This month’s open thread. We’re not great ones for New Year’s resolutions, but let’s try. How about we resolve to stay substantive, refrain from abusing one another, and maintaining a generosity of spirit when interacting with others?
Lots of things get updated in January and we’ll try and keep up, though possibly with less fanfare than in previous years. In other news, we await the (supposedly imminent) release of a new “National Climate Assessment”, and the (supposedly imminent) engagement of the authors of the DOE ‘climate report’ with the extensive critiques they received. Meanwhile CMIP7 has started, and we expect results to trickle into the databases throughout the year – dig into some of the literature to get a sense of what will change (better models, improved forcings, etc.).
Eppure si riscaldi.
Contrary to RC ‘biased moderates’ [the non-climate science proponents of various arguments against the increasing risk of GAGW ‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’ today], while minimizing and denying accelerating warming rates driving future catastrophic risks and mislabelling others presenting credible information as “wrong or extreme doomers”, the fact is CAGW ‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’ is already upon us now.
“[…] CAGW is simply a straw man used by climate contrarians to criticize the mainstream position.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/#comment-844414
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/#comment-844428
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/#comment-844368
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/#comment-844437
iow another “Don’t believe your own eyes” moment.
===
Example: Atomsk’s Sanakan repeatedly denies and undermines the following kinds of climate science findings as being misunderstood, due to people not reading his own references or commentary, as extreme unfounded opinions, not believable, nor supported by climate science… when in fact these are broad based well known consensus climate science findings.
The following simultaneously supports the findings of IGCC Forster et al 2024-2025, Foster-Rahmstorf 2025, Hansen et al 2024-2025 incl prior papers, along with many other climate science papers in particular the established rapid acceleration in warming since 2010; while undermining almost everything pushed by Atomsk’s Sanakan these last months and years.
Who wrote this?
William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf , Michael E. Mann, Johan Rockström, Jillian W. Gregg, and others
Ref: https://michaelmann.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/RippleEtAlBioscience2025.pdf
The only things Atomsk’s Sanakan talks about are an impossible to meet short-term negative CI of statistical significance hypothetical that ignores all recent data trends and his non-stop minimizing of the accelerated warming scientific consensus since 2010 while making incredible unrealistic future GMST predictions not based on credible UpToDate science data. I don’t believe anything he says as a result, because it’s all dubious rhetoric based on cherry-picking and logical fallacies being distorted by a flood of nonsensical references no one could reasonably follow.
While others waste time and space over irrelevant CDR/DAC sequestration issues which are never going to happen in any form at scale nor will it stop Net Zero Emissions by 2050 becoming an abject failure. At any future time included, short of an implacable global civilization and economic collapse that’d make COVID and the GFC look like a minor hiccups.
As shown in this “mainstream but contrary science” it is Atomsk’s Sanakan who is misleading others by distorting and cherry picking what info he’ll use while ignoring proper science practise. Then repeatedly refusing to admit he is wrong when challenged with facts backed by Data.
To Geoff Miell A’sS says: “This isn’t a question of policy. It’s a question of statistical significance in science.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/11/unforced-variations-nov-2025/#comment-842265
No, it is not. It’s all about the observable Physics and proper scientific process.
The big problem climate science distorters/deniers like Atomsk’s Sanakan have is:
Statistical significance is not the same thing as real-world risk. You can’t use a p-value to dismiss the possibility of catastrophe, especially when the stakes are existential.
And the irony is: The only people who keep insisting “it’s not significant” are the ones who want to avoid acting until the crisis is undeniable. That’s not science — it’s denial dressed up as rigor.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/01/unforced-variations-jan-2026/#comment-844027
Atomsk’s Sanakan’s long-term non-CAGW stance calls on people to “Trust the process, the experts, the institutions,” the outdated IPCC and CMIP outputs, the dashboards, the COP system, and Statistical certainty of 95% CI — Which works — until it doesn’t.
afaik Atomsk’s Sanakan has been actively undermining climate science for years, yet still no climate scientist has effectively confronted his distortions, his cherry-picking, his manipulations of the general public about the risks and implications of GAGW ‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’.
Multi-troll “Data”: 28 Jan 2026 at 12:35 AM […]
I see you are following Steve Bannon strategy of “owning” the opponents by “Flooding the zone with shit”
with flooding not only in a sheer number of the said …. Data productions (102 posts in first 23 days of the year), but also with volume of the individual pieces of that flood (this one – 1433 words and 7 url links)
Is somebody paying per word?
It looks like the sockpuppet again commented on research they neither read nor understood, much like when they were caught pretending Forster 2025 was not peer-reviewed. The sockpuppet pretends that the ‘CAGW is a straw man’ point was made in response to people who think AGW is a catastrophe and define what they mean by ‘catastrophe’. The ‘CAGW is a straw man’ point was instead made in response to denialists/contrarians who abuse the term without properly defining it. That point has been made by plenty of other people and is supported by published evidence the sockpuppet will never read.
For the curious, below is the academic book chapter on this, along with context from others. The sockpuppet account is never going to read and understand the chapter.
Re: “The ‘CAGW is a straw man’ point was instead made in response to denialists/contrarians who abuse the term without properly defining it.“
An illustration of that point:
Terminology like ‘very serious problem’, ‘dangerous’, etc. is also used by climate scientists, and defined in terms of increased hurricane intensity, sea level rise acceleration, etc.
The contrarian/denialist Nigelj responded to abused terms like ‘catastrophe’ and ‘alarmist’ without properly defining them, to straw man positions they ideologically opposed.
This tactic is not new about science denialists. It’s akin to a creationist objecting to evolutionary biology by claiming evolution does not produce new ‘kinds’ of organisms. Yet the creationist never properly defines what they mean by ‘kind’. That allows them to peddle a straw man of evolutionary biology, and always conveniently claim something does not count as a new ‘kind’ on their unspecified meaning of the term. They do that for their religious/ideological agenda, such as a policy agenda of getting creationism taught in schools as science. Parallel point here for a political/ideological agenda on climate policy.
Datas post @28 Jan 2026 at 12:35 AM
Concerned scientists say: “We are hurtling toward climate chaos. The planet’s vital signs are
flashing red….etcetera….”
I think we are as well, and Im agreeing with Data on that, but none of that changes the fact AS is correct that there’s no statistically significant detection of an acceleration in warming since 2015, and that claiming we are certain that warming has accelerated is inaccurate, and just feeds the denialists who can easily and genuinely debunk that argument by noting its not statistically significant. We can however say its VERY LIKELY that warming has accelerated. This is subtly different but very defensible and the argument we should make. AS himself has acknowledged this and that we have good reason to mitigate the problem. I can see how AS could come across as a luke warmer, but he has clearly stated several times he isn’t a luke warmer, and its fairly obvious he isn’t if you READ CAREFULLY.
All Data has to do to is acknowledge the truth of what AS says and answer his 5 questions affirmatively and then raise any points Data might have ( its likely theres an acceleration, big problem, etc,etc…..). This diffuses the situation and saves face and moves things along. Instead Data refuses to do this and keeps on repetitively attacking AS (with numerous strawman arguments thrown in the mix) and perpetuating the discussion ad nauseum to the point of insanity. ironically this amplifies the discussion about statistical significance, the very thing that is annoying Data.
I’m afraid Piotr has a point that it is like flooding the space with shit. Steve Bannon would be proud of it.
Re: “I can see how AS could come across as a luke warmer, but he has clearly stated several times he isn’t a luke warmer, and its fairly obvious he isn’t if you READ CAREFULLY.“
Yup. And the link for my name goes to a video debunking lukewarmism + explaining why AGW is dangerous (with a clear definition of what ‘dangerous’ means in terms of increased hurricane intensity, sea level rise acceleration, etc.). But the sockpuppet account would rather willfully misrepresent people than answer basic questions on what the sockpuppet said.
Briony Worthington of the Cleaning Up podcast interviews Zeke Hausfather
The State of the Climate 2026 | Ep242: Zeke Hausfather
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzySrSD8vz8
Note: the dollar is collapsing. Thanks for the reality denial, Trump/maga.
I will repost this for February. It is a really fine explainer, and North America and Europe are warned that more dangerous weather is on the way. Stratospheric Warming (‘sudden’) and polar incursions are of particular interest to me, and their effects to all of us. This is a useful explainer, with both simple and expert analysis, and useful imagery. Stratospheric Warming Confirmed: Polar Vortex Collapse to Bring Major Weather Disruption in the Coming Weeks – https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/polar-vortex-collapse-february-2026-stratospheric-warming-forecast-winter-united-states-canada-europe-fa/
“New forecasts confirm a Polar Vortex split and collapse in mid-February, following a Stratospheric Warming event. The latest predictions show a breakdown of the polar circulation, creating a prolonged cold weather pattern across North America and Europe, with early signs that it can last into early Spring.
“While the main collapse is scheduled for mid-month, the United States and Canada are already feeling the early effects of a pre-split disruption. A deformed, elongated Polar Vortex core is currently pushing cold anomalies into the central and eastern U.S., with temperatures in some regions forecast to drop 30°F below normal.
“Current data indicates that this Stratospheric Warming event will start unfolding over the next 8 to 10 days. In this article, we will look at the prolonged disruption of the stratospheric Polar Vortex. Also, we will analyze the resulting weather impacts over North America and Europe for the remainder of winter and into early spring.”