This month’s open thread on climate topics. El Niño coming (shades of 2023), competitive predictions, ill-advised geo-engineering ideas, and massive shifts in renewable energy roll out. Surely something there to discuss…
Reader Interactions
77 Responses to "Unforced Variations: May 2026"
Comment Policy:Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.
Ron R.: “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.”
Hmm, did you consider that the 1950s were exuberant precisely because the war–perhaps the darkest period in modern human history–had ended? Think of the hell that tens of millions of people went through in the previous decade. I might have wanted to slow down, buy a house in the burbs and drink a highball, too.
And you say technology was viewed positively–but it was also viewed by the light of a mushroom cloud over everyone’s shoulder. The science fiction of the time is full of trepidation for the creations men had wrought–Godzilla is a literal cinematic manifestation of the fear of technology. And for women and minorities, it was anything but positive
There was no golden age…ever. The only thing that differs from one age to another is the extent to which we are willing to accept truth and the truths we are willing to accept.
Something tells me RR is not a true child of the Cold War/Civil Rights era.
Expanding on RL’s points: As a child of the 50s/60s growing up on SAC bases at the bleeding front lines of the Cold War, I can attest that not everything was so positive as RR seems to think. Practiced our duck and cover drills monthly. Went to scores of funerals as high performance aviation was quite dangerous in that era. Personally witnessed 3 bomber and tanker crashes. Lost one test pilot cousin to an Edwards or Area 51–then called Paradise Ranch–crash (actual story never fully released but gossip centered around pre-operational U-2 testing which would imply Paradise Ranch).
Whole bases lived on 15 minute alerts where if red lights went off in theatres, bowling alleys, pools, etc. around base ALL the men (few women could serve then) would just instantly disappear leaving you alone to get home by yourself and then would simply be gone incommunicado for days (practice alert) to months (Lebanon crisis) as the bombers were dispersed to small fields around the globe. Dispersal is of course is the only real defense against nukes.
Between the Cold War, escalating race issues accelerated as a result of the service and then return of WW2 black soldiers*, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile/Lebanon/Suez/Algerian Crisesrises, Dien Bien Phu and the rise of US involvement in Viet Nam, McCarthyism in all its nasty even by present day standards manifestations, and etc. etc. etc. things looked rather bleak to many at that time. As RL notes, ow many radiation_creates_monsters movies got made in that era and for what reasons? Love of technology? Nope. I quite readily remember the fears even though I was–still am–a complete science nerd.
Fashion, design, theatre/stage, and many arts did, in fact, experience quite a renaissance after WW2. Some areas like fashion probably were based in exuberance. My wife used to point out just how much physical cloth and how many colors 50s fashions had compared to 30s and 40s fashions once industry could return to civilian production. But great art is associated with societies in serious internal conflict every bit as much if not even more than with societies at internal peace.
Rather than “exuberance” I would label that era a time of frothing fermentation. Much good, but also much bad going on all across society.
______________
*The returning Indian regiments nearly a million strong–accelerated the failure of Britain’s Indian Empire for the same basic reason in the eyes of most historians of the era. Sadly that failure went along with a quite enormous death toll during The Partition.
Jgnfld. I read an interesting book a few years back called the civilisation of the middle ages by norman cantor which covers the period of about ad 400 – 1500. This includes the dark ages from ad 400 – 1000. The book is apparently well respected, and said there was progress intellectually and culturally, and even the economy grew although very slowly by modern standards.
However in my opinion the middle ages period lacked the insights of people like the Greek philosophers, and the emerging democracy of ancient Greece. The church was very dominant in the middle ages, in good and bad ways. But the end result was the reformation, the enlightenment and birth of science so its interesting how things work out.
I think the Middle Ages, the pre-enlightenment period were still a pretty hard time to live. That’s what I got from Tuchman. Her book is titled in full, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century. And she, while not using the phrase dark ages did say in the introduction that the 14th century was a dark time. So I guess I assumed the term still applied. Anyway, I just figure that the early middle ages wasn’t that great either.
RR: “I think the Middle Ages, the pre-enlightenment period were still a pretty hard time to live.”
Yes it was overall in a material sense. This from an AI:
Overall living conditions were generally better under the Roman Empire than in most of Europe between 500–1000 AD, though the picture varies by region and by what aspect of “living conditions” you measure.
What declined after Rome fell (500–1000 AD)
Across much of Western Europe, the collapse of Roman imperial systems led to lower living standards, especially in the early centuries after 476 AD:
Loss of Roman infrastructure — Roads, aqueducts, sanitation systems, and large-scale building techniques deteriorated or disappeared.
Decline in literacy and administration — Written language, complex government, and long-distance trade networks shrank dramatically.
Increased insecurity — Frequent warfare, shifting kingdoms, and raids (e.g., Vikings, Magyars) made daily life more dangerous.
Economic fragmentation — The unified Mediterranean economy broke into regional, localized systems.
These changes meant that for many people, especially in the former Western Empire, life became more rural, isolated, and precarious.
(My comments: The AI notes that around 1000AD things got better and in some cases improved on conditions under Roman Rule. and as I mentioned there was cultural and intellectual improvements)
Things do go in positive and negative cycles: The Roman and Greek empires, the dark ages, the slow recovery, the enlightenment /reformation/ renaissance, the wars of Europe, the emergence of capitalism and the industrial revolution and the roaring 1920’s, the collapse in the great depression of the 1930s ending in WW2, the recovery and optimism of the 1950s, the pessimism of the 1960s and 1970s with the cold war, vietnam, oil crisis, the booming free trade and globalisation and low inflation since the 1980s , the return of trade protectionism, nationalism and inflation and wars and pessimism over the last few years much attributable to just one president….
I will leave it there its getting way off topic. But these long term cycles have always fascinated me.
Nigel, right, but this is interesting, the Roman Empire effectively split into two administrative halves. The Western Roman Empire, centered in Italy, fell in 476 AD, and the Eastern Roman Empire, centered in Constantinople, (often called Byzantium) fell in 1453, almost 1,000 years later. It was generally tougher in the western half than eastern half.
The west encompassed (I had to look this part up to remember) the lands of Italy, Gual, Hispania, Britain and North Africa.
The Eastern Roman Empire, centered in Constantinople, (often called Byzantium) held the wealthier, more urbanized provinces of the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt (maybe Tunisia too?).
Ron R: “the Roman Empire effectively split into two administrative halves….”
Yes. I left that out, for the virtue of simplicity and brevity and to make the key points that come through all the historical ‘noise’. The history of the wider region is complicated.
For me one thing that stands out as important is the knowledge developed by the Roman Empire, and especially Greek society and the Greek philosophers. was lost in the dark ages and middle ages period in the western regions. This knowledge explored some basic scientific concepts eg Aristotles work. He even wrote a book called physics, that explored the structure of matter and motion, as well as a book on ethics which is surprisingly modern and compelling.
The Catholic Church appeared to deliberately suppress this knowledge. But it seemed to work out in the end because the Italian renaissance in 1400, revived the knowledge and culture developed by Greek and Roman society , and the enlightenment moved society away from the Church dominating knowledge. So things worked out well in the end, and may not have done if history had proceeded differently.
jgnfld,
” Rather than “exuberance” I would label that era a time of frothing fermentation. Much good, but also much bad going on all across society.”
Fermentation, froth, foment, fumination, fragmentation… fragging… Tensions rose in the 50’s until they burst out in the 60’s. Certainly a renaissance for music. All kinds of things happening in every genre and level, high brow and low.
But if you listened, underneath it all the world sure sounded different in the late 60s / early 70s before corporate capture.
Eve of Destruction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I&list=RDqfZVu0alU0I&start_radio=1
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnJFhuOWgXg&list=RDQnJFhuOWgXg&start_radio=1
Feel Like I’m Fixin’ To Die Rag
(Woodstock)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRl6-bHlz-4&list=RDeRl6-bHlz-4&start_radio=1
Machine Gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw2L_vGUMtE&list=RDLw2L_vGUMtE&start_radio=1
(That’s what we don’t want to hear anymore, right?” -Hendrix )
What’s Going On
(palate cleanser)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M&list=RDH-kA3UtBj4M&start_radio=1
Ray Ladbury, Hmm, did you consider that the 1950s were exuberant precisely because the war–perhaps the darkest period in modern human history–had ended?
Yes.
The science fiction of the time is full of trepidation for the creations men had wrought–Godzilla is a literal cinematic manifestation of the fear of technology
That’s true. Remembering the 60s though, I think the fear really amplified at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I remember Duck and Cover in school and didn’t understand why were doing that.
And for women and minorities, it was anything but positive
You’re exactly right. White peoples acted like the “others” didn’t exist.
There was no golden age…ever
I didn’t say I agreed with it. Just that people felt better. After the war and all the crap people had gone through it felt (for white parole at least) like a collective sigh of relief.
“People”???
WHICH people? Minorities and women, for example???
Ray
I just want to follow up on this
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/04/unforced-variations-apr-2026/#comment-847463
and I think it does relate to how we communicate about science in general.
Your last sentence…
“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.”
…sounds a lot like what I said:
“Accepting that doesn’t mean we should stop observing and measuring and calculating and predicting.”
That’s why we say “Shut up and calculate.” We accept that “philosophy” is not necessary to do our clever monkey tricks.
The point I was making about your comment was that you aren’t willing to accept that distinction, and you are trying to connect physics to words that are undefined (except by your personal dictionary). You aren’t thinking like a physicist is supposed to.
When Ron asks “is that all there is?”, the correct answer is no. Physics tells us that.
If he asks “OK then what is there?”, the answer is that we can’t know, completely. Even if you go outside the cave, you will just be in a bigger cave.
I am willing to entertain any evidence presented. I have yet to see any evidence of supernatural or extra-physical phenomena. In the absence of such evidence, what is there to investigate?
Do feel freeto engage in all the pointless, unconstrained philosophical speculation you want.
For me. Lifee is short. I choose to focus on areas where I can advance understanding, however incrementally.
This is only anecdotal, but I witnessed a strange occurrence once. I mentioned it on my blog at the time. Just a short sentence or two I think. It was during a hike on the remote PCT. It might not have been an actual “non-physical” phenomenon as another explanation such as a UAP (UFO) might be possible. Additionally a forest fire was happening about 10 or 15 miles away (that I didn’t know about until I the next day) so I guess it could be kind of theoretically possible that what I saw was a fireball but that seems unlikely. As far a I know fireballs don’t last that long. Also other factors would have to have occurred such as it’s flying over the tops of the trees then zipping down to a level of about maybe 6 feet above the ground and going by in a horizontal manner. Nor was it, according to AI, a “Gnome” (I just looked it up).
I was about 5 miles from Stehekin, Washington. I was in my tent at night deleting pictures and apps because I was getting messages that my cheap android phone was running out of space from my taking of so many pictures. I was worried because I needed to continue to use a certain backcountry navigator. It was dark and I was by myself. So I was lying down deleting. Suddenly out of the corner of my eye I see a bright yellow/green light that I judged to be about beach ball sized zipping silently past behind the trees. I turned my head instantly to look. As it moved it was very temporarily obscured then revealed again, then obscured and revealed again by the trees when it moved past them, so I judged that it was real. I was aware that there was a huge chasm on the other side of the trees. No one that I know of could have gone on that side or moved that fast. And that’s about it. I am certain I saw it.
Perhaps it was a some unknown natural phenomena. Only fairly recently have sprites been discovered for example. I’m drawing no conclusions. I was aware that people were camped out about a mile or so behind me. The direction the beach ball was moving. I later looked online for confirmation from them because I figured someone would have reported it, but no one else did, or if they did they didn’t say anything about it.
It only lasted a few seconds. Maybe I was seeing things too. I’m agnostic about a lot of things. I’m not trying to gain notoriety. In fact I’m reticent to say anything. That’s why I’ve not mentioned it in almost 10 years.
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/my-pct-section-hike/
Actually, if our hosts decide not to publish this I wouldn’t mind at all. I could just send it to Ray Ladbury if he lets me and see what he thinks.
Ray Ladbury wrote: “I have yet to see any evidence of supernatural or extra-physical phenomena.”
With all due respect, you have yet to DEFINE either “supernatural” or “extra-physical” (or “physical” for that matter).
But then, neither has anyone else in this discussion.
SA: With all due respect, you have yet to DEFINE either “supernatural” or “extra-physical” (or “physical” for that matter).
BPL: I picture reality as a Venn Diagram with a circle B instead a larger area A. B is nature, or what we can perceive or imply using empirical methods. A is the supernatural, the realm of God and/or spirits; the route there is by divine revelation or other mystical methods. To the atheist, the area A – B is a null set; to the theist; A – B contains something real.
SA
“DEFINE”
Some people did last month. and you discussed “consciousness” as I recall. The problem is that, as you described in that comment, there are all kinds of interpretations of these words.
I think Radge came closest to addressing the issue I raised with Ray with the term “unknown unknowns”; I would just make that unknowable unknowns. But this way of understanding “the universe” is supported by physics and mathematics and logic, not just traditional philosophies.
It is hardly an argument for Gods and spirits, but, as I said originally, a matter of humility. And yes, I understand that I am claiming to “have the answer” by claiming not to have the answer. So it goes.
Barton, how do you reconcile your faith with your science? I know you are also a strong believer in science. Could your faith be willful self delusion based on perhaps being raised in religious tradition and a reactance to give that up (hope) along, perhaps, with family relationships and the friendships and possibly the deacon position you’ve acquired in the church?
Note that I’m not taking a position one way or the other, theism or atheism, nor doubting your honesty. I don’t. Just wondering specifically how you are reconciling the two positions.
While he accepted evolution once it began Darwin was stymied when he considered the origin of the universe. He felt that there are mysteries which the mind of man was not evolved to grasp. He didn’t want to trade one form of dogmatism for another, atheism, the confident assertion of a believer (this time in the reverse) that says, “I know all that there is”.. Einstein, as far as I can tell felt similarly. They felt that agnosticism was the only real position in the face of ultimate mystery. In the face of the complexity of the universe and all that would have to have come together for it and eventually life to evolve from nothing. Is some sort of creator or at least organizer behind it all? It seems possible.
On the other hand the universe that we can see, can detect with 5 senses and can test and measure, obeys only naturalistic laws, it seems. Thus all that exists, we hear. All that is possible then, atheists assert.. Yet mysteries remain.
——
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. ~Hebrews 11:1
(My quoting this it’s not to be taken as belief. Just to add to the discussion)
Just adding something that seems relevant to the thread. The evolutionary scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins said he didn’t believe in a god in the sense of the bibles patriachal god that created earth and humans, but he conceded there may be a god in the sense of a great power behind the universe that we don’t understand. I lean towards athiesm, but this really resonated with me and sounds credible.
I would say perhaps we can never know about such a power, but we cant be certain we can never know, and the best tool for finding out we have is science.
Sorry Barton. Just reread that. Wrote it in the middle of the night. I meant no disrespect in how I wrote that at all. I think you’re great. Seems I’m always sticking my foot in my mouth. Maybe I should take a break.
Zebra, yeah. Or again a Feynman said, the pursuit of knowledge is an infinite process; every answer provides a new set of questions.
I’m not sure women and minorities at the time saw it so darkly. Our perception is based upon the past, and I don’t think conditions had deteriorated, they were pretty much stuck roughly where they were for the past couple of decades. Now if we transported present day people back in a time machine, they would notice a regression in theirs rights and status.
TGH, as always when trying to generalize over an entire defined group of people (“women”, “minorities”, etc.) you would find a wide range of opinions and experiences. However, I think the phrase “pretty much stuck” that you used describes the mid-century experience of a lot of people in those groups and some others. Some were happy with their place in life, but quite a few very much objected to being “stuck” as the normative heterosexual white men moved forward. This objection to being treated as second class or worse led to a very energetic Black civil rights movement. There were also a couple of “brown” movements among people with Mexican heritage or Native American. The second wave of feminism took off, as a lot of women put a finger on their own dissatisfaction with their state of affairs. The movement for gay rights also began.
So, a lot of people objected at the time to their experiences. The people in those movements didn’t need a time machine to object to their status, or reject earlier norms.
Isn’t that the point? They were viewed as so inconsequential, no one bothered to ask.
Picking a nt here, so don’t get too excited about it, folks: Hmm, did you consider that the 1950s were exuberant precisely because the war–perhaps the darkest period in modern human history–had ended?
That war was nowhere near the darkest period in human history. Just sayin’… Add “…recent human…” and I’d have no nit to pick.
WW2 killed 70 – 85 million people in total, and there’s also the massive scale of property damage. There was also the deliberate extermination of a race of people purely done for racial purity reasons.
The Black death caused 25 – 50 million deaths. The wars and invasions of colonisation killed roughly 50 million directly and up to another 150 million indirectly, basically all as a means to acquire resources. The depopulation of native American Indians killed about 10 million.
Source of numbers: MS Copilot and cross checked Google Gemini for the colonisation issue, all using Britannica, Wikipedia etc, etc.
Which is darkest period? Depends on how you define darkest. The period of colonisation killed the most people and is very dark, but I think WW2 is particularly dark because of the Jewish issue.
Ray Ladbury says
1 MAY 2026
I once read something that I’ve lived by ever since. That was back around 1984. It said to follow the truth whenever and wherever it may lead.
I don’t pretend at all to know anything (though I obviously lean a certain way, at least for now). That’s why I asked. Truthfully I think some of that was just splitting hair semantics.
Anyway our hosts have kindly provided this month’s UV thread on time and provided some talking points. Blessed relief. From my hot air as well. :)
I am often amused by/non-plussed at/saddened by/incredulous that, etc., people who should be allies are not.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Gavin
RE: CO2 Does Not Cause Heating of Air!
Please go to the late John L. Daly’s website: ” Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page, go to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on “Australia”. There is displayed a list of weather stations. Click on “Adelaide”.
The chart shows a plot of the annual mean temperature from 1857 to 1999. In 1857 the concentration of CO2 was ca. 280 ppmv (0.55 g CO2/cu. m. of air), and by 1999 it had increased to 368 ppmv (0.72 g CO2/cu. m. of air) but there was no corresponding increase in the annual mean temperatures in this port city. Instead there a slight cooling which began in ca 1940 . In 1857 the the annual mean temperature was 17.2° C, and by 1999 it had declined to 16.7° C. Darwin showed a similar cooling.
To obtain recent Adelaide temperature data, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/average-temperature-by-year.
The Thi and Tlo temperature data from 1887 to 2025 is displayed in a long table. In 2025 the computed Tav was 17.4° C and the concentration of CO2 was 427 ppmv (0.84 g CO2/cu. m. of air). After 168 years there has been no warming of air in Adelaide. Note how little CO2 there is in the air.
The above empirical data, calculations, and the over 200 temperature charts from John Daly’s website falsifies the claims by the IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that CO2 causes “global warming” and is the “control knob of climate change”. Administrator Lee Zeldin has rescinded the Endangerment Finding of 2009 for CO2 that it was a threat to human health and welfare. Thus there is no need to reduce the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil. fuels. I live in Canada which has long and snowy winters . Fossil fuels keep 41 million people from freezing to death in winter.
You should cease talking about greenhouse gas CO2 causing global waring.
Jr.,
You should cease talking about greenhouse gas CO2 causing global waring.
Sounds like a command if not a threat. You have a problem with other people speaking freely?
Harold. Please. Get help!
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is showing that Adelaide’s mean temperature rise trend is in the band 0.1 – 0.15°C/decade from 1970 to 2025. Over that period, nowhere in Australia is showing a falling trend in temperature.
In Darwin, the temperature rise over that period was in the band 0.15-0.2°C/decade.
https://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi
For Australia as a whole, you can see the trend since 1910 here:
https://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi
Eyeballing this stuff off a list of temperatures probably isn’t a great way to go.
Note that before 1910, there was no national meteorology organisation in Australia (Australia didn’t exist as a nation until 1901). Before the establishment of the Bureau in 1910, a lot of the arrangements for recording climate data were somewhat ad hoc:
https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/
Harold,
First off let’s ignore the clear bias of using only Adeline when there’s 100 stations in Australia, let alone the world.
Let’s look at the data you provided.
The series is not a clean proxy for Adelaide’s warming signal.
Early Adelaide records contain anonymously hot years. ( 1914, 1919, 1921, 1930 and 1934) For example.
The record then return to a less extreme temperature, which makes it look like there has been no warming when in fact it has.
The Bureau of Meteorology explicitly warns that temperature data before 1910 should be used with extreme caution because stations used non-standard shelters. Adelaide also moved it’s station, which can influence the trend.
But let’s look at the actual trend without the first anomalous high years
1887–2025
-0.01 °C/decade
1950–2025
+0.15 °C/decade
1980–2025
+0.23 °C/decade
1990–2025
+0.26 °C/decade
As you can see when the first years are filtered away the rate increase is quite clear, and it is accelerating.
Looking at the entire set of Australian weather stations (and not cherry picking data).
1910–2025
+0.14 °C/decade
1950–2025
+0.20 °C/decade
1980–2025
+0.22 °C/decade
1990–2025
+0.25 °C/decade
2000–2025
+0.33 °C/decade
Or you can use the total anomaly (from 1910-1930 as baseline)
Year – anomaly
1910s: +0.00 °C
1940s: +0.01 °C
1970s: +0.33 °C
2000s: +1.03 °C
2020–2025: +1.44 °C
All from BoM data.
As you can see, what you wrote is bullcrap, but I guess you knew that already? Didn’t you?
Adelaides very high temperatures around 1930 remind me of America’s very high temperatures around 1920 -1940, due to the dust bowl and heatwave conditions, related in turn to meteorological conditions and both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans being simultaneously in a warming phase. So all a rare freak occurrence.
From the 1970s onwards until presently theres a clear warming trend in America. Didnt stop the skeptical guys falsely claiming theres been no warming since the 1930s.
HPJ: The above empirical data, calculations, and the over 200 temperature charts from John Daly’s website falsifies the claims by the IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that CO2 causes “global warming” and is the “control knob of climate change”.
BPL: Darn those unscrupulous scientists! People shouldn’t listen to them! They should listen to some blogger on the internet!
To Harold The Flat-Earther:
You are posting laughable nonsense and crude, clumsy, clownish lies. In a word, DRIVEL.
It is stupid. It is boring. It is utterly pointless.
All you are accomplishing is to embarrass and humiliate yourself in public.
HPJ For the topic that you broached (in the form of an utterly-absurd, ignorant Troll) it is irrelevant that “Fossil fuels keep 41 million people from freezing to death in winter” because the Physical Realities of the Universe don’t give a monkeys about any such thing. Thus, it is actually Harmful to 41 million people who might be “freezing to death in winter” to put the collective head in the sand and simply pretend that the relevant Absolutely-Definite, fully theorized and MEASURED non stop since 1964 Physical Realities of the Universe will accept abeyance in order to avoid having 41 million people “freezing to death in winter”. The solution to 41 million people “freeze to death in winter” is primarily (absolutely Primarily) to reverse unfettered Capitalism survival of the fittest (the use of humans by other humans for their own pleasure), back it off just a few notches, and to Negotiate Between Tribes a Workable time-line for transition to increased Power generation by means. Those 2 things would do it.
So, although greatly-increased removal of crude from the Alberta Tar Sands will greatly help the Troll HPJ (who is Not Dutch because RealClimate is too cheap to pay money to Commenters like myself in exchange for eye balls on endless poop-deodorant adverts) it will NOT in the slightest affect the Physical Realities of the Universe.
As I correctly pointed out on this Web Site few months ago the sole purpose of Life is competition to the death (the fake replies to which all addressed “life” instead of my “Life” because you’all is navel gazers) but Negotiation is the key. Stupid, sickening Trolling like HPJ and millions/billions of others helps only a minority of this particular Life species I got born into (in this case an attempt to raise the relevant status of random HPJ) while lowering the status of other humans to “minimal” or “non survivable” and lowering the status of much other Life to “non survivable”. Got my fingers warmed up for the morning to combat arthritis (the only purpose of any of this, or Life) so that’s it. Each winter here at north Lake Huron is less fun than the winter before because of the Wondrous Miracle of “aging” but I’m strong enough for a few more years.
Re. “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. ”
No, or almost no, professional historian considers Gibbons as authoritative any more in terms of actual analyses of events. I suggest you ask around any pros you might happen to know. (Remember I am an ex-prof with historian associates and have a pro historian in my close family who just passed her defense.) He is considered brilliant in many ways. BUT, his thesis that Rome fell due to a loss of civic virtue* and the rise of Christianity reflects Enlightenment biases and is not widely accepted by contemporary scholars. That said, I guess you do however most modern scholars suggest that the rise of Christianity _preserved_ many Roman institutions through the Middle Ages.
_______
*That said, I don’t see much in the way of “civic virtue” at the top of the US govt, at least, these days! Only its opposite.
I agree with you. I did read and watch a lot documentaries of other historical works besides those I listed. But perhaps I let Gibbons views influence me a bit too much. I read it in high school. Others were saying the sort of same thing though, like Robert Sallares and Jacob Burckhardt, even Immanuel Kant. I do admit to wondering how much of our current “offend no-one” politically correct revisionism might later prove to have been true after all. Anyway, as a rule I took the popular view of dark ages as meaning the pre-enlightenment period. We’ll say that.
When in June 2012, the local Sheriff told us that we had one hour to pack a bag and evacuate the premises ahead of the High Park Fire, I learned that things you see on TV can happen to you too. Fortunately, the place survived, (at least until the Cameron Peak Fire of 2020). After that I became a regular observer of the US Drought Monitor, so I might be better prepared for the next time. Ironically, due to Covid, I left just before the Cameron Fire.
This year’s maps have been some of the worst I can recall. I never thought that I would see the south east with almost 60 percent in extreme drought and 95 percent in severe drought. With rising sea levels and low rainfall, and built on a 3 mile thick platform of limestone, I wonder: will Florida face severe salt ingress of its aquifers? I have no doubt, however, that their perspicacious Governor will have effective ways of avoiding such an occurrence, or, at least, the blame for it, should it become a problem.
See: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?Southeast
“will Florida face severe salt ingress of its aquifers?”
That has alaways been a given. That is, “Well, Duh!” That is, yes, certainly, Florida is a Dead Man Walking, much like the report I saw yesterday saying NOLA is, too. Both things, say it with me now!, I talked about nearly 20 years ago…
Asking from a position of genuine ignorance here, does the rainfall from a hurricane result in a statistically significant amount of aquifer recharge, or does it just run off?
Which aquifer? Which hurricane’s rainfall totals over which areas?
Does the rain dumped by hurricanes contribute to aquifer recharge? (Google AI)
<blockquote<Yes, the immense rain dumped by hurricanes significantly contributes to aquifer recharge, particularly for shallow aquifers, though the intensity of the storm can sometimes limit effectiveness. While heavy rainfall is vital for recharging groundwater, often acting as a crucial water source, much of it may also be lost to rapid surface runoff, evaporation, or flooding before it can infiltrate deep into the ground….etc.
Also, not just rain
Impact of hurricanes storm surges on the groundwater resources
https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70030118
Hurricanes can also cause contamination, so it’s not just potentially toxic to wade around in, it can get into aquifers.
Hurricane rainfall will both run off and do aquifer recharge. In Florida there would be recharge, since much of the area has porous soil or karst topography that has crevices and sinkholes that lead down to the aquifer.
Ron R on last months UV page: “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.”
I think its partly a generational issue. I was a young guy in the 1960s and 1970s, and technology felt amazing and positive. Now I’m retired, and I feel a little bit more negative and cynical about technology. I suspect this is partly because I’m older and a bit wiser, and partly because I get frustrated with information technology although I do think its impressive. You will probably find young people today embrace technology, and think its positive and amazing and easy to use, as they learn it from day one in school.
There are other contributing reasons. Ray Ladbury is right. There was a tremendous feeling of being on a high after the war years ended. Society was happy and more united than presently in some ways at least such as politically. (Some people were excluded like minorities.) We are now in a doomy, gloomy miserable mood to an extent, due to a stagnant economy and the Iran fuel crisis issue. And theres more partisan political division in society currently.
We are also facing the stark reality that industrialisation is pushing the environment well into the danger zone, and the solutions to this are neither simple or easy. Its the climate issue and all sorts of other issues. We are at some sort of crossroads or change point, and society hasn’t really come together committed to a firm course yet on anything. And there’s a lot of societal division between people pushing environmentalism, and other people pushing highest possible economic growth. Its found its way into the tribal political divisions. I suspect the complexity of the challenges and the societal divisions make people negative and gloomy at times. Hopefully this situation improves and society comes together as it did after WW2.
Nigel. I don’t disagree with anything you said. Remember I said that that’s how people generally felt at the time, not necessarily how I feel it was. Giddy. Why? All the reasons I listed above and in the blog article I linked to (including that the war had ended – Ray must have missed that part. :). As I’ve said before, I am not a technology-phile myself. I mean I desperately want it to help solve our problems; nothing else is working and population and other issues wise, were running out of time. But personally, I find it equally maddening as helpful.
The 1950s felt to most people to be a giddy time (in comparison to the previous hell), as I think you’re saying. But then came the 1960s and the malaise started. There was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Duck and cover, reinforced underground shelters, and the Damocles Sword that certain governments forced us, and still do, to live under. FEAR. The Doomsday Clock. Spy and counter spy (did those people that invented the bomb really think that they could keep such a secret like that from other governments?). There were the assassinations of three good people, John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King (were there more, I can’t remember). I was too young to remember John Kennedy but I remember that of Robert Kennedy and MLK. Watching those on TV. Being shocked that anyone would do that to good men. The 70s felt depressing to me. Just didn’t like it.
Partly we recovered a bit with the moon landings. Temporarily brought the world together. But we did it and then stopped as we couldn’t find a reason to continue. The only good thing about T is that he’s put some emphasis back on going to the moon again. But that started the Overview Effect again. Maybe counter to his desires… That’s a lot of what kick started environmentalism in the first place! That view of the earth from space and thinking about the sterile planets in comparison.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-nasas-artemis-ii-tells-us-about-the-overview-effect-moon-joy-and-awe/
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/a-glimpse-of-divinity/
Mars? I shake my head, but who knows.
in Re to Ron R., 2 May 2026 at 5:09 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/05/unforced-variations-may-2026/#comment-847513
Hallo Ron,
Just to add another perspective:
As soon as Communist Party succeeded to gain absolute power in Czechoslovakia in February 1948
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Czechoslovak_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat ,
they started to persecute everyone whom they perceived as a potential threat for their rule. Up to 200 000 people were arrested, hundreds sentenced in staged processes to death, thousands died in prisons and forced labour camps. Until Stalin’s death in 1953, Czechoslovak government secretly prepared the country for the expected World War III, with the aim to help Soviet Union conquer and subjugate the entire Europe.
The enormous military spendings brought Czechoslovak economy near to collapse that was averted by “currency reform” (1953), wherein people practically lost their savings. Spontaneous protests in industrial cities were suppressed by military troops
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plze%C5%88sk%C3%A9_povst%C3%A1n%C3%AD_(1953)
Greetings
Tomáš
You’re right, Tomáš. I was writing from the perspective of the free world. NATO. I didn’t include the viewpoints of those who were still subjugated or became subjugated by the communist party. I apologize.
in Re to Ron R., 4 May 2026 at 11:24 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/05/unforced-variations-may-2026/#comment-847569
Hallo Ron,
Thank you for your reply. As I wrote, I just wanted to mention another perspective from the complex world. No need to apologize.
To return to your thought-provoking question from the last month, I tried to learn something about dark energy. It seems to be a property of the space itself. If so, it may be still quite unclear if it can be anyhow implemented in the concepts of classical thermodynamics. I think that it is generally unclear yet if (or how) these concepts can be extrapolated on the entire Universe.
Greetings
Tomáš
I’m sure there are a good number of countries that view themselves as pert of the “free world” that aren’t in NATO. I live in one.
Tomáš, I might say something but that would be from ignorance. I bow to Ray Ladbury about that. I will say in general however that I think that science is just starting, not ending.
” Now I’m retired, and I feel a little bit more negative and cynical about technology. I suspect this is partly because I’m older and a bit wiser”
You’re welcome (for your education here at, primarily, my urging). Perhaps now you’ll apologize for your rudeness circa 2017 ~ 2026 and acknowledge what you’ve been taught.
Killian cant conceive that somebody may have become negative and cynical about technology without his guidance. And for the record, being cynical about technology does not mean I support plans of cutting the use of modern technology and total energy use by 80% by 2050. It’s too fast and so would cause a disaster and is unlikely to be adopted. Anyone who cant see why, should shine a torch in one ear and check to see if light comes out through the other ear.
“There was a tremendous feeling of being on a high after the war years ended. Society was happy and more united than presently in some ways at least such as politically. (Some people were excluded like minorities.) We are now in a doomy, gloomy miserable mood to an extent, due to a stagnant economy and the Iran fuel crisis issue. And theres more partisan political division in society currently.”
I think there is a touch of rosy retrospection here. The 1950’s still had rationing after the war, resources were still limited, then there was the fear of nuclear war in the 60’s, the 1970’s fuel crisis, winter of discontent, widespread industrial action spurring a trend to voting for right wing neo-liberal governments which has at least partly led to where we are today. Then you had sexism and racism that was a lot worse than it is today, which was largely accepted because “that is just the way it is” with some older people still believing that was better than the heightened awareness of social injustices we have today (aka woke). The past is not as glorious as some older people like to believe, they remember the good times and incorrectly project that onto the whole of their history. It is like the way my grandmother used to claim that her childhood winters were always cold and snowy and the summers were hot and sunnny (this is the UK), no they weren’t, she is selectively remembering the seasons which are memorable as a child because they are coincident with good times (playing in the snow, summer holidays), people don’t remember 50 years later, days of sitting indoors reading a book listening to the rain pouring down outside.
[I intended to post it on April 1st, but with April thread delayed, here it is now, in time for Putin’s victory parade on May 9]:
Nigel: Trump and maga versus their opponents is like an extreme form of the school conflicts of the jocks versus the nerds
Except these are low-level risks. As opposed to the unhinged people who mistake reality TV for reality, or who treat images of real deaths as if it were “death” in the first person shooter game, and yet have the nuclear button within their reach, and the weight of the United States behind them.
Then again, I’ve never thought “Shrek” was documentary. In case if you skipped it as a kids movie, you might reconsider. Here is a part of the plotline:
– a country is ruled by Lord Farquaad, an inept, deeply insecure, ruler, living in massive tower-like castle. So much so, that upon seeing the said castle (let’s call it “Farquaad Tower”) – the title character Shrek quips to his sidekick Donkey: “ Do you think he’s compensating for something?”
– Farquaad decides to clear his realm of the undesirables – fairy tales types whose very presence spoils his “perfect kingdom”. His goons set up check points, interrogate passing folks, demand their identification, arrest the undesirables, and deport them to the place widely considered a “swamp”.
– Proud of himself Farquaad boasts to his mirror: – “ Mirror, mirror, on the wall, isn’t it the most perfect kingdom of them all? ”
– the Mirror, which by the fairy-tale tradition is supposed to provide the unvarnished truth to the power, replies: “Well, technically your are not a King”
– Farquaad: “Argh, Fellonius!” – beckoning his goon, who threatens the Mirror by punching the lights out of a much smaller mirror. Immediately persuaded, the Mirror on the Wall changes his tune, becomes a court sycophant, and presents to Farquaad the three available bride candidates, in the format apparently familiar to the ruler – that of the participant introduction on a reality TV show.
– Farquaad chooses a princess, and announces to the people that he will liberate her princess from the terrible oppression by some dark forces. In reality, he is not doing it for the princess, nor for his people, but for himself – to gratify his sexual proclivities (young beautiful bride), to gain him the respect of the people and to consolidate his power – by marrying a princess he would become a true king.
Of course, he won’t do it himself (bone spurs?), instead he calls in the knights and sends them into the fight in his stead, magnanimously announcing: “ Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I am willing to make“.
Which explains my sense of deja-vu upon hearing the President of the United States sending American soldiers into the war on Iran to cement his place in history:
“The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war.”
Life stranger than fiction.
Very funny Piotr. I never saw Shrek , but I certainly see the parallels between your quotes, and a certain political administration. I see parallels with George Orwells 1984 and the same administration, especially “ignorance is strength”. While they don’t openly say that, all their actions certainly imply it. Currently reality is much. much stranger than fiction, and not in a good way.
Nigel: “I never saw Shrek
Then you have to see it, Nigel. You can use your kids? grandkids? as an excuse, but don’t have to – I have seen it the first time on the research icebreaker in the Arctic, no kids within several hundred kms …
That said, Shrek is not the only fairy-tale tie-up of this administration. Kash Patel has proven to Trump his qualification for the FBI head on the strength of his publications in the area of national security, namely:
Patel, Kash, 2022. “The Plot Against The King”, Beacon of Freedom Publishing House, BRAVE Books, 40pp.
In this book, a wizard named “ Kash the Distinguished Discoverer” bravely unearths a plot by “shifty-looking knight” who , on behalf of the dishonest, pretentious “Hillary Queenton”, questions the circumstances of … “King Donald” getting to power.
For more on the qualification of Kash Patel for the head of the FBI see also his other, also real, book where makes his case for: “ The Plot Against the King 3: The Return of the King ” (Patel, Kash, 2024) – review here:
When the life gets stranger than kids fiction and the SNL writers are at their wit’s end, because they can’t outdo the real thing …
Ending the fossil fuel era might be finally closer than we thought possible. A non-COP alternative to solving the climate emergency, on time, has started its work in Santa Marta, Colombia. It was a great success.
“Hope is contagious and science is king: 10 big lessons on ending the fossil fuel era
At world-first Santa Marta climate meeting, delegates say it was ‘euphoric’ to finally be focusing on concrete solutions”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/may/01/santa-marta-colombia-climate-conference-ending-fossil-fuel-era
Well, here it is:
The time has come to begin the process of evacuating and abandoning a major American city to the rising sea:
“The process of relocating people from New Orleans should start immediately, as the city has reached a point of no return that will see it surrounded by the ocean within decades due to the climate crisis, a stark new study has concluded. Ongoing sea-level rise and the rampant erosion of wetlands in southern Louisiana will swallow up the New Orleans area within a few generations, with the new paper estimating the city may well be surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico before the end of this century …
“This scenario makes the region the most physically vulnerable coastal zone in the world, the researchers state, and requires immediate action to prepare a smooth transition for people away from New Orleans, which has a population of about 360,000 people, to safer ground.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/04/new-orleans-sea-levels-relocation-climate-crisis
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-026-01820-z.epdf
“Energy and Carbon Payback Times for Modern U.S. Utility Photovoltaic Systems” https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88653.pdf
EPBTs of 1.2 to 0.5 yrs, depending on location (solar resource, grid efficiency ηG), source of module/location of manufacture, EOL (landfill vs recycling (partial or …)).
“An Updated Life Cycle Assessment of Utility-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Systems Installed in the United States” https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/87372.pdf (Brittany L. Smith, Ashok Sekar, Heather Mirletz, Garvin Heath, Robert Margolis)
(see “Table 3. Utility-Scale PV System Characteristics” p.20
“Table ES-1. LCA Results for the Six Main Cases Evaluated in This Report” p8)
EROEI would = Life/EPBT if EPBT is based on Lifetime average performance, but EPBT can be shorter if based on the (expectation value of) performance over time; I’m not entirely sure which form of EPBT is reported up front but it wouldn’t be a large difference (maybe 10%) (−0.7% * 30yr/2 = −10.5 %; ie. 30 yr ≈ 27 yr_eq. as new)
When I was looking deeper into this, though, I noticed MJ_{oil eq.} being used, and looking at the equation, … I’ve gotten the impression (elsewhere) that this methodology was not set up with long-term sustainability in a mostly-electrified energy system in mind (?). (
https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IEA_PVPS_Task12_Methodological_Guidelines_NEA_2021_report.pdf )
Primary fuel energy may be converted into electricity at ~ 30 – 40%, but may be used in high-T process heat, which might be replaced by a still smaller but more similar amount of electricity (90%?, 75%? (glass?)), or may be used chemically (ie in reduction of Fe, Si, Al? (as C-electrodes), which may/would require more than 100% of the same energy in electrical form to replace , so…
https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains/executive-summary
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/d2ee601d-6b1a-4cd2-a0e8-db02dc64332c/SpecialReportonSolarPVGlobalSupplyChains.pdf :
p21 “Material composition shares of crystalline silicon and CdTe thin-film solar PV modules by weight and average value, 2021” (Fig)
p43 “Transport accounts for only 3% of total CO2 emissions from solar PV manufacturing”
p36-37 “Energy consumption”
&: (emph mine)
(p37) “Energy consumption of solar PV manufacturing by segment, 2015-2021 (left), and energy intensity per segment (right)” (Fig) (“Source: Right graph: IEA-PVPS (2020).”)
…
… back to https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/87372.pdf (p34) “Figure 7. CED per kWdc over the life cycle of a UPV system installed in the United States: 20.3% efficient monofacial PERC modules, single-axis tracker, 0.7% degradation rate, 30-year system life”
MJ_{oil eq.} /kW_{dc} Quick visual est. 80% of panel CED ~ 7000 (weighted av.) out of ~ 12000, so 12 – 7 = 5, 5*3 = 15, 15+7 = 22, mult. Fredonia KS EPBT by 22/12, 0.6*11/6 = 1.1.
Corrected EPBT?? 1.1 yrs (+/-??). Very rough est. But still doesn’t look too bad.
There’s a lot … TLDR so I could be missing things…
…
Well, that was actually supposed to be a near-upper bound (for Fredonia KS), ie. hoping that the portions of BOS + installation/site preparation + O&M etc. that are actually electric already or could reduce CED by going electric would be at least enough to offset the fuel as feedstock issue. Ie. it (EPBT) may be between 0.6 and 1.1 yrs.
Patrick, good commentary. I dont know enough physics and math to 100% understand all your post but it seems generating companies are embracing solar power and they would only do that if the eroi was reasonably good. So isnt it pretty much that simple?
It’s a delayed response to stuff Killian said …~ maybe a few weeks ago.
The formulation of the EPBT (and implied EROEI = eq.Life / EPBT (eq.Life ≈ as new if EPBT is ‘in real time’ and short)…
PS from p62 of the NREL study, I get eq.Life as new ≈ 27.08 to 27.16 yrs (Fredonia KS 27.1 yrs) (approx. 1st yr performance as new (ie. time 0)).
… is that it is, for EROEI, much better to generate electricity by using UPV (Utility-scale PV) made in-part by fossil fuels, than to use fossil fuels directly. But ultimately we want the clean energy infrastructure to be able to sustain itself (in the context of the whole world society/economy/ecosystem etc.), and Killian and the multitroll express doubts.
Worst case(?**), just take given ~EPBT*3, and we still get EROEIs of ~ 7.5 to 18 (Fredonia KS ~15) (assuming ‘real time’ EPBTs), but including storage, increases in T&D, &/or overbuild(?) &/or demand-side thermal energy storage (TES) (which I hope would help mitigate the need for overbuild, etc.) … it would be nice to be able to show we can be comfortably above the net energy cliff. (position of said cliff depending on methodology/system definition)
I agree the prices are a good sign.
** hold on, I had an idea…
“ When I was looking deeper into this, though, I noticed MJ_{oil eq.} being used, and looking at the equation, …” (1) p.19 “An Updated Life Cycle Assessment of Utility-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Systems Installed in the United States”
But the lack of fuel input shown for the module stage in https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/d2ee601d-6b1a-4cd2-a0e8-db02dc64332c/SpecialReportonSolarPVGlobalSupplyChains.pdf (SRSPV-GSC), (p37) “Energy consumption of solar PV manufacturing by segment, 2015-2021 (left), and energy intensity per segment (right)” (Fig) (“Source: Right graph: IEA-PVPS (2020).”) makes me wonder if they didn’t include the CED for glass and Al (frame).(?)
“ Notes: Mg-si = metallurgical-grade silicon. So-si* = solar-grade silicon using the Siemens process. sc-si = monocrystalline wafers. mc-si = multicrystalline wafers.”
visually est. from that fig.: kWh/kW, (ignoring sig.fig.s):
for sc-Si ___ : total ; electricity ; coal ; nat gas
Total PV panel: 548 ; 449 ; 19 ; 80
_______ Mg-si: 53 ; 33 ; 19 ; 0
_______ So-si: 170 ; 145 ; 0 ; 25
_______ sc-si: 176 ; 120 ; 0 ; 56
_______ Cell: 79 ; 79 ; 0 ; 0
___ Module: 70 ; 70 ; 0 ; 0
3.6 MJ = 1 kWh , electricity * 1/0.3524 to compare to values in:
link text “An Updated Life Cycle Assessment of Utility-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Systems Installed in the United States” (ULCA-USSPSI)
see “Table 3. Utility-Scale PV System Characteristics” p.20 ( grid efficiency η_G: “35.24% (2021 U.S. average)”
left: MJ primary eq. / kW (for sc-Si: total, calculated from (IEA) SRSPV-GSC, p37, η_G = 35.24%) ;
right: US weighted ave. values (ULCA-USSPSI (NREL) p34 fig.7 & p.74 “Table B2. CED (MJoil-eq per kWdc) data from Figure 7”)
Total PV panel: 4942 ; 8583
__ silica sand: —– ; 3
_______ Mg-si: 410 ; 580 silicon metal
_______ So-si: 1574 ; 2600 polysilicon
_______ sc-si: 1430 ; 1100 ingot
______ wafer: —– ; 230
_______ Cell: 809 ; 770 (PERC)
___ Module: 719 ; 3300
…
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/photovoltaics-report.html ( “Photovoltaics Report [ PDF 4.82 MB ]”) (I believe this is for rooftop PV, though some/many values would apply to PV generally.)
p. 35 Polysilicon g/Wp was (visually est.) ~ 3 in 2020 , ~ 2 in 2024, and slightly under 2 (~1.9?) in 2025.
EPBT see pp.36-39
p.40: PV module 11.6 kg/m² (@22%eff , 67.5 % glass, 12.7 % Al frame …)
my calculations: @ 22%eff:
module: 52.7 g/Wp
glass: 7.83 kg/m² , 35.6 g/Wp
Al frame: 1.47 kg/m² , 6.70 g/Wp
Si: 0.313 kg/m², 1.42 g/Wp
(140 µm * 1 m² = 10000 cm² · 0.014 cm³ = 140 cm³,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon Si ρ = 2.329 g/cm³ (@ 20 °C)
2.33 g/cm³ ·140 cm³/m² = 326.2 g/m² )
( https://www.structuralglass.org/single-post/2016/11/26/Glass-Physical-Properties ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Physical_properties : “The density of glass varies with chemical composition with values ranging from 2.2 grams per cubic centimetre (2,200 kg/m3) for fused silica to 7.2 grams per cubic centimetre (7,200 kg/m3) for dense flint glass.[69]”
glass ρ ~ 2.5 g/cm³ (?), @ 3.2 mm → 8 kg/m² )
…
https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2003/data/papers/SS03_Panel1_Paper02.pdf
“U.S. Aluminum Production Energy Requirements: Historical Perspective, Theoretical Limits, and New Opportunities” William T. Choate, BCS, Incorporated; John A. S. Green, Consultant
(emph. mine)
Thermal Power and Climate Change: A Data-Driven Analysis of Cause and Effect, 1800-2100
Tadeusz W Patzek
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 7 of this Preprint.
Free pdf book download 423 pgs
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/10865/
P. 310 Carrying capacity of Earth
A.5. Summary
It should now be clear that human well-being hinges on the state of the global climate, which our col-
lective actions are driving via bifurcations away from a human-friendly stable regime. A hardwired
human imperative toward expansion – more people and higher throughput – is amplified by growth-
centric economic doctrines, religious narratives, and techno-optimism that equate growth with good.
The result is overshoot: the Earth system responds with warming, extremes, and threshold cross-
ings that lower carrying capacity and force contractions in consumption and, ultimately, population.
Against such biophysical constraints, political rhetoric of unbounded economic growth collides with
physical reality. Whoever wagers against the Second Law of Thermodynamics – as neoliberal economic
doctrine does – always meets the same end: utter collapse and humiliation.
Rees (2023) argues that
[H]uman brain and associated cognitive processes are functionally obsolete to deal with
the human eco-crisis [caused by overshoot, TWP]. H. sapiens tends to respond to problems
in simplistic, reductionist, mechanical ways. Simplistic diagnoses lead to simplistic reme-
dies. Politically acceptable technical ‘solutions’ to global warming assume fossil fuels are
the problem, require major capital investment and are promoted on the basis of profit po-
tential, thousands of well-paying jobs and bland assurances that climate change can readily
be rectified. If successful, this would merely extend overshoot. Complexity demands a sys-
temic approach; to address overshoot requires unprecedented international cooperation in
the design of coordinated policies to ensure a socially-just economic contraction, mostly in
high-income countries, and significant population reductions everywhere.
Keep this in mind: the reductionist scientist—as most of us are trained to be–is far less free than the
jazz musician who improvises without a script. What is required now to break out of the inherited
reductionist cage of our own making is nothing less than a global explosion of deliberate, collective free
will.
Abstract extracts
We follow with an outline of humanity’s true place in Nature and our genetic and physiological dependence on deep geological time, extending back more than 3.6 billion years. We illustrate how our collective learning as a species has been fundamentally subverted by the rise of modern techno-civilization, which has progressively severed most people from their biological and social roles and immersed them in a technological enframing that distorts perception, erodes meaning, and obscures what it means to be human.
As a result, the book is well-suited for advanced high-school students (e.g., AP level), undergraduates in engineering, science, biomedical disciplines, and the liberal arts, as well as graduate students and professionals across fields. It was written for an international readership, including audiences in France, the UK, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain, Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and beyond. (My earlier collaboration with Joseph Tainter was translated into Italian.)
Finally, this book will be especially valuable to policymakers. It distills an immense and often inaccessible body of knowledge—spread across IPCC assessments, specialized computer science, and other scientific literature—into clear, concise language. Even experts frequently lack the time to decipher what dozens of authors and editors intended. This book solves that problem by making essential climate science comprehensible without oversimplifying it.
All that is arguably quite true, but how do you persuade people in developed countries to voluntarily accept a large drop in their consumption levels and material standard of living, for problems that may not even affect them personally, and when the inevitable economic contraction would cause serious long lasting unemployment? Ironically Joseph Tainter understands these issues and believes we may be locked into high levels of energy consumption, until such a time that we run out of fossil fuels or the materials needed for renewables.
UAH has posted TLT for April with the global anomaly at +0.39ºC, marginally up on March’s +0.38ºC and pretty unchanged over the period Jan-Apr 2026. This follows a significant cooling globally through 2025, indeed since early 2024.
The April NH is shown a significantly warmer that March but cooler than Jan & Feb. The NH has been cooling since late 2024, this delay due to a seasonal wobble in the anomalies. The April SH anomaly is warmer than March and, after generally cooling since early 2024, presumably is starting to pick up the beginning of the coming El Niño which is now appearing strongly in ERA5 SST data.
The ERA5 re-analysis SAT is showing roughly similar 2026 change to UAH TLT.
The GISS & NOAA anomalies out in the next week-or-so will be of interest. They have shown a far stronger warming trend in the last couple of months than ERA5 SAT (normally explainable as GISS & NOAA are SAT/SST records) but also warmer than HadCRUT (which uses HadSST rather than ERSST).
The NINO3.4 SST is now jumped above zero, the April average +0.4ºC and the latest week +0.9ºC (which would be solidly into El Niño territory except the latest analyses use RONI not ONI).
Quarterly UAH TLT for 2025-26 Global, NH & SH (& the same for ERA5 SAT**)
2025 JFM … +0.51ºC … … +0.66ºC … … +0.36ºC … … (+0.69ºC … … +1.36ºC … … +0.62ºC)
2025 AMJ … +0.53ºC … … +0.57ºC … … +0.49ºC … … (+0.54ºC … … +1.04ºC … … +0.56ºC)
2025 JAS … +0.43ºC … … +0.48ºC … … +0.37ºC … … (+0.53ºC … … +1.04ºC … … +0.56ºC)
2025 OND … +0.42ºC … … +0.52ºC … … +0.32ºC … … (+0.61ºC … … +1.31ºC … … +0.62ºC)
2026 JFM … +0.37ºC … … +0.46ºC … … +0.28ºC … … (+0.53ºC … … +1.09ºC … … +0.55ºC)
Monthly UAH TLT for 2026 Global, NH & SH (& the same for ERA5 SAT**)
Jan … +0.35ºC … … +0.51ºC … … +0.19ºC … … (+0.51ºC … … +1.10ºC … … +0.47ºC)
Feb … +0.39ºC … … +0.54ºC … … +0.23ºC … … (+0.54ºC … … +1.10ºC … … +0.56ºC)
Mar … +0.38ºC … … +0.33ºC … … +0.42ºC … … (+0.53ºC … … +1.06ºC … … +0.62ºC)
Apr … +0.39ºC … … +0.43ºC … … +0.34ºC … … (+0.52ºC … … +0.99ºC … … +0.62ºC)
(** ERA SAT – Global anomaly base 1991-2020, NH & SH anomaly base 1979-2000.)
Arnt the oceans a better indicator of warming than the atmosphere?
Pete, how do you define “warming”??
That’s a serious question, and people who actually do science should be much more disciplined with language when they are discussing the topic for “the interested public and journalists”.
Oceans, with the advent of the Argo float system, are an excellent indicator of the gain in energy of the Earth’s climate system, which is caused primarily by an increase in CO2.
“Global Warming” is often defined as the increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature, which has served as a proxy for that increase in energy,
So, the answer to your question depends on what the words in your question mean.
Good approximation for wavelengths and with details skipped for brevity. The photons that get from Earth to Outer Space are manufactured by molecules of solids, liquids and GASES of the following types for the various wavelengths approximately tabled and at the following altitude ranges:
wavenumber wavelength — Source of the photon-manufacturing molecules (by collisions) —
(cycles/cm) (microns)
100-580 100-17.2 H2O gas molecules in the troposphere (mostly by far) & stratosphere.
580-770 17.2-13.0 CO2 molecules in the troposphere, except the central stratospheric spike, plus a smaller contribution from H2O gas molecules near 580.
770-970 13.0-10.3 **SURFACE** Molecules in the top 25 microns of Earth’s surface water or outer few microns of surface solids.
970-1052 10.3-9.5 O3 molecules in the troposphere, except the central stratospheric spike.
1052-~1100 9.5-~9.1 **SURFACE** Molecules in the top 25 microns of Earth’s surface water or outer few microns of surface solids
~1100-~1400 ~9.1-~7.1 H2O, CH4 & N2O gas molecules in the troposphere (mostly by far) & stratosphere.
~1400-2220 ~7.1-4.5 H2O gas molecules in the troposphere (mostly by far) & stratosphere.
8% of Earth’s radiation to Outer Space is from surface molecules and 92% is made by clouds, H2O gas, CO2, O3, CH4, N2O & CFCs
The “surface” photon exchange, any and all photon exchange, is Peer-to-Peer and is not Master-Slave as stated by those of the Professional physicists who have negligible Professional ethic (so not Andrew Dessler) and are willing to spout lies because they “look down their noses” at others. So “back radiation”, radiation “re-emitted” & radiation “re-radiated” are all drivel, not matching Reality at all. There’s no radiation going “back” anywhere, that’s just pig-ignorant rubbish. Parrots of the General Public will Parrot rubbish of course because they are clueless. “Downwelling radiation” & “Upwelling radiation” make perfect sense because very few people don’t understand what “Down” & “Up” are intended to mean.
Does anybody know why the most recent daily average Mauna Loa CO2 is unavailable? Hourly measurements are, but daily averages are not. Is it because the hourly data shows an unusually high spread and record values of 440?
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/monthly.html
I see no explanation on the website and I am concerned that they are not allowed to report or even measure the data anymore, as part of the anti-science agenda.
Yes, I notice that the weekly average, which I normally record, is showing -999.99 this week. Whether its technical or political I do not know.
Mistaking AI behaviour for conscious being – https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/10/mistaking-ai-behaviour-for-conscious-being
“Many will recognise the experience: a system that responds with fluency, humour and apparent understanding. At some point, simulation starts to feel like presence. But that shift tells us more about human cognition than machine consciousness. The error is a category one. These systems generate highly convincing representations of thought and feeling, but they provide no evidence of subjective experience. To move from one to the other is to mistake output for ontology – to infer an inner life where there is no credible mechanism for one.
….
“pressure to attribute agency will grow. If we fail to distinguish between behaviour and being, we risk building ethical frameworks on a misreading of the technology.”
‘So much worse than I even thought’: Utah’s ‘hyperscale’ data center could create massive heat island near Great Salt Lake. Utah scientists fear the proposed Stratos Project would generate enough heat to alter temperatures, strain wildlife and intensify environmental threats around the Great Salt Lake. – https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2026/05/07/utahs-data-center-could-create/ [Utah Trib partnership with Grist]
“The project’s boosters say it will likely need 9 gigawatts of energy at full build — more than double the electricity currently used by the entire state of Utah. …. | All the heat the Stratos Project emits will add up to another 7 to 8 gigawatts of energy in the form of waste heat. …. | professor predicts dumping that much heat and energy into Hansel Valley will raise local temperatures by 5F during the day and up to 28 degrees at night.
….
“Box Elder County commissioners approved the project Monday after declining to hear public comment, noting they had no “control” over environmental concerns like water supplies and air quality. Utah’s Military Installation Development Authority, or MIDA, along with Gov. Spencer Cox and Senate President Stuart Adams have been vocal supporters of the project.
….
“Data center developers in other parts of the state are turning to Caterpillar natural gas generators to produce their own power. … around 3,600 of those industrial-scale generators … the equivalent of thousands of diesel engines idling around the clock.
….
““My understanding is that they’re citing non-disclosure agreements (and) proprietary technology,” Davies said. “That’s a red flag, suggesting this is essentially new technology. I can find no example of anything at any working scale that matches the promises they’re making.”
….
“water comes out hot, at about 100F. Cooling it to a temperature that wouldn’t devastate the Great Salt Lake’s ecosystem — which already sits on the brink of collapse due to unsustainable water use upstream — becomes an expensive problem.
….
“air-cooling the water, but that’s difficult during the summer in the high desert. Davies estimates it would take around 400 acres of industrial-scale fans “blowing full tilt” to do the job. That adds to the energy demands and noise pollution.”
[more substance at link]