Somewhat belated open thread for this month! (Oops). Please stick to climate related topics, and remain respectful.
Reader Interactions
87 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Apr 2026"
Mr. Know It Allsays
On April 11, in the March UV, Ron R mentioned the “picture perfect” Artemis II flight. I have a science question about pictures from that picture perfect flight. Can you imagine? Actual science!
My question is what is going on with these 2 photos of the earth. The first one says it is a photo of the backlit dark side of the earth. What is doing the backlighting – the moon? FYI, You may need to turn up your screen brightness to see details.
The second photo shows the exact same image, taken from the exact same location. Every land mass, star, and cloud is in the exact same location except the earth isn’t dark!
How can that be? Which image is fake (or altered) or are they both fake (or altered)? They used a monster flash to light up the earth in the 2nd image?
:)
Radge Haverssays
Camera settings control what the camera sees– variables like exposure, aperture, ISO, and these days in camera processing
Image processing programs provide tools to bring out information captured by the camera that you don’t necessarily see, for example like what you did when brightening the screen.
In astrophotography you can also take multiple images of a single area of sky, stack and combine them to capture more light in a single image. That’s probably not what happened here though.
Radge Haverssays
KIA,
Go with what Ray said.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. KIA, The illumination is in fact “moonshine”. The difference is the exposure time. More time means more photons means lighter pixels.
James Webb Space Telescope has to use integration times up to about 20 minutes for some of the fainter objects it images. At that rate, you can start to see hits by cosmic ray particles, so they also have techniques for rejecting the charge due to cosmic rays (which tends to come in big chunks all at once) and still get a good image.
With astrophotography, bright objects need short exposures or the pixels get filled and the image whites out. Dim objects require long exposures.
Ron R.says
KIA, hmm, I don’t understand your question. Seems pretty clear to me. You’re looking at the dark or night side. What is the light source on the other side? It clearly indicates it’s the sun, “as the Earth eclipses the Sun”. It also says in the dark picture, “Artemis II Captures Dark Side of the Earth”
They simply brightened the picture by turning up the exposure probably because they’re highlighting the auroras that you can barely see in the darker picture. It even mentions them in the brighter picture. Also notice that in the brighter picture the rim of the sun on the edge is brighter in comparison and you can see the halo now.
No, you didn’t discover a conspiracy.
Radge Haverssays
Hi Ron,
I think Ray said it best, which I interpret this way: In order to enhance the photo, there had to be something to enhance. The back side of the earth was faintly lit by sunlight reflected off the moon. I don’t think the other light sources you mention would be sufficient to cover the whole dark half of the earth so evenly.
BTW, Commander Reid Wiseman used a Nikon D5 DSLR camera to take the shot. It’s an older camera but check this out:
The image was apparently post processed in Adobe Lightroom Classic, not super high tech.
Ron R.says
Radge Havers, there is something to be said for older tech.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Thanks for that informative article. Photo taken at 1/4 second shutter speed, ISO 51,200. WOW! So, a relatively slow shutter combined with very fast “film” (digital image sensor) and it can essentially see in the dark. Surprising that it wasn’t super grainy given the high ISO – that’s what happened with high speed film in the old days. If you wanted high resolution (small grain) you might use ISO 25 or ISO 64 film, but no higher than ISO 100 and certainly not 51,200! Will have to investigate how ISO 100 for film compares to ISO 100 for digital sensors.
Good video on the Artemis II mission, with a little more about that photo at 5:35:
Grain can be managed. The Nikon D5 has in-camera noise reduction settings. Where those are week, photo software programs worth their salt will have a denoise function.
There are a lot of approaches to fine tuning your image in post processing, particularly if you shoot in RAW format.
Ron R.says
Oops, Ray was right that the light was coming from the moon (but visible thanks to the camera) not simply longer exposure to the sun on the other side of earth. Both images are real of course.
Always trust the physicist over the non-scientist. :)
“Human-created photos are rooted in direct observation, intent and lived experience, while AI images—or choices made by AI-driven tools—are not. While both can produce compelling and believable visuals, the human photographs carry emotional power because the photographer is drawing from their experiences and perspective in that moment to tell an authentic story.
“Artemis II photographs resonate, not only because they are historic, but because they reflect the deliberate choices and intent of a human being in that specific moment and context. The exposure, camera setting, lens choice and composition are all dictated by the astronaut’s vision, skill, perspective and experience. Each image is unique in comparison with the others. These choices give the images narrative power, anchoring them in human perspective.”
“To make sure the astronauts were fully prepared, Willoughby and Reichert worked with the crew members for roughly two years. The pair designed a series of classes and training modules that allowed the crew to get hands-on experiences with the complex photography equipment that emulate conditions in space.”
Piotrsays
KiA: “How can that be? Which image is fake (or altered) or are they both fake (or altered)? ”
Different exposure time. But the ignorant mind immediately goes toward conspiracy (“fake”. “altered”) – if I can’t understand something then it must be a woke conspiracy.
“The net internal wave flux is poleward, the authors report, reaching approximately 15 gigawatts at 35°S and 55°S and 7 gigawatts at 45°S. The majority—more than 80%—of the internal wave flux is powered by the tides. In contrast, wind-driven waves carry just 1%–3% as much energy but move in the opposite direction—equatorward—partially offsetting the net poleward flux. The rest is accounted for by various background motions, including higher tidal harmonics, lee waves, and nonlinear interactions.
What I don’t understand is how tides can be responsible for this massive wave motion, yet for similar subsurface wave motion that creates an El Nino, it is considered due to the wind. So, the conventional wisdom of consensus science says the roles are essentially reversed here as the tides are considered inconsequential. …. Hmmm, Aha! This is reconciled when one considers the possibility that the tides are also responsible for the wind, and this correlation becomes spurious as the mechanisms. work in phase to establish the El Nino dynamics.
Mr. Know It Allsays
F= GMm/r^2
Gravitational attraction. The earth’s crust and the oceans are deformed by the gravity of the orbiting moon.
Wrong formula. But you’re a know-it-all so you should be able to figure it out.
Thomas Gordon Hewittsays
Tides are efffectively the first derivative of the gravity. So they scale as r^-3 with directional components (dipole field).
I think a lot depends on the wave period, which for tides is mostly 12 and 24 hours (slighly different because of the moon’s travel in it’s order). Wind is generally seconds to minutes, and drives at the surface, so you get the familiar gravity waves. These deep waves are usually internal waves -often
gravity waves trapped at the boundary between layers of different densities. The tidal forces (stresses) are a body force, which means it is distributed throughout a volume, not just a surface.
Closer than Mr.KIA,, but what people always forget is that the moon stays for days above the equator in terms of declination (~ about 2 weeks) and then the same amount of time below the equator. This generates additional tidal forcing that essentially integrates much more efficiently than the rapid daily tidal change due to the Earth’s rotation. So, this declination effect is what causes the longer more sweeping changes in the fluid dynamics. But there are two more things that scientists don’t get right. First, that the draconic tidal cycle is what paces long-range dynamics, not the tropical cycle that most are familiar with. This isn’t a big change, just a few hours every month but it has significant implications for prediction. Secondly, the interaction of the annual or seasonal cycle with the lunar cycle is what paces the changes in behavior such as ENSO. This turns into aliasing math and moreover becomes a multiplier on the difference between the tropical and draconic cycle, turning a few hours difference into nearly a half year difference in effective period.
All told, these 3 basic ideas in tidal cycles are completely ignored by scientists who are trying to model ENSO., likely because one has to include them ALL to have any chance of getting a model right. This is understandable because science is always thought as being incremental, and advancements are usually made a parameter or feature at a time. But here we need to radically adjust 3 features — have to overcome the hurdle of thinking of tides as simply daily, choose the least well known of the tidal factors, and apply obscure modular aliasing math at getting the periods correct. So, if a scientist had tried any one of these factors alone, little progress would be made and that scientist would likely give up,
Yet, in actuality, significant advancements in science (as opposed to optimizations or incremental advancements) are due to “triple-point” intersections of novel conjectures. Can go through the list of breakthroughs that require three necessary ideas — the Haber-Bosch process, GPS , and the transistor are just a few.
The bottom-line is that even though most scientific research operates in univariate space (changing X to see its effect on Y), to get a breakthrough you need to work in latent space, where a solution only exists in a specific “niche” formed by the intersection of three or more independent constraints.
That’s why AI and machine learning will continue to make breakthroughs.
Paul Pukite: ” What I don’t understand is how tides can be responsible for this massive wave motion, yet for similar subsurface wave motion that creates an El Nino,”
Perhaps because you are comparing apples and watermelons – the amount of tidal energy over much larger volume of the oceans and …. non-tidal energy in the “subsurface” part of the Pacific ocean?
And perhaps comparing apples and orangutans – the ENSO is associated with the changes in the sustained movement forward of water (dragged by the wind) with the cyclical oscillations of water around the same central position, Waves – tidal or wind-driven do not transport water long distance – waves transport energy, not mater:
as one full wave passes – a given water parcel completes one circle (or one ellipsis), so it ends practically in the exactly same place where it started- Hence no net horizontal movement. (that’s why surfing in Hawaii in summer – you surf on the waves formed a week earlier near Antarctica, yet the water in these waves is nothing like Antarctic water).
And isn’t ENSO a result of the long-distance, sustained, movement of water ? I mean, under normal and La Nina conditions the sustained winds blowing along the equator from E to W – (the Walker circulation cell), which:
1) drags the hot surface water from East Pacific and piles it up in the West Pacific
2) causes equatorial upwelling – the water that is dragged by the wind westward if being slightly north of the equator is deflected by the Coriolis to the right (north), the water slightly to south of equator is deflected to the left (south). This way Coriolis has parted the surface waters at the equator, with the missing surface water replaced by the water from the underneath and voila – equatorial upwelling.
During the El Nino phase, the E->W Walker cell weakens/breaks up/(partially) reverses – and
the pile of hot water from the W. Eq. Pacific slushes back eastward AND instead equatorial upwelling, bringing cold deep waters to the surface, we get equatorial downwelling in which we pile up the hot surface water over the equator. Similar reversal happens in the coastal upwelling say, off Peru, where the upwelled water instead being say 16 C, are replaced with normal surface water of say 26C.
Smaller exposure of the atmosphere to cold water in the upwelling zones, mean less transfer of heat from the air into the ocean, and that’s one of the main reasons why the El-Nino years are globally warmer than non-ElNino years.
So why should we ignore all these and instead look with awe at your “15 gigawatts at 35°S and 55°S and 7 gigawatts at 45°S” driven by tides?
The consensus view that ENSO is driven by stochastic wind bursts and ocean‑atmosphere feedback and that the QBO is driven by internal wave‑mean‑flow interaction is incomplete. An alternative, internally consistent paradigm exists: a common lunisolar forcing, primarily the draconic‑annual alias (period ~2.37 years) with k=0 (zonally symmetric) symmetry, acts as a global pacemaker. The two systems (ocean and atmosphere) respond according to their symmetry properties and integration timescales and work in a cooperative fashion.
Like CO2 forcing temperature, not the other way around, climate scientists happened to get the arrow of forcing wrong for ENSO — the wind is going along for the ride.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: ” An alternative, internally consistent paradigm exists: a common lunisolar forcing, primarily the draconic‑annual alias (period ~2.37 years) with k=0 (zonally symmetric) symmetry, acts as a global pacemaker. ”
So how comes El Nino does not come every 2.37 years? And how good a pacemaker it is, if the heart does not contract when the pacemaker sends the signal to contract?
El Nino is not quite a k=0 wavenumber system, which would have a pure draconic driver, and that’s the situation with QBO. The K>0 character mixes in other tidal factors which makes it more challenging to model. The fundamental pacemaker is actually the annual impulse . Every tidal factor added is incommensurate with the annual cycle, and even the 2.37 cycle has varying amplitudes — there’s actually also a 1-1/2.37 frequency lurking in there.. So when more tidal factors are added the QBO signal may not always be reinforcing ENSO, which is the empirical observation. I think the valid reason to call these pacemakers (in signal processing it’s referred to as a carrier frequency) is that they keep it form going chaotic, which is a known property of periodic forcings.
This is the tip of the iceberg, as the ocean has its own characteristics due to the solution of Laplace’s Tidal Equations. And also how the low-dimensional topology of the equatorial region plays into this. All really interesting physics.
Incidentally, the 2026 president of the American Physical Society is Brad Marston of Brown U, who has a major research focus on this topic. I hope he pushes for more of in this direction, but I bet he has his hands full. Trump just fired the entire National Science Board, who are largely responsible for NSF funding decisions.
Secular Animistsays
FYI:
Critical Atlantic current significantly more likely to collapse than thought
The Guardian / UK
April 15 2026
“The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc) is a major part of the global climate system and was already known to be at its weakest for 1,600 years as a result of the climate crisis. Scientists spotted warning signs of a tipping point in 2021 and know that the Amoc has collapsed in the Earth’s past …
“The research combined real-world ocean observations with the models to determine the most reliable, and this hugely reduced the spread of uncertainty. They found an estimated slowdown of 42% to 58% in 2100, a level almost certain to end in collapse.”
Secular Animist,
The “significantly more likely to collapse than previously thought” finding of Portmann et al (2026) is more a nailing-down of the probabilities than an unexpected increase in probability. Note one of our hosts being quoted by the Guardian saying that the ocean freshening from the melting of the Greenland ice cap “…is one additional factor that means the reality is probably still worse.”
The 2100 numbers in full from Table 1 of Portmann et al (2026) run:- AMOC percentage weakening by 2100
after Portmann et al (2026) & previous estimates from CMIP6 ensemble mean.
SSP1-2,6 … … 20% … ( -6% to 45%) … … 23% … (-21% to 68%)
SSP2-4.5 … … 51% … (42% to 59%) … … 32% … ( -5% to 69%)
SSP3-7.0 … … 48% … (43% to 53%) … … 37% … ( 4% to 70%)
SSP5-8.5 … … 58% … (52% to 63%) … … 43% … ( 9% to 77%)
CMsays
Not 100% sure it should be taken at face value . The 50% isnt a confidence or prediction interval in the usual statistical sense, their uncertainty is basically estimate ± z times the regression RMSE across models. ,
.They treat climate models as independent and equally plausible, even though they admin themselves those assumptions are contestable. They assume the intermodel relationships learned from CMIP6 are the right real-world relationships, despite the risk of shared structural model errors. They also leave observation error out of the constrained uncertainty
Ridge regularization is a sensible way to reduce overfitting, and the leave-one-out comparison is better than nothing, but this is still a small-sample, high-correlation problem. If the constrained result moves materially when you change method, then the constraint is less robust. It becomes a method-conditioned estimate, not a hard observational fact.
The 51% result comes specifically from ridge-regularized regression with 19 predictors, chosen because it had the lowest leave-one-out error among the methods they tested, not because all reasonable methods converged on the same answer.
When they switch from time means to trends, or from absolute AMOC to anomalies, leave-one-out performance drops substantially and the constraints stop reducing uncertainty much. They also note that with fewer models, the linear methods become more prone to overfitting. That is exactly the pattern you would expect if the constraint is somewhat fragile.
There is also a physical-interpretation issue. The paper says most of the downward correction does not come from the observed RAPID mean itself. It comes mainly from South Atlantic surface salinity and North Atlantic SST biases. For the South Atlantic salinity part, the mechanism is at least physically motivated. But for the North Atlantic SST part, they explicitly say they do not find a simple physical explanation and that the link is “far from straightforward.”
Other constraints give quite different results.
Olson gives -4sv (7.2 – 1.2) for RCP 4.5,
Weijer is is 34%-45% (ssp1 and ssp5)
Bonan gives 3-6sv depending on forcing scenario, but its quite insensitive to scenarios
SChmittner gives 25+-25% under SRESA1B (although I guess its a bit old now)
Not that there isn’t cause for worry, but there are some leaps in this study which makes it less constrained than it might seem, especially on the intervals.
Juliansays
CM,
This is precisely the kind of analysis I’m often missing when it comes to climate science in general. While I do have some basic scientific and mathematic literacy to discern what’s true and what’s false, understanding nuances between different methodologies used is way above my paygrade. I had a hunch they were doing something non-standard the moment I saw Ridge Regression, but I’m neither a ML specialist nor statistician, so I couldn’t exactly say what or why.
The portion of the ~20Sv or ~17Sv that is driven by the deep region in the Nordic (Greenland?) Seas (from memory, Peter Wadhams shows one place as 2,500m deep at 75.0N 0.0EW in his pictorial) surrounded by the Arctic Paddling Pools is handily shown as 5.2Sv at 11:47 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV-g4_2Xwn8
There’s also some overturning in the Labrador Sea but I’ve assumed that the Nordic Sea part is what Stefan Rahmstorf meant when he cryptically stated in a talk videoed and loaded to UTube that the North Atlantic AMOC overturning push ceasing wouldn’t necessarily stop the AMOC completely because I recall, maybe from Jason Box, that meltwater off the east Greenland coast hugs the east Greenland coast, which would mean it doesn’t reduce salinity where that 5.2Sv is pushed from.
I always assert “pushed” (I say these are “deep ocean pressure-anomaly pumps”) because a fluid cannot be pulled so “dense water sinking” and then presumably spreading 15,000 km for no reason makes no sense at all, and AMOC is a “pushing Force” and is not any body of water, The water LNADW & UNADW get pushed by the AMOC Force Net of the SMOC Force portion pushing back against it and LNADW & UNADW arriving at 40-55S being pushed up by AABW cannot be the same water exactly as left the Greenland region because of mesoscale ~horizontal water movement & mixing.
Pete Bestsays
Excluded Factors: Experts like Stefan Rahmstorf point out that many current models still do not fully account for meltwater from the Greenland ice cap, meaning the actual risk of shutdown could be even higher than these new projections suggest.
coud be worse even
CMsays
Ma Rodger,
Almost! Scmitter is Model projections of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation for the 21st century assessed by observations. Its a bit old, from 2005, but its my fault for not providing sources haha.
Peter Best,
I agree that Grls melt needs to be included, hopefully a lot more for cmip7. However to say that it is totally omitted isn’t really true.
For example Mehling using EC-Earth3 (which has a negative fovs) finds that under RCP8.5 (so very bad) scenario melt by 2100 isn’t a big factor compared to reference.
By 2300 its a bit different story. Amoc declines (im eyeballing here) 2.5 sv more than without melt, going from 8-7.5 SV to 5-4 SV
Although I will note that this is under SSP5, so its about 8C warmer by then. Id be surprised if the Amoc didn’t collapse under those conditions.
Guo uses a cmip6plus model (also EC-Earth family, but EC-Earth-ESM-1) with an interactive grls melt.
Under 3k (which is about where RCP 4.5 is) amoc goes to around 12 sv. 9k (help) warming goes down to 4sv. The paper for ESM-1 isnt published yet, but the fov value that I got from the model output was also negative, at around -0.007, but I hope the author does include it.
Ackermann also runs a AWI-ESM with an interactive grls, and find that grls melt in ssp245 isn’t a main contributing factor, and under ssp5 it further lowers the amoc strength by around 2-2.5 sv.
So not insignificant at all, but it depends on scenario and when it happens. Interestingly Pöppelmeier found (using Bern3D) that due to timing mismatch, grls melt and amoc convection doesn’t happen at the same time. So peakj melkwater arrives after several centuries, when Amoc is starting to recover.
An important note tho is that we know that the Amoc is bistable, and that many cmip5/6 models are monostable due to a bias in the salt–advection feedback strength. (aka fovs >= 0, when it should be around -0.1 – -0.15 iirc). So models with a negative fovs are more likely to collapse, and I hope that more cmip7 models have a negative fovs for better accuracy.
You can kinda see that in Van Westens experiment when he uses (I think its Cesm 1 or 2 or both?) and to get the amoc to collapse he kinda has to twist the models arm backwards and break it to get a correct modern day fov value, but it also means that the amoc strength becomes wrong, so it changes the physics of the model itself. (which he notes, its either a cesm with correct fovs or with a better amoc strength).
I don’t actually know what AWI-ESMs fov value is, but it would be good to know.
Before I leave (ive been droning on for too long), I did a simple weight for those models with FoVS < 0 and did a simple normalized weighting based on distance from the target FOV (-0.1) and the present day Amoc strength (17-16.5sv)
Its really hard to get both right, especially when those with correct salt advection start with too low amoc. The opposite is true for those with positive fovs where their amoc starts too high a lot of time, but also declines more as a result.
using a simple back of the envelope normalization by performanceweight = (1 / performance_distance^2) / sum(1 / performance_distance^2) you get for example
Well I finally had my first personal repercussion from AI. I filled out an application for a job. It was being administered by a form of AI (ATS). Did it as honestly as I could, of course. Submitted and was instantly rejected. Probably some imperfection in my wording (who knows what though). Sadly, these things have no sense of humanity.
Radge Haverssays
Ron R.,
My sympathies, I get how that works. It’s not just AI.
Back in the day, I was accepted for a job by a department in a large organization. The hitch was that I had to run my application through HR.
I filled out my form, and the department’s head assistant checked it out and promptly said, “NO!” She then patiently sat down with me and showed me the exact stock words and phrases I had to use — nothing more, nothing less.
Apparently the people in HR handled job applications like Lucy and Ethel wrapping candy at the chocolate factory. They weren’t keen on spending any more time on each one than they absolutely had to.
Ron R.says
I remember that scene! I’m wondering what imperfection in my wording caused that. It was a faster than fast rejection. Usually these things take days or weeks. The very moment I hit submit I was rejected. “No longer being considered”. Wow. Apparently I said an imperfect word. Or maybe it was some personal imperfection I admitted to? Too bad; they lost a great employee. We’re not machines yet and if anything I’m honest about myself. These things will only encourage people to lie on their apps.
Maybe I’m being paranoid but It might soon be too late (hope not) as these AIs will likely share your info and one profile will emerge that you can’t run from. Anything you’ve ever said anywhere on the internet will be in it.
Borgs only wanted here!
Radge Haverssays
Cyptic message. Could it have meant that the opening was closed for some reason? I got a similar message a while back after submitting a form less than five minutes after a deadline. Worked out ok, but yikes. Tick tock…
Ron R.says
Maybe. But the opening just came up, so unless they found the right person immediately it seems unlikely. I’d think that they would give us humans time to apply. It didn’t even take 5 minutes. Literally the very instant I hit submit I was rejected.
We are humans. We have (varying degrees and different kinds) of imperfections. That’s what naturally happens with biological organisms. I hope a world is not arising where each human is being “profiled” for every thing he’s ever said or done that’s publicly available. AI, if the kinks are ruled out, has a lot of potential to solve intractable problems. But instead of a single standard a sliding scale should be programmed into it.
They are likely using automated responses. Case in point: The UK requires a new thing called an Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) for foreign visitors. Have to go online to fill it out with your personal info. I paid the submission fee the first time thinking it would take some time to check my credentials, but it came back within seconds approved. So it’s either all automated or they are doing it to make a quick buck.
Same here … they might just be collecting your info to resell
Nigeljsays
RonR. Im retired and I’ve never had to deal with an AI assessing one of my job applications, fortunately, however if I did I think I would draft out my job application and CV (resumee), and then get an AI to review my application and CV, and I would ask the AI if I had said anything that could get my application rejected, and how the application and CV might be better written, etc, etc. I would particularly ask if I had used any words that were unwise and could lead to a rejection. I would do this exercise with two different AIs. I wish you well Ron with the job search. Hang in there.
Ron R.says
Good idea. Unfortunately I’d have to have it reassessed for each place I apply to because what is important to one likely won’t be to another (no generalities here). Still, trying is a minor inconvenience. Thanks for your well wishes.
Brings to mind something global warming denier Michael (Jurassic Park) Crichton wrote in a book about nanotechnology (Prey) predicting that it would turn the world into “grey goo.” Doubtful, but if there’s anything that can turn societies into a puddle of goo, I think AI would be a good candidate.
Ray Ladburysays
Ron R., haven’t had to deal with AI interviewers yet, but buzzword bingo has been a part of Federal hiring for decades. I fortunately had an excellent mentor who taught me the ropes. Especially for groups that play this game, he ad is going to be structured in such a way that it practically writes your response for you.
It’s extremely frustrating for the folks doing the hiring as well, as they have to structure the position description so that the good candidates get through.
Ron R.says
I wonder what the future will bring? What ever it is I hope that people’s right to privacy is respected. No one should be made to feel ashamed of that (no matter what that guy with the funny haircut thinks). Everybody has something that they don’t want others to know, and that’s as it should be. People don’t drop their drawers when they go to the bathroom in public, right (sorry for the example)?
Paul,Same here … they might just be collecting your info to resell
I hadn’t thought of that possibility. Another way to get all kinds of info from people. Fake job openings
W.R. Agnersays
Hey, everyone. I’m a layman, don’t know very much about climate science, but I’d like to ask a question to the more qualified and learned people here. Lots of this climate stuff is super confusing to me, I see all sorts of studies, headlines, substack posts, strong opinions which I can’t evaluate because I just don’t know the science you need to do it. But I worry a lot, as a guy in his thirties, about how climate change is going to affect my life. Some people say that society is going to collapse in ten years, that you can’t trust the IPCC or the mainstream, other people say that we’re pretty much fine. As is usually the case, I’m sure the truth is between the extremes, but really I don’t know. I hear terms like “hothouse”, “tipping element”, “energy imbalance”, and I just don’t get any of it. Based on the facts which people here understand far better than I do, how are our prospects? How severe are these impacts going to be in ten, twenty, fifty years? If that’s a broad question I apologize, and I wish I knew a climate scientist who I could talk to, but I write for a living so not a lot of STEM people in my orbit. Any and all information or weigh-ins are appreciated. Thanks!
Radge Haverssays
WRA,
Disclaimer: I’m not a climate scientist, and I’m assuming for the sake of argument that you’re not posting a debate-me-bro opening gambit.
There are no easy answers here. Society is unlikely to “collapse” (whatever that means) in ten years. However the situation is bad enough and the future will be the grimmer for a weaker response now.
The confusion is deliberate. I think a good place to start would be to understand why this is so. For instance, the tobacco industry playbook has set the template that the fossil fuel industry uses to disinform. Check it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry_playbook
jgnfldsays
“Some people”!!! Good Lord.
Hints for a “layman”:
1. If you want science, go to science sources.
2. If you want propaganda go to propaganda sources.
3. If you want a mishmash of BS and ignorance, go to “some people”.
#’s 1 and 2 are easily identifiable with almost no research.
——————-Expanded with AI———————-
What are the 3 best sources for scientifically accurate climate information?
The three strongest, most universally trusted sources for scientifically accurate climate information are the ones that meet all three criteria:
Below are the top three, based on how often they are cited in research, policy, and scientific literature.
-1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Why it’s the gold standard:
The IPCC doesn’t conduct its own research—it synthesizes thousands of peer‑reviewed studies from around the world. Every major climate assessment, policy framework, and scientific debate references IPCC reports.
Strengths:
-Most comprehensive climate assessments on Earth
-Extremely rigorous review process (multiple rounds, hundreds of reviewers)
-Clear summaries for policymakers and the public
If you want the closest thing to “the definitive state of climate science,” this is it.
-2. NASA Earth Science / NASA Climate
Why it’s essential:
NASA provides direct observational data from satellites, ocean buoys, atmospheric sensors, and long‑term monitoring programs. It’s the backbone of global climate measurement.
Strengths:
-High‑resolution global datasets
-Clear explanations of climate mechanisms
Publicly accessible data and visualizations
No political or advocacy mission—just measurement and science
If you want to understand how we know the climate is changing, NASA is unmatched.
-3. NOAA Climate.gov (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
Why it matters:
NOAA maintains some of the world’s most important climate datasets—temperature records, ocean heat content, sea‑level rise, extreme weather trends, and paleoclimate reconstructions.
Strengths:
-Longest continuous climate records in the U.S.
-Excellent data tools and maps
-Strong focus on accuracy, transparency, and reproducibility
If you want reliable, long‑term climate trends, NOAA is indispensable.
What are the 3 most important places spreading climate misinformation and propaganda?
Below are the three most important, well‑documented sources of climate misinformation, based on academic literature, investigative journalism, and analyses by organizations like the IPCC, UN, Yale Program on Climate Communication, and the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
Top 3 Major Sources of Climate Misinformation (Evidence‑Based)
1. Fossil‑Fuel–Funded Think Tanks and PR Networks
This is the single most consistently documented source.
Decades of research show that certain think tanks, PR firms, and “policy institutes” funded by fossil‑fuel interests have:
-promoted doubt about climate science
-funded misleading studies
-created talking points for politicians
-seeded narratives like “climate change is natural” or “scientists disagree”
Examples of organizations in this category (from published research, not my opinion):
-The Global Climate Coalition (historical)
-The Heartland Institute
-The Competitive Enterprise Institute
These groups are repeatedly cited in academic literature as central nodes in the climate‑misinformation ecosystem.
2. Coordinated Social‑Media Disinformation Networks
Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X (Twitter) are not sources themselves, but they are amplifiers for:
-conspiracy communities
-bot networks
-coordinated political campaigns
-monetized outrage channels
Studies show that a tiny number of accounts produce a huge share of climate misinformation.
For example, the “Toxic Ten” identified by the Center for Countering Digital Hate were responsible for nearly 70% of climate denial content circulating on Facebook.
These networks spread:
-“climate change is a hoax”
-“CO₂ is plant food”
-“renewables don’t work”
-“scientists are lying for grant money”
The scale and speed of amplification make this one of the most influential sources today.
3. State‑Aligned or Politically Motivated Media Ecosystems
Research identifies certain media ecosystems—often aligned with governments or political movements whose economies depend heavily on fossil fuels—as major producers of climate propaganda.
These outlets typically:
-downplay climate risks
-attack climate scientists
-frame climate action as a threat to national identity or economic freedom
-promote false equivalence (“both sides” of climate science)
This category includes:
-state‑controlled media in petro‑states
-partisan media ecosystems in countries with polarized climate politics
-outlets documented as repeating fossil‑fuel talking points verbatim
Academic studies show these ecosystems are crucial in shaping public misunderstanding.
———————————————————————————
Kapeech?
zebrasays
Sounds like something the Google AI could help you with. I did a quickie and it all sounds about right.
Just a piece of advice about asking questions. In my teaching experience, what helped me help students move along was knowing where they were already at. So just saying “I write for a living” is not much use.
What do you write about?
What is your education?
Is there anything about climate that you do understand?
And so on.
Without that kind of basic information, it is hard for people to even come up with analogies that might be useful for you.
Ray Ladburysays
WRA, I sympathize. I used to work for a physics magazine in my dark and distant past. In that capacity, I had to learn about another new subfield of physics every month in sufficient detail that I wouldn’t sound like an idiot when I interviewed Nobel Laureates and Nobel quality scientists who were experts in the field. What I learned was that you had to go with the experts to start with–even though the experts may not be the most personable or the best communicators. Who are the experts? The ones who publish frequently and whose publications are cited frequently by other authors. You may not understand everything they say, but they are likely to recommend some references that are very useful.
Over time, you’ll learn there are a few experts who are also good communicators and who want to help laymen like you understand their research and the world.
I’m gonna start by recommending one work: “The Discovery of Global Warming,” by Spencer Weart. It is available for free in pdf format from the American Institute for Physics history group. It’s a good read, and Spencer is a good historian of physics. I know him from my time at Physics Today. He’s a trustworthy source. Take a look at that. Then look at a few of the other resources on the START Here tab. Don’t be afraid to ask questions and please be grateful for the help.
Note to GAVIN: The link to this resource is broken on the Start Here page.
Nigeljsays
In my opinion as a layperson, but with some knowledge of climate change, NASAs website has excellent information on the subject, targeted at lay people, Its accurate, reliable science based information, concisely presented so not too long, but detailed enough to be meaningful yet its free of excessive jargon. Just go to the NASA website home page and click on explore/ earth/ climate change/ etc, etc. Couple of shortcut links below, including the effects page which seemed to be of particular interest to you:
Droughts in continental interiors and storms along coastlines will increase, and sea-level rise will cause damage to coastal cities, eventually requiring their evacuation. (Sea level rise doesn’t have to cover cities; just getting high enough to seep into aquifers and back up sewers will make a city uninhabitable.) I expect society to collapse around 2050-2060.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
in Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 21 Apr 2026 at 8:21 AM,
I think that coastal cities can be reasonably protected against sea level rise in the range up to some 30 cm that may occur till 2060. I agree, however, that we should think about it in a longer perspective as well.
Greetings
Tomáš
Barry E Finchsays
“hothouse”, “tipping element” & “energy imbalance” are simple enough but none of those three provides an answer your Social “science” question. I don’t do Social “science” at all because it’s simply about a Continuum of “Winners” & “Losers” which I’ve found “boring” for 65 years as it is all just relative in nature unlike the Universe (uh oh now Einstein will be Flaming me). There will be a Continuum of a few billion bods along the line of “Winners” & “Losers” and the total number of Life Units will be determined by the ability of the ecosphere to provide the necessities. That’s it. It’s been that way a few hundred million years at least and will be that way indefinitely because that’s the simple, bulletproof System of Life.
“hothouse”: multi-year ice on Earth. “icehouse” == Multi-year ice exists on Earth.
“tipping element”: GoogleyAI has “a large-scale component of the Earth’s climate system—such as ice sheets, ocean currents, or rainforests—that can pass a critical threshold …. Beyond this threshold, small increases in global warming can trigger self-amplifying, irreversible and abrupt changes, altering the system’s state” which sounds about right to me. The AMOC is intrinsically a self-reinforcing feedback system due to ocean salt. The AMOC makes northern ocean surface be lower than further south and that makes surface water flow north, bringing salt, the density causes higher pressure at depth to the north which pushes deep water south making a surface bulge south and a surface dent north, which causes surface water flow north …. Back To The Beginning of this endless loop. Cooling is involved of course. Interrupt this self-sustaining loop with a sufficient drop of northern density and it’ll be like pulling teeth to start it again because it was heavily feeding on itself, it was “self reinforcing”. At maybe 10 Sv (“Stommel bifurcation”) flow the AMOC will not have enough flow to sustain itself by its +ve feedback I just described and will continue slowing then “all by itself”. Some 30% of it might be different deal because it’s he Nordic Seas. Ice sheet Glaciers move at a glacial speed. It takes a lot to speed them up and it takes a lot to slow them down. The details are much and I know a lot of them for a hobbyist but not for this level of comment, You can take it to the bank that the Glaciers of Greenland & Antarctica will not have their flow to the ocean slowing for many hundreds into thousands of years, however fast the ocean warming (air for Greenland only) that humans choose gets them going, they’ll only continue at that rate for many hundreds into thousands of years, or cointne accelerating a bit, not slowing for a Boon’s Age though, not on present human civilization time scales. “rainforests” I don’t know but I presume it’s because the tropical ones are in the Persistent Low Pressure latitudes where air rises, drops its H2O gas back to where it came from as “rain” hen proceeds to the Desert Zone with its dry sensible & converted-latent heat, turned by Coriolis and descends being pressure-heated.
“energy imbalance” is trivially simple. The global heater was ~230 terawatts in 2002, ~480 terawatts in 2012 & ~730 terawatts in 2022 and humans keep increasing it by increasing GHGs. The global heater is what heats, strangely enough. That’s it. It won’t just turn itself off. That’s it for this utterly-trivial level of comment. Those preceding numbers are rough. There’s enough accurate numbers all over the Internet including Realclimate to sink the Titanic or sink the Antarctic Ice Sheet into the ocean, the heck with that for this because it’s a Social “science” question the answer to which is that 3 humans will live well and 8,000,000,000 will not survive, the 3 being a “Guy McPherson”, a “Paul Beckwith” and a “Judith Curry” all of whom seem to be living much higher off the hog than me by warning of the impending Death Of Humanity and providing explanations of the Exponential Function which cheapskates like NOAA & NASA can’t do because they can’t afford “mathematicians” and stuff. Wait! I think 1 of my 3 might be on the Other Team making their money, but I don’t keep track because that’s irrelevant. All that’s relevant for Social “science” is Making Good Coin and not which Team you’re on.
Hope this helps.
Barry E Finchsays
Me ““hothouse”: multi-year ice” S.B. ““hothouse”: No multi-year ice” Good I’m allowed to talk to myself because I need expert advice sometimes.
Randolph M. Fritzsays
Most of your questions are answered by the executive summary of the most recent IPCC assessments, which you can read here: . Unfortunately, part of the answer is that we don’t really know. Weather is the original system in which mathematical chaos was discovered. Climate is extremely complicated and while we can study it both by computer modeling and by historical planetological studies there is no certain summary of the outcome; the IPCC assessments give a range of possibilities. They are also somewhat conservative in their conclusions both because scientists are not inclined to radicalism and because of political influence.
To answer your particular questions:
– “Energy imbalance” refers to the physical reality that the Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is currently radiating out and therefore is warming. This imbalance is largely the result of CO2 emissions from human economic activity.
– “tipping elements” are defined and discussed here:
– “hothouse Earth” refers to a climate change scenario where positive feedbacks dramatically raise the temperature of the Earth regardless of further human activity. We don’t know how likely it is, but it is one of the risks of continued climate change.
Hope this helps.
Ron R.says
Randolph M. Fritz, “Unfortunately, part of the answer is that we don’t really know. Weather is the original system in which mathematical chaos was discovered.”
Yep. Weather and climate have been big mysteries for a long time. I remember from my Bible reading days (I’m agnostic now) this verse,
The wind blows where it wants, and you hear the sound of it, but do not know from where it comes and to where it goes. – John 3:8
Randolph M. Fritzsays
And, sorry, I didn’t realize this site suppresses links; here’s some citations instead; you can find them with your favorite search engine.
Look for the *AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023* at the IPCC’s web site for an overview.
For an extended discussion of tipping elements, look for “Tipping Elements – big risks in the Earth System” at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research’s web site.
Perhaps a link to the Climate Change Tracker ‘Energy Imbalance’ page’ would be in order (although that’s perhaps getting into the weeds of AGW) and add a link to the NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index graphic to demonstrate the dominance of CO2 forcing within AGW. (The AGGI site itself is for public consumption but would also be getting into the AGW weeds.)
“make some parts of the world uninhabitable, with impacts that would be “massive, sometimes abrupt and undoubtedly disruptive,” according to the authors. Worse of all, we would have absolutely no control or action path to reverse it once we cross that threshold.”
Actually, this is not what Steffen et al (2018) says.
It would require a bit more warmth (+6ºC) before the tropics begin to become uninhabitable outside air-conditioning while double that warming would add large areas with continental climates into that “uninhabitable” category. To be clear, the paper says nothing about this ‘uninhabitability.’
What the paper does say is that the danger of tipping point “elements” adding to AGW begin “within just a 1 °C to 3 °C increase in global temperature” (so bags of uncertainty) and somewhere there is a “threshold beyond which cascading tipping points would lead to “massive, sometimes abrupt, and undoubtedly disruptive” climate impacts.
Steffen et al (2018) is more a paper reviewing tipping point literature than a detailed analysis of the Hothouse Earth “pathway.”
The one point of note hidden in here is which tipping points are encountered with the smallest amount of AGW (according to that Figure 3 linked above). That is sea level rise. If AGW remained at +2ºC or even +1.5ºC Greenland would melt down irreversibly causing 20 foot of SLR. That’s on top of 12 foot SLR which would presumably mainly reverse if the planet cools down from +2ºC. And there’s the potential for Antarctica to add some more irreversible SLR as well. This SLR would take centuries to arrive but note that 90% of human endeavour would be drowned in a +10ºC ice-free world. We don’t want to go there, even if the leader of the free world tells us “You’ll have more oceanfront property, right?”
MA Rodgersays
W.R. Agner,
You’ve been served up quite a pile of wordage here, over 3,000 words.
So let’s add to that!!! Another 700 words.
I too was once “a guy in his thirties” who hadn’t an opinion on climate change. And I sat down to watch a TV programme called The Greenhouse Conspiracy which was meant to convince viewers that this greenhouse thing was all a complete load of nonsense. Yet in this 52-minute film they made such a pig’s ear of their argument that I became strongly persuaded of the opposite view and thus have come to see climate deniers as being deluded fools and some actually liars. Nothing that has happened to the climate in the decades since then has supported the denialist view. Indeed, although I look I have seen nothing extra from them through those decades that was in any way convincing.
And through those decades and post-1992 when the Rio confrence had 154 countries signing up for climate action, the world has failed to cut CO2 emissions. Instead emissions have increased 50% (although the numbers show the increase isn’t quite so dreadful through the last decade) and the world is still overwhelmingly (85%) powered by fossil-fuel. The numbers show that 85% number is exactly the same proportion as back in 1990. {To be nerdy, global primary power-use has risen 70% since 1990. So has the fossil fuel use. It is less carbon-intense because coal is less-used and oil/gas more-used. In 1990 the non-fossil-fuelled primary power was almost all wood-burning and that contibution has remained flat. So the ‘modern’ renewables increasing by the year now equal 70% the wood-burning contribution. The renewables increased effectively from zero (except hydro which doubled), each with increased contributions of the same order of magnitude – wind, hydro, solar, biomass – together providing 7% of primary power, and 4% without hydro which isn’t greatly scaleable. Something which gets mentioned more than it deserves is nuclear with a tiny increase and now providing less than 2% of total global priary power. And something which gets little mention but is important – fuel/power efficiency which some suggest [e.g. Jain (2024)] has managed a cut in primary energy-useage of 30% since 1990.}
The continuing rise in emissions should give some worry for those who expect to live past the middle of this century.
A simplistic by useful measure of where we are with AGW is the Carbon Budget. This equates amounts of AGW to total carbon emissions in a reasonably robust way. The graphic just linked is IPCC SR15 Fig 2.3 of 2019. {The numbers in Fig2.3 are more generous than the previous version because the carbon budget now includes large ‘negative’ emissions post-net-zero; that’s man-made extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere!! Fig2.3 shows a remaining budget post-2017 of 580Gt(CO2) for a 50% chance of remaining below +1.5ºC AGW. The emissions since 2017 drops the remaining budget for post-2025 down to 245Gt(CO2)}
The numbers in Fig2.3 show just 6-years-worth of 2025 -equivalent emissions in the +1.5ºC AGW budget and with net-zero is still no nearer. Those carbon budget numbers are showing an extra +0.5ºC AGW for every 900Gt(CO2) which is 20-years-worth of 2025 emissions. All this suggests we’ll be very hard pressed to reach net zero while just invoking +2.0ºC AGW.
And given the world doesn’t seem to bothered by it all, perhaps +2.5ºC AGW is a more realistic “very-hard-pressed” outcome.
But is IPCC SR15 Fig2.3 reliable?
The concept of a carbon budget is sound enough.
However, what is a consideration is the RCP8.5 trace in Fig2.3 (to 2017) running roughly +0.5ºC above the ‘actual’ AGW trace and its “median TCRE” projection.
We could also plot the emissions & temp numbers through the last decade. And that gets interesting.
The rate of AGW up to 2015 was remarkably constant, sitting at +0.18ºC/decade over the preceding 40 years. Since then the temperature has wobbled up enough to strongly suggest a new rate of AGW has arrived. There is much discussion what is happening here, but suffice to say, if you plot 2025 temperature and CO2 onto Fig2.3, it lands not-far-short of the 2030 RCP8.5 point.
So that “perhaps realistic very-hard-pressed” +2.5ºC AGW outcome presented above should be likely higher. If these recent annual temperatures are marking an ‘adjustment’ rather than just a big maverick wobble, we should be thinking a +3.0ºC AGW outcome would be potentially realistic.
And if it’s an‘ acceleration’ rather than an ‘adjustment’ with perhaps a big cloud-driven feedback kicking in: if it is ‘ acceleration’, things could be yet worse.
To add a crumb of comfort – at least such ‘ acceleration’ might sharpen the resolve of the world to take AGW seriously!!!
So sadly nothing here to allay that “worry for those who expect to live past the middle of this century.” If anything the last decade of AGW appears to have made things more worrying.
Pete bestsays
Science states it is warming at a rate of 0.18-0.2C a decade and hence warming is slow from a human perspective. The main issue is that emissions today and energy sources used and built today last a long time and lock you in to future emissions. We have yet to reach peak fossil fuel usage and hence significant emissions are guaranteed for a few decades to come minimum.
We can’t as yet via politics, economics or some other factory break the cycle.
Barry E Finchsays
For “rate of 0.18-0.2C a decade” what I found interesting in early 2013 when I decided to take a look at the global warming, I found since 1962 when my data started that La Nina & ENSO-neutral years +GMST rate was +0.165 degrees/decade and looked a good fit by eye and that El Nino years at 0.20 pre-1995 to 0.23 post-1995 degrees/decade but was far-more dispersed points than La Nina & ENSO-neutral perhaps mostly because I used calendar years (it was a quick look) but also I recall fewer annual points to estimate a trend through and I suppose perhaps wide disparity in the quantity of Pacific heat released from one El Nino to another.
Ron R.says
For the physicists here and in the interests of inclusiveness (TOE) I wonder if you think that the first and second laws of thermodynamics, besides applying to physical systems can also apply to non-physical systems: i.e. the mental/metaphysical universe (dark/matter energy?).
Ray Ladburysays
As a physicist. I really don’t believe there is a nonphysical universe. It’s all physics.
Ron R.says
Thanks for the comment, Ray. I respect and understand your coming from. Life and the universe, what we see and/or can physically demonstrate and measure, are all that there is, according to atheistic naturalism. Ok. I’m just wondering if invisible mind, consciousness, might have become a secondary kind of “physic”? The universe evolving awareness.
Nigeljsays
Ron, do you mean the idea that has been around a while that the universe is a type of super organism that is conscious? If so such a thing might still be a product of physics and physical reality. And I have a suspicion the idea might be true.
Im liking Ray Ladburys comment that everything is physics. Including I assume the mind stuff and weird stuff because saying everything is physics its the simplest explanation. Occams Razor. We should only postulate mystical stuff as a last resort option.
Lots of weird occult stuff like oija boards have simple physics based explanations.
Ron R.says
Nigel, good points. However note for everyone, I’m not actually postulating that a non-physical explanation is necessary for understanding certain things. I can conceive that some unknown, as yet, undiscovered type of physics, explains certain mysteries. In fact that should be the go-to first, of course. But I wonder too if there could be something else in addition that we don’t know yet as well.
Physicists Brian Keating and Roger Penrose have speculated that there might be a further explanation. They talk about the “hard problem of consciousness”. Some interesting videos here.
What, precisely, are “nonphysical systems” other than [POOF!] magic? Be VERY specific.
Oh, and are you positing that dark matter and energy are NONphysical.??? Wowsers!
Martin Smithsays
Google AI says:
In physics, “physical” refers to anything that has material existence, occupies space-time, and can be measured or observed through experimentation. It encompasses matter, energy, forces, and spacetime, distinguished from abstract or purely mathematical concepts by its adherence to natural laws. “Physical” denotes properties that can be quantified.
Physical Properties/Quantities: Measurable attributes of a substance, such as mass, temperature, velocity, or charge.
Physical Objects: Tangible entities that exist within space-time, such as particles, fields, or macroscopic objects.
Physical Reality: The totality of systems that can be described and analyzed using the laws of physics.
Physical Meaning: The interpretation of mathematical equations in terms of observable, real-world behavior, often validated through experiments.
Essentially, something is physical if it is part of the measurable, interactive universe studied by physics.
—–
I think that means consciousness, dark mater, and dark energy are not yet physical systems.
jgnfldsays
Re.: “In physics, “physical” refers to anything that has material existence, occupies space-time, and can be measured or observed through experimentation. It encompasses matter, energy, forces, and spacetime, distinguished from abstract or purely mathematical concepts by its adherence to natural laws. “Physical” denotes properties that can be quantified. ”
Dark matter and energy are most certainly measurable. WHAT, exactly, we are measuring is still up for grabs, but the reality is that they are measurable in their effects. Consciousness too is quite measurable at least in its effects…it’s called cognitive psych and cognitive neuroscience. That these are not yet fully understood makes them no less real.
To posit climate “forces” that do not exist in space-time and that cannot be quantified through any measurements and yet to posit these forces have major and easily measured climate effects–as is the apparent position of most denialists–is to posit [POOF!] magic controls climate.
This is an utterly classic “Argumentum ad ignorantium” which among other things usually tries to imply that since we don’t know everything we know nothing. It’s a ridiculous argument to make on a science board..
Ron R.says
Hmm. Well first, I certainly didn’t say that since we don’t know everything we know nothing. And a science board, it seems to me, Is exactly the place to ask it. A Real Climate UV thread is hardly the Royal Society. But you’re right that it’s an argument from ignorance. Until we learn something new, can take it confidently from hypothesis to law, we’re all ignorant of something though.
Not making assertions. Just asking questions.
zebrasays
jgnfld, you are correct to ask for a definition. However, to have a serious discussion, you are also required to define your terms, and do so in a non-circular manner.
What is “physical”?
Ron R.says
Calm down jgnfld. Notice that I didn’t say I believed it. As an agnostic I’m just wondering about consciousness itself. Individual and collective especially. Mind. Could the universe or the earth itself have evolved it? And would that be separate from what we know about physics or would it fall within it? And would it be so bad if indeed it has evolved it?
On dark matter and dark energy I was just tossing that out there. It’s dark because we don’t understand it. May have nothing to do with it.
Karsten V. Johansensays
As Ludwig Wittgenstein said: “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.” (‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’)
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1921 . The recurse of definitions is endless. If you define “physical”, you have to use other words which then have to be defined etc. etc. Eventually you end up with the hyperabstract beginning of Hegel’s “Wissenschaft der Logik” – “Science of logic”. It’s impossible to get any experience from trying to close the gap between word an reality without praxis, action.
Ron R,says
Karsten V. Johansen,
‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’
You’re right.
Radge Haverssays
Ron,
I think I know where you’re coming from, From my experience, Ray’s pithy response is the answer. The number of blanks one has to fill in to get there to one’s satisfaction will vary from person to person.
Evolution is chemical and driven by energy (mostly from the sun) according to the same principles that operate everywhere on everything, including the basic elements and processes that eventually led to the formation and functioning of the human brain. Outside of that, you’re in the realm speculative story telling.
Personally, in practical terms, I think part of the problem with pervasive religious ideation now is that general education is seriously deficient in the science and math (and honestly some other things as well) needed to properly function as a modern citizen. Unfortunately, we’re kind of left to our own devices to fill in the gaps–for instance, for dealing with the physics and chemistry both of our collective brains and the damage we’re doing to the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere that gives us life. (There. Hopefully that justifies posting this comment on a climate site. If not, oh well.)
Ron R.says
Radge Havers, If not, oh well I laughed at that.
I kind of new that my post would get a reaction here. Didn’t post it for that reason, but still, when has another way of thinking not been immediately attacked and rejected in a knee jerk fashion? There is a “close ranks”, “circle the wagons” natural tendency about the human way of thinking. And I understand it. It’s necessary to protect the hard won truth sometimes. I get it.
jgnfld said, What, precisely, are “nonphysical systems” other than [POOF!] magic? That reminded me of what Arthur Clarke once said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”. Think of all the things that have happened in the past that the learned of their day didn’t say was utterly impossible and a waste of time. I understand the naturalistic view. It’s atheistic, and I’m not saying that I think that’s wrong, but as I’ve said before, unless we are going to claim that we at present know everything (as every other generation has thought), close your books, stop studying, it’s all over then we should be open to the possibility that maybe we don’t know everything. It’s a BIG universe. I myself have seen things that defy understanding, and I suspect that others here have as well.
Anyway GUT was a stepping stone to ToE; Ray can correct me if I’m wrong. Still questions persist. Richard Feynman said that the pursuit of knowledge is an infinite process; every answer provides a new set of questions.
Additionally, when we attack new thinking (NOT saying that crap that’s easily shown to be incorrect – that climate change is real is obvious; that the earth is round is obvious) we discourage people from saying what they really think or know about something and thus set back the service of science, maybe many years. The dark ages didn’t have to last as long and be as miserable as they were and wouldn’t have been if we’d been open minded. I know what some will say, That’s what science is for. If they know something let them publish it and if true it will be accepted. Nope. That’s the IDEAL. More likely, at least initially they will be attacked.
I asked AI and here’s what it said,
The Resistance to Scientific and Intellectual Innovation
========================================================
The history of human progress is characterized by a recurring pattern: the emergence of a transformative idea is almost invariably met with intense skepticism, ridicule, or outright hostility from the established intellectual, scientific, or social order. This phenomenon, often termed the “Galileo Gambit” or the “resistance to paradigm shifts,” suggests that there has rarely, if ever, been a time in history when a truly revolutionary idea was immediately embraced by the consensus of its time. The inertia of existing belief systems, combined with the psychological discomfort of abandoning long-held worldviews, creates a formidable barrier to innovation.[3]
Thomas Kuhn, in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, articulated that science does not progress through a linear accumulation of facts, but through “paradigm shifts.”[3] Kuhn argued that when a new theory challenges the foundational assumptions of a field—the “normal science”—the scientific community initially rejects the new idea because it does not fit the existing framework. This rejection is not merely a matter of stubbornness; it is a necessary protective mechanism for the current paradigm. For instance, the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism, championed by Nicolaus Copernicus and later defended by Galileo Galilei, was not just a scientific dispute but a fundamental challenge to the theological and philosophical structures of the 17th century.[1] Galileo’s subsequent trial and house arrest serve as the archetypal example of the institutionalized suppression of revolutionary thought.
The pattern of initial rejection is evident across diverse disciplines. In medicine, Ignaz Semmelweis’s 19th-century proposal that doctors should wash their hands to prevent puerperal fever was met with professional outrage. His peers, insulted by the implication that they were carriers of disease, dismissed his findings, leading to his eventual institutionalization.[2] Similarly, in the earth sciences, Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift was mocked for decades. Proposed in 1912, the idea that continents moved across the ocean floor was labeled “delirious ravings” by geologists who could not conceive of a mechanism for such movement, despite the clear fossil and geological evidence Wegener presented.[4]
This resistance is not limited to the physical sciences. In economics and social theory, thinkers like John Maynard Keynes or even the early proponents of germ theory faced significant uphill battles against the status quo. The psychological tendency to favor the status quo—often referred to as “status quo bias”—ensures that new ideas are subjected to a “burden of proof” that is significantly higher than that required for existing, albeit flawed, theories. Consequently, the history of human advancement is less a story of the immediate adoption of truth and more a story of the slow, painful erosion of error in the face of persistent, evidence-based challenges.[3]
### World’s Most Authoritative Sources
1. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Print)↩
2. Nuland, Sherwin B. The Doctors’ Plague: Germs, Childbed Fever, and the Strange Story of Ignaz Semmelweis. (Print)↩
3. Barber, Bernard. Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery. (Academic Journal)↩
4. 5 Times Everyone Thought Science Was Crackpot Only to be Proven Spectacularly Wrong. ScienceAlert↩
Still, science has come a long way.
So I ask my original question again. Can the second law apply to non-physical systems as well? Is there possibly something other than what we see out there? The universe operates on entropy. We know the second law is obviously true for physical things. Things tend to go from order to disorder. It’s necessary to create the raw materials for order again, and life/the universe goes on. But what we (at least not that I know of) haven’t realized is that that’s true also for non-physical systems. The mental universe.
Basically, there seems to be something in the universe where negative just happens naturally because of gravity but positive has to be reached for with effort. It’s like dropping a rock off the side of a cliff. It naturally goes down. No effort needed. Even in space, gravity attracts. So negative, breakdowns F-ups, death and destruction seems to be the default trending state of the universe. Gravity -> Entropy. Negative is the way it will always happen unless we expend the effort to make it positive. Positivity needs effort. Like walking uphill vs downhill. Construction requires a lot more effort than destruction. Takes much longer too. Good happens in the world when there is the energy (like sunshine, or youth, in abundance) to expend on it. But entropy always wins in the end. Flowers fade and crumble. People die. Mountains erode.
I’ve drifted off into a tangent. I’m not sure what I’m saying. Pardon me. :)
Barton Paul Levensonsays
RR: The dark ages didn’t have to last as long and be as miserable as they were and wouldn’t have been if we’d been open minded.
BPL: Are you clear on what the Dark Ages were, and what made them last?
Ron R.says
I think so. What do you think?
Secular Animistsays
BPL wrote: “Are you clear on what the Dark Ages were, and what made them last?”
It is my understanding that the term “dark ages” was meant by historians to indicate that THEY were “in the dark” about that period of time, due to a lack of historical records. It wasn’t a description of those times, it was a description of their ignorance about them.
Ray Ladburysays
Ron R., The whole discussion reminds me of the old joke:
Q: What is mind?
A: It doesn’t matter.
Q: What is matter?
A: Never mind.
I speak only for myself here. Barton would be a better one to ask about whatever may exist in the Universe that isn’t purely physical. My response was in no way an attack on his opinion, which I respect.
As an atheist, I believe in “Shit happens” aka entropy. And we can understand entropy by observing qualitatively that there are a lot more ways things can go wrong than there are that they can go right. It is a good thing to remember in everything from climate change discussions, to medicine to deciding whether to draw on an Inside Straight in poker.
Claude Shannon showed that the concept of entropy applies in communications, and others have extended his work to show it applies to computing as well. I view “consciousness” as an emergent phenomenon of a complex system, although I haven’t decided yet how much of it is “real” and how much an illusion.
And don’t knock gravity or entropy. Without gravity, the universe would be a lot more homogeneous and boring. And without entropy, there are many reactions necessary to life that simply could not proceed. Shit happens. Sometimes it is good. Sometimes it is bad. But as long as we have life/energy, we can try to maximize the good that happens in our vicinity.
Ron R.says
Ray Ladbury, I liked that mind/matter joke. :D
And we can understand entropy by observing qualitatively that there are a lot more ways things can go wrong than there are that they can go right.
Is that another way of saying Murphy’s law?
But as long as we have life/energy, we can try to maximize the good that happens in our vicinity.
I was pondering what a battle that can be, though, a lot of the time. And the more people have to change = the greater their resistance will be because they know what it’ll mean. Turning around and fighting societal momentum. Just like anything that involves fighting gravity would be. The default state of the universe. It’s really hard to naturally swim against the current (we want to go with the flow) especially when it’s strong, We all are naturally inclined to take the path of least resistance. It’s like swimming upstream like a salmon.
Society as a whole is going downstream where it used to be higher in the recent past because more people then were feeling positive than now. The 1950s are an example. The war just ended. Technology felt like it was a positive. Automobiles and the oil they use were booming. Plastics exploded. Cookie-cutter houses sprouted up like like mushrooms. Consumerism took off. Everyone was smiling. A lot of other things began in the 1950s. Remember the Jetsons cartoon? Things just seemed (and were in many cases) better.
A lot of it later turned out to be negatives though. Somebody discovered that much of the reason we felt good was because we were willfully blinding ourselves to the consequences of our actions. And there always are consequences. But we kicked the can down the road. Like the environment.
We in the west (and on this board I suspect) haven’t felt the effects of going without oil yet. Haven’t entered that difficult upstream part yet. We’re heading for it though. Are we prepared for it? Let’s hope that we can get on with alternative energies for everyone soon so that the transition will happen as smoothly as possible.
In our personal lives too it takes effort to fight the pull of gravity. Like you mention, it wants to carry us downstream. Entropy is the law. The way it is. Finally comes death, and release from the constant battle. Gravity affects more than just the planets.
Sorry for all this.
jgnfldsays
Re. “The dark ages didn’t have to last as long and be as miserable as they were and wouldn’t have been if we’d been open minded. ”
Uh, actual, professional historians–I have one in my family–do not subscribe to the notion that there ever even were “Dark Ages” in the first place and mostly haven’t for over a century now. True: The Roman Empire did wind down in many ways in and after the 5th Century. But, across pretty much all modern hstorical and historiographic scholarship, there is a quite strong consensus that the Church acted as the primary institutional heir to Rome in the centuries after 476 CE. Political authority did fragment in many areas. Also true, But the Church maintained Roman administrative habits, legal ideas, cultural norms, and educational traditions in many enclaves. This continuity is one of the main reasons historians reject the idea of any specific “Dark Age”.
But don’t let facts and modern scholarship get in the way of your “analysis” when you’re on a roll.
Ron R.says
Hmm. I was writing from the perspective of historian Edward Gibbon. I once read some of his book, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire many years ago. He said that the period from about 180AD or so began the decline in Europe which went through (with periods of ups and downs) to about 1,453, the end of Constantinople.
I also read a another history book, but that turned out to be full of bias.
I also read A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman. True it encompassed the Late Middle Ages and the Dark Ages are called the Early Middle Ages. The early encompassed the 5th to the 10th centuries and the late the 14th to 16th. So your point is technically correct.
But ok. We’ll say the pre-enlightenment period. That began in the 1700’s. The Enlightenment was defined by a deliberate challenge to traditional authority through the lens of empirical reason and secular inquiry. The Early Middle Ages was defined by adherence to scriptural authority.
But in light of modern thought I won’t say “Dark Ages”. Instead that the pre-enlightenment (with the humanist exception of the Renaissance) didn’t have to last as long as it did if people were more open minded. Is that a more correct way of putting it?
Secular Animistsays
Ron R:
With all due respect, your comments are all over the place, juggling a jumble of disjointed ideas and ill-defined words. It seems that it is far from clear TO YOU what you are even talking about.
Having said that, one idea that you appear to be touching on is what cognitive scientist and philosopher David Chalmers has called “the hard problem” — the question of how and why “physical” systems give rise to subjective experience.
The “hard problem” is not explaining the CONTENT of subjective experience, i.e. what we are aware OF.
The “hard problem” is explaining the simple FACT of subjective experience, i.e. that “awareness” itself exists at all.
The “problem” is that science offers no explanation at all of what awareness, the capacity for subjective experience IS, or how or why it exists. While we can account for the CONTENT of subjective experience in terms of neuroscience, we cannot explain how or why the brain — or ANY physical system — gives rise to subjective experience at all. Chalmers calls this the “explanatory gap”.
If you are not familiar with this subject, I would commend to your attention Chalmers’ 1996 book, “The Conscious Mind”, as well as the 1997 book “Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem”, edited by Jonathan Shear, which includes an essay by Chalmers and a collection of essays from philosophers, scientists and others, responding to Chalmers from a variety of viewpoints, ranging from materialist denial that subjective experience even exists, to the panpsychist idea that the capacity for subjective experience is a fundamental aspect of reality, like space and time, rather than a product of particular physical systems.
As is often the case, Wikipedia’s overview is a helpful starting point:
Hmm, I think I agreed with you, SA, if I’m understanding you correctly.
Radge Haverssays
Ron,
I’ve drifted off into a tangent. I’m not sure what I’m saying. Pardon me. :)
That started out sort of sounding like a Galileo Gambit.
Speculation can be fun, creative and even suggest possible avenues of research, but it is not, in and of itself, hard science.
I looked over the paper you linked to. I’m no expert for sure, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and nothing stood out enough to rock my world. I’m pretty sure that if they actually turn up something revolutionary, it will likely be all over the news.
This is nothing new, I remember reading The Tao of Physics back in the day and got a kick out of it, Keep in mind we have a long history of spooky science, spiritualism, ESP, etc., some of it disreputable, if not outright fraudulent (Carlos Castaneda). The 60s and 70s in particular were infused with eastern mysticism, drugs and sitar music, a bit of which wafted into some corners of the scientific community. There are good reasons to be skeptical.
zebrasays
Radge, the problem is that the question and the answers all have undefined (undefinable?) terms, which leads to circularity.
Ray is really saying “the universe” is what physics can measure.
Well, I have said here that physics tells me (and much smarter philosophers and physicists and mathematicians have said previously) that we are all living in Plato’s cave. And that means that physics only measures and predicts the behavior of shadows.
Does that mean we exist in a “universe” which is somehow analogous to the brain of an old bearded White guy, and the little lights we see in the sky at night are flashes of neurons firing off? Of course not, but it does mean that “there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
Accepting that doesn’t mean we should stop observing and measuring and calculating and predicting. But a little humility is in order, however more clever we are than the other apes.
Radge Haverssays
Hi Z.,
Yes, assuming we can “know” anything, there are
known knowns
known unknowns
unknown unknowns…
It seems to me that an alternate-reality-physics that somehow emerges from the physics we all know and love falls into the “unknown unknown” category, i.e., it’s something we currently don’t have the tools to measure or apprehend even if it does exist.
Ray Ladburysays
Whether you call it “the universe” or experience or “reality,” I have yet to encounter any experience or entity that I would despair of physics being able to measure. In the absence of such evidence, yes, I take the universe as what physics can measure. Were I to encounter something that was utterly beyond the realm of physics, I would of course have to embrace a broader stance. However, I cannot even imagine what such a thing would be like.
It seems to me more fulfilling to investigate what I know exists rather than speculate on what might exist in the absence of any evidence.
The end of the month approaches, so how are April temperatures stacking up?
The ERA5 re-analysis numbers at ClimatePulse is showing April (to 27th) global SAT at +0.53ºC, so unchanged from March. Indeed, there is little movement since the start of the year. (2025 averaged +0.59ºC ending with Dec25 +0.48ºC. Jan to Mar run +0.51ºC, +0.54ºC +0.53ºC).
April 2026 will become the =3rd warmest April on the ERA5 record.
This puts 2026 in the top-five warmest Aprils, rubbing shoulders with El Niño-boosted years, so not an apples-to-apples comparison. Nor is comparison with chilly 8th-placed 2023 apples-to-apples – 2023 was coming out of 3-years of strong La Niña. Perhaps 2018 provides a better comparison although the eight years elapsed would have warmed under AGW.
And the year-to-date numbers puts Jan-Apr 2026 as the 5th warmest start to the year.
Top-10 WARMEST APRILS in ERA5 (& Warmest Start to Year numbers)
2024 … … +0.67ºC … …(1st … … +0.67ºC)
2025 … … +0.60ºC … …(2nd … … +0.60ºC )
2016 … … +0.53ºC … …(3rd … … +0.53ºC) 2026 … … +0.53ºC … …(5th … … +0.52ºC)
2020 … … +0.52ºC … …(4th … … +0.53ºC)
2019 … … +0.44ºC … …(7th … … +0.33ºC)
2017 … … +0.33ºC … …(6th … … +0.44ºC)
2023 … … +0.32ºC … …(8th … … +0.32ºC)
2018 … … +0.30ºC … …(10th … … +0.28ºC)
2022 … … +0.28ºC … …(9th … … +0.30ºC)
So despite all the talk of a super El Niño on the way**, and CPC/NCEP putting the chances of a ‘Strong’ or ‘Very Strong’ El Niño at 60%; despite all that, these ERA5 SAT numbers don’t appear to be showing it building yet.
(** Not sure of the NINO3.4/ONI graphic in this article which suggests more energetic El Niño post-1960. The graphic is from NOAA three-years ago and since then the ONI (plotted in the graphic) has been joined by RONI (Relative Oceanic Niño Index). RONI behaves more like the upside down SOI & MEI by presenting recent El Niño numbers as less powerful that does/did ONI. Note that CPC/NCEP do use RONI.)
But ClimatePulse also gives the ERA5 60N-60S SST anomaly and that is showing the coming El Niño. Thro’ April the rising SSTs are perhaps starting to have something of that “bananas!!” whiff in them.
The GISTEMP, NOAA & BEST numbers are SAT/SST and unlike ERA5 global SAT they are showing a bit of warming with their numbers just to March.
On April 11, in the March UV, Ron R mentioned the “picture perfect” Artemis II flight. I have a science question about pictures from that picture perfect flight. Can you imagine? Actual science!
My question is what is going on with these 2 photos of the earth. The first one says it is a photo of the backlit dark side of the earth. What is doing the backlighting – the moon? FYI, You may need to turn up your screen brightness to see details.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-art002e000193/
The second photo shows the exact same image, taken from the exact same location. Every land mass, star, and cloud is in the exact same location except the earth isn’t dark!
https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-art002e000192/
How can that be? Which image is fake (or altered) or are they both fake (or altered)? They used a monster flash to light up the earth in the 2nd image?
:)
Camera settings control what the camera sees– variables like exposure, aperture, ISO, and these days in camera processing
Image processing programs provide tools to bring out information captured by the camera that you don’t necessarily see, for example like what you did when brightening the screen.
In astrophotography you can also take multiple images of a single area of sky, stack and combine them to capture more light in a single image. That’s probably not what happened here though.
KIA,
Go with what Ray said.
Mr. KIA, The illumination is in fact “moonshine”. The difference is the exposure time. More time means more photons means lighter pixels.
James Webb Space Telescope has to use integration times up to about 20 minutes for some of the fainter objects it images. At that rate, you can start to see hits by cosmic ray particles, so they also have techniques for rejecting the charge due to cosmic rays (which tends to come in big chunks all at once) and still get a good image.
With astrophotography, bright objects need short exposures or the pixels get filled and the image whites out. Dim objects require long exposures.
KIA, hmm, I don’t understand your question. Seems pretty clear to me. You’re looking at the dark or night side. What is the light source on the other side? It clearly indicates it’s the sun, “as the Earth eclipses the Sun”. It also says in the dark picture, “Artemis II Captures Dark Side of the Earth”
They simply brightened the picture by turning up the exposure probably because they’re highlighting the auroras that you can barely see in the darker picture. It even mentions them in the brighter picture. Also notice that in the brighter picture the rim of the sun on the edge is brighter in comparison and you can see the halo now.
No, you didn’t discover a conspiracy.
Hi Ron,
I think Ray said it best, which I interpret this way: In order to enhance the photo, there had to be something to enhance. The back side of the earth was faintly lit by sunlight reflected off the moon. I don’t think the other light sources you mention would be sufficient to cover the whole dark half of the earth so evenly.
BTW, Commander Reid Wiseman used a Nikon D5 DSLR camera to take the shot. It’s an older camera but check this out:
The 10-Year-Old Nikon D5 DSLR Really Is the Best Camera for Artemis II
https://petapixel.com/2026/04/06/the-10-year-old-nikon-d5-dslr-really-is-the-best-camera-for-artemis-ii/
The image was apparently post processed in Adobe Lightroom Classic, not super high tech.
Radge Havers, there is something to be said for older tech.
Thanks for that informative article. Photo taken at 1/4 second shutter speed, ISO 51,200. WOW! So, a relatively slow shutter combined with very fast “film” (digital image sensor) and it can essentially see in the dark. Surprising that it wasn’t super grainy given the high ISO – that’s what happened with high speed film in the old days. If you wanted high resolution (small grain) you might use ISO 25 or ISO 64 film, but no higher than ISO 100 and certainly not 51,200! Will have to investigate how ISO 100 for film compares to ISO 100 for digital sensors.
Good video on the Artemis II mission, with a little more about that photo at 5:35:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3GJnDiqCU
Grain can be managed. The Nikon D5 has in-camera noise reduction settings. Where those are week, photo software programs worth their salt will have a denoise function.
There are a lot of approaches to fine tuning your image in post processing, particularly if you shoot in RAW format.
Oops, Ray was right that the light was coming from the moon (but visible thanks to the camera) not simply longer exposure to the sun on the other side of earth. Both images are real of course.
Always trust the physicist over the non-scientist. :)
NASA photography. Couldn’t resist adding this.
Artemis II Crew Brought a Human Eye to Photos
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/opinion-artemis-ii-crew-brought-a-human-eye-to-photos/
“Human-created photos are rooted in direct observation, intent and lived experience, while AI images—or choices made by AI-driven tools—are not. While both can produce compelling and believable visuals, the human photographs carry emotional power because the photographer is drawing from their experiences and perspective in that moment to tell an authentic story.
“Artemis II photographs resonate, not only because they are historic, but because they reflect the deliberate choices and intent of a human being in that specific moment and context. The exposure, camera setting, lens choice and composition are all dictated by the astronaut’s vision, skill, perspective and experience. Each image is unique in comparison with the others. These choices give the images narrative power, anchoring them in human perspective.”
…
RIT alumni train Artemis II astronauts in photography
https://www.rit.edu/news/rit-alumni-train-artemis-ii-astronauts-photography
“To make sure the astronauts were fully prepared, Willoughby and Reichert worked with the crew members for roughly two years. The pair designed a series of classes and training modules that allowed the crew to get hands-on experiences with the complex photography equipment that emulate conditions in space.”
KiA: “How can that be? Which image is fake (or altered) or are they both fake (or altered)? ”
Different exposure time. But the ignorant mind immediately goes toward conspiracy (“fake”. “altered”) – if I can’t understand something then it must be a woke conspiracy.
“How Internal Waves Transport Energy Thousands of Miles Across the Ocean”
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/how-internal-waves-transport-energy-thousands-of-miles-across-the-ocean
Here is the answer:
What I don’t understand is how tides can be responsible for this massive wave motion, yet for similar subsurface wave motion that creates an El Nino, it is considered due to the wind. So, the conventional wisdom of consensus science says the roles are essentially reversed here as the tides are considered inconsequential. …. Hmmm, Aha! This is reconciled when one considers the possibility that the tides are also responsible for the wind, and this correlation becomes spurious as the mechanisms. work in phase to establish the El Nino dynamics.
F= GMm/r^2
Gravitational attraction. The earth’s crust and the oceans are deformed by the gravity of the orbiting moon.
Wrong formula. But you’re a know-it-all so you should be able to figure it out.
Tides are efffectively the first derivative of the gravity. So they scale as r^-3 with directional components (dipole field).
I think a lot depends on the wave period, which for tides is mostly 12 and 24 hours (slighly different because of the moon’s travel in it’s order). Wind is generally seconds to minutes, and drives at the surface, so you get the familiar gravity waves. These deep waves are usually internal waves -often
gravity waves trapped at the boundary between layers of different densities. The tidal forces (stresses) are a body force, which means it is distributed throughout a volume, not just a surface.
Closer than Mr.KIA,, but what people always forget is that the moon stays for days above the equator in terms of declination (~ about 2 weeks) and then the same amount of time below the equator. This generates additional tidal forcing that essentially integrates much more efficiently than the rapid daily tidal change due to the Earth’s rotation. So, this declination effect is what causes the longer more sweeping changes in the fluid dynamics. But there are two more things that scientists don’t get right. First, that the draconic tidal cycle is what paces long-range dynamics, not the tropical cycle that most are familiar with. This isn’t a big change, just a few hours every month but it has significant implications for prediction. Secondly, the interaction of the annual or seasonal cycle with the lunar cycle is what paces the changes in behavior such as ENSO. This turns into aliasing math and moreover becomes a multiplier on the difference between the tropical and draconic cycle, turning a few hours difference into nearly a half year difference in effective period.
All told, these 3 basic ideas in tidal cycles are completely ignored by scientists who are trying to model ENSO., likely because one has to include them ALL to have any chance of getting a model right. This is understandable because science is always thought as being incremental, and advancements are usually made a parameter or feature at a time. But here we need to radically adjust 3 features — have to overcome the hurdle of thinking of tides as simply daily, choose the least well known of the tidal factors, and apply obscure modular aliasing math at getting the periods correct. So, if a scientist had tried any one of these factors alone, little progress would be made and that scientist would likely give up,
Yet, in actuality, significant advancements in science (as opposed to optimizations or incremental advancements) are due to “triple-point” intersections of novel conjectures. Can go through the list of breakthroughs that require three necessary ideas — the Haber-Bosch process, GPS , and the transistor are just a few.
The bottom-line is that even though most scientific research operates in univariate space (changing X to see its effect on Y), to get a breakthrough you need to work in latent space, where a solution only exists in a specific “niche” formed by the intersection of three or more independent constraints.
That’s why AI and machine learning will continue to make breakthroughs.
BTW, this is how an LLM responds to theabove: https://github.com/orgs/azimuth-project/discussions/6#discussioncomment-16577817
Paul Pukite: ” What I don’t understand is how tides can be responsible for this massive wave motion, yet for similar subsurface wave motion that creates an El Nino,”
Perhaps because you are comparing apples and watermelons – the amount of tidal energy over much larger volume of the oceans and …. non-tidal energy in the “subsurface” part of the Pacific ocean?
And perhaps comparing apples and orangutans – the ENSO is associated with the changes in the sustained movement forward of water (dragged by the wind) with the cyclical oscillations of water around the same central position, Waves – tidal or wind-driven do not transport water long distance – waves transport energy, not mater:
as one full wave passes – a given water parcel completes one circle (or one ellipsis), so it ends practically in the exactly same place where it started- Hence no net horizontal movement. (that’s why surfing in Hawaii in summer – you surf on the waves formed a week earlier near Antarctica, yet the water in these waves is nothing like Antarctic water).
And isn’t ENSO a result of the long-distance, sustained, movement of water ? I mean, under normal and La Nina conditions the sustained winds blowing along the equator from E to W – (the Walker circulation cell), which:
1) drags the hot surface water from East Pacific and piles it up in the West Pacific
2) causes equatorial upwelling – the water that is dragged by the wind westward if being slightly north of the equator is deflected by the Coriolis to the right (north), the water slightly to south of equator is deflected to the left (south). This way Coriolis has parted the surface waters at the equator, with the missing surface water replaced by the water from the underneath and voila – equatorial upwelling.
During the El Nino phase, the E->W Walker cell weakens/breaks up/(partially) reverses – and
the pile of hot water from the W. Eq. Pacific slushes back eastward AND instead equatorial upwelling, bringing cold deep waters to the surface, we get equatorial downwelling in which we pile up the hot surface water over the equator. Similar reversal happens in the coastal upwelling say, off Peru, where the upwelled water instead being say 16 C, are replaced with normal surface water of say 26C.
Smaller exposure of the atmosphere to cold water in the upwelling zones, mean less transfer of heat from the air into the ocean, and that’s one of the main reasons why the El-Nino years are globally warmer than non-ElNino years.
So why should we ignore all these and instead look with awe at your “15 gigawatts at 35°S and 55°S and 7 gigawatts at 45°S” driven by tides?
The consensus view that ENSO is driven by stochastic wind bursts and ocean‑atmosphere feedback and that the QBO is driven by internal wave‑mean‑flow interaction is incomplete. An alternative, internally consistent paradigm exists: a common lunisolar forcing, primarily the draconic‑annual alias (period ~2.37 years) with k=0 (zonally symmetric) symmetry, acts as a global pacemaker. The two systems (ocean and atmosphere) respond according to their symmetry properties and integration timescales and work in a cooperative fashion.
Like CO2 forcing temperature, not the other way around, climate scientists happened to get the arrow of forcing wrong for ENSO — the wind is going along for the ride.
Paul Pukite: ” An alternative, internally consistent paradigm exists: a common lunisolar forcing, primarily the draconic‑annual alias (period ~2.37 years) with k=0 (zonally symmetric) symmetry, acts as a global pacemaker. ”
So how comes El Nino does not come every 2.37 years? And how good a pacemaker it is, if the heart does not contract when the pacemaker sends the signal to contract?
El Nino is not quite a k=0 wavenumber system, which would have a pure draconic driver, and that’s the situation with QBO. The K>0 character mixes in other tidal factors which makes it more challenging to model. The fundamental pacemaker is actually the annual impulse . Every tidal factor added is incommensurate with the annual cycle, and even the 2.37 cycle has varying amplitudes — there’s actually also a 1-1/2.37 frequency lurking in there.. So when more tidal factors are added the QBO signal may not always be reinforcing ENSO, which is the empirical observation. I think the valid reason to call these pacemakers (in signal processing it’s referred to as a carrier frequency) is that they keep it form going chaotic, which is a known property of periodic forcings.
This is the tip of the iceberg, as the ocean has its own characteristics due to the solution of Laplace’s Tidal Equations. And also how the low-dimensional topology of the equatorial region plays into this. All really interesting physics.
Incidentally, the 2026 president of the American Physical Society is Brad Marston of Brown U, who has a major research focus on this topic. I hope he pushes for more of in this direction, but I bet he has his hands full. Trump just fired the entire National Science Board, who are largely responsible for NSF funding decisions.
FYI:
Critical Atlantic current significantly more likely to collapse than thought
The Guardian / UK
April 15 2026
“The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc) is a major part of the global climate system and was already known to be at its weakest for 1,600 years as a result of the climate crisis. Scientists spotted warning signs of a tipping point in 2021 and know that the Amoc has collapsed in the Earth’s past …
“The research combined real-world ocean observations with the models to determine the most reliable, and this hugely reduced the spread of uncertainty. They found an estimated slowdown of 42% to 58% in 2100, a level almost certain to end in collapse.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/15/critical-atlantic-current-significantly-more-likely-to-collapse-than-thought
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adx4298
Secular Animist,
The “significantly more likely to collapse than previously thought” finding of Portmann et al (2026) is more a nailing-down of the probabilities than an unexpected increase in probability. Note one of our hosts being quoted by the Guardian saying that the ocean freshening from the melting of the Greenland ice cap “…is one additional factor that means the reality is probably still worse.”
The 2100 numbers in full from Table 1 of Portmann et al (2026) run:-
AMOC percentage weakening by 2100
after Portmann et al (2026) & previous estimates from CMIP6 ensemble mean.
SSP1-2,6 … … 20% … ( -6% to 45%) … … 23% … (-21% to 68%)
SSP2-4.5 … … 51% … (42% to 59%) … … 32% … ( -5% to 69%)
SSP3-7.0 … … 48% … (43% to 53%) … … 37% … ( 4% to 70%)
SSP5-8.5 … … 58% … (52% to 63%) … … 43% … ( 9% to 77%)
Not 100% sure it should be taken at face value . The 50% isnt a confidence or prediction interval in the usual statistical sense, their uncertainty is basically estimate ± z times the regression RMSE across models. ,
.They treat climate models as independent and equally plausible, even though they admin themselves those assumptions are contestable. They assume the intermodel relationships learned from CMIP6 are the right real-world relationships, despite the risk of shared structural model errors. They also leave observation error out of the constrained uncertainty
Ridge regularization is a sensible way to reduce overfitting, and the leave-one-out comparison is better than nothing, but this is still a small-sample, high-correlation problem. If the constrained result moves materially when you change method, then the constraint is less robust. It becomes a method-conditioned estimate, not a hard observational fact.
The 51% result comes specifically from ridge-regularized regression with 19 predictors, chosen because it had the lowest leave-one-out error among the methods they tested, not because all reasonable methods converged on the same answer.
When they switch from time means to trends, or from absolute AMOC to anomalies, leave-one-out performance drops substantially and the constraints stop reducing uncertainty much. They also note that with fewer models, the linear methods become more prone to overfitting. That is exactly the pattern you would expect if the constraint is somewhat fragile.
There is also a physical-interpretation issue. The paper says most of the downward correction does not come from the observed RAPID mean itself. It comes mainly from South Atlantic surface salinity and North Atlantic SST biases. For the South Atlantic salinity part, the mechanism is at least physically motivated. But for the North Atlantic SST part, they explicitly say they do not find a simple physical explanation and that the link is “far from straightforward.”
Other constraints give quite different results.
Olson gives -4sv (7.2 – 1.2) for RCP 4.5,
Weijer is is 34%-45% (ssp1 and ssp5)
Bonan gives 3-6sv depending on forcing scenario, but its quite insensitive to scenarios
SChmittner gives 25+-25% under SRESA1B (although I guess its a bit old now)
Not that there isn’t cause for worry, but there are some leaps in this study which makes it less constrained than it might seem, especially on the intervals.
CM,
This is precisely the kind of analysis I’m often missing when it comes to climate science in general. While I do have some basic scientific and mathematic literacy to discern what’s true and what’s false, understanding nuances between different methodologies used is way above my paygrade. I had a hunch they were doing something non-standard the moment I saw Ridge Regression, but I’m neither a ML specialist nor statistician, so I couldn’t exactly say what or why.
Thanks for your insights.
CM,
Adding to your very informative deep-dive, the references you cite are:-
Olson et al (2018) ‘North Atlantic observations sharpen meridional overturning projections’
Weijer et al (2019) ‘Stability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: A Review and Synthesis’
Bonan et al (2025) ‘Observational constraints imply limited future Atlantic meridional overturning circulation weakening’
Schmittner (2025) ‘Impact of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation Collapse on Carbon-13 Components in the Ocean’
And for comparison of the results of these studies you quote, the AMOC is usually measured coming out the tropics at ~20Sv.
The portion of the ~20Sv or ~17Sv that is driven by the deep region in the Nordic (Greenland?) Seas (from memory, Peter Wadhams shows one place as 2,500m deep at 75.0N 0.0EW in his pictorial) surrounded by the Arctic Paddling Pools is handily shown as 5.2Sv at 11:47 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV-g4_2Xwn8
There’s also some overturning in the Labrador Sea but I’ve assumed that the Nordic Sea part is what Stefan Rahmstorf meant when he cryptically stated in a talk videoed and loaded to UTube that the North Atlantic AMOC overturning push ceasing wouldn’t necessarily stop the AMOC completely because I recall, maybe from Jason Box, that meltwater off the east Greenland coast hugs the east Greenland coast, which would mean it doesn’t reduce salinity where that 5.2Sv is pushed from.
I always assert “pushed” (I say these are “deep ocean pressure-anomaly pumps”) because a fluid cannot be pulled so “dense water sinking” and then presumably spreading 15,000 km for no reason makes no sense at all, and AMOC is a “pushing Force” and is not any body of water, The water LNADW & UNADW get pushed by the AMOC Force Net of the SMOC Force portion pushing back against it and LNADW & UNADW arriving at 40-55S being pushed up by AABW cannot be the same water exactly as left the Greenland region because of mesoscale ~horizontal water movement & mixing.
Excluded Factors: Experts like Stefan Rahmstorf point out that many current models still do not fully account for meltwater from the Greenland ice cap, meaning the actual risk of shutdown could be even higher than these new projections suggest.
coud be worse even
Ma Rodger,
Almost! Scmitter is Model projections of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation for the 21st century assessed by observations. Its a bit old, from 2005, but its my fault for not providing sources haha.
Peter Best,
I agree that Grls melt needs to be included, hopefully a lot more for cmip7. However to say that it is totally omitted isn’t really true.
For example Mehling using EC-Earth3 (which has a negative fovs) finds that under RCP8.5 (so very bad) scenario melt by 2100 isn’t a big factor compared to reference.
By 2300 its a bit different story. Amoc declines (im eyeballing here) 2.5 sv more than without melt, going from 8-7.5 SV to 5-4 SV
Although I will note that this is under SSP5, so its about 8C warmer by then. Id be surprised if the Amoc didn’t collapse under those conditions.
Guo uses a cmip6plus model (also EC-Earth family, but EC-Earth-ESM-1) with an interactive grls melt.
Under 3k (which is about where RCP 4.5 is) amoc goes to around 12 sv. 9k (help) warming goes down to 4sv. The paper for ESM-1 isnt published yet, but the fov value that I got from the model output was also negative, at around -0.007, but I hope the author does include it.
Ackermann also runs a AWI-ESM with an interactive grls, and find that grls melt in ssp245 isn’t a main contributing factor, and under ssp5 it further lowers the amoc strength by around 2-2.5 sv.
So not insignificant at all, but it depends on scenario and when it happens. Interestingly Pöppelmeier found (using Bern3D) that due to timing mismatch, grls melt and amoc convection doesn’t happen at the same time. So peakj melkwater arrives after several centuries, when Amoc is starting to recover.
An important note tho is that we know that the Amoc is bistable, and that many cmip5/6 models are monostable due to a bias in the salt–advection feedback strength. (aka fovs >= 0, when it should be around -0.1 – -0.15 iirc). So models with a negative fovs are more likely to collapse, and I hope that more cmip7 models have a negative fovs for better accuracy.
You can kinda see that in Van Westens experiment when he uses (I think its Cesm 1 or 2 or both?) and to get the amoc to collapse he kinda has to twist the models arm backwards and break it to get a correct modern day fov value, but it also means that the amoc strength becomes wrong, so it changes the physics of the model itself. (which he notes, its either a cesm with correct fovs or with a better amoc strength).
I don’t actually know what AWI-ESMs fov value is, but it would be good to know.
Before I leave (ive been droning on for too long), I did a simple weight for those models with FoVS < 0 and did a simple normalized weighting based on distance from the target FOV (-0.1) and the present day Amoc strength (17-16.5sv)
Model FOV Amoc 2100 AMOC (Sv) % Decline Performance Distance
CNRM-CM6-1 -0.11 16.40 10.81 34.08% 0.105
MPI-ESM1-2-HR -0.06 17.29 14.50 16.13% 0.196
CNRM-ESM2-1 -0.13 15.71 11.07 29.54% 0.248
EC-Earth3 -0.04 15.63 13.33 14.73% 0.357
EC-Earth3-Veg -0.02 15.86 13.04 17.79% 0.421
MRI-ESM2-0 -0.21 16.82 8.00 52.40% 0.525
MIROC6 -0.10 13.18 9.12 30.85% 0.597
CNRM-CM6-1-HR -0.23 15.85 11.21 29.31% 0.645
CanESM5 -0.06 12.43 8.95 28.00% 0.741
CanESM5-CanOE -0.06 12.27 8.84 27.98% 0.765
IPSL-CM6A-LR -0.18 11.72 8.66 26.10% 0.911
MIROC-ES2L -0.20 11.78 7.71 34.56% 0.946
CIESM -0.08 10.90 4.60 57.83% 0.959
Its really hard to get both right, especially when those with correct salt advection start with too low amoc. The opposite is true for those with positive fovs where their amoc starts too high a lot of time, but also declines more as a result.
using a simple back of the envelope normalization by performanceweight = (1 / performance_distance^2) / sum(1 / performance_distance^2) you get for example
Unweighted MMM
Baseline Amoc: 14.29 Sv
2091-2100 Amoc 9.99 Sv
% Decline 30.14%
Inverse-distance-squared weighted MMM
Baseline Amoc 16.17 Sv
2091-2100 AMOC 11.42 Sv
% Decline 29.38%
with these weights. Although I should emphasize that this is just an example
I guess I should provide sources this time, although I have no idea how to format them neatly
Ackermann – Timescale competition controls tipping behaviour
under climate overshoot
https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8941071/v1_covered_d0138009-595c-4b76-be47-1bef76a98aa3.pdf?c=1773231030
Limited impact of Greenland meltwater on abruptness and reversibility of future Atlantic overturning changes
https://arxiv.org/html/2509.24858v1
Weak 21st-century AMOC response to Greenland
meltwater in a strongly eddying ocean model
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.17235
Mutual stabilization of AMOC and GrIS due to different transient response to warming
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adf45a/meta
Reversible Atlantic overturning despite continued Greenland Ice Sheet melt
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-7830432/v2
Well I finally had my first personal repercussion from AI. I filled out an application for a job. It was being administered by a form of AI (ATS). Did it as honestly as I could, of course. Submitted and was instantly rejected. Probably some imperfection in my wording (who knows what though). Sadly, these things have no sense of humanity.
Ron R.,
My sympathies, I get how that works. It’s not just AI.
Back in the day, I was accepted for a job by a department in a large organization. The hitch was that I had to run my application through HR.
I filled out my form, and the department’s head assistant checked it out and promptly said, “NO!” She then patiently sat down with me and showed me the exact stock words and phrases I had to use — nothing more, nothing less.
Apparently the people in HR handled job applications like Lucy and Ethel wrapping candy at the chocolate factory. They weren’t keen on spending any more time on each one than they absolutely had to.
I remember that scene! I’m wondering what imperfection in my wording caused that. It was a faster than fast rejection. Usually these things take days or weeks. The very moment I hit submit I was rejected. “No longer being considered”. Wow. Apparently I said an imperfect word. Or maybe it was some personal imperfection I admitted to? Too bad; they lost a great employee. We’re not machines yet and if anything I’m honest about myself. These things will only encourage people to lie on their apps.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cuVUyHsM9dA
Maybe I’m being paranoid but It might soon be too late (hope not) as these AIs will likely share your info and one profile will emerge that you can’t run from. Anything you’ve ever said anywhere on the internet will be in it.
Borgs only wanted here!
Cyptic message. Could it have meant that the opening was closed for some reason? I got a similar message a while back after submitting a form less than five minutes after a deadline. Worked out ok, but yikes. Tick tock…
Maybe. But the opening just came up, so unless they found the right person immediately it seems unlikely. I’d think that they would give us humans time to apply. It didn’t even take 5 minutes. Literally the very instant I hit submit I was rejected.
We are humans. We have (varying degrees and different kinds) of imperfections. That’s what naturally happens with biological organisms. I hope a world is not arising where each human is being “profiled” for every thing he’s ever said or done that’s publicly available. AI, if the kinks are ruled out, has a lot of potential to solve intractable problems. But instead of a single standard a sliding scale should be programmed into it.
Save the perfection for presidents.
They are likely using automated responses. Case in point: The UK requires a new thing called an Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) for foreign visitors. Have to go online to fill it out with your personal info. I paid the submission fee the first time thinking it would take some time to check my credentials, but it came back within seconds approved. So it’s either all automated or they are doing it to make a quick buck.
Same here … they might just be collecting your info to resell
RonR. Im retired and I’ve never had to deal with an AI assessing one of my job applications, fortunately, however if I did I think I would draft out my job application and CV (resumee), and then get an AI to review my application and CV, and I would ask the AI if I had said anything that could get my application rejected, and how the application and CV might be better written, etc, etc. I would particularly ask if I had used any words that were unwise and could lead to a rejection. I would do this exercise with two different AIs. I wish you well Ron with the job search. Hang in there.
Good idea. Unfortunately I’d have to have it reassessed for each place I apply to because what is important to one likely won’t be to another (no generalities here). Still, trying is a minor inconvenience. Thanks for your well wishes.
Not to fuel your paranoia or anything…
Infinite disinformation
https://bsky.app/profile/michaelemann.bsky.social/post/3mjug3qlrmk2c
The next-gen version of Fox News is in alpha testing
Brings to mind something global warming denier Michael (Jurassic Park) Crichton wrote in a book about nanotechnology (Prey) predicting that it would turn the world into “grey goo.” Doubtful, but if there’s anything that can turn societies into a puddle of goo, I think AI would be a good candidate.
Ron R., haven’t had to deal with AI interviewers yet, but buzzword bingo has been a part of Federal hiring for decades. I fortunately had an excellent mentor who taught me the ropes. Especially for groups that play this game, he ad is going to be structured in such a way that it practically writes your response for you.
It’s extremely frustrating for the folks doing the hiring as well, as they have to structure the position description so that the good candidates get through.
I wonder what the future will bring? What ever it is I hope that people’s right to privacy is respected. No one should be made to feel ashamed of that (no matter what that guy with the funny haircut thinks). Everybody has something that they don’t want others to know, and that’s as it should be. People don’t drop their drawers when they go to the bathroom in public, right (sorry for the example)?
Paul,Same here … they might just be collecting your info to resell
I hadn’t thought of that possibility. Another way to get all kinds of info from people. Fake job openings
Hey, everyone. I’m a layman, don’t know very much about climate science, but I’d like to ask a question to the more qualified and learned people here. Lots of this climate stuff is super confusing to me, I see all sorts of studies, headlines, substack posts, strong opinions which I can’t evaluate because I just don’t know the science you need to do it. But I worry a lot, as a guy in his thirties, about how climate change is going to affect my life. Some people say that society is going to collapse in ten years, that you can’t trust the IPCC or the mainstream, other people say that we’re pretty much fine. As is usually the case, I’m sure the truth is between the extremes, but really I don’t know. I hear terms like “hothouse”, “tipping element”, “energy imbalance”, and I just don’t get any of it. Based on the facts which people here understand far better than I do, how are our prospects? How severe are these impacts going to be in ten, twenty, fifty years? If that’s a broad question I apologize, and I wish I knew a climate scientist who I could talk to, but I write for a living so not a lot of STEM people in my orbit. Any and all information or weigh-ins are appreciated. Thanks!
WRA,
Disclaimer: I’m not a climate scientist, and I’m assuming for the sake of argument that you’re not posting a debate-me-bro opening gambit.
There are no easy answers here. Society is unlikely to “collapse” (whatever that means) in ten years. However the situation is bad enough and the future will be the grimmer for a weaker response now.
The confusion is deliberate. I think a good place to start would be to understand why this is so. For instance, the tobacco industry playbook has set the template that the fossil fuel industry uses to disinform. Check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry_playbook
“Some people”!!! Good Lord.
Hints for a “layman”:
1. If you want science, go to science sources.
2. If you want propaganda go to propaganda sources.
3. If you want a mishmash of BS and ignorance, go to “some people”.
#’s 1 and 2 are easily identifiable with almost no research.
——————-Expanded with AI———————-
What are the 3 best sources for scientifically accurate climate information?
The three strongest, most universally trusted sources for scientifically accurate climate information are the ones that meet all three criteria:
-peer‑reviewed science
-transparent methodology
-global scientific consensus
Below are the top three, based on how often they are cited in research, policy, and scientific literature.
-1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Why it’s the gold standard:
The IPCC doesn’t conduct its own research—it synthesizes thousands of peer‑reviewed studies from around the world. Every major climate assessment, policy framework, and scientific debate references IPCC reports.
Strengths:
-Most comprehensive climate assessments on Earth
-Extremely rigorous review process (multiple rounds, hundreds of reviewers)
-Clear summaries for policymakers and the public
If you want the closest thing to “the definitive state of climate science,” this is it.
-2. NASA Earth Science / NASA Climate
Why it’s essential:
NASA provides direct observational data from satellites, ocean buoys, atmospheric sensors, and long‑term monitoring programs. It’s the backbone of global climate measurement.
Strengths:
-High‑resolution global datasets
-Clear explanations of climate mechanisms
Publicly accessible data and visualizations
No political or advocacy mission—just measurement and science
If you want to understand how we know the climate is changing, NASA is unmatched.
-3. NOAA Climate.gov (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
Why it matters:
NOAA maintains some of the world’s most important climate datasets—temperature records, ocean heat content, sea‑level rise, extreme weather trends, and paleoclimate reconstructions.
Strengths:
-Longest continuous climate records in the U.S.
-Excellent data tools and maps
-Strong focus on accuracy, transparency, and reproducibility
If you want reliable, long‑term climate trends, NOAA is indispensable.
What are the 3 most important places spreading climate misinformation and propaganda?
Below are the three most important, well‑documented sources of climate misinformation, based on academic literature, investigative journalism, and analyses by organizations like the IPCC, UN, Yale Program on Climate Communication, and the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
Top 3 Major Sources of Climate Misinformation (Evidence‑Based)
1. Fossil‑Fuel–Funded Think Tanks and PR Networks
This is the single most consistently documented source.
Decades of research show that certain think tanks, PR firms, and “policy institutes” funded by fossil‑fuel interests have:
-promoted doubt about climate science
-funded misleading studies
-created talking points for politicians
-seeded narratives like “climate change is natural” or “scientists disagree”
Examples of organizations in this category (from published research, not my opinion):
-The Global Climate Coalition (historical)
-The Heartland Institute
-The Competitive Enterprise Institute
These groups are repeatedly cited in academic literature as central nodes in the climate‑misinformation ecosystem.
2. Coordinated Social‑Media Disinformation Networks
Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X (Twitter) are not sources themselves, but they are amplifiers for:
-conspiracy communities
-bot networks
-coordinated political campaigns
-monetized outrage channels
Studies show that a tiny number of accounts produce a huge share of climate misinformation.
For example, the “Toxic Ten” identified by the Center for Countering Digital Hate were responsible for nearly 70% of climate denial content circulating on Facebook.
These networks spread:
-“climate change is a hoax”
-“CO₂ is plant food”
-“renewables don’t work”
-“scientists are lying for grant money”
The scale and speed of amplification make this one of the most influential sources today.
3. State‑Aligned or Politically Motivated Media Ecosystems
Research identifies certain media ecosystems—often aligned with governments or political movements whose economies depend heavily on fossil fuels—as major producers of climate propaganda.
These outlets typically:
-downplay climate risks
-attack climate scientists
-frame climate action as a threat to national identity or economic freedom
-promote false equivalence (“both sides” of climate science)
This category includes:
-state‑controlled media in petro‑states
-partisan media ecosystems in countries with polarized climate politics
-outlets documented as repeating fossil‑fuel talking points verbatim
Academic studies show these ecosystems are crucial in shaping public misunderstanding.
———————————————————————————
Kapeech?
Sounds like something the Google AI could help you with. I did a quickie and it all sounds about right.
Just a piece of advice about asking questions. In my teaching experience, what helped me help students move along was knowing where they were already at. So just saying “I write for a living” is not much use.
What do you write about?
What is your education?
Is there anything about climate that you do understand?
And so on.
Without that kind of basic information, it is hard for people to even come up with analogies that might be useful for you.
WRA, I sympathize. I used to work for a physics magazine in my dark and distant past. In that capacity, I had to learn about another new subfield of physics every month in sufficient detail that I wouldn’t sound like an idiot when I interviewed Nobel Laureates and Nobel quality scientists who were experts in the field. What I learned was that you had to go with the experts to start with–even though the experts may not be the most personable or the best communicators. Who are the experts? The ones who publish frequently and whose publications are cited frequently by other authors. You may not understand everything they say, but they are likely to recommend some references that are very useful.
Over time, you’ll learn there are a few experts who are also good communicators and who want to help laymen like you understand their research and the world.
I’m gonna start by recommending one work: “The Discovery of Global Warming,” by Spencer Weart. It is available for free in pdf format from the American Institute for Physics history group. It’s a good read, and Spencer is a good historian of physics. I know him from my time at Physics Today. He’s a trustworthy source. Take a look at that. Then look at a few of the other resources on the START Here tab. Don’t be afraid to ask questions and please be grateful for the help.
Here’s the link for Spencer’s book:
https://history.aip.org/climate/pdf.htm
Note to GAVIN: The link to this resource is broken on the Start Here page.
In my opinion as a layperson, but with some knowledge of climate change, NASAs website has excellent information on the subject, targeted at lay people, Its accurate, reliable science based information, concisely presented so not too long, but detailed enough to be meaningful yet its free of excessive jargon. Just go to the NASA website home page and click on explore/ earth/ climate change/ etc, etc. Couple of shortcut links below, including the effects page which seemed to be of particular interest to you:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/
WRA,
Droughts in continental interiors and storms along coastlines will increase, and sea-level rise will cause damage to coastal cities, eventually requiring their evacuation. (Sea level rise doesn’t have to cover cities; just getting high enough to seep into aquifers and back up sewers will make a city uninhabitable.) I expect society to collapse around 2050-2060.
in Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 21 Apr 2026 at 8:21 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/04/unforced-variations-apr-2026/#comment-847255
Hallo Barton Paul,
I think that coastal cities can be reasonably protected against sea level rise in the range up to some 30 cm that may occur till 2060. I agree, however, that we should think about it in a longer perspective as well.
Greetings
Tomáš
“hothouse”, “tipping element” & “energy imbalance” are simple enough but none of those three provides an answer your Social “science” question. I don’t do Social “science” at all because it’s simply about a Continuum of “Winners” & “Losers” which I’ve found “boring” for 65 years as it is all just relative in nature unlike the Universe (uh oh now Einstein will be Flaming me). There will be a Continuum of a few billion bods along the line of “Winners” & “Losers” and the total number of Life Units will be determined by the ability of the ecosphere to provide the necessities. That’s it. It’s been that way a few hundred million years at least and will be that way indefinitely because that’s the simple, bulletproof System of Life.
“hothouse”: multi-year ice on Earth. “icehouse” == Multi-year ice exists on Earth.
“tipping element”: GoogleyAI has “a large-scale component of the Earth’s climate system—such as ice sheets, ocean currents, or rainforests—that can pass a critical threshold …. Beyond this threshold, small increases in global warming can trigger self-amplifying, irreversible and abrupt changes, altering the system’s state” which sounds about right to me. The AMOC is intrinsically a self-reinforcing feedback system due to ocean salt. The AMOC makes northern ocean surface be lower than further south and that makes surface water flow north, bringing salt, the density causes higher pressure at depth to the north which pushes deep water south making a surface bulge south and a surface dent north, which causes surface water flow north …. Back To The Beginning of this endless loop. Cooling is involved of course. Interrupt this self-sustaining loop with a sufficient drop of northern density and it’ll be like pulling teeth to start it again because it was heavily feeding on itself, it was “self reinforcing”. At maybe 10 Sv (“Stommel bifurcation”) flow the AMOC will not have enough flow to sustain itself by its +ve feedback I just described and will continue slowing then “all by itself”. Some 30% of it might be different deal because it’s he Nordic Seas. Ice sheet Glaciers move at a glacial speed. It takes a lot to speed them up and it takes a lot to slow them down. The details are much and I know a lot of them for a hobbyist but not for this level of comment, You can take it to the bank that the Glaciers of Greenland & Antarctica will not have their flow to the ocean slowing for many hundreds into thousands of years, however fast the ocean warming (air for Greenland only) that humans choose gets them going, they’ll only continue at that rate for many hundreds into thousands of years, or cointne accelerating a bit, not slowing for a Boon’s Age though, not on present human civilization time scales. “rainforests” I don’t know but I presume it’s because the tropical ones are in the Persistent Low Pressure latitudes where air rises, drops its H2O gas back to where it came from as “rain” hen proceeds to the Desert Zone with its dry sensible & converted-latent heat, turned by Coriolis and descends being pressure-heated.
“energy imbalance” is trivially simple. The global heater was ~230 terawatts in 2002, ~480 terawatts in 2012 & ~730 terawatts in 2022 and humans keep increasing it by increasing GHGs. The global heater is what heats, strangely enough. That’s it. It won’t just turn itself off. That’s it for this utterly-trivial level of comment. Those preceding numbers are rough. There’s enough accurate numbers all over the Internet including Realclimate to sink the Titanic or sink the Antarctic Ice Sheet into the ocean, the heck with that for this because it’s a Social “science” question the answer to which is that 3 humans will live well and 8,000,000,000 will not survive, the 3 being a “Guy McPherson”, a “Paul Beckwith” and a “Judith Curry” all of whom seem to be living much higher off the hog than me by warning of the impending Death Of Humanity and providing explanations of the Exponential Function which cheapskates like NOAA & NASA can’t do because they can’t afford “mathematicians” and stuff. Wait! I think 1 of my 3 might be on the Other Team making their money, but I don’t keep track because that’s irrelevant. All that’s relevant for Social “science” is Making Good Coin and not which Team you’re on.
Hope this helps.
Me ““hothouse”: multi-year ice” S.B. ““hothouse”: No multi-year ice” Good I’m allowed to talk to myself because I need expert advice sometimes.
Most of your questions are answered by the executive summary of the most recent IPCC assessments, which you can read here: . Unfortunately, part of the answer is that we don’t really know. Weather is the original system in which mathematical chaos was discovered. Climate is extremely complicated and while we can study it both by computer modeling and by historical planetological studies there is no certain summary of the outcome; the IPCC assessments give a range of possibilities. They are also somewhat conservative in their conclusions both because scientists are not inclined to radicalism and because of political influence.
To answer your particular questions:
– “Energy imbalance” refers to the physical reality that the Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is currently radiating out and therefore is warming. This imbalance is largely the result of CO2 emissions from human economic activity.
– “tipping elements” are defined and discussed here:
– “hothouse Earth” refers to a climate change scenario where positive feedbacks dramatically raise the temperature of the Earth regardless of further human activity. We don’t know how likely it is, but it is one of the risks of continued climate change.
Hope this helps.
Randolph M. Fritz, “Unfortunately, part of the answer is that we don’t really know. Weather is the original system in which mathematical chaos was discovered.”
Yep. Weather and climate have been big mysteries for a long time. I remember from my Bible reading days (I’m agnostic now) this verse,
The wind blows where it wants, and you hear the sound of it, but do not know from where it comes and to where it goes. – John 3:8
And, sorry, I didn’t realize this site suppresses links; here’s some citations instead; you can find them with your favorite search engine.
Look for the *AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023* at the IPCC’s web site for an overview.
For an extended discussion of tipping elements, look for “Tipping Elements – big risks in the Earth System” at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research’s web site.
Randolph M. Fritz,
You say you “didn’t realize this site suppresses links.”
While I don’t know how your web-links were presented and thus disappeared, as a frequent commenter here I’m not aware of any web-link suppression here at RC, either as raw URLs or wrapped up in HTML.
Thus:-
IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023′
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research ‘Tipping Elements – big risks in the Earth System’
Perhaps a link to the Climate Change Tracker ‘Energy Imbalance’ page’ would be in order (although that’s perhaps getting into the weeds of AGW) and add a link to the NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index graphic to demonstrate the dominance of CO2 forcing within AGW. (The AGGI site itself is for public consumption but would also be getting into the AGW weeds.)
And for completeness – “Hothouse Earth” which perhaps does contain something of interest for W.R. Agner.
“Hothouse Earth” is really an extension of the ‘tipping point’ thing. Note the almost-identical graphic on the Potsdam webpage linked above and Figure 3″ from Steffen et al (2018) ‘Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene’ which discusses the potential for Hothouse Earth.
The paper also precipitated this web article – ‘Hothouse Earth’: What is it and what can we do about it? which even manages to tell its readers that a “climate stabilizing at around +4ºC to +5ºC” would:-
Actually, this is not what Steffen et al (2018) says.
It would require a bit more warmth (+6ºC) before the tropics begin to become uninhabitable outside air-conditioning while double that warming would add large areas with continental climates into that “uninhabitable” category. To be clear, the paper says nothing about this ‘uninhabitability.’
What the paper does say is that the danger of tipping point “elements” adding to AGW begin “within just a 1 °C to 3 °C increase in global temperature” (so bags of uncertainty) and somewhere there is a “threshold beyond which cascading tipping points would lead to “massive, sometimes abrupt, and undoubtedly disruptive” climate impacts.
Steffen et al (2018) is more a paper reviewing tipping point literature than a detailed analysis of the Hothouse Earth “pathway.”
The one point of note hidden in here is which tipping points are encountered with the smallest amount of AGW (according to that Figure 3 linked above). That is sea level rise. If AGW remained at +2ºC or even +1.5ºC Greenland would melt down irreversibly causing 20 foot of SLR. That’s on top of 12 foot SLR which would presumably mainly reverse if the planet cools down from +2ºC. And there’s the potential for Antarctica to add some more irreversible SLR as well. This SLR would take centuries to arrive but note that 90% of human endeavour would be drowned in a +10ºC ice-free world. We don’t want to go there, even if the leader of the free world tells us “You’ll have more oceanfront property, right?”
W.R. Agner,
You’ve been served up quite a pile of wordage here, over 3,000 words.
So let’s add to that!!! Another 700 words.
I too was once “a guy in his thirties” who hadn’t an opinion on climate change. And I sat down to watch a TV programme called The Greenhouse Conspiracy which was meant to convince viewers that this greenhouse thing was all a complete load of nonsense. Yet in this 52-minute film they made such a pig’s ear of their argument that I became strongly persuaded of the opposite view and thus have come to see climate deniers as being deluded fools and some actually liars. Nothing that has happened to the climate in the decades since then has supported the denialist view. Indeed, although I look I have seen nothing extra from them through those decades that was in any way convincing.
And through those decades and post-1992 when the Rio confrence had 154 countries signing up for climate action, the world has failed to cut CO2 emissions. Instead emissions have increased 50% (although the numbers show the increase isn’t quite so dreadful through the last decade) and the world is still overwhelmingly (85%) powered by fossil-fuel. The numbers show that 85% number is exactly the same proportion as back in 1990.
{To be nerdy, global primary power-use has risen 70% since 1990. So has the fossil fuel use. It is less carbon-intense because coal is less-used and oil/gas more-used. In 1990 the non-fossil-fuelled primary power was almost all wood-burning and that contibution has remained flat. So the ‘modern’ renewables increasing by the year now equal 70% the wood-burning contribution. The renewables increased effectively from zero (except hydro which doubled), each with increased contributions of the same order of magnitude – wind, hydro, solar, biomass – together providing 7% of primary power, and 4% without hydro which isn’t greatly scaleable. Something which gets mentioned more than it deserves is nuclear with a tiny increase and now providing less than 2% of total global priary power. And something which gets little mention but is important – fuel/power efficiency which some suggest [e.g. Jain (2024)] has managed a cut in primary energy-useage of 30% since 1990.}
The continuing rise in emissions should give some worry for those who expect to live past the middle of this century.
A simplistic by useful measure of where we are with AGW is the Carbon Budget. This equates amounts of AGW to total carbon emissions in a reasonably robust way. The graphic just linked is IPCC SR15 Fig 2.3 of 2019.
{The numbers in Fig2.3 are more generous than the previous version because the carbon budget now includes large ‘negative’ emissions post-net-zero; that’s man-made extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere!! Fig2.3 shows a remaining budget post-2017 of 580Gt(CO2) for a 50% chance of remaining below +1.5ºC AGW. The emissions since 2017 drops the remaining budget for post-2025 down to 245Gt(CO2)}
The numbers in Fig2.3 show just 6-years-worth of 2025 -equivalent emissions in the +1.5ºC AGW budget and with net-zero is still no nearer. Those carbon budget numbers are showing an extra +0.5ºC AGW for every 900Gt(CO2) which is 20-years-worth of 2025 emissions. All this suggests we’ll be very hard pressed to reach net zero while just invoking +2.0ºC AGW.
And given the world doesn’t seem to bothered by it all, perhaps +2.5ºC AGW is a more realistic “very-hard-pressed” outcome.
But is IPCC SR15 Fig2.3 reliable?
The concept of a carbon budget is sound enough.
However, what is a consideration is the RCP8.5 trace in Fig2.3 (to 2017) running roughly +0.5ºC above the ‘actual’ AGW trace and its “median TCRE” projection.
We could also plot the emissions & temp numbers through the last decade. And that gets interesting.
The rate of AGW up to 2015 was remarkably constant, sitting at +0.18ºC/decade over the preceding 40 years. Since then the temperature has wobbled up enough to strongly suggest a new rate of AGW has arrived. There is much discussion what is happening here, but suffice to say, if you plot 2025 temperature and CO2 onto Fig2.3, it lands not-far-short of the 2030 RCP8.5 point.
So that “perhaps realistic very-hard-pressed” +2.5ºC AGW outcome presented above should be likely higher. If these recent annual temperatures are marking an ‘adjustment’ rather than just a big maverick wobble, we should be thinking a +3.0ºC AGW outcome would be potentially realistic.
And if it’s an‘ acceleration’ rather than an ‘adjustment’ with perhaps a big cloud-driven feedback kicking in: if it is ‘ acceleration’, things could be yet worse.
To add a crumb of comfort – at least such ‘ acceleration’ might sharpen the resolve of the world to take AGW seriously!!!
So sadly nothing here to allay that “worry for those who expect to live past the middle of this century.” If anything the last decade of AGW appears to have made things more worrying.
Science states it is warming at a rate of 0.18-0.2C a decade and hence warming is slow from a human perspective. The main issue is that emissions today and energy sources used and built today last a long time and lock you in to future emissions. We have yet to reach peak fossil fuel usage and hence significant emissions are guaranteed for a few decades to come minimum.
We can’t as yet via politics, economics or some other factory break the cycle.
For “rate of 0.18-0.2C a decade” what I found interesting in early 2013 when I decided to take a look at the global warming, I found since 1962 when my data started that La Nina & ENSO-neutral years +GMST rate was +0.165 degrees/decade and looked a good fit by eye and that El Nino years at 0.20 pre-1995 to 0.23 post-1995 degrees/decade but was far-more dispersed points than La Nina & ENSO-neutral perhaps mostly because I used calendar years (it was a quick look) but also I recall fewer annual points to estimate a trend through and I suppose perhaps wide disparity in the quantity of Pacific heat released from one El Nino to another.
For the physicists here and in the interests of inclusiveness (TOE) I wonder if you think that the first and second laws of thermodynamics, besides applying to physical systems can also apply to non-physical systems: i.e. the mental/metaphysical universe (dark/matter energy?).
As a physicist. I really don’t believe there is a nonphysical universe. It’s all physics.
Thanks for the comment, Ray. I respect and understand your coming from. Life and the universe, what we see and/or can physically demonstrate and measure, are all that there is, according to atheistic naturalism. Ok. I’m just wondering if invisible mind, consciousness, might have become a secondary kind of “physic”? The universe evolving awareness.
Ron, do you mean the idea that has been around a while that the universe is a type of super organism that is conscious? If so such a thing might still be a product of physics and physical reality. And I have a suspicion the idea might be true.
Im liking Ray Ladburys comment that everything is physics. Including I assume the mind stuff and weird stuff because saying everything is physics its the simplest explanation. Occams Razor. We should only postulate mystical stuff as a last resort option.
Lots of weird occult stuff like oija boards have simple physics based explanations.
Nigel, good points. However note for everyone, I’m not actually postulating that a non-physical explanation is necessary for understanding certain things. I can conceive that some unknown, as yet, undiscovered type of physics, explains certain mysteries. In fact that should be the go-to first, of course. But I wonder too if there could be something else in addition that we don’t know yet as well.
Physicists Brian Keating and Roger Penrose have speculated that there might be a further explanation. They talk about the “hard problem of consciousness”. Some interesting videos here.
https://m.youtube.com/@DrBrianKeating
But then of course you have the latest reincarnation of the american god in his ballroom. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X_JEZMEw_-Q&pp=0gcJCd8KAYcqIYzv .
What, precisely, are “nonphysical systems” other than [POOF!] magic? Be VERY specific.
Oh, and are you positing that dark matter and energy are NONphysical.??? Wowsers!
Google AI says:
In physics, “physical” refers to anything that has material existence, occupies space-time, and can be measured or observed through experimentation. It encompasses matter, energy, forces, and spacetime, distinguished from abstract or purely mathematical concepts by its adherence to natural laws. “Physical” denotes properties that can be quantified.
Physical Properties/Quantities: Measurable attributes of a substance, such as mass, temperature, velocity, or charge.
Physical Objects: Tangible entities that exist within space-time, such as particles, fields, or macroscopic objects.
Physical Reality: The totality of systems that can be described and analyzed using the laws of physics.
Physical Meaning: The interpretation of mathematical equations in terms of observable, real-world behavior, often validated through experiments.
Essentially, something is physical if it is part of the measurable, interactive universe studied by physics.
—–
I think that means consciousness, dark mater, and dark energy are not yet physical systems.
Re.: “In physics, “physical” refers to anything that has material existence, occupies space-time, and can be measured or observed through experimentation. It encompasses matter, energy, forces, and spacetime, distinguished from abstract or purely mathematical concepts by its adherence to natural laws. “Physical” denotes properties that can be quantified. ”
Dark matter and energy are most certainly measurable. WHAT, exactly, we are measuring is still up for grabs, but the reality is that they are measurable in their effects. Consciousness too is quite measurable at least in its effects…it’s called cognitive psych and cognitive neuroscience. That these are not yet fully understood makes them no less real.
To posit climate “forces” that do not exist in space-time and that cannot be quantified through any measurements and yet to posit these forces have major and easily measured climate effects–as is the apparent position of most denialists–is to posit [POOF!] magic controls climate.
This is an utterly classic “Argumentum ad ignorantium” which among other things usually tries to imply that since we don’t know everything we know nothing. It’s a ridiculous argument to make on a science board..
Hmm. Well first, I certainly didn’t say that since we don’t know everything we know nothing. And a science board, it seems to me, Is exactly the place to ask it. A Real Climate UV thread is hardly the Royal Society. But you’re right that it’s an argument from ignorance. Until we learn something new, can take it confidently from hypothesis to law, we’re all ignorant of something though.
Not making assertions. Just asking questions.
jgnfld, you are correct to ask for a definition. However, to have a serious discussion, you are also required to define your terms, and do so in a non-circular manner.
What is “physical”?
Calm down jgnfld. Notice that I didn’t say I believed it. As an agnostic I’m just wondering about consciousness itself. Individual and collective especially. Mind. Could the universe or the earth itself have evolved it? And would that be separate from what we know about physics or would it fall within it? And would it be so bad if indeed it has evolved it?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9490228/
On dark matter and dark energy I was just tossing that out there. It’s dark because we don’t understand it. May have nothing to do with it.
As Ludwig Wittgenstein said: “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.” (‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’)
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1921 . The recurse of definitions is endless. If you define “physical”, you have to use other words which then have to be defined etc. etc. Eventually you end up with the hyperabstract beginning of Hegel’s “Wissenschaft der Logik” – “Science of logic”. It’s impossible to get any experience from trying to close the gap between word an reality without praxis, action.
Karsten V. Johansen,
‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’
You’re right.
Ron,
I think I know where you’re coming from, From my experience, Ray’s pithy response is the answer. The number of blanks one has to fill in to get there to one’s satisfaction will vary from person to person.
If you have a philosophical bent; “How does the cosmological principle relate to uniformitarianism and actualism?”
AI Overview
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+does+the+cosmological+principle+relate+to+uniformitarianism+and+actualism
Evolution is chemical and driven by energy (mostly from the sun) according to the same principles that operate everywhere on everything, including the basic elements and processes that eventually led to the formation and functioning of the human brain. Outside of that, you’re in the realm speculative story telling.
Personally, in practical terms, I think part of the problem with pervasive religious ideation now is that general education is seriously deficient in the science and math (and honestly some other things as well) needed to properly function as a modern citizen. Unfortunately, we’re kind of left to our own devices to fill in the gaps–for instance, for dealing with the physics and chemistry both of our collective brains and the damage we’re doing to the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere that gives us life. (There. Hopefully that justifies posting this comment on a climate site. If not, oh well.)
Radge Havers, If not, oh well I laughed at that.
I kind of new that my post would get a reaction here. Didn’t post it for that reason, but still, when has another way of thinking not been immediately attacked and rejected in a knee jerk fashion? There is a “close ranks”, “circle the wagons” natural tendency about the human way of thinking. And I understand it. It’s necessary to protect the hard won truth sometimes. I get it.
jgnfld said, What, precisely, are “nonphysical systems” other than [POOF!] magic? That reminded me of what Arthur Clarke once said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”. Think of all the things that have happened in the past that the learned of their day didn’t say was utterly impossible and a waste of time. I understand the naturalistic view. It’s atheistic, and I’m not saying that I think that’s wrong, but as I’ve said before, unless we are going to claim that we at present know everything (as every other generation has thought), close your books, stop studying, it’s all over then we should be open to the possibility that maybe we don’t know everything. It’s a BIG universe. I myself have seen things that defy understanding, and I suspect that others here have as well.
Anyway GUT was a stepping stone to ToE; Ray can correct me if I’m wrong. Still questions persist. Richard Feynman said that the pursuit of knowledge is an infinite process; every answer provides a new set of questions.
Additionally, when we attack new thinking (NOT saying that crap that’s easily shown to be incorrect – that climate change is real is obvious; that the earth is round is obvious) we discourage people from saying what they really think or know about something and thus set back the service of science, maybe many years. The dark ages didn’t have to last as long and be as miserable as they were and wouldn’t have been if we’d been open minded. I know what some will say, That’s what science is for. If they know something let them publish it and if true it will be accepted. Nope. That’s the IDEAL. More likely, at least initially they will be attacked.
I asked AI and here’s what it said,
The Resistance to Scientific and Intellectual Innovation
========================================================
The history of human progress is characterized by a recurring pattern: the emergence of a transformative idea is almost invariably met with intense skepticism, ridicule, or outright hostility from the established intellectual, scientific, or social order. This phenomenon, often termed the “Galileo Gambit” or the “resistance to paradigm shifts,” suggests that there has rarely, if ever, been a time in history when a truly revolutionary idea was immediately embraced by the consensus of its time. The inertia of existing belief systems, combined with the psychological discomfort of abandoning long-held worldviews, creates a formidable barrier to innovation.[3]
Thomas Kuhn, in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, articulated that science does not progress through a linear accumulation of facts, but through “paradigm shifts.”[3] Kuhn argued that when a new theory challenges the foundational assumptions of a field—the “normal science”—the scientific community initially rejects the new idea because it does not fit the existing framework. This rejection is not merely a matter of stubbornness; it is a necessary protective mechanism for the current paradigm. For instance, the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism, championed by Nicolaus Copernicus and later defended by Galileo Galilei, was not just a scientific dispute but a fundamental challenge to the theological and philosophical structures of the 17th century.[1] Galileo’s subsequent trial and house arrest serve as the archetypal example of the institutionalized suppression of revolutionary thought.
The pattern of initial rejection is evident across diverse disciplines. In medicine, Ignaz Semmelweis’s 19th-century proposal that doctors should wash their hands to prevent puerperal fever was met with professional outrage. His peers, insulted by the implication that they were carriers of disease, dismissed his findings, leading to his eventual institutionalization.[2] Similarly, in the earth sciences, Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift was mocked for decades. Proposed in 1912, the idea that continents moved across the ocean floor was labeled “delirious ravings” by geologists who could not conceive of a mechanism for such movement, despite the clear fossil and geological evidence Wegener presented.[4]
This resistance is not limited to the physical sciences. In economics and social theory, thinkers like John Maynard Keynes or even the early proponents of germ theory faced significant uphill battles against the status quo. The psychological tendency to favor the status quo—often referred to as “status quo bias”—ensures that new ideas are subjected to a “burden of proof” that is significantly higher than that required for existing, albeit flawed, theories. Consequently, the history of human advancement is less a story of the immediate adoption of truth and more a story of the slow, painful erosion of error in the face of persistent, evidence-based challenges.[3]
### World’s Most Authoritative Sources
1. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Print)↩
2. Nuland, Sherwin B. The Doctors’ Plague: Germs, Childbed Fever, and the Strange Story of Ignaz Semmelweis. (Print)↩
3. Barber, Bernard. Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery. (Academic Journal)↩
4. 5 Times Everyone Thought Science Was Crackpot Only to be Proven Spectacularly Wrong. ScienceAlert↩
Still, science has come a long way.
So I ask my original question again. Can the second law apply to non-physical systems as well? Is there possibly something other than what we see out there? The universe operates on entropy. We know the second law is obviously true for physical things. Things tend to go from order to disorder. It’s necessary to create the raw materials for order again, and life/the universe goes on. But what we (at least not that I know of) haven’t realized is that that’s true also for non-physical systems. The mental universe.
Basically, there seems to be something in the universe where negative just happens naturally because of gravity but positive has to be reached for with effort. It’s like dropping a rock off the side of a cliff. It naturally goes down. No effort needed. Even in space, gravity attracts. So negative, breakdowns F-ups, death and destruction seems to be the default trending state of the universe. Gravity -> Entropy. Negative is the way it will always happen unless we expend the effort to make it positive. Positivity needs effort. Like walking uphill vs downhill. Construction requires a lot more effort than destruction. Takes much longer too. Good happens in the world when there is the energy (like sunshine, or youth, in abundance) to expend on it. But entropy always wins in the end. Flowers fade and crumble. People die. Mountains erode.
I’ve drifted off into a tangent. I’m not sure what I’m saying. Pardon me. :)
RR: The dark ages didn’t have to last as long and be as miserable as they were and wouldn’t have been if we’d been open minded.
BPL: Are you clear on what the Dark Ages were, and what made them last?
I think so. What do you think?
BPL wrote: “Are you clear on what the Dark Ages were, and what made them last?”
It is my understanding that the term “dark ages” was meant by historians to indicate that THEY were “in the dark” about that period of time, due to a lack of historical records. It wasn’t a description of those times, it was a description of their ignorance about them.
Ron R., The whole discussion reminds me of the old joke:
Q: What is mind?
A: It doesn’t matter.
Q: What is matter?
A: Never mind.
I speak only for myself here. Barton would be a better one to ask about whatever may exist in the Universe that isn’t purely physical. My response was in no way an attack on his opinion, which I respect.
As an atheist, I believe in “Shit happens” aka entropy. And we can understand entropy by observing qualitatively that there are a lot more ways things can go wrong than there are that they can go right. It is a good thing to remember in everything from climate change discussions, to medicine to deciding whether to draw on an Inside Straight in poker.
Claude Shannon showed that the concept of entropy applies in communications, and others have extended his work to show it applies to computing as well. I view “consciousness” as an emergent phenomenon of a complex system, although I haven’t decided yet how much of it is “real” and how much an illusion.
And don’t knock gravity or entropy. Without gravity, the universe would be a lot more homogeneous and boring. And without entropy, there are many reactions necessary to life that simply could not proceed. Shit happens. Sometimes it is good. Sometimes it is bad. But as long as we have life/energy, we can try to maximize the good that happens in our vicinity.
Ray Ladbury, I liked that mind/matter joke. :D
And we can understand entropy by observing qualitatively that there are a lot more ways things can go wrong than there are that they can go right.
Is that another way of saying Murphy’s law?
But as long as we have life/energy, we can try to maximize the good that happens in our vicinity.
I was pondering what a battle that can be, though, a lot of the time. And the more people have to change = the greater their resistance will be because they know what it’ll mean. Turning around and fighting societal momentum. Just like anything that involves fighting gravity would be. The default state of the universe. It’s really hard to naturally swim against the current (we want to go with the flow) especially when it’s strong, We all are naturally inclined to take the path of least resistance. It’s like swimming upstream like a salmon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhdPjh69jdM
Society as a whole is going downstream where it used to be higher in the recent past because more people then were feeling positive than now. The 1950s are an example. The war just ended. Technology felt like it was a positive. Automobiles and the oil they use were booming. Plastics exploded. Cookie-cutter houses sprouted up like like mushrooms. Consumerism took off. Everyone was smiling. A lot of other things began in the 1950s. Remember the Jetsons cartoon? Things just seemed (and were in many cases) better.
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/1950/
A lot of it later turned out to be negatives though. Somebody discovered that much of the reason we felt good was because we were willfully blinding ourselves to the consequences of our actions. And there always are consequences. But we kicked the can down the road. Like the environment.
We in the west (and on this board I suspect) haven’t felt the effects of going without oil yet. Haven’t entered that difficult upstream part yet. We’re heading for it though. Are we prepared for it? Let’s hope that we can get on with alternative energies for everyone soon so that the transition will happen as smoothly as possible.
In our personal lives too it takes effort to fight the pull of gravity. Like you mention, it wants to carry us downstream. Entropy is the law. The way it is. Finally comes death, and release from the constant battle. Gravity affects more than just the planets.
Sorry for all this.
Re. “The dark ages didn’t have to last as long and be as miserable as they were and wouldn’t have been if we’d been open minded. ”
Uh, actual, professional historians–I have one in my family–do not subscribe to the notion that there ever even were “Dark Ages” in the first place and mostly haven’t for over a century now. True: The Roman Empire did wind down in many ways in and after the 5th Century. But, across pretty much all modern hstorical and historiographic scholarship, there is a quite strong consensus that the Church acted as the primary institutional heir to Rome in the centuries after 476 CE. Political authority did fragment in many areas. Also true, But the Church maintained Roman administrative habits, legal ideas, cultural norms, and educational traditions in many enclaves. This continuity is one of the main reasons historians reject the idea of any specific “Dark Age”.
But don’t let facts and modern scholarship get in the way of your “analysis” when you’re on a roll.
Hmm. I was writing from the perspective of historian Edward Gibbon. I once read some of his book, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire many years ago. He said that the period from about 180AD or so began the decline in Europe which went through (with periods of ups and downs) to about 1,453, the end of Constantinople.
I also read a another history book, but that turned out to be full of bias.
I also read A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman. True it encompassed the Late Middle Ages and the Dark Ages are called the Early Middle Ages. The early encompassed the 5th to the 10th centuries and the late the 14th to 16th. So your point is technically correct.
But ok. We’ll say the pre-enlightenment period. That began in the 1700’s. The Enlightenment was defined by a deliberate challenge to traditional authority through the lens of empirical reason and secular inquiry. The Early Middle Ages was defined by adherence to scriptural authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
But in light of modern thought I won’t say “Dark Ages”. Instead that the pre-enlightenment (with the humanist exception of the Renaissance) didn’t have to last as long as it did if people were more open minded. Is that a more correct way of putting it?
Ron R:
With all due respect, your comments are all over the place, juggling a jumble of disjointed ideas and ill-defined words. It seems that it is far from clear TO YOU what you are even talking about.
Having said that, one idea that you appear to be touching on is what cognitive scientist and philosopher David Chalmers has called “the hard problem” — the question of how and why “physical” systems give rise to subjective experience.
The “hard problem” is not explaining the CONTENT of subjective experience, i.e. what we are aware OF.
The “hard problem” is explaining the simple FACT of subjective experience, i.e. that “awareness” itself exists at all.
The “problem” is that science offers no explanation at all of what awareness, the capacity for subjective experience IS, or how or why it exists. While we can account for the CONTENT of subjective experience in terms of neuroscience, we cannot explain how or why the brain — or ANY physical system — gives rise to subjective experience at all. Chalmers calls this the “explanatory gap”.
If you are not familiar with this subject, I would commend to your attention Chalmers’ 1996 book, “The Conscious Mind”, as well as the 1997 book “Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem”, edited by Jonathan Shear, which includes an essay by Chalmers and a collection of essays from philosophers, scientists and others, responding to Chalmers from a variety of viewpoints, ranging from materialist denial that subjective experience even exists, to the panpsychist idea that the capacity for subjective experience is a fundamental aspect of reality, like space and time, rather than a product of particular physical systems.
As is often the case, Wikipedia’s overview is a helpful starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
Hmm, I think I agreed with you, SA, if I’m understanding you correctly.
Ron,
I’ve drifted off into a tangent. I’m not sure what I’m saying. Pardon me. :)
That started out sort of sounding like a Galileo Gambit.
Speculation can be fun, creative and even suggest possible avenues of research, but it is not, in and of itself, hard science.
I looked over the paper you linked to. I’m no expert for sure, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and nothing stood out enough to rock my world. I’m pretty sure that if they actually turn up something revolutionary, it will likely be all over the news.
This is nothing new, I remember reading The Tao of Physics back in the day and got a kick out of it, Keep in mind we have a long history of spooky science, spiritualism, ESP, etc., some of it disreputable, if not outright fraudulent (Carlos Castaneda). The 60s and 70s in particular were infused with eastern mysticism, drugs and sitar music, a bit of which wafted into some corners of the scientific community. There are good reasons to be skeptical.
Radge, the problem is that the question and the answers all have undefined (undefinable?) terms, which leads to circularity.
Ray is really saying “the universe” is what physics can measure.
Well, I have said here that physics tells me (and much smarter philosophers and physicists and mathematicians have said previously) that we are all living in Plato’s cave. And that means that physics only measures and predicts the behavior of shadows.
Does that mean we exist in a “universe” which is somehow analogous to the brain of an old bearded White guy, and the little lights we see in the sky at night are flashes of neurons firing off? Of course not, but it does mean that “there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
Accepting that doesn’t mean we should stop observing and measuring and calculating and predicting. But a little humility is in order, however more clever we are than the other apes.
Hi Z.,
Yes, assuming we can “know” anything, there are
known knowns
known unknowns
unknown unknowns…
It seems to me that an alternate-reality-physics that somehow emerges from the physics we all know and love falls into the “unknown unknown” category, i.e., it’s something we currently don’t have the tools to measure or apprehend even if it does exist.
Whether you call it “the universe” or experience or “reality,” I have yet to encounter any experience or entity that I would despair of physics being able to measure. In the absence of such evidence, yes, I take the universe as what physics can measure. Were I to encounter something that was utterly beyond the realm of physics, I would of course have to embrace a broader stance. However, I cannot even imagine what such a thing would be like.
It seems to me more fulfilling to investigate what I know exists rather than speculate on what might exist in the absence of any evidence.
The end of the month approaches, so how are April temperatures stacking up?
The ERA5 re-analysis numbers at ClimatePulse is showing April (to 27th) global SAT at +0.53ºC, so unchanged from March. Indeed, there is little movement since the start of the year. (2025 averaged +0.59ºC ending with Dec25 +0.48ºC. Jan to Mar run +0.51ºC, +0.54ºC +0.53ºC).
April 2026 will become the =3rd warmest April on the ERA5 record.
This puts 2026 in the top-five warmest Aprils, rubbing shoulders with El Niño-boosted years, so not an apples-to-apples comparison. Nor is comparison with chilly 8th-placed 2023 apples-to-apples – 2023 was coming out of 3-years of strong La Niña. Perhaps 2018 provides a better comparison although the eight years elapsed would have warmed under AGW.
And the year-to-date numbers puts Jan-Apr 2026 as the 5th warmest start to the year.
Top-10 WARMEST APRILS in ERA5 (& Warmest Start to Year numbers)
2024 … … +0.67ºC … …(1st … … +0.67ºC)
2025 … … +0.60ºC … …(2nd … … +0.60ºC )
2016 … … +0.53ºC … …(3rd … … +0.53ºC)
2026 … … +0.53ºC … …(5th … … +0.52ºC)
2020 … … +0.52ºC … …(4th … … +0.53ºC)
2019 … … +0.44ºC … …(7th … … +0.33ºC)
2017 … … +0.33ºC … …(6th … … +0.44ºC)
2023 … … +0.32ºC … …(8th … … +0.32ºC)
2018 … … +0.30ºC … …(10th … … +0.28ºC)
2022 … … +0.28ºC … …(9th … … +0.30ºC)
So despite all the talk of a super El Niño on the way**, and CPC/NCEP putting the chances of a ‘Strong’ or ‘Very Strong’ El Niño at 60%; despite all that, these ERA5 SAT numbers don’t appear to be showing it building yet.
(** Not sure of the NINO3.4/ONI graphic in this article which suggests more energetic El Niño post-1960. The graphic is from NOAA three-years ago and since then the ONI (plotted in the graphic) has been joined by RONI (Relative Oceanic Niño Index). RONI behaves more like the upside down SOI & MEI by presenting recent El Niño numbers as less powerful that does/did ONI. Note that CPC/NCEP do use RONI.)
But ClimatePulse also gives the ERA5 60N-60S SST anomaly and that is showing the coming El Niño. Thro’ April the rising SSTs are perhaps starting to have something of that “bananas!!” whiff in them.
The GISTEMP, NOAA & BEST numbers are SAT/SST and unlike ERA5 global SAT they are showing a bit of warming with their numbers just to March.
Global SAT/SST anomalies (variously based)
… … … … … … … …NOAA … … … GISS … … … BEST … … … HadCRUT
2025 ave … … .. ..+1.12ºC … … +1.19ºC … … +1.44 ºC … … +1.05ºC
Dec 2025 … … … +1.05ºC … … +1.07ºC … … +1.34 ºC … … +0.92ºC
Jan 2026 … … … +1.10ºC … … +1.08ºC … … +1.39 ºC … … +1.00ºC
Feb 2026 … … … +1.16ºC … … +1.24ºC … … +1.47 ºC … … +1.05ºC
Mar 2026 … … … +1.31ºC … … +1.28ºC … … +1.45 ºC … … .. n/a
I keep The Banana!!! Watch page updated with much of these numbers.