates”
By Melody Gutierrez / Los Angeles Times
Nov. 17, 2025 3 AM PT
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-11-17/climate-summit-built-on-contradiction
Saw some folks trying to question or explain away some of the above discussed contradictions across social media this weekend. I truly hope going forward that the COP organizers and future host nations will plan better, expect better, and remember to focus on avoiding the unintended messages that shout hypocrisy loudly.
Just Have a Think (Dave Borlace) has another excellent new video:
Has BIG OIL hijacked COP30?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaDm6rfQ6ck
“COP30 president wrote a ten-page letter to delegates full of very fine words about historic levels of global cooperation and climate finance and new technologies and the need to innovate and adapt and preserve forests and ensure justice for the most vulnerable. All very relevant and crucial stuff, no doubt about it. But in the entire ten page, five-thousand-word document, you will not find a single mention of the words oil, or gas or coal. And the phrase ‘fossil fuels’ is mentioned just once, in a sentence so hopelessly ambiguous that it’s a wonder it was even included at all. So, are our global leaders properly focussed on the real priority here, or are we being led by a bunch of busy fools? “
Al Gore, wholly riled and righteous. Excellent updated data and narratives in second half. (If time is limited, listen at 1.25 speed)
Former U.S. VP Al Gore Reveals Shocking Data on Global Warming and Extreme Climate Events
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6RYnMBwtUY&t=131s
@MA Rodger. Thank you very much for your detailed explanation. I knew only in general terms.
I can’t remember if it was you or Mal Adapted who helped me some years ago finding a paper by Feynman which some clown from Saachi&Saachi was misquoting, anyway I am grateful to have expert help from this site when the need arises.
You may be interested to known the clowns in the NZ government have now cancelled the requirement for car dealers to pay a penalty for importing gas-guzzlers. The first week in office they cancelled the subsidy for BEVs so naturally the demand fell.
I was born during WWII and never thought the world would go mad again but here we are.
MAR: “ If you add more GHG, the altitudes of IR emission out into space will increase (at some point on the IR spectrum). On Earth, while those altitudes are still rising up within the troposphere, a rising altitude will mean a lower temperature at the emission altitude, and thus less IR leaving the planet[ hence] planet heats up] .”
Thanks, MAR, for this explanation. It shows why Laura Revell’s “sponge” saturation analogy is misleading. It would have been correct, if, to use Dennis phrasing, GW effect acted “ in a container ” instead of the real atmosphere:
In a container, or a sponge, you COULD have saturation – you add GHG (water) until all windows of absorption in the container (pore in the sponge) are saturated. After that, saturation – NO additional warming possible (the fully saturated sponge takes no more water).
The Sponge Analogy treats the atmosphere either as if it had uniform vertical temperature, or as if it had no vertical thickness – a one-molecule-thick layer around the Earth – so a photon of IR emitted by Earth surface either hits a GHG molecule in this layer (and is reradiated equally toward outer space and toward Earth) or misses GHGs and 100% of it escapes into outer space. Under such a representation of the atmosphere GW effect COULD be saturated – if 100% of IR photons (with frequencies absorbable by GHGs) are absorbed by a certain amount of GHGs – further increases in these GHGs produce no extra warming.
But in the real atmosphere the air gets rapidly colder with altitude (in troposphere). So it matters not only WHETHER a given photon WAS absorbed or not, but more importantly – if it was absorbed then at what altitude (and therefore temp.) was the LAST absorption – because this temp. will determine how much of IR is emitted FROM THERE into space.
As MAR said – the more GHGs in the atmosphere – the higher the avg. altitude of the last absorption, thus the lower the temp. of the last emission and the less of IR escaping into space. And that’s why, unlike a sponge or a container – in the real atmosphere there is NO saturation.
And then our expert, who apparently told Dennis that “she is a very good scientist”
rehashes the old denier fallacy: “our emissions are too small to matter”:
“ Because atmospheric methane concentrations are driven largely by emissions from other countries – steeper cuts to New Zealand’s emissions alone would have little impact on total atmospheric heating. ” Laura Revel
This fallacy can be used by the deniers not only in NZ, but in ANY country in the world, other than the _current_ emission leader. A fallacy wrong on so many ethical and political levels, that together with the misunderstanding? misrepresentation? of the very basic mechanisms of the global warming, makes Laura Revel … a truly surprising choice for “a lead author on the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment (AR7).”
P.S. I like the brag drop – she drops the information on being “ a lead author on the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment (AR7)” in the …. ” Conflict of interest statement…” section ;-)
https://youtu.be/ULJXqOZuY-8?si=Z8EehOFtw3JB3KA3
20 Years
What can we say – are we unaware or is the IPCC and its linear thinking to a non linear problem the problem
Pete Best: is the IPCC and its linear thinking to a non linear problem the problem
What’s your alternative, the Nonlinear Pete? How do you propose to quantify and assign the probability to these parts of nonlinearity that are NOT already incorporated in the climate models?
Or is your solution – to throw up your hands in the air and cry: It’s Nonlinear! We are doomed, I am telling you, we are DOOOOOMED! And it is the scientists who are “the problem”!
I thought that’s exactly what Stefans work is saying – 20 years and not 75 (around 2100). Firs that make it a non linear tipping point if correct
Pete Best: “I thought that’s exactly what Stefans work is saying -20 years and not 75 (around 2100).
How does it prove your accusation of “the linear thinking of IPCC “?
Pete Best:” Firs that make it a non linear tipping point if correct”
I am not sure what you wanted to express here (sorry to disappoint you, Susan … ;-) )
Kindly desist on nonstop argument and telling people what they think. It’s not enough to be right. In general, afaict, you’re right on the merits of the scientific argument, but the focused hostility is a distraction for the rest of us, not to mention any possible lurker(s). The endlessness of it is not useful.
Pete Best is a useful contributor here. The above assumptions about him are incorrect and unhelpful.
Susan: “ Pete Best is a useful contributor here.
And how exactly Pete Best attacking IPCC for his strawman^* offense of “linear thinking”:
Pete Best: “What can we say – are we unaware or is the IPCC and its linear thinking to a non linear problem the problem”
a “useful contribution”?
Or to whom it is useful, other than the deniers who must appreciate his identification of the IPCC as “the problem”. Enemy of my enemy …
—
^*( It’s a strawman, because the oceanographic models used to investigate the likelihood of AMOC shutdown are anything but “linear”. )
It’s got political and economic considerations to incorporate into the report which waters down the risks of climate change to a more linear long term (time to take action) view point.
That’s what I conclude. Risk is toned down and although it’s bad enough it could well be even worse than stated.
https://crooksandliars.com/2025/11/times-study-says-were-risk-new-ice-age
This article seems to indicate Stefans position and climate work on the AMOC amongst others is serious and sincere
Pete Best: “This article seems to indicate Stefans position is serious and sincere”
Nobody questioned Stefan’s seriousness and sincerity. What I have questioned was YOUR using him to attack IPCC.
BTW – having read Stefan’s own articles and his posts on RC, we don’t need to rely on the third party opinions of the “crooksandliars.com”.
Just how does the shutdown of the AMOC equate to a “new ice age?” It would be an enormous climate disaster, but it’s not going to reverse our greenhouse warming for the whole planet to create a new ice age! This is a highly irresponsible way to portray the very real and serious consequences that would result from the failure of the AMOC.
Susan: “ Kindly desist on nonstop argument and telling people what they think. ”
And I thought you were _praising_ Pete Best …. ;-)
========================================
[ this exchange is about Pete Best’s:
” is the IPCC and its linear thinking to a non linear problem the problem“]
Pete Best “the IPCC and its linear thinking” It’s my vague recollection that IPCC lately is 420 volunteers who assemble 42,000 published scientific papers but that looks suspiciously coincidental. They address 75,000 comments and questions from the scientists. It’s possible that there’s some disagreement here & there between those bods (I just now came across some big punch-up here on RC, hope the Police sorted it before it went wild). It’s slightly possible that some physical scientists are more linear than others. Mind you, “the IPCC and its linear thinking to a non linear problem” isn’t nearly as trite, easy, lazy, totally-worthless sloganeering (Socialite thought, not physical-science thought) as this “we” I keep seeing like an infestation, like “can we survive?”, “what will we do?” when there isn’t any “we” at all, there’s “Us billionaires” and there’s “The rest of you schleps”. That’s it.
GISTEMP and BEST have now both reported for October. BEST continues to work without a lot of NOAA-sourced data which has been absent since the federal shutdown.
Being mainly SST in the SH, the GISTEMP LOTI shows less of the warm wobble for Sept & Oct that the ERA5 SAT record shows. Thus relative to August (as the anomaly bases are all so different), the GISTEMP Sept & Oct anomalies were +0.09ºC & +0.07ºC while ERA5 Sept & Oct were +0.17ºC & +0.21ºC. And with a bit more emphasis, GISTEMP SH anomalies (relative to August) were Sept +0.04ºC & Oct -0.07ºC while ERA5 SAT SH anomalies (relative to August) were Sept +0.20ºC & Oct +0.31ºC.
And as I tap, NOAA have just posted. Their global Sept & Oct (relative to August) were +0.08ºC & +0.11ºC and SH anomalies (relative to August) were Sept +0.02ºC & Oct +0.01ºC.
ERA5 SAT is showing the first half of November with the high anomaly wobble of Sept & Oct fading away. The Nov-so-far global anomaly (relative to August) dropped to +0.21ºC and the SH Nov-to-date (relative to August) dropped to -0.02ºC.
The “bananas!!” are looking very much a thing of months-gone-past. My preferred less-wobbly ERA5 SST anomaly for 60N-60S (shown daily by Copernicus’s ClimatePulse has through Nov continued rapidly dropped into the zone of pre-“bananas!!” projections and could soon be established below such projections (unless rescued by the arrival of a big upward wobble). Up-to-date graphics of all this at The Banana!!! Watch.
The BEST October 2025 Temperature Update report has news of a new set of land records they are now using. Called the Global Historical Climate Database, it contains temperature records beginning prior to 1890. BEST note they are already using the majority of this data (BEST being the largest original source of the 3,623 series in the database). The resulting global corrections start to show as less-than-trivial only pre-1850.
BEST is also saying “there is almost no chance that global average temperature anomalies for 2025 will exceed the 1.5ºC (2.7ºF) benchmark above the 1850-1900 average.”
Question:
if global methane level drops nz will need to decrease its methane emissions
Yes, if the rest of the world makes significant cuts to methane emissions, New Zealand would need to make steeper cuts to its own emissions to meet its goal of not adding to global warming.
New Zealand’s approach to biogenic methane (from agriculture and waste) is based on a “split gas” target that considers methane’s short-lived nature differently from long-lived gases like carbon dioxide. The core principle of New Zealand’s target is to achieve “no additional warming” from biogenic methane emissions.
According to scientific analysis, the amount of reduction needed to achieve this “no additional warming” goal is dependent on the global scenario:
If global emissions are high, a smaller cut in New Zealand’s emissions (around 14-15% below 2017 levels by 2050) would be sufficient to prevent additional warming from its methane.
If the rest of the world makes significant cuts to methane emissions (a low global emissions scenario), then New Zealand would need to make steeper cuts (up to the higher end of the target range, possibly around 24% or more below 2017 levels by 2050) to ensure its emissions align with global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.
Put another way:
If other countries reduce their methane emissions significantly, the overall global atmospheric concentration decreases. To maintain a “no additional warming” contribution in this lower concentration environment, New Zealand would need to reduce its emissions by a larger percentage than if global levels remained high.
New Zealand has recently reset its 2050 biogenic methane reduction target to a range of 14-24% below 2017 levels, a change from the previous 24-47% range. This adjusted range is intended to align with the “no additional warming” goal, with periodic reviews planned to ensure it remains consistent with scientific understanding and international progress.
=============================================================================================================
All of which ignores the fact that methane is responsible for about 1/3 of current global warming and the quickest way to lower global temperatures is to reduce methane emissions, noting about 2/3 of the contribution to global warming that NZ has caused comes from methane emissions.
Biogenic methane comes mainly from producing food, and we need food. Fugitive methane comes from fossil fuel recovery – which is thus a double whammy. It’s inexcusable.
Why the Time Has Finally Come for Geothermal Energy. It used to be that drawing heat from deep in the Earth was practical only in geyser-filled places such as Iceland. But new approaches may have us on the cusp of an energy revolution. – https://archive.ph/qXYym [New Yorker does excellent research and fact checking]
This should be required reading for anyone not informed on the subject of geothermal. It’s shocking me in a good way.
“Required reading”? It’s actually quite a difficult read – 5,000 words of jibber-jabber infused with a small amount of geothermal stuff that’s not so easy to spot
It is at least encouraging to read that folk are persisting with geothermal. Theoretically, geothermal could be a major renewable contributor. Perhaps it ‘should’ be. But geothermal remains a long way from such delivery.
The experience from projects nearest to me has been one of failure.
Up the coast from me is the Southampton District Energy Scheme resulted from some geothermal test bore holes drilled by the govt back in 1981. The resulting geothermal energy was harnessed to set up a district heating project. That project continues today but the geo-thermal input was quickly a small part of it, (the rest from diesel engines). Today the whole geothermal part is no more although the operators are more eager to talk about previous geothermal operations than admit to this ending.
A bit further-off, the Eden Project is heating some greenhouses with geothermal but mention of wider use of geothermal stopped a few years back. And there has been talk of a further scheme down that way to heat a new 3,000 housing development but that’s it for geothermal in UK.
Across the channel, another discouraging result was in Switzerland in 2009 when a geothermal project in Basel was halted due to earthquakes.
In run-of-the-mill geology, the problems seem to be the cost of the drilling and the uncertainty of the result. The idea was perhaps that if steam could be guaranteed (or be certain enough to justify the expense of such drilling), electric generation would allow projects sited away from towns where the geology suited. (This is not new. The oldest geothermal electric generation dates back to 1904.) But without a guarantee, projects require expensive district heating systems as a back-up plan and thus urban drilling which can cause earthquakes (abet small ones although of a size that was big enough to stop oil/gas fracking projects in UK dead in their tracks).
If oilmen can reduce the cost of the drilling as described by that linked New Yorker article, that would certainly help geothermal projects get off the ground but any talk of fracking will do the opposite in Europe.
Another angle is to use a different working fluid that boils at lower temperature, this a geothermal technology that is not new but also involving big efficiency losses.
One glimmer of speculative hope that I saw was in another potential renewable energy idea which had to surmount its own technical problems – Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. This would have to work on a temperature difference of 25ºC to generate electricity using heat pumps. Such success would surely breathe new life into geothermal.
in Re to MA Rodger, 23 Nov 2025 at 7:42 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842310
Dear MA,
Regarding geothermal energy, I am afraid that the same reason why the geothermal heat flow through Earth surface is negligible in comparison with the average insolation may prevent that we will once economically exploit geothermal energy for a significant share of the overall energy supply.
It is the poor thermal conductivity of rocks. The consequence of this circumstance is an unavoidably huge size of any facility with a reasonably high power, and commensurately huge, economically hardly justifiable investments.
This does not mean that locally, in “hot spots” wherein the natural geothermal heat flow is much higher than average, geothermal energy could not become competitive with fossil fuel use, especially for heating.
Any such application may be very desirable, and fracking technology may indeed enable broader geothermal energy exploitation than so far.
It will, however, hardly ever become a miraculous “silver bullet” resolving problems with sustainable energy production and supply everywhere.
One question with respect to the penultimate sentence in your post, specifically to the expression “generate electricity using heat pumps”. So far, it was my understanding that heat pumps consume electricity to gain more heat in form suitable for heating in comparison with a direct conversion of the precious electricity into heat.
Do I understand correctly that there is an idea that a heat pump could allow extracting more electricity from a low-potential heat source like ocean or geothermal than its direct exploitation in a heat engine? In other words, have you meant that with a couple of a heat pump and heat engine, it could be possible to reach an overall electricity output that will be higher than the sum of the original heat engine output and the driving power of the heat pump?
If so, I am afraid that this idea may not work. I rather think that no couple of a heat pump with a heat engine can overcome the efficiency of the heat engine alone.
If I am wrong, I will appreciate an explanatory comment.
Greetings
Tomáš
It seems to me that geothermal energy production would have to be paired with fracking in most locations that lack a shallow heat source.
In locations where the hot rock is deep, the pressure of the rock above tends to keep cracks sealed and would generally prevent the free circulation of water. In that case, fracking would be required in order to keep pulling heat from fresh rock interfaces. The thermal conduction of heat through thick rock layers is quite poor, so the heat production from any individual well would probably decline relatively quickly. That seems to have been the experience in Southampton, from your description.
Of course there are the other problems associated with fracking. You can pump down clean water, but return water that may be brackish or contain toxic substances such as arsenic or H2S.
Also, there is the earthquake hazard.
MA Rodger: What I wrote was “required reading for anyone not informed” – prolly should be ‘recommended’ rather than ‘required’. Definitely not ‘jibber jabber’ but it is a wide ranging treatment written for interested laypeople rather than scientists. I stand by my claim that it is a good overview. Yes, it’s long. The New Yorker sets a high standard, but it is not a technical journal.
Re earthquakes, that appears to be a problem starting at about 6 km depth (injection wells, afaik, are the problem. Regulations happened (Trump deregulation may result in a new wave of these). See Rachel Maddow’s Blowout. I recall depths not much deeper than 4 km in article, and was interested that the drilling expertise from fracking opened new doors.
Thanks for your additional information.
In my valuable opinion almost 3 times HIGHER can be as much as 99% off what you might have thought it might have cost. Valuable because I’m the All-Time Winner like Mallard since I ever started, like I had to inform some random “Ned” today. Any series at all has a “doubling interval” provided that it’s increasing and starts small enough and THAT is why it’s meaningless. You will not be aware that I happen to be the all-time World’s Champion of doublings because I identified a Delta-GMST doubling interval of Zero time (an infinite rate of increase) in 2015 and that is physically impossible for anybody to beat, Cut’n’paste of my 2015 notes which made me unbeatable King of the Doublings, as follows:
“This continues my journey of Intensely Alarming Legitimate Analysis Discoveries I’m making starting with 2015 analysis of a Truly Alarming rate of increase of GMST from the RSS graph assiduously brought to my attention by “Ted Cruz” and “His Royal Lordship Sir Majesty Monckton” on original work of guest essay by Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute that I’ve seen on WattsUpWithThat (which I once thought was Lord Christopher Monckton’s work for some reason, possibly because it’s juvenile) includes a least-squares-error fit that clearly shows a massive (infinite) increase in warming starting February 1999. Though I have no lsq software just eyeballing from 1999-02 (15 years 9 months ago) indicates clearly that there is a +ve warming trend from then. Looks like ~1.2 degrees / century to my eyes and GISTEMP has +0.16 degrees 1999-2013 which is 1.1 degrees / century so that’s what it is. So then:
18 years 1 month = 217 months 1996-10 – 2014-10 = 0.0 degrees / century from Knappenberger-Michaels (Monckton) as shown by Ted Cruz and
15 years 9 months = 189 months 1999-02 – 2014-10 = 1.2 degrees / century (the very same graph)
which shows clearly that “global warming” has increased since November 1996 and not only that but 1.2 degrees / 0.0 degrees = infinity rate of increase.
I was never previously a Doomer but the Knappenberger-Michaels graph on WUWT site shows an infinite increase of “global warming” since November 1996, which has Terrified rather than alarmed me”.
See! Not only Piotr can wax wry, dry & whimsical with his only-very-slightly-sophomorical ice sheets 275,000 metres thick. Ner.
Politico in back-to-back weeks has another fantastic, and this time rather frightening, in-depth article relating to action on climate change:
“The Strange and Totally Real Plan to Blot Out the Sun and Reverse Global Warming
A 25-person startup is developing technology to block the sun and turn down the planet’s thermostat. The stakes are huge — and the company and its critics say regulations need to catch up.”
By KARL MATHIESEN and CORBIN HIAR
11/21/2025 10:00 AM EST
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/11/21/stardust-geoengineering-janos-pasztor-regulations-00646414
After reading, and rereading the article, I’m not sure what to make of this. Even in today’s heady market, raising a total of $75 million USD for this type of startup is not to be waved off. There are a number of serious implications for society, but I think I’ll just throw out this one thing…
IMO, the most important, and certainly to me the most alarming, is that apparently Stardust Solutions wants to alter the climate via release into the stratosphere of the company’s proprietary particles and yet appears to be blissful about not having hired, on a permanent basis, any climate scientists with backgrounds in a number of various AGW disciplines thus far. And no, temporary consulting gigs do not count, particularly since signing a strict non-disclosure agreement to even consult is the way the company has operated. That just seems like a really bad way to have begun.
I understand how any business, particularly startups, always must work to protect proprietary intellectual property. And maybe Stardust’s CEO Yanai Yedvab is serious about fulfilling all the promises he outlines with the reporters. Yet, as the story makes clear, there have already been a few head-scratchers that should raise serious concerns about how the company has gone about this.
In a certain way, I didn’t find it surprising at all how far and how fast the company has come in two years. Mankind needs to lower the atmosphere’s troposphere temperature a bit? Somebody says, “No sweat, we’ve got just the way to do it!” It’s easier to go rapidly if a company doesn’t seem too worried about understanding how the planet’s climate actually functions and would react to this attempt. And how that will impact countless populations.
Maybe before the company drops more hundreds of thousands of USD’s on lobbying efforts and building public credibility, they can hire some damn climate scientists who have the requisite backgrounds in AGW on a permanent basis! Just a thought…
Not to mention that bringing down the temperature with particles leaves the ocean still acidifying, and that the particles are going to eventually settle onto the surface.
Looks like COP30 was a total disaster in more ways than one! Holy cow!
https://www.breitbart.com/news/boos-blowups-and-last-minute-pause-as-a-chaotic-cop30-closes-out/
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2025/11/14/morano-brazil-cop30-conference-a-disaster-of-100-countries/
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/11/21/watch-cop30-climate-doomer-conference-engulfed-in-smoke-flames-as-fire-breaks-out/
And they cut an 8 mile long freeway through the old growth rain forest for a new road to COP30, cutting ~100,000 trees!
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vy191rgn1o
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/brazil-clears-amazon-trees-cop30-donald-trump-b1257527.html
The only way it could be worse is if a photo appears showing Greta in the rain forest with a chainsaw! BWAHAHAHA!
:)
Mr. KiA: “ Looks like COP30 was a total disaster in more ways than one! Holy cow!
Don’t read so much breibart, it’s not good for you.
And can you step back for a moment and reflect – what does your glee at the pain and suffering trumpists inflict on the rest of America, on the rest of the world and future generations – tell you about yourself?
Do you loved ones know? “Grandpa, grandpa, why are you smiling?“
After all this time you are still referencing breitbart?! Wow, what are classic example of your critical thinking failure once again. You look for affirmation instead and keep flaunting your ignorance. Time and time again.
Lost track of where the planetary effects on Solar activity comments were, here’s some relevant numbers:
Impact on barycenter (∝ Mr), tidal acceleration on Sun(∝ M·r¯³), relative to Jupiter’s (in ‰ (ppt)), calculated from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitationally_rounded_objects_of_the_Solar_System ( using r = “Mean distance from the Sun”):
P _ ;_________ M·r ___;____ M/r³
M _ ;______ 0.012 94 _;___ 422.4
V _ ;______ 0.356 5 __;___ 954.6
E _ ;______ 0.604 5 __;___ 443.1
M _ ;______ 0.098 997 ;____ 13.465
J _ ;____ 1000 __;___ 1000
S _ ;_____ 548.80 ;_____ 48.628
U _ ;_____ 168.70 ;______ 0.911 70
N _ ;_____ 311.78 ;______ 0.279 58
This May, of 2025, the reading was 430.58 ppm – the greatest yearly increase in the history of record keeping at Mona Loa. This record increase in the face of levelling emissions suggests that the earth’s carbon sinks are no longer capable of absorbing carbon as efficiently as they did in the recent past. This is truly bad news.
It’s all bad news. The real story about climate science and global warming policy failures can be found here:
https://jimehansen.substack.com/p/warning-this-colorful-chart-is-censored/comments
Please support the truth tellers