Climate science from climate scientists...
This month’s open thread on climate topics. The annual ranking horse race is in full swing, discussions of extreme weather abound, Arctic sea ice is reaching it’s annual minimum, and the future of evidence-based policy making seems dim. Oh well.
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.
John Pollack
re: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850044
Ok, John, here we go. First, I applaud your desire to clarify definitions. That’s the first step in having a real scientific discussion, the second being agreement on what question we are trying to answer. First step:
JP: Energy in the system = the energy accessible to the climate system over the time period being considered, contained within the atmosphere, oceans and freshwater, cryosphere, and solid earth.
Energy storage = the change in the energy in the system over the time period being considered =
the integral of EEI over that time period.
z: I have no problem with the first part, but I’m not sure about your choice of the term “storage”. Are you saying that the “new” energy isn’t accessible to the climate system? That would be the conventional usage for the term “storage”, but obviously the “new” energy is partitioned (your term) in the system… similarly (if perhaps not identically) as is the “old” energy.
(That last part… the possible difference between the partition of energy in the system when EEI is “small enough to be called zero” rather than “big enough to cause the graph to look like a hockey stick”… is the motivation for my original questioning.)
All right, Zebra.
You have a point about what I am calling “storage” since it would also be energy available to the system. For the purposes of this discussion, I could call it “delta Es” to represent the change in system energy, if that seems better.
One of the implications of delta Es being a time integral of EEI is that every wiggle and wobble in the GMST temperature curve is potentially a change in the sign of EEI. This is what I meant by EEI seldom being zero, and my objection to calling it “close enough for government work.” I would expect both EEI and partitioning to be dependent on the particular time interval being examined, since energy can flow from one part of the system to another. In addition to an annual cycle, the oceans are capable of responses on a large range variety of time scales, for example. On a time scale of centuries or longer, if the average EEI is near zero, I would expect that most of the variability to be the tradeoff between ocean temperature and ice mass that I mentioned last month.
John, this is good. But I am easily distracted, so I have to ask: How are we detecting the “tradeoff” you mention, and what is the mechanism causing it? Why does the ice melt?
Whether we call it “average EEI close to zero” or “delta Es close to zero”, my problem all along has been trying to clarify my thinking about causes and effects. If we start with ice mass A and ocean temp B, what do we have at the end of the time period in question?
Have A and B changed even though we see very little delta Es?
Are we talking about global measurements or local/regional?
Is it “natural variation” or “forcing”?
Zebra, I’m glad we’re making some progress.
To me, the one advantage to looking at a long period (say, 0 to 1000 c.e.) where delta Es is close to zero is that it allows us to ignore a large number of short term processes and focus on a few things, namely A and B. In most realistic scenarios, I would not expect them to change much, either. What is clear to me is that if average EEI is near zero and the ocean cools, the extra energy must go mostly into melting ice. It is hard to imagine much of the reverse, where ice mass is building up while the ocean warms, but mountain glaciers could conceivably build that way. I can see where ocean heat could go mainly into melting ice during a glacial D-O event, with a large ice sheet dump into the ocean.
To throw in another real-world complication, I would consider ice/albedo effect. If the mid and higher latitudes cool, this would result in increased snow and ice cover. Glacial coverage increases slowly, but snow and sea ice cover are a lot more responsive to cooling and create positive feedback. However, the latter processes do not actually represent much immediate change in delta Es, since the quantities of ice and snow involved are relatively small. They don’t represent much in the way of partitioning, but they can have a strong effect on EEI.
in Re to John Pollack, 4 Aug 2026 at 9:53 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850285
Hello John,
I have a question with respect to your example of the supposed tradeoff between latent heat of ice thawing and cooling of the surface ocean temperature, as you proposed it in your comment of 16 Jul 2026 at 8:24 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-849799
which zebra likely missed.
Let us assume that the consumed latent heat will not be efficiently transfered into deep ocean but cools predominantly the surface ocean layer. Let us further assume that the decreased sea surface temperature (SST) and accordingly decreased longwave surface radiation (and decreased turbulent fluxes) will result in troposphere cooling and thus in a significantly negative Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI). Is it reasonable?
If you think so, I suppose that we could imagine also an opposite case. Let us assume that for whatever reason, the “conveyor” transporting the “excess heat” (the heat delivered by the present EEI that have been so far with a more-less constant rate storaged in the ocean) has suddenly slowed down. It would result in a quick warming of the surface ocean layer, and I suppose that the resulting increase in the surface infrared radiation (and increased turbulent fluxes) could warm the troposphere. If so, I would expect that the outgoing longwave radiation should increase as well and cause a measurable EEI decrease.
My question reads:
Were the global temperature extremes in the years 2023-2024 (and, perhaps, also in this year) accompanied with detectable peaks in global mean SST? If so, were these SST peaks accompanied by the supposed temporal EEI minima?
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
I reviewed the entire thread and came to a suspicion that zebra’s obsession with “energy partition” might have originated from imagination of energy as kind of a magic substance that, by its mere quantity or “presence” in some material entity, somehow “energizes” this entity.
In this regard, I remember despising directed in the book “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” to physics textbooks that raise in pupils this questionable imagination.
Tomáš,
It is important for you to keep in mind the framework I set up with Zebra. He was mainly interested in cases where EEI averaged over time is close to zero, over a long time interval. (I chose 1000 years based on the nearly flat overall GMST curve between 0 and 1000 c.e.) The tradeoff between latent heat in ice and ocean thermal storage only works because over that time period, the other sources and sinks make only a relatively small difference in average EEI.
I agree that this is a great simplification of how the climate system behaves on a time scale of decades or less, where the flux between partitions and within the ocean itself can be considerable, and EEI itself is unlikely to be steady.
As for recent changes in EEI, I am lacking the proper background to comment meaningfully compared to the experts on this board. I do note that oceanic heat content https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/ has shown a fairly steady upward trend in recent years, especially when averaged annually or longer.
I will let Zebra speak for himself on his understanding of energy partition.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850169
“B: Changes its mind when the science at the bottom changes”
Let us make a case study over this claim..
Inamdar, Ramanathan 1998:
In summary, lapse rate changes for the annual cycle are not a valid analog for longer timescale climate changes. However, for reasons given below, the discrepancy in lapse rate changes between observations and GCMs do not alter our conclusion on the role of water vapor feedback. The observed annual cycle warming decreases with altitude, the decadal-scale warming remains roughly constant with altitude, while the GCM warming increases with altitude. When atmospheric warming is not so large as the surface warming, the enhanced emission to space is not so large (when compared with the situation when the warming is about the same at all altitudes), which in turn enhances dGa/dTs, i.e., a positive feedback. However, at the same time, in a fixed relative humidity environment, smaller atmospheric warming implies a smaller increase in absolute humidity, which suppresses some of the increase in dGa/dTs from the lapse rate feedback. Because of these two competing effects, the lapse rate has less than 10% influence on dGa/dTs.
What happened here is that after publishing a number of papers using the seasonal variation of dOLR/dTs (or dGa/dTs) as proxy for climate change, someone told them it does not even work. One needs to see how delicate the problem is. In this “proxy” the lapse rate is doing the opposite of what they only assumed it would do. It does not raise the feedback parameter in the sense of a neg. feedback, but it lowers it in the sense of a pos. feedback.
For example the feedback parameter might be 2W/m2/K vs. some 3.3W/m2/K Planck Response. One might assume that to be a total pos. feedback of 3.3 – 2 = 1.3W/m2, with maybe 1.8W/m2 and -0.5W/m2 for WV and LR feedbacks respectively. But in this proxy the LR component is not negative, but positive, and hugely positive. About the entirety of that signal is just LR, with no or only a negligible WV part, like 1.3 = 0 + 1.3! The fact that the tropospheric temperature behaves sluggish relative to Ts has been taken as evidence of a strong WV feedback – that never was.
Another pillar for pos. WV feedback would be the regional proxy:
This result demonstrates the unsuitability of using variations in different regions in our present climate as a proxy for climate change.
(Dessler et al 2008)
Ok, that does not work either, for the same reason. Turns out there is not a single piece of evidence even suggesting WV feedback was positive. They all point in the opposite direction. And that is consistent with the insight of WV being a cooling agent with given concentrations.
Anyway, the interesting part here is about how climate scientists react to “changing bottoms”: as in the instance above, Inamdar and Ramanathan did not retract their previous papers. Notably they state it would not alter their conclusion on the role of WV feedback, implying that is just what it might. In the face of lacking evidence, they instead express their strong belief in pos. WV feedback.
And despite knowing that neither the regional nor seasonal proxy works, later papers like Chung et al 2010 would yet produce both proxies as evidence. It is a pattern I have seen so many times: “yes, we were wrong, but it does not change a thing”. In real science it does..
ES: Turns out there is not a single piece of evidence even suggesting WV feedback was positive. They all point in the opposite direction. And that is consistent with the insight of WV being a cooling agent with given concentrations.
BPL: No, it is not. We know water vapor is a greenhouse gas. We know it accounts for 50% of the greenhouse effect. That would be 161 watts per square meter at the surface. Latent heat accounts for 88. Net effect: warming.
Apparently BPL does not understand the GHE. Both in S10 and K97 the WHOLE GHE is estimated to be 155W/m2.
BPL may have been referring to (global time averaged) LW F↓ @ sfc. Do we need the GHE to be one-dimensional (LW F↑(sfc) – OLR)? Or should I ascribe some of what I’ve been including in the GHE to be LW-opacity effects more generally? Remember that when the GHE is introduced in educational situations, it is often explained that it tends to reduce the diurnal T range (and F↓ @ sfc has a role in that; although one way to look at it would be to use Martin Smith’s approach and trace a batch of energy through the system from a point in time where solar heating occurs; an increased GHE should tend to prolong the residence time (hence a net increase in stored energy PS re zebra – I use storage the way John Pollack did and I’ve seen it use the same way in a textbook).
There is a long list of different GHE explanations, and the list of wrong explanations is almost as long. The GHE is the difference between surface- and emission temperature, or surface emissions and OLR respectively. Anything else is not the GHE. I know it took the IPCC 5 assessment reports of settled science to kick out “back radiation” and get the GHE moderately right.
And from a personal pespective this is one of those instances where I thought, maybe it is not all that settled and possibly a critical review of climate physics might be worth it. Anyway..
The text books are full with wrong GHE explanations. If you google it with the picture search, you get all kinds of bad depictions. And even well respected scientists many times over do not understand it. I find it very interesting this is allowed to happen. I mean not from a legal side, but there should be some intolerance towards bad ideas and a consensus on something so fundamental.
And storing heat, or heat capacity, has nothing to do with it either. If so, btw., the primary GH-agent would be the oceans..
“And storing heat, or heat capacity, has nothing to do with it either. ”
Well, sure, hypothetically, we could consider a climate system with heat capacity C = 0, so that T instantaneously responds to forcings and feedbacks. But realistically, when a change in forcing is imposed, we get a nonzero EEI = ASR – OLR (a net total flux at TOA), which, given certain simplications, would tend to decay exponentially over time as the disequilibrium decays, ie. T approaches the new equilibrium T, and this happens because of the net gain in enthalpy H (which = the time integral of EEI, assuming no change in kinetic energy KE (which I believe is quite small in comparison to typical H values involved anyway)) – ie., there is nonzero storage. (the vertically-integrated storage term may be expressed as EEI = ∂H/∂t, or I suppose as ∆H)… The time scale of that decay would be proportional to the product of ECS and the effective C value.
”If so, btw., the primary GH-agent would be the oceans.” – you misunderstood what I meant, then (and perhaps vice versa); the above paragraph should make it clear.
Also, I’m not trying to argue for the primacy of F↓ @ sfc as being the GHE, just that F↑ (emitted or total) from sfc – OLR, while a good measure of GHE (maybe the best if we use a single value), is not the only thing associated with a GHE (physically, having a nonzero F↑ from sfc – OLR requires having a F↓ @ sfc); but I would be open to referring to these other things as “LW-opacity effects”.
Clarification:
…
Also, I’m not trying to argue for the primacy of LW F↓ @ sfc as being the GHE, just that
LW F↑ (emitted or total) from sfc – OLR,
while a good measure of GHE (maybe the best if we use a single value), is not the only thing associated with a GHE (physically, having a nonzero
[ LW F↑ from sfc – OLR ]
requires having a LW F↓ @ sfc); but I would be open to referring to these other things as “LW-opacity effects”.
Sorry, been on vacation
You are right, the GHE many times is explained in the context of holding back heat, which is the problem I addressed. It has caused amazing confusion, where people believe the extreme daily temperature range on the desert was caused by the lack of water vapor in the atmosphere above. Like..
“A lot of water vapor in the air makes the air act as a water blanket, keeping in the heat or the cold better than air with low water vapor. Because deserts have such little water vapor in the air, it makes it harder to trap heat or cold in a desert”
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/desert
“The temperature in the desert can change drastically from day to night because the air is so dry that heat escapes rapidly at night. The daytime temperature averages 38°C while in some deserts it can get down to -4°C at night”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/biome/biodesert.php
First of all, there is no such extreme daily temperature in the desert. It is up to 20K, not more(!), and not different from other places when the sky is clear. Then the air is actually not that dry. It is just low rel. humidity, but not so low WV pressure. So the whole story is completely made up.
I mean there is one grain of truth here, and that concerns surface temperature, as opposed to meteorologic air temperature. If the surface is sand, that gets very hot in the sun and cools sharply during the night. Although I have never been to a real desert, I know that from the sand on the beach.
It is just one of those many instances where scientific institutions, like NASA or universities, present urbans myths as “science facts”..
Planet “Schaffer” is indeed an unusual place. In some respects it is earthlike. However, it has been established that the tropopause height there is fixed. Thunderstorms are not allowed to become nihilistic and raise the tropopause height with their strong updrafts, because this would cause cooling at the top of the troposphere, instead of at the bottom: bottom cooling is required there when the lapse rate is lowered by moist convection.
Now, we find that the diurnal temperature range in its deserts is also subjected to unusual restraint. “First of all, there is no such extreme daily temperature in the desert. It is up to 20K, not more(!), and not different from other places when the sky is clear. Then the air is actually not that dry. It is just low rel. humidity, but not so low WV pressure. So the whole story is completely made up.” This means that there are no deserts on “Schaffer” such as the ones in the interior western U.S. There, the dew point, and thus the water vapor pressure, generally remains low in the summer. The normal diurnal temperature range is quite large. For example, the 30 year normal high at the airport in Winnemucca, Nevada on Aug. 23 is 92F (33.3C) while the low is 48F (8.9C) for an average diurnal range of 24.4C (or K, if you prefer). The extremes are of course greater. Nearby Beowawe Nevada once observed a morning minimum of 38F (3.3C) and a maximum of 110F (43.3C) for a diurnal range of 40C.
I am sure that there are other anomalies that will be reported over time, and firmly distinguish planet “Schaffer” from planet Earth.
E. Schaffer: “ Sorry, been on vacation ”
NASA: “The temperature in the desert can change drastically from day to night because the air is so dry that heat escapes rapidly at night. The daytime temperature averages 38°C while in some deserts it can get down to -4°C at night”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/biome/biodesert.php”
E. Schaffer: “ First of all, there is no such extreme daily temperature in the desert. It is up to 20K, not more(!)
says the guy who has … “never being to a desert” and makes even his QUANTITATIVE claims,
confident enough to include the exclamation mark (see above) , based on his … experience at the beach – because as everyone knows – the daily temperature range and absolute humidity on a beach are …. representative of those on a desert. And this is the factual base on which E. Schaffer accuses NASA of a fraud (ES: “ completely made up” )
So perhaps … you should go back on vacation. Mr. Schaffer, this time to the actual desert
so you know what you speak, and attack other people, on.
And don’t forget to walk the walk – don’t take any sleeping bags or warmer clothes since you assured us NASA “completely made it up”. So, put your money where your mouth was, will you?
With respect to diurnal temperature ranges DTR, it’s worth considering that while on average, yes, the greater transmittance over deserts does allow for greater radiation throughput, in particular due to the absence of clouds and of the associated greater daytime solar radiative heating, it’s worth keeping in mind the moderating effect of diurnal changes in lower atmospheric heat storage/content as well.
Unlike for aquatic/ocean regimes which buffer the daytime solar radiative heating through sub-surface storage changes through the mixed layers, over land the overwhelming buffering of solar radiative heating is above grade, in atmosphere. Only a small fraction of buffering occurs through ground heat storage. Figure 2 in https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/9/1127/2018/ “Diurnal land surface energy balance partitioning estimated from the thermodynamic limit of a cold heat engine”
For this reason, land in general tends to be associated with deeper boundary layers compared to ocean, and much greater variation in boundary layer structure through the course of 24 hrs. Changes or variation in boundary layer structure through the diurnal cycle can be associated with atmospheric storage changes in the levels closest to surface.
Pretty interesting estimates are available in Figure 6 and 7 from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/remote-sensing/articles/10.3389/frsen.2021.716951/full “Planetary Boundary Layer Height Estimates From ICESat-2 and CATS Backscatter Measurements”
In dry regimes, the partitioning of daytime solar radiative heating is overwhelmingly devoted to increasing the kinetic temperatures of surface and lower atmosphere. Comparatively, in wet continental regimes the daytime solar radiative heating is devoted increasingly to the moistening flux. So there is an interesting offset: aridity tends to produce stronger local sensible heating and deeper daytime boundary layers with associate storage changes, whereas wet conditions shift a larger fraction of surface energy into remote latent transport.
For those interested in downwelling longwave radiation, an analogous offset exists between the radiative effects of hot/dry versus cooler/moister air (see e.g. in https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/1363/2023/esd-14-1363-2023.pdf)
In “Explaining Observed Daily Variations and Decadal Trends in the Diurnal Air Temperature Range” it’s noted that increasing boundary layer depth from 1000 to 2000m can reduce DTR by approximately 2-3 degC, and 500 to 1000m 5-6 degC as depicted in Figure S17. That non-linearity suggests the strongest effects should be in transitional wet-dry regimes. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1029%2F2024GL113595&file=2024GL113595-sup-0001-Supporting+Information+SI-S01.pdf
That relative DTR reduction is worth considering alongside the radiative-transmittance aspect: the temperature response to greater radiative ttransmittance is moderated by the local buffering of the solar input in lower atmosphere; that is the thermodynamic storage and discharge from the local atmospheric reservoir. Much like the ocean-flywheel which keeps coastlines at relatively stable temperatures. It doesn’t cancel the marginally greater DTR in deserts, but it makes it significantly less large than it otherwise would be.
I encourage our academic counterparts to explore what I would label “the atmospheric flywheel effect” as a practical method to quantify unnatural surface moisture limitation. Once you account for (or normalize by) the radiative fluxes, residual differences in the diurnal temperature amplitude can carry information about surface moisture limitation and the strength of surface–atmosphere coupling. After removing the expected temperature response given the radiation field, the residual diurnal temperature amplitude can be used as diagnostic.
@Piotr
You should put more effort into understanding what you read, even if there may be typos.
For one you only need to check some desert climate data to see what I point out is true. For the other try to avoid total inconsistency in your reasoning. I did not say conditions on a sandy beach were the same as in the desert, but the sand is comparable, because sand is sand. And it is that sand that has a large daily temperature range, not the desert.
And yes, that whole thing is an urban myth..
@JP
“However, it has been established that the tropopause height there is fixed.”
I never claimed it was. It is just that I would not see how this would make an important issue. Or how it would interfere with the fundamental misunderstanding of the lapse rate I seek to discuss here.
You are right, altitude is the key to enhance named restriction. With lower air pressure and less thermal heat capacity of the air, the daily temperature range can exceed 20K. But this here seems to be an anomaly I can not explain. It is not just Beowawe NV, but even more so neighboring Carlin NV, which has raised some eyebrows over extremely low temperature drops in the night.
It is however an anomaly, not representing desert climate as such. Also it is a long shot from the nonsensical claims quoted above.. “The daytime temperature averages 38°C while in some deserts it can get down to -4°C at night”
A proper desert climate is well within that 20K envelope, like this instance..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab%C3%A9ch%C3%A9#Geography_and_climate
Your opposition remains without merit.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850170
1. “how does the “established physics” explain the arrival of a MALR?”
Here for instance:
https://hogback.atmos.colostate.edu/group/dave/pdf/Moist_adiabatic_lapse_rate.pdf
It is very simple: neither the dry- nor the moist adiabat are physically dependent on GHGs. Sure you could say WV is a GHG, but it is only considered as a condensating gas, not a GH-agent. And yes, it is established physics.
2. That contradiction is just the entry point to a much bigger issue. Then of course the question is if one wants to explore that, or seal the door. Your notion was like: that would make a contradiction, so it can not be, case closed, nothing to see here..
My take is of course a bit different. I know already what is behind the door, and before I knew, it was a fascinating and promising subject of research. So I went after it. Knowing already that WV is a strong cooling agent, positively correlated to temperature, it just had to be a strong neg. feedback. That is a conclusion in total contradiction to all the evidence climate science so far produced, as you would agree.
So I tasked myself with the challenge of finding out how all these pieces of evidence could be wrong, if they were. And that turned out to be surprisingly simple, also because well known scientists themselves in many instances already realized they were riding a dead horse. Like these two instances..
In summary, lapse rate changes for the annual cycle are not a valid analog for longer timescale climate changes. However, for reasons given below, the discrepancy in lapse rate changes between observations and GCMs do not alter our conclusion on the role of water vapor feedback (Inamdar, Ramanathan 1998)
This result demonstrates the unsuitability of using variations in different regions in our present climate as a proxy for climate change. (Dessler et al 2008)
There are many more of these instances. But again, they are indeed all wrong. I do not want to use harsh words, so let me put it like this: never in the history of mankind have there been more ressources spent for a less optimal result.
E. Schaffer,
You respond to my questioning of you in the July UV thread
(1) The question posed was “if the air is “not totally saturated with WV,” how does the “established physics” explain the arrival of a MALR? Surely the DALR would be the mechanism when condensation isn’t present and if the temperature has yet to cool to the point where the air is “not totally saturated with WV,” how does the WV condense?”
You respond by linking to a mathematical derivation of the MALR and some nonsense that it is “very simple” because the GHE mechanisms are not a consideration.
Your response doesn’t even begin to address the question I posed!!!
The linked MALR derivation is not of great length with a quarter of it presents a derivation of the DALR. Yet it still manages to use the word “saturated/saturation” nine times. This is because the MALR is the lapse rate for “saturated” air which, as it cools with altitude, is condensing out precipitation. This, of course, assumes it is rising air but what goes up must come down. And it does so dry as a bone. Surely this is “very simple.”
And within that linked MALR derivation, we can also examine the graphic ‘Figure 1: A plot of the moist adiabatic lapse rate, Γm , in K km-1, as a function of temperature and pressure. The troposphere pressure sits 100-200mb to 1000mb with a tropopause temperature of -55°C (220K) and a chilly -80°C (195K) over the tropics and surface temperatures +27°C (300K) tropics & -30°C (245K) polar.
So let’s take a rough mid point average of all that p = 600mb, t = 250K. What would the MALR be at that pressure and temperature? Looks like it would be 8.7K/km. So why would a value of 6.5K/km be an accepted average global Lapse Rate?
Answers please on a no-bullshit postcard.
(2) I would suggest that the “contradiction” you’re at last attempting to address needs a bit of ‘diction’ here as mind-reading is not a thing (a bit like x-ray vision through doors) while those who may have read the comments in the July UV thread are likely not blessed with eidetic memory.
The issue which you termed a “contradiction” is that (A) the Lapse Rate feedback is derived as -0.5Wm^-2/°C which, if extrapolated for a 33°C GHE, would suggest a -16.5Wm^-2 contribution to said GHE while (B) you insist the contribution is about 5x larger with the LR feedback = surface WV latent heat flux = ~80Wm^-2.
Strangely, on the July UV thread, you accused me of ignoring this “contradiction” even though I has raised the issue. And I have continued to point to your failure to provide any cogent reason why your -80Wm^-2 is correct and the entirely of climatology is wrong.
So where are we with your latest explanation presented above?
You insist this -80Wm^-2 leads to “a much bigger issue” because when the negative LR feedback is combined with the positive WV feedback (a combining which climatology is want to do), if the LR feedback were a five-times-bigger than that found by the entirety of climatology, the net WV/LR feedback would be negative not positive.
I would not disagree that it would be “a much bigger issue” if ‘the entirely of climatology is wrong’ on this matter. But where is the reason to think ‘the entirely of climatology is wrong’?
You present two exemplar quotes from the literature:-
Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998) ‘Tropical and global scale interactions among water vapor, atmospheric greenhouse effect, and surface temperature’ you accuse of some scurrilous work saying of them “After publishing a number of papers using the seasonal variation of dOLR/dTs (or dGa/dTs) as proxy for climate change, someone told them it does not even work.”
Your assessment here is just jibberish.
The ‘proxy’ adopted for the atmospheric greenhouse effect is a quantity Ga, “the radiometric definition of the atmospheric greenhouse effect … which is the difference between the surface longwave emission and the outgoing longwave radiation.” Why would anyone insist adopting such a ‘proxy’ is wrong, or specifically wrong wrt “the seasonal variation of dGa/dTs”. Who is saying it “does not even work”“? The paper’s conclusion runs:-
If you are trying to present some serious criticism of Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998), you have managed a very good job of hiding it!!!!
Dessler et al (2008) ‘An analysis of the dependence of clear-sky top-of-atmosphere outgoing-longwave radiation on atmospheric temperature and water vapor’
The paper discusses lapse rate in Sec 4.2.3 [para 39-41]. It is the final sentence of these paragraphs that you quote. In this final sentence, the paper is emphasising the point that regional variations in lapse rates prevent the use of a regional lapse rate as a proxy for climate change – a global analysis is necessary.
The actual finding presented in para 39-40 is that the changes in lapse rate induced by a change in surface temperature will increase climate sensitivity relative to an unchanged lapse rate. That doesn’t appear to assist your side of this “contradiction.”
(You also mention another exemplar paper“Chung et al 2010” of which there are two potential references that I can see ( & ). Your accusation against a “Chung et al 2010” runs “despite knowing that neither the regional nor seasonal proxy works, later papers like Chung et al 2010 would yet produce both proxies as evidence.”
I fail to see anything in the two potential Chung et al (2010) papers that shows they “produce both proxies as evidence.” Neither make mention of either Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998) or Dessler et al (2008). And both are analysing climate using models and data so their “evidence” was not reliant on some prior error.)
The more you run with this silly nonsense of a massively powerful LR feedback being ignored by all of climatology, the more silly and nonsensical you make it.
“Your response doesn’t even begin to address the question I posed!!!”
If you mean the question below, I have to admit I do not understand it..
“Perhaps I should ask that if the air is “not totally saturated with WV,” how does the “established physics” explain the arrival of a MALR? Surely the DALR would be the mechanism when condensation isn’t present and if the temperature has yet to cool to the point where the air is “not totally saturated with WV,” how dos the WV condense?”
However, you brought up the notion the adiabatic lapse rate was somehow due to GHGs, which it is not, and that is the important take-away here. Moreover because WV is a condensating gas it reduces the lapse rate and the GHE with it. None of that is a secret or would be seriously disputed. Also it is not “my position” so that I would even feel the need to defend it.
I only brought up the logical follow-up question on whether WV is warming or cooling, thereby pointing out this question tends to be illicitly avoided by just stating “WV is a strong GHG”. Clouds are a strong GH-agent too, yet they are believed to be cooling. Btw. we could probably agree that this question has not been even considered, which is bad enough.
Should you reject the physics behind the moist adiabat so to avoid said follow-up question, I would not try to convince you of established physics, but rather accept that as an answer.
“So let’s take a rough mid point average of all that p = 600mb, t = 250K. What would the MALR be at that pressure and temperature? Looks like it would be 8.7K/km. So why would a value of 6.5K/km be an accepted average global Lapse Rate?”
600mb is about 4000m up. Where do you take the 250K from? Where does anything look like 8.7K/km? I have not the slightest clue how you come up with these figures. What I can tell you is the theoretic MALR is smaller then the actual lapse rate, because yes, the former is perfectly saturated, while in reality that is not so.
Let us go back a little..
me:
“You brought this perspective up before and I ignored it. Sorry for that. It is actually a great perspective, but it escalates the issue, without answering the original question. Of course it tells us there is a contradiction between the role of WV within the GHE, and WV feedback. One of the two must be wrong.
I did not say you ignored it, I said I ignored it. What you argued, and still do, is to say that said contradiction would deny that latent heat cooling by WV..
“..but your conjecture that the LR feedback = surface WV latent heat flux = ~80Wm^-2 is certainly not sound”
I say that such a contradiction tells us at least one side should be wrong, but it does not tell us which one. Concluding it must the one that is less convenient is not good reasoning either. The fact that WV reduces the GHE by said magnitude of ~80W/m2 a simple logic consquence and you could not produce a single good argument why that was not so.
So, as far as the contradiction goes, we know the one that is NOT wrong. And that is what brings the LR-feedback as assumed in the models, some -0.5W/m2/K (down from -0.84 in AR4), into the cross hair. And that is where things become truely interesting.
“The actual finding presented in para 39-40 is that the changes in lapse rate induced by a change in surface temperature will increase climate sensitivity relative to an unchanged lapse rate. That doesn’t appear to assist your side of this “contradiction.””
Yes, that is what I have explained already. Only in the “proxy” the lapse rate emulates a positive feedback, as opposed to the expected neg. feedback. It is best explained in numbers. Planck Feedback minus Feedback Parameter = Feedback might go like 3.3 – 2 = 1.3. Now the assumption is those 1.3 might consist of 1.8 and -0.5 as WV and LR feedbacks.
If you check the literature it is widely agreed that there is “certainty” over the total FB of some 1.3, but uncertainty over the exact attribution. If the WV term is larger pos., the LR term is larger neg., or vice verse. And the idea is that while there is uncertainty over this question, it would not really matter. The sum is important.
The problem is, and that is what both sources above point out, that assumption can only hold true as long as the “proxies” represent climate change. In other words, as long as the lapse rate in the proxies does the same as it would do in the long run. But that is not true, rather it is the opposite.
The LR component is emulating a pos. feedback, like > +1W/m2/K in the seasonal- and ~+0.5W/m2/K in the regional “proxies”. The scheme of total feedback equating to WV+LR feedbacks then looks extremely different, like..
Assumption:
1.3 = 1.8 – 0.5
Reality:
seasonal:
1.3 = 0 + 1.3
regional:
1.3 = 0.8 + 0.5
In other words the evidence for a strong WV feedback of 1.8W/m2/K (that is the altitude part) is largely the difference between the assumed neg. lapse rate component and the actual pos. lapse rate component, but it was never real. The erring over the lapse rate behaviour in the proxy is the “evidence” for the large WV feedback – and eventually the reason why the total WV feedback is believed to be pos., while actually being neg.
The dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR) for a parcel of air is actually not strictly a constant value (for gas of a given composition in a given gravitational field ie. @ g ≈ 9.81 m/s²); it actually depends on the environmental lapse rate (ELR). But when a layer is well-mixed without any H2O phase changes (unsaturated air), potential temperature θ is constant in that layer, so both ELR and DALR are the same and DALR ≈ 10 K/km or more accurately, g/c_p (from memory – did I get this right) ≈ 9.81 m/s² ÷ 1004 J/(kg·K) = 9.81/1004 m/s² ÷ [ kg m/s² m / (kg K) ] ≈ 9.77 E−3 K/m … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate#Dry_adiabatic_lapse_rate ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities
More generally, DALR gives T as a function of θ ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_temperature ) and p : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exner_function , which can be converted to a function of z given ELR, T_0 and z_0 (describes a dry adiabat)
The moist adiabatic lapse rate (MALR – a part of me wants to put a D at the end and call it a duck) does not have a single value; it is a function of T and p. It gets smaller at higher T at a given p (this is of course related to the reason for a negative LR feedback(**) and I expect it would do so at a given T at larger p (notice I didn’t say higher p so as to avoid confusion with p getting smaller at higher z) because at smaller p at a given T, there’s more H2O vapor relative to the mass of air… but following a moist adiabat from the level where condensation begins, going upward, the cooling reduces the amount of latent heat released per ∆p of ascent (and therefore per ∆z, given a value of ∂p/∂z), and eventually the moist adiabat asymptotically approaches a dry adiabat, whose value of θ can be used to characterize the ascending saturated moist air. Of course, real moist ascent is not exactly adiabatic (adiabatic = reversable = isentropic) because of the effects of curvature for the smallest droplets, but also because of the difficulty of initiating ice nucleation (I also recall reading that phase nucleation delays also play a role in the mechanical/rheological(?) properties subducting slabs of lithosphere(?)) – and also a couple other things. (un-)Mixing of different air masses (the un- pertains to precipitation) and down-gradient diffusion (ie. conduction of heat, diffusion of H2O) are not adiabatic.
** ie more latent heat is released per m of moist ascent at higher T because more H2O condenses per m of ascent. This does not necessarily or automatically mean more H2O condenses per unit time; velocity could slow down (relating to the difference between convective heat flux and convective lapse rate).
The occurrence of moist convection can, by approximately establishing an ELR ≈ MALR, stablilizes the air to dry convection (while large-scale horizontal motion – eg. baroclinic waves / frontal cyclones – driven by geographical variations in solar heating can stabilize the air to localized vertical moist convection). It is helpful to map out the θ contours/surfaces ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_temperature ). Moist adiabatic ascent crosses θ going up, so a ELR = MALR means θ increases with increasing height z. Dry adiabatic motion drags θ values with it. In order to sustain a steady-state overturning, where precipitation removes much of the condensed H2O so the cloud base is high in the descending region, the dry descent must have diabatic (ie. a net flow of heat in or out of a volume/mass of air) cooling in order to cross the θ contours/surfaces. In clear skies, a net LW radiant cooling of ~ 2 ± 0.5 K/day is typical in the troposphere:
Jeevanjee & Fueglistaler, 2020 “Simple Spectral Models for Atmospheric Radiative Cooling” https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/77/2/jas-d-18-0347.1.xml
(some formatting lost in C&P:)
Sorry, I made that more complicated than it really is; upon farther thought, it’s just the profile T(p or z) that matters, which is obviously tied to ∂T/∂z but is not uniquely determined by it so anyway…
If DALR = Γ_d = g/c_p = DALR₀ when T(z) along a dry adiabat = environmental T(z), then more generally,
*I think*,
DALR (as a −DT/Dz) = DALR₀ · T_{parcel being displaced} / T_{environment}
because (assuming constant g and hydrostatic approximation) ∂p/∂z is inversely proportional to T_{environment}.
Hence/I assumed MA Rodger’s 8.7K/km is the MALR @ 600mb, 250K, though I didn’t verify the number for myself (didn’t have a skew-T chart). – wait, https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/upperair/skew-t-log-p-diagrams ,
https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/skew_t_fullsize.pdf …
Of course, the climate system is not generally in a steady-state even at a climatological equilibrium, but this still broadly applies; the dry air has to cross the θ surfaces.
net flow of heat in or out of a material volume; material; a material ___ is a ___ that moves with the material (I’ve never seen the term applied to volume but it’s a logical extension of familiar usage for material surfaces). PS I could use “warming” and “cooling” to refer to the material derivative of T (DT/Dt is dT/dt following the motion of the material) whether that is adiabatic or diabatic, and might also in general use for for the Eulerian derivative ∂T/∂t (occurs at a specific coordinate location as material moves through/by), but I use heating for a diabatic process; unfortunately there isn’t a clearly distinguished option for negative heating (“colding”?) which applies at all T (otherwise freezing could work for limited cases, but…).
So why doesn’t the tropospheric ELR always follow a MALR? Well, there’s the fact that convective cloud bases are often/generally a bit above the sfc. But also, there’s the “large-scale horizontal motion – eg. baroclinic waves / frontal cyclones – driven by geographical variations in solar heating can stabilize the air to localized vertical moist convection” and the temporal cycling that stabilizes the air next to land surfaces at night (when conditions allow), etc. The significantly superadiabatic layer sometimes found next to the surface due to the ineffectiveness of convection on such small scales (is it like a cm?) and the simple fact that convection mostly does not penetrate into the land or liquid water (there is soil porosity and sea spray, but… well, vegetation does extend the surface into a volume in a sense but when you get to individual leaves… etc.) … also there’s the matter of entrainment of dry air (but won’t that limit the extent of moist convection?). But also, even where, as I understand it(?), moist convection would tend to establish a near MALR profile (deep tropics), there is some horizontal variation in conditions; moist ascent tends to concentrate in some regions, and maybe (?) some different regions are producing different moist adiabatic profiles, which may reach upward to different heights… so when you take an average… (?)
Of course, there will (tend to) be (depending on local conditions including the occurrence of other clouds) LW diabatic cooling on the tops and also somewhat along the sides of clouds, but not so much inside thick towering cumulus.
——– —
E. Schaffer, your own quotation of Inamdar, Ramanathan 1998 ( https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1998JD900007 , p 32,192 – wow, that’s quite a tome!), my emph. and [numbered points] list format applied.:
From their abstract (my emph. ):
I didn’t read the entirety (so don’t take my word for it), but it seems like they’re considering the changes in relative humidity (and specifically arguing against a hypothesis from Lindzen?). Real world data support for the LR feedback for longer term anthropogenic climate may come from other studies (including perhaps some from the last 28 years?), not this one. The time frame is different and maybe the spatial scale (in the regional study(s?)) also has an effect on ∆LR. I would be interested in seeing an explanation for why. Maybe something to do with SST’s having a longer response time? (relatively muted seasonal changes?). There’s also of course that the Northern & Southern Hemispheres are out of phase in seasons, and matters of atmospheric circulation…
While I do appreciate your dedication on learning about the MALR, I think it is way more effective to just take away what is needed. The moist adiabat is smaller than a dry adiabat, the GHE is a function of said lapse rate, thus WV reduces the GHE and that effect is also known as “latent heat”..
Tropical storms may serve as a showpiece for how strong this effect can be. The intense evaporation / condensation there drops the lapse rate to a minimum, creating a column of hot (relative to altitude) buoyant air, which sucks in more moist air, and so on..
To understand those statements, both IR98 and D08, one needs to consider what the changing lapse rate means as a feedback, and how it specifically behaves in the proxies. In the regional and seasonal proxy the lapse rate emulates a pos. feedback. Assuming lapse rate there was acting as a neg. feedback, the resulting difference was wrongly taken as evidence of WV feedback. Only in the interannual proxy the lapse rate does as it should, making that one even more interesting and kind of the “epicenter” of the issue.
In the real world of course the lapse rate remains a neg. feedback, and that is what you have in the models. Yet there is another problem, as discussed in Santer et al 2005, or pointed out by John Christy. The tropical lapse rate is not doing what it should, ie. the “hot spot” is missing. The lapse rate should shrink, but it refuses. There are related phenomena like stagnant pan evaporation, declining relative humidity, declining cloudiness, and so on..
These instances have provoked a lot of different reactions by “critical” people jumping to conclusions, like Christy, Lindzen oder Clauser lately. And while there is definitely something going on, I an assure you all these conclusons were wrong. I would rather go with P. Minnis there and not just consider artificial cirrus clouds, but also that they might be limiting the natural water cycle underneath, while at the same time heating the climate.
I didn’t read the entirety (so don’t take my word for it), but it seems like they’re considering the changes in relative humidity (and specifically arguing against a hypothesis from Lindzen?)
And yes, the IR98 statement is a rejection of a notion brought up by Lindzen, where he suggested more evaporation could trigger more precipitation which then somehow lowers humidity levels..? Does not make much sense..
ES: the GHE is a function of said lapse rate
BPL: Look again.
https://bartonlevenson.com/lapse.html
I forgot, there is the fact that unlike with dry convective instability, aside from the thin layer immediately in contact with the sfc., moist convective instability, ie. as in conditional instability, can build up substantially (producing large CAPE values) without being automatically released (and then when it is released, storm chasers can get some good videos). Eg. there is the occurrence of an elevated (dry/ ie. unsaturated) mixed layer. *From memory, I think these may form in a PBL (?) over dry elevated terrain (eg. U.S./Mexico desert plateau/mountains) and move over warm humid air (eg. coming from the Gulf of Mexico)
IR98: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/1998JD900007 :
That “for reasons given below,” was likely referring to material following the quoted section:
; the part I put into a numbered list is/are the reasons that, I believe, make the seasonal ∆LR unsuitable as a proxy for longer-period LR feedback.
But anyway, I’ve now read sec. 7 through to the end. (and the beginning up to somewhere in the middle, I think.)
p.13/18 (32,189)
Fig. 11 (next p.) is the same but for the globe and JJA – DJF. Note I think they excluded ice-covered ocean (for instrumental reasons?)
What I want to note is (hopefully I didn’t mess this up; feel free to double check):
Every level shown (sfc (judging by dotted line extension) to 200 mb)) has a positive ∆T, except global ocean (11a.), which has cooling above ~ 470 mb ish (visually est.).
∆Absolute humidity (based on ∆q) is positively correlated with ∆T in every layer (lower, mid, upper)
and |∆q| is larger than it would be for constant RH in the mid and upper layers (magnitude is larger for global ocean upper layer, but in that case it is negative, as is ∆T there layer (boundary of layers is not exactly aligned with ~470 mb but look at ∆q for constant RH)) – except for global land+ocean (RH decreases in all of the 3 layers), which I think they explained as making sense given that ∆T of land sfc (Northern Hem.) dominates the ∆T of the sfc in that case. But even in this case, q increases with warming.
So if this were a proxy for WV feedback, it suggests a positive feedback.
What I meant was that I try to reserve “heating” for diabatic processes (which don’t necessary result in a change in T because of phase changes etc.) while I use “warming” for any increase in T, adiabatic or diabatic.
re Barton Paul Levenson – good blog post, however that doesn’t seem to be E. Schaffer’s misunderstanding; rather he is recognizing that the variation in T (via variation in the Planck function B_ν at any given ν) over height is required to enable LW opacity to affect OLR (barring the effects of any deviation of sfc LW emissivity from 1). Also I think he at least partly recognizes that the concept of an effective emitting level (EEL) is a effective/weighted average (over the spectrum) of weighted averages (over direction) of weighted averages (emission weighting function, EWF). Setting aside that some OLR does come from the stratosphere, I think his main misunderstandings are 1. Apparently assuming that the deviation of a moist adiabatic profile – or actual tropospheric profiles? – from dry adiabatic is proportional to the convective flux of latent heat from the surface, and 2. (more important when making large changes) assuming the vertical (and horizontal?) extent of approximately-convective profiles (having near neutral stability – is that the correct phrasing?) basically doesn’t vary with LW opacity/the GHE.
– leads into said material; I was referencing “the quoted section” that was initially supplied by E. Schaffer and which I requoted with an edited format to highlight some things.
“re Barton Paul Levenson – good blog post” [ https://bartonlevenson.com/lapse.html ] “,however that doesn’t seem to be E. Schaffer’s misunderstanding;” …
Ie. He did indicate understanding that the effective emission height for OLR to Space was a function of the GHE ie. LW opacity (of the atmosphere). But I realised after posting that I gave him too much credit there: in addition to the two points, there’s the dismissal of “backradiation” …
(a term some of us don’t care for so much but Piotr made a good case for accepting it a month or two ago … PS energy is being cycled around the climate system, so in a sense it can be ‘re-emitted’ and ‘re-absorbed’ and ‘re-convected’ and ‘re-diffused’ and ‘re-conducted’, but I’ve never heard anyone saying “reconvection”, so I still shun “re-emission” (unless if maybe it’s when the molecule hasn’t exchanged or converted the energy since the last absorption…),
… a.k.a. LW F↓ @ sfc, and then what I just responded to below, and the maligning of some climate scientists…
PS: for anyone interested…
Given the convective coupling of the sfc and all levels within the troposphere, a baseline level approximate understanding is that there is a tendency for the T throughout that portion of the climate system to respond proportionately to SARF at the tropopause level …
(SARF = Radiative Forcing after Stratospheric Adjustment, and thus has the same value from the tropopause to TOA – there is no remaining RF acting on the stratosphere after SA)
…, except for the Lapse Rate (LR, a.k.a. Γ) feedback, of course. This works exactly for a simplified 1-D (single vertical column) model with convection parameterized simply by reducing the LR to a convective (convectively neutral stability) LR (Γ) wherever radiant heating/cooling would destabilize it (note the role of the distribution of net radiant heating in determining where this happens), and requiring the necessary convective heat flux to accomplish this, but of course, in the full 4+D system, the convective coupling (in particular, localized vertical coupling) is at least somewhat looser than that, disappearing in some parts of the system…
But anyway, even with the primacy of tropopause level and TOA radiative forcing, this *doesn’t* mean LW F↓ @ sfc (or LW F{↑,↓,net↑} generally anywhere within the troposphere) don’t have an effect (they shape the convective heat flux, and to the extent that the convective coupling is loose, they also shape the LR (Γ)), much less that they somehow don’t exist.
@patrick
Honestly I have no clue what they try to argue there. However, none of those “arguments” can fix the fundamental issue that the proxy does not work, and is no proxy. It is a fact that this proxy was used as evidence, and is still being used for that sake.
But as I have explained, the whole plot is very unfortunate, yet comprehensible. They mistook the positive lapse rate component as evidence for WV feedback. It is comedy of mistaken identity.. In fact, positive WV feedback is exactly such a comedy!
ES: They mistook the positive lapse rate component as evidence for WV feedback. It is comedy of mistaken identity.. In fact, positive WV feedback is exactly such a comedy!
BPL: Since the saturation vapor pressure of water vapor increases with temperature (the Clausius-Clapeyron law), and water vapor is a greenhouse gas, water vapor feedback proceeds logically (and inevitably) from the (empirically established) premises.
E. Schaffer,
D note that you begin to seriously try my patience.
Let us keep to the two lines of discussion initiated within the July UV comment thread. These two were (1) Why the Lapse Rate of the troposphere is roughly 6.5ºC /km, and (2) Why the science says the Lapse Rate feedback is -0.5Wm^-2/ºC when your “LR feedback = surface WV latent heat flux = ~80Wm^-2 would suggest a value 5-times-larger with a 33k GHE, thus our “contradiction”.
(1) The contention between us here is that you appear to see the 6.5ºC/km as resulting from MALR conditions while I say it is far far more complicated than that.
I do not see anything from you to demonstrate that the MALR would lead to a tropospheric 6.5ºC/km lapse rate. I have attempted to show in different why why there is a lot more going on than the appearance of a MALR.
Perhaps another attempt at explaining this complexity would be more successful.
If you recall, I suggested that the energy flux into the atmosphere from condensing WV was not the only energy flux that would have a bearing on the Lapse Rate. Let’s have another go at that.
You insist the WV energy flux is different because all the other fluxes are “put into atmosphere at the bottom and it all gets lost at the “top” (actually different altitudes within the troposphere).” And indeed, the WV carries insensible heat up into the troposphere causing heating through the height of the troposphere.
You thus insist this WV warming uniquely impacts the Lapse Rate, reducing it and thus also a strong negative feedback on the GHE.
But consider this. As well as WV, the GHE itself warms the troposphere.
Consider that Fig 7 Kiehl & Trenberth (1997) shows 324Wm^-2 of “Back Radiation”. Of course, the stupid air molecules have no sense of direction with this radiation. As well as their 324Wm^-2 coming down, there is also (almost) 324Wm^-2 going up.
But when we get to the top of the atmosphere, the IR radiation from the atmosphere out into space is only 195Wm^-2. We are missing (324 – 195 =) 129Wm^-2. Where did it go? Could it perhaps be “causing heating through the height of the troposphere” like the 80Wm^-2 WV flux? And with 129>80, more heating?
(2) (Just to explain the ‘ignoring-the-contradiction’ thing. You wrote back in July that I “brought this perspective up before and (you) ignored it.” You thus admitted to not picking up on my raising the “contradiction”“One of the two must be wrong. From there on we have different philosophies. You would want to solve said contradiction by ignoring and denying it – a well known pattern. As if contradicting perspectives would provide us with a choice what to believe. For me it was reason to analyze the contridication in find out why it exists.” [My bold] So has your analysis shown why the “contradiction”“contradiction” has been resolved saying “as far as the contradiction goes, we know the one that is NOT wrong.” The reasons given for this view is no more than that I “could not produce a single good argument why that was not so.” If you mean by “a single good argument” one which you judge to be “a single good argument” then you are probably correct. But we do not live in your solipsistic world. We exist in thr real world where science does a pretty good job of solving contradictions, the same science which you here insist is flat-wrong.
I’m happy to hear folk explain why some scientific thing is wrong. But in this matter, I see no serious or cogent explanation from you.
Our previous to-&-fro on (2) concerned two references, Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998) and Dessler et al (2008). You do not explicitly make response to my rebutal of your use of Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998).
Up-thread you quoted from Dessler et al (2008) Sec 4.2.3 [para 41] which ends saying “This result demonstrates the unsuitability of using variations in different regions in our present climate as a proxy for climate change.” This (& the Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998) quote) was apparently an exemplar of “scientists themselves in many instances already realiz(ing) they were riding a dead horse.”
I remain unable to see why this shows they would be “scientists … riding a dead horse.” Indeed, up-thread I pointed out the meaning of this Dessler et al quote and why it demonstrates no such thing. I also pointed to para 39-40 which contradicts your contention that increased evapo-transpiration (your 80Wm^-2 surface flux which will increase with surface temperature Ts) diminishes the GHE. It says “as Ts increases, so does the lapse rate, and the general effect of this is to reduce dOLR/dTs, and therefore (reduce) OLR, below what they would be if the atmosphere maintained a constant lapse rate.” Conversely, in your version of things, such adjustment of Lapse Rate would increase OLR and diminish the GHE.
Your response now to my comments on Dessler et al (2008) is surprising. You insist you have “explained already” and then regurgitate your understanding of not Dessler et al (2008) but Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998).
Regarding your understanding of Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998), the “proxy”** you talk-of is your description of the adoption of Ga as a measure of the GHE (Ga = OLR[surface] – OLR[toa]). What you appear to be saying is that you agree with their result but it is the adoption of this “proxy” that makes it all wrong.
(** Note that Inamdar & Ramanathan don’t themselves use the term “proxy”. Dessler et al (2008) does use the term but in a different context.)
Given this ‘It’s the proxy’s wots wrong!!’ assertion, the bulk of your ‘it-is-best-explained-in-numbers’ is setting out what the use of this “proxy” achieved*** with nothing describing why use of this “proxy” is allegedly all wrong.
(*** Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998) cannot provide a value for the Lapse Rate Feedback but does set out a value for the WV+LR feedback in a rather laborius way in eqs 5-to-8 which is where the ‘it-is-best-explained-in-numbers’ 3.3 – 2 = 1.3 comes from, the +1.3 for WV+LR being a problem for your insistence that WV+LR must be negative.)
Up-thread you set out your quotes from Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998) and Dessler et al (2008) adding “There are many more of these instances.” Perhaps those “many more … instances” contain papers that better illustrate your grand theorising.
I suggested up-thread that “If you are trying to present some serious criticism of Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998), you have managed a very good job of hiding it!!!!” Your attempts to now correct that situation are verging on incoherent bullshit. Translating (or more precisely ‘divining the meaning’ of) incoherent bullshit is never a precise conversion and ‘translating’ what it is you are trying to say in this interchange is not producing any outcome whatever.
I’d guess that the underlying gripe you are presenting continues to be that you still see the WV+LR feedback being calculated without consideration of the impact of the LR feedback on GHE processes other than ΔWV. But after all these words, that remains just a guess.
Consider that Fig 7 Kiehl & Trenberth (1997) shows 324Wm^-2 of “Back Radiation”. Of course, the stupid air molecules have no sense of direction with this radiation. As well as their 324Wm^-2 coming down, there is also (almost) 324Wm^-2 going up. But when we get to the top of the atmosphere, the IR radiation from the atmosphere out into space is only 195Wm^-2. We are missing (324 – 195 =) 129Wm^-2. Where did it go?
Ok, this is a profound problem, and I have seen it so many times over. We have that regrettable term “radiative flux” in climate science, suggesting that when there is radiation, there would also be a flux of energy. As a rule the opposite is true. There is just isothermic radiative exchange, with no (net) flux of energy.
This is for instance true for the radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere. There may be smaller differences, but over all the surface emits as much radiation into the atmosphere, as it receives in “back radiation”. It is a zero-sum game, not doing anything, and not causing the GHE!
I did some analysis with the help of modtran to assess how much atmospheric “back radiation” there even is. Bear in mind, most of it is re-absorbed within the atmosphere, only a tiny fraction reaches the surface. It will be around 100,000W/m2! And where does that go? Nowhere, it just circulates.
Of course, when that radiative exchange is not quite as isothermic, that may look a little different. And I think there is one great example for it. On Venus the lower 40km of the atmosphere are relatively clear. Large parts of the radiation gets absorbed, but some passes through, and given the hot surface, that is yet a lot. So to a certain degree the hot surface and the hazy atmospheric layer at 40km plus exchange radiation directly. That should reduce the lapse rate in theory, and indeed it is way smaller than a dry adiabat there, and smaller than above.
In this instance however there is a huge delta T and a specific optical opacity profile of the atmosphere. We have nothing like it on Earth. The optical thickness of the atmosphere is declining relatively constantly with altitude. The radiative exchanges occur at small distances with minimal delta Ts, with minimal effects on the lapse rate. Those 129W/m2 (or so) are gradually consumed over such micro-exchanges.
***
Well then, let me use a different wording: we still have the issue of WV reducing the lapse rate by a lot, which is exactly the issue I brought up at the start. The logical implication is that WV is barely warming, or rather cooling with the given concentration. And your notion was this WOULD imply a contradiction and thus “is certainly not sound”.
You did not not acknowledge the contradiction, rather you rejected the idea BECAUSE it would mean a contradiction. Given that, my wording was not inaccurate. Moreover, you are using deduction to tell what details can be true, or not: “Your grand theory sits in “contradiction” to the entirety of climatology”. I have no “grand theory”, I just do a deductive falsification, which probably has more gravitas anyway..
***
Just let me clarify that IR98 uses dGa/dTs instead of the more common dOLR/dTs. It is just a technicality. With dOLR/dTs a zero feedback response would equate to the Planck Response like 3.3, lower results mean a pos. FB and vice verse. With dGa/dTs zero feedback should be 2.1W/m2 (=4*288^3*5.67e-8 – 3.3), with higher results meaning a pos. fb.
“as Ts increases, so does the lapse rate, and the general effect of this is to reduce dOLR/dTs, and therefore (reduce) OLR, below what they would be if the atmosphere maintained a constant lapse rate.” Conversely, in your version of things, such adjustment of Lapse Rate would increase OLR and diminish the GHE.”
Ok, that clarifies that you still do not understand, and I would suggest it is because you don’t want to. D08 here describes what the lapse rate does within the regional proxy, as opposed to what it does in the real world and in the models. There is no “my version” of things. I could explain it one more time, but I think I’ll just leave it at that.
Generally there are flux densities F in all directions (the integral over a hemisphere of radiance L · cos(angle from normal/orthogonal/perpendicular to the area through which the flux is flowing)).
You are (presumably) specifically referring to net LW F. Away from TOA, the net spectral flux density (vertical: net F_ν↑ = F_ν↑ − F_ν↓) approaches 0 (final approach is toward saturation) in the most optically-thick parts of the spectrum (eg, close to ~15 µm for CO2 and deep into the H2O bands, etc., esp. near line centers) and in some conditions (inside a thick dense cloud). But there is marginal bandwidth where net F_ν↑ is significant outside of clouds (and within some depth into clouds and sfc materials (generally thin, I think, unless you’re counting the air space among some vegetation)); and then there is bandwidth in which the air is nearly transparent (except for clouds and humid airmasses in the lower & mid-troposphere (depending on region & weather)).
Each layer of air absorbs some radiation and emits some radiation so that F_ν↑ and F_ν↓ change over height, tending to approach the local π·B_ν(T), but lagging behind changes in π·B_ν(T) over height. The math is more clear-cut when considering spectral radiance L_ν{↑,↓} at a particular angle ϑ from vertical (ϑ = θ for ↓, π − θ for ↑ if the direction is that the radiance is coming from (where you look toward to see it)) (for non-PPIA conditions it may also be necessary to consider the azimuthal angle ϕ: L_ν{↑,↓}(ϑ,ϕ)); then you can just use Schwarzchild’s equation; then integrate over solid angle.
( https://scienceopinionsfunandotherthings.wordpress.com/2025/12/09/for-asymptotic-radiances-ppia-linear-and-general-cases-wip-awaiting-final-proofread-double-check-diagrams-pending/ ,
https://scienceopinionsfunandotherthings.wordpress.com/2025/12/24/for-asymptotic-radiances-ppia-linear-b%cf%84/ ,
https://scienceopinionsfunandotherthings.wordpress.com/2024/12/10/directionally-averaged-radiance-and-the-semi-gray-skin-temperature-wip-awaiting-final-proofread-double-check-diagrams-pending/ ,
https://scienceopinionsfunandotherthings.wordpress.com/2025/12/30/for-asymptotic-radiances-ppia-sinusoidal-b%cf%84-part-1/ ,
https://scienceopinionsfunandotherthings.wordpress.com/2026/01/01/for-asymptotic-radiances-ppia-sinusoidal-b%cf%84-part-2/ , … , https://scienceopinionsfunandotherthings.wordpress.com/2026/02/03/for-asymptotic-radiances-ppia-sinusoidal-b%cf%84-part-5/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/12/unforced-variations-dec-2025/#comment-842771 ( “see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild%27s_equation_for_radiative_transfer – note they are [seem to be] using “spectral intensity” to refer to spectral radiance. **”) – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/12/unforced-variations-dec-2025/#comment-842845 …
We have nothing like it on Earth. – Qualitatively, we do. Cirrus Clouds! In the atmospheric window. Yes, outside the coldest/dryest air masses, there is still some significant opacity from H2O, but you get to a certain height …
(~ 4 km mid-lat ? 5 or 6 km tropical? https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ – but I can find 700 mb air masses with very low RH (even down to 1% in one spot https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=relative_humidity/orthographic=-289.80,-8.68,265/loc=80.898,-31.212 – …),
… there is little H2O optical depth (τ_{H2O} remaining above your POV, and the effective radiating surface below is distributed over a combination of the sfc and the volume of lower/mid tropospheric air above that, and in combination they exchange radiant fluxes with any overlying clouds (or stratospheric O3 near ~9.6 µm**??) Or consider stratocumulus and cirrus. Or consider (if the air is dry enough) the upside version: clouds at the top of an inversion layer …
** – I read somewhere that 90% of O3 is in the stratosphere; it didn’t specify whether this was globally or for mid-latitudes or whatever… it varies seasonally too. With line-broadening, much bandwidth would probably have ~
??? maybe half or more (10% * 600 mb / (10% * 600 mb + 90% * 10 mb??) = 60/69 ) [idk this]??? of τ_{O3} would still be in the troposphere (depends on line-spacing and the distribution over height);
OTOH, close to O3 line centers …
E. Schaffer,
It is entirely possible that you think your comment above is a rational response (rebuttal even) to my previous comment. Alternatively, it is also entirely possible that you know you are splurging-out gob shite. If it is the former, let me set out why your comment is but gob shite.
Your first point is actually arguing that the troposphere is not warmed by the GHE. Such a notion denies the existence of a rather obscure law of physics called the conservation of energy. The radiation flying round within the bottom of the atmosphere is 324Wm^-2 but by the time we get to the (radiative) top of the atmosphere where it’s considerably colder, that radiation is reduced to 195Wm^-2 which duly escapes off to space. That reduction in Wm^-2 is how the GHE works. And you know that!!!
Where did the (324 – 195 =) 129Wm^-2 go?
Perhaps there is a bit of a flaw in your logic. Perhaps your assertion that the troposphere is “isothermic” (which would result in “no (net) flux of energy”) is a tad awry. But, hey, I’m sure the troposphere being 288K at the bottom and 233K at the top means it’s as good as “isothermic”. But if it is, where did that 129Wm^-2 go?
Perhaps the 129Wm^-2 was, as you put it, “gradually consumed over such micro-exchanges” and disappeared as rounding errors “with minimal effects on the lapse rate.” So the effect of the 80Wm^-2 of insensible heat carried aloft by the WV would be even less, wouldn’t it?. So the “effects on the lapse rate.” of your 80Wm^-2 would be even more “minimal”. If not, perhaps you could explain why not?
Your second point seems to argue that because I acknowledge that there is a “contradiction” and, yes, it was me that has been bashing on about this “contradiction”. Then the “contradiction” exists (which is true) and you must be right and the entirety of climatology wrong.
But what I was bashing on about was that you are in “contradiction” to the entirety of climatology. And you have yet to set out any cogent argument to support your “contradictory” idea. Calling it “the logical implication” doesn’t make your illogical arguments logical.
You say you “have no “grand theory” but ” just do a deductive falsification, which probably has more gravitas anyway.” What? “Do”? If this is all you can manage, I would suggest your “deductive falsification” is properly done for.
Your third point attempting to ‘clarify’ Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998) simply shows your lack of grasp of the paper. dOLR(toa)/dTs = the rate of change of clear sky OLR relative to surface temperature. It is not an equatable substitute for dGa/dTs as a measure of anything. dGa/dTs = dOLR(surface)/dTs – dOLR(toa)/dTs. The surface term could be called the ‘Planck Response’ or the Temperature feedback and if you know Ts you can calculate it. IR1998 arrive at dOLR(surface)/dTs = 5.5Wm^-2/ºC. And they also have a value for dOLR(toa)/dTs = 3.3Wm^-2/ºC, this arrived at from a model which has not factored in the WV+LR feedback. So if the measured dOLR(toa)/dTs complete with real-world WV+LR feedback is less than 3.3Wm^-2/ºC, the value of the WV+LR feedback will be positive. And arriving at the problem with data for dGa/dTs, if dGa/dTs is greater than 2.2Wm^-2/ºC the WV+LR feedback again will be positive. The data shows dGa/dTs > 2.2.
Then, without pause (a fourth point?), you say that Dessler et al (2008) 4.2.3 para40 is not addressing “what the lapse rate does within … the real world and in the models” but are examining “what the lapse rate does within the regional proxy.” Indeed, Dessler et al do use Ts (=Tsst) as a proxy for latitude which is an added twist to their use of ‘Jacobians’ to examine the mechanisms of the GHE. But this [paras 39-41] is your chosen portion of your chosen rabbit hole.
So what is it saying in Para 40?
It references Fig8a and says “As Ts increases, so does the lapse rate.” And we both agree the consequence of an increase in Lapse Rate is a strengthening of the GHE.
Your version of this is that in Ts Dessler et al are talking solely of the proxy for latitude so when it says “Ts increases” it is saying ‘latitude decreases.’ If that is so, it’s not just a rather banal comment, it’s also completely arse-about-face. The lapse rate (in the form of MALR which you insist is the dominant factor here) decreases with increasing temperature, be that actual temperature or with a “regional proxy” for latitude.
“Arse-about-face”? Golly!!! It seems we have another “contradiction.”
So if this simply Ts is being used here as a “regional proxy,” how can this second “contradiction” be reconciled.
In my view, the sensible interpretation is otherwise – that when their models are run with Lapse Rate fixed at prior values, you get less GHE than if you let the modelled Lapse Rate change. (Note the model is running with Ta increased by 1ºC so in your book it is a warmer world with a decreased MALR and thus, in your book, an increased Lapse Rate yielding a decreased GHE.)
Of course, given the paucity of description in Kessler et al (2008), I could be wrong. And whatever the actual meaning, do recall <a href="https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850258.
“Turns out there is not a single piece of evidence even suggesting WV feedback was positive. They all point in the opposite direction. And that is consistent with the insight of WV being a cooling agent with given concentrations.” How does Dessler et at’s Fig5b square with that bold assertion?
So far in this lengthy interchange between us you have left quite a trail by failing to provide a sensible reply to pretty-much every enquiry I have presented. So your grand theory remains as it was, an unexplained “contradiction” between, on the one hand you and on the other the entirety of climatology.
Clarification:
PS if you graph B_ν over vertical optical depth τ_{vc} (see my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850156 ) the situation you had in mind may look like a staircase ie., (approximately/nearly) transparent layers of any sizable ∆p or ∆z are compressed into (approximately/nearly) zero optical thickness, while relatively higher-opacity-layers (eg. clouds) are stretched out, and if B_ν doesn’t vary much through them (eg., if because they are thin over ∆p or ∆z), in ‘optical/τ-space’, you get relatively flat steps with sharp drop-offs between them.
—- —-
A straight-line T(z) profile becomes convex over atmospheric mass path mp (approx. proportional to p), and thus over the mp of WMGHGs like CO2.
(to the extent they are truly WMGHGs – I believe/have the impression that N2O and CH4 and the CFCs drop off going up through the stratosphere and maybe even starting lower than that? Meanwhile, the major CO2 sources and sinks being at the sfc, it’s concentration, I think (?) can be perturbed (how much?) in the PBL and especially in certain environments (under forest canopies?), though that wouldn’t have much effect on the GHE at least in terms of OLR…)…
And then there’s the line-broadening effects. But also the nonlinearity of B_ν(T), increasing toward higher ν.
The bottom-heavy H2O distribution will tend to make the profile even more convex, stretching out the lower-troposphere, and outside the strongest/(er?) parts of it’s absorption spectrum, may make the upper-troposphere and above almost nonexistent in τ-space.
— — —
Re all my links: I was trying some different notation systems there. Fd ≡ F, and if I used θ in L{↑,↓}(θ), it means ϑ (the two symbols look identical in some programs(fonts?) – I think ϑ (“Greek Theta Symbol”) is \vartheta in Latex, while θ (“Greek Small Letter theta”) is \theta . ϕ on my iphone looks like \varphi, which is what I was going for; on my computer it just looks like \phi. There are of course the options \Theta and \Phi, the later of which already has distinct conventional meanings (flux, and in a different context, gravitational potential)
My https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/12/unforced-variations-dec-2025/#comment-842771 is a good place to start (besides the Wikipedia link, of course, and any other sources; I just mean a good place to start within my own work (or do I?)).
Looking at the Modtran graphs https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ the quantity graphed is labelled “Intensity” (a word with multiple uses in this subject matter; It also gets used for radiance, though technically I think it’s supposed to mean the product of radiance and an effective area facing the direction of said radiance; and for line strength (eg. [m²/(mol·cm¯¹)] ) – in this case the units are for spectral flux density:
“looking down”: F_ν↑ (upward):
“looking up”: F_ν↓ (downward)
For any profile, other input parameters (eg. CO2 ppm), and height, you can run it, then you can click the “Save This Run to Background” button, and then click the “looking down”/“looking up” button to flip the direction, so you can see both F_ν↑ and F_ν↓, and thus you can see the difference between them, net F_ν↑ = F_ν↑ − F_ν↓. The area between the curves is the spectral integral, net (LW) F↑.
Generally, doublings of CO2 eat into net F↑ from the side. The climate response to forcings (changes) are T changes to adjust net (LW) F↑ to return to balance with solar heating and convection (global time-average, or including storage and horizontal advection terms otherwise).
I would like a version where you can simultaneously show this for multiple heights or conditions, and/or graph net F_ν↑, and/or animate with sliders to continuously adjust input parameters. Also a bigger graph with thinner lines to see more detail (sometimes where the two curves overlap, you can notice different details if you switch which one is the background). And a comparison to π·L_ν values (…
Re E. Schaffer (again) – I took your use of “isothermal” to describe the conditions on the scale of the effective* mean free path of photons, and that is generally a good approximation *when that scale is* from less than ~ 1 m to 10 m, maybe even a bit more (aside from next to a dry barren rocky surface in the sunlight etc.), but as I was pointing out above, there is plenty of LW bandwidth which is less opaque than that. (and then going higher up you have to go farther in m to get the same mass path, etc.)
*My use of “effective mean free path” is meant to be based on “total absorption”, ie. direct absorption – stimulated emission; the actual mean free path based on direct absorption will be shorter.
*I believe that’s what’s being plotted in the graph*. ( https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ )
I do highly recommend this!
and feedbacks…
I actually half-way know how to do that, though only with simplied absorption spectra (eg. Jeevanjee & Fueglistaler, 2020 “Simple Spectral Models for Atmospheric Radiative Cooling” https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/77/2/jas-d-18-0347.1.xml ), and it would take me a long, long time. ( https://happycoding.io/tutorials/p5js/ – I learned how to do this (not everything, just the basics) back in ~2024 and started working a similar related concept in the 1st part of 2025, but I took a break from it about a year ago.
The part that (mostly) works is graphs over mass path or optical depth (with τ_{vc} gridlines every unit, fifth of a unit, 1/25, and 5, 25 … depending on the scale, animated so the move with opacity changes (unless the optical depth is selected as the coordinate – in that case, the profile compresses etc.), but I didn’t get around to creating a legend: If I remember right (been a few months since I last tried it) graphing:
↑ blue, ↓ red (and dashed), net↑(F) purple/violet ; F (thick lines) and L (thin lines) @ ϑ = 0 (solid,higher contrast), acos(2/3), 60°, acos(1/4), and L_{2π hemispheric average) (↑ cyan-ish, ↓ orangish, complex dash pattern):, L_{4π} average bright green, and net radiant cooling (cool blue thin line with areas filled in light blue-cyan (+cooling), yellow(−cooling, ie. +heating) both per unit mass and per unit optical depth; F and net cooling values were scaled by ÷π for direct comparison to L values…
– a set of preset profiles including sinusoidal and simple line segments…
Major glitch: you have to restart the program in order to swich to a different profile.
But the dark mode checkbox works! Most of the others don’t do anything; my ambitions exceeded my patience… (link pending)
Calculating the values was the easy part, figuring out how to display it was hard…
patrick o twentyseven,
Chicago Uni’s MODTRAN is perhaps too useful for its output format. But that output does include the actual numbers available with the ‘Show Raw Model Output’ button. And if MODTRAN’s graphed output as provided is a tad small, thick-lined and shows only one run-at-a-time, that ‘Raw Data Output’ can be used in a spreadsheet to overcome such shortcomings. A couple of quick cut-&-pastes into a version I have lurking yields the graphic HERE Posted 14th August 2026, (with the MODTRAN version inlaid for comparison).
…The profiles were each a particular Planck function profile and the calculated values were monochromatic values; I also wanted to graph over log₂k of some component of opacity (where other components might be ‘background’ constant) (animate over height), and maybe graph over both height and log₂k with some color/shading fill (For net radiant cooling) and contours (for net F↑, etc.), and then also graph L over direction, and then show actual heat vision visual fields (upper and lower hemispheres as circles area scaled by cos(ϑ) or solid angle, or as rectangular plots with θ on the vertical axis and height or log₂k on the horizontal axis (animate over the other one), and then the idea I had was you could double click on a spot and it would show a circular cross section through a line of sight (LOS) with absorption cross sections displayed (orthographically projected along LOS) (so you could see that the shade of gray looking up from some place in the stratosphere may be (depending on where and k) a consequence of a mix of brighter cross sections not completely hiding the cold black of Space. I had actually done a series of such absorption cross section displays using Excel spreadsheet back in 2023 for ~ 6 heights in a ~tropical profile for ~12 or 13 µm but I messed up a part and Excel is not really built for that type of thing , and anyway it had no variation in line broadening over height, so I gave up on that for a while, but p5 is a good fit for that sort of thing.
Easier visualized than programmed.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850433 Correction:
@Rodger
Yes, I am “gobshiting” if you will. Others may call it intellectual excellence. Depends..
“Where did the (324 – 195 =) 129Wm^-2 go?”
1.
Check above, I explained it already. But ok, let me try again considering your additional questioning. Most of the radiative exchange, and I have pointed there is a lot of it, occurs at very small distances within the atmosphere. Where optical thickness is high, photons may travel inches, a couple of meters. There is basically no delta temperature. And more importantly, there is little leverage to shrink the lapse rate. That is opposed to the example of Venus that I gave.
Think of it like an insulating wall. It is warm inside and cold outside. The question is how well, or poorly, the warm and the cold sides are interconnected. The more this becomes a mirco-transaction, the better the wall will retain the heat of a house.
It is the same thing over how such radiative exchange will affect the lapse rate. On micro-level barely, on a larger scale somewhat. So where did your exemplary 129W/m2 go? They got largely lost in transaction. Latent heat does not..
2.
I don’t know..
3.
Nope
4.
While I am not familiar with the term “arse-about-face”, or similar scientific jargon used by you extensively, let me put it like this..
Arse in your face: In the regional proxy the lapse rate increases with temperature! That is opposed to a lapse rate decreasing with temperature, as we would expect it. That is why it will not work as a proxy for climate change. But that is also why the positive WV feedback in this proxy is, for the larger part, is just an artefact of bad assumptions.
Beyond: I have not, or barely, touched the issues beyond. So far I only pointed out, supported by D08 and RI98, that 2/3s of the (proxy-) evidence for a pos. WV feedback is baseless. That is next to the issue of baselessly assuming WV was a warming agent because it was “the strongest GHG”.
My inquiry is about how all this could happen, how people could be so blind and one-sided, partisan, bigot and anti-science. And yes, you are helping with that.
ES: baselessly assuming WV was a warming agent
BPL: That water vapor absorbs infrared light was established by lab experiments by John Tyndall in 1858.
E. Schaffer,
I see you have returned to clog up this thread with you ridiculous theorising again which you now seem to admit is ‘gobshite’. Mind, the other I suggestion I made up-thread still remains on the table as you apparently consider one man’s “gobshite” can also stand as “intellectual excellence.” Could your view that “intellectual excellence” equate to “gobshite” ever be valid outside the lunatic asylum?
And your “gobshiting” then continues.
(1) So you didn’t manage to spot the actual question set out in my first point up-thread. But let’s stick with the ridiculous proposal you are attempting to defend and rub in a bit more ridicule.
Fig7 of Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) shows 324Wm^-2 of IR flying round-&-out at the bottom of the atmosphere and 195Wm^-2 flying round-&-out the top. And for the umpteenth time you insist the (324 – 195 =) 129Wm^-2 is absorbed by the very bottom of the atmosphere where you insist “optical thickness is high” and “photons may travel inches, a couple of meters.” There is, you say, “basically no delta temperature. … Think of it like an insulating wall. It is warm inside and cold outside.”
Okay. Let’s run with that, a 2m thermal wall.
The specific heat capacity of air at ground level is 1kJ/kg/K and density is 1.2kg/m^3 with the average for 2m SAT +15.0 ºC. So if a 2m layer is being warmed by our missing 129Wm^-2, that layer of air will in just one hour have risen to a temperature of [15.0 + (129 x 3,600) / (1,000 x 1.2 x 2) =) +208.5 ºC and continue rising by 4,600 ºC per day. Is that what you mean when you say the 129Wm^-2 “got largely lost in transaction”?
And well done here!! I would say your use of the adverb ‘largely’ is appropriate (unlike the other silly word-chioce). It certainly is a ‘large’ effect!!!
Of course, in the absence of a plasma-filled lower atmosphere, this nonsense still doesn’t answer the question ““Where did the (324 – 195 =) 129Wm^-2 go?”
(2)
This is your second attempt to reply to the contention that you are in contradiction with the whole of science and to explain why that would be a worthy position to maintain. Your latest reply – you can’t say because you “don’t know.”
(3)
Your monosylabic response here is a little ambigulous as you reply to a negative. So perhaps saying “Nope” you are agreeing to “your lack of grasp of the paper” Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998) which you cited as an exemplar of apparently “many … instances … [that] are indeed all wrong,” this to illustrate some nonsense you proposed way-back in this interchange.
And we haven’t got anywhere clearing up what your doing citing Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998). So it is still correct to say “If you are trying to present some serious criticism of Inamdar & Ramanathan (1998), you have managed a very good job of hiding it!!!!”
(4)
You pronounce Dessler et al (2008) wrong because its findings are not “as we would expect it” but fail to explain further. Apparently you have no need to further explain because you are right and the whole of science is somehow wrong.
And you conclude by explaining your purpose which is not to correct some profound scientific error that would surely be the normal sciency thing.
No!!
Your “inquiry is about how all this could happen, how people could be so blind and one-sided, partisan, bigot and anti-science.” If this is so E. Schaffer, why are you here? Surely your “inquiry” is a psycology thing, not per se a science thing.
re MA Rodger – Thanks! I actually knew about the “Show Raw Model Output”, and took the 6 different clear sky results looking down from 100 km (I noticed that sometimes if I just use the 70 km Tropical default without changing anything, some of the raw output is messed up), C&P’d into column A in different spreadsheets, and used some of the text functions to parse it out into columns as I wanted. I thought maybe I could use it as input in my own (yet to be constructed) simplied spectra model sometime (I would just insert cloud layers optionally); but I was confused by some of the column values – … long story.
The two curves in your graph – are they F_ν↑ @ TOA and tropopause?
patrick o twentyseven,
The two graphed curves?
I wasn’t paying that much attention other than making sure the there were noticeable differences between the two traces. (My actual worry was that the old steam-power spreadsheet had stopped working since last I used it and needed a tweak.) However the traces were, as you say, F_ν↑ at with the default setting (70km) & apparently 20km (as the cut-&-pasted Model Output says “H1 = 20.000 KM”).
MAR 4 Aug 2026 at 7:36 AM “while (B) you insist the contribution is about 5x larger with the LR feedback = surface WV latent heat flux = ~80Wm^-2.” The main very-simple reason why the ES WV latent heat effect on lapse rate is overstated by a factor of 3.4 (looks like maybe you have climate scientists having it still more overstated but I’ve not time to study yours) is simply that ES has chosen this PARTICULAR form of energy that all gets converted into “heat” in the troposphere as not having that GHE applied to it so the entire ~80Wm^-2 goes to Outer Space. That’s an arbitrary (almost-certainly intentional) separation of that energy source even though they all get bundled and molecules do not know which came from where so of the 88 w/m**2 WV latent heat (Hartmann text book) 55 w/m**2 return to surface as LWIR and must be removed from lapse rate calculations (also maybe ~7 w/m**2 as sensible heat but I’m highly unsure on the actual quantity of that one).
Barry E Finch,
While my responses to this E. Schaffer character run to some considerable length, the absence of anything serious yet to appear within his arguments (even half-serious) means the actual situation remains quite simple.
Science shows the Lapse Rate feedback is negative (cooling) and about -0.5Wm^-2/ºC. This value is usually wrapped up with the Water Vapour feedback which is positive and larger (WV feedback = +1.8Wm^-2/ºC ؞ WV+LR feedback = +1.3Wm^-2/ºC).
E. Schaffer is arguing for an absolutely massive Lapse Rate feedback insisting the LR feedback is equal to the surface evaporation energy flux** which is generally given at something like 80Wm^-2. For a total 33ºC Greenhouse Effect, that would average (-80 / 33 =) -2.4Wm^-2/ºC, five-times what all the scientific studies are saying and big enough to make the combined WV+LR feedback negative.
His notion that the LR feedback = surface evaporation flux** (or that this would still hold for incremental increases under AGW) is pure fantasy.
(** Of course everybody knows the value of the Lapse Rate feedback is actually equal to the price of frozen peas in the shop down the end of my road, negative because when I buy frozen peas my bank balance drops by £0-50p/kg.)
The “Chung et al 2010s” here & here
ES: neither the dry- nor the moist adiabat are physically dependent on GHGs.
The value of the lapse rate doesn’t, but whether the atmosphere is actually tending toward the lapse rate does depend on GHGs. Without them you get an isothermal atmosphere.
ES: Sure you could say WV is a GHG, but it is only considered as a condensating gas, not a GH-agent.
BPL: Absolutely wrong. Every model of Earth’s greenhouse effect has to include water vapor as a greenhouse agent. Every single one.
E. Schaffer: “WV is only considered as a condensating gas, not a GH-agent.”
BPL: “Absolutely wrong. Every model of Earth’s greenhouse effect has to include water vapor as a greenhouse agent. Every single one.”
Including those to which E. Schaffer ….. has referred here: Schmidt et al. 2010, Table 1: H2O (Vapor) 39.0% to 61.9 % of GH effect – “Each Absorber Being Removed (Minimum Effect) vs. That Absorber Acting Alone (Maximum Effect).
What’s the point of explaining to ES complicated details, when the guy can’t understand even the most obvious things in what he reads?
1. Yes, theoretically likely true. However, that is an extreme assumption where the troposphere was devoid of anything absorbing / emitting radiation. No GHGs, no clouds, no aerosols. Practically their concentration is irrelevant..
2. No, not wrong, but right. I was talking about the calculation of the MALR, and not climate models.
E. Schaffer: “ No, not wrong, but right. I was talking about the calculation of the MALR, and not climate models.”
Then – who cares? We make climatic projection and provide information to the society based on highly advanced, complex climate models looking combing input, and spatial and temporal variability, of MANY DIFFERENT processes affecting climate.
You can’t invalidate them by making cherry-picking a few numbers from the climate models
and putting them in one narrow concept (MALR), using massively simplifying assumptions and rejecting any criticism of them by calling the critic “nihilistic”…
On the Arctic sea ice minimum — the 2026 melt season has been unusual with the persistent warmth in the Kara and Beaufort seas. Will be interesting to see how the final September extent compares to recent years once the numbers stabilize. The evidence-based policy concern is timely given how many decisions are being made without reference to the underlying physics.
(Cont. from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-849838 … )
Trying out different wordings:
Hot and cold abs. cross sections (σ_a) will, due to the first glowing brighter than the second, have a net radiant flux from hot to cold (“from point of emission to point of absorption”**), but only to the extent of their size and number, and to the extent that they can see each other.
(** https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-823976 )
When opacity is increased, you can’t see as far, and so, at any given location (POV), the (spectral) radiant flux densities (F_ν) and (spectral) radiances (L_ν) in various directions depend less on more distant conditions and more on conditions nearby.
I found a new source for climate science information based on this post on Bluesky:
https://bsky.app/profile/arepublic86.bsky.social/post/3ms6bzvba4c27
This resource reminds me a bit of Wood for Trees
https://www.woodfortrees.org/
with the options available for prioritizing the information to make more meaningful graphics.
https://showyourstripes.info/
This particular graphic shows the increase in hot summers over the past 130 years, and my favorite, temporary, hottest year on record, 1998 – in medium dark red.
https://showyourstripes.info/c/northamerica/unitedstatesofamerica/all
My area of SoCal is in the middle of a ten-day streak of triple digit temperatures, the new normal. Stay hydrated.
Tomas: 1 Aug. “I do not think, however, that comparing JCM with “E. Schaffer” is appropriate.
Why not? BOTH are anything-by-GHGs deniers. BOTH build up their ego on their belief that they, despite being lay people, are so brilliant that they discovered something that thousands of professional climatologists failed, or refused, to notice. NEITHER is willing to submit their dearly-held belief to the test of submitting their work to a peer-review paper.
And most importantly – by their fruits you shall know them – by trying to discredit the climate science and diverting the attention of the society from the urgency of the mitigation our GHG emissions, BOTH of them help to delay and diminish this mitigation, and make the AGW worse. Consequently, BOTH bear moral responsibility for their share of the additional deaths and suffering, and species extinctions caused by the delay/weakening our actions to reduce GHG emissions. Plus BOTH are “useful idiots” of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other petro-dictatorships, whose economies, wealth of their oligarchs, ability to wage wars, support terrorism, and repress their own population is DEPENDENT on the world continuing to buying their oil and gas.
So any differences between E. Schaffer and JCM are cosmetic, different tools, but the same goals and the same fruits of their actions, as listed above.
If anything – in his attempts to discredit science and central role of GHG mitigation – JCM went much further than E. Schaffer – dismissing climate modelling as “imaginary process mechanisms [with] rules about how things ought to be [according to their authors]“.
and blaming climate scientists for “up to 40% of planet’s land degraded”:
“It’s hard to imagine denying or actively minimizing the consequences to realclimates due to an artificial fixation and overemphasis on the outputs of trace gas and aerosol forced model estimates.” [ (c) JCM])
So, on the second thought, perhaps you are right that JCM is not as bad as E. Schaffer – he may be worse.
E. Schaffer 1 Aug: “Sure I could explain the solution of said dissent, which I happen to know”
I will not hold my breath. After all, you were incapable to answer a simple yet fundamental question to your claims: namely: “So what?”. See for instance my earlier post:
=====
Piotr to E Schaffer: “So what?
– being a passive feedback, NOT a forcing – it does not drive AGW, nor can we do anything about it. Meaning that it has NO societal value of informing the society on mitigation of AGW.
– nor does it improve our understanding of the climate, since changes in lapse rate are already calculated in climate models which “dynamically resolve or parameterize vertical temperature profiles, convection, and radiative-convective balances”.
Because of that – what difference would it make to, say out of the projected by models 2C of warming – +0.5C or -0.2C was the result of lapse rate feedback?
So far no answer other than clicking your famous ruby red slippers three times while wistfully whispering “ES: Well, it is exactly about improving our knowledge, and decisevely so! ”
===
And until you can answer the “So what?” question, what’s the point in engaging you in technical details of something the societal or intellectual relevance you yourself can’t identify?
I do understand you use a deductive approach, while I am doing induction. You would say some detail is not so important, but the bigger picture is. I would say the bigger picture is the result of all the details.
You are not alone in this, rather it seems everyone is doing so. Everyone is looking at the details as far as they fit the bigger picture. And if one detail contradicts the it, it must be wrong. It will be considered as far it fits, and if not it gets ignored, downplayed, or tampered with. Then of course you will end up with a large quantity of evidence, with poor or zero quality, and a bigger picture that is based on nothing eventually.
The problem however starts way earlier. I should add I also have some background in quality assurance. If there is even one single detail contradicting the bigger picture, that is code red already. There is no such thing as a tolerable or negligible exception. If you ignore it, it is only going to get worse, and inflationary so. Think of the 737MAX story – the rules are there for a reason.
ES, you aren’t even following your own logic. For example, last month, I brought up several “details” about your incorrect assumptions. These included not allowing for changes in the tropopause height or temperature, so that a lower lapse rate would necessarily result in colder surface temperatures. You accused me of being “nihilistic.” Ignoring the “details” that I and others raise ought to be code red for you, by your own professed standards. Instead, I expect that you will not only tolerate own your false assumptions, but work out a way to obfuscate, minimize, or ignore the objections to them.
My “own” logic is the one that scores a 100% on IQ tests. I am fine with that.
You questioned what lapse rate I mean. I clearified it was the tropospheric one. And you argued “so what”, which I referred to as nihilism. You did not bring up a single “detail” that would even suggest anything incorrect.
Yet there is one “detail” I did not respond to, because it misses the point: Yes, as the troposphere warms more to a shrinking lapse rate, it should also hold more WV. This will NOT change the neg. lapse rate feedback, but it is a vital factor in WV feedback as it enhances it.
That is an important detail if you use radiative transfer models to assess WV feedback. If you check modtran it will underestimate WV feedback just because it holds the lapse rate fixed. Modtran would give you 1.2W/m2 (US std) and 1.73W/m2 (trop) of WV feedback with clear skies. Allowing for clouds and stratosphere, these figures drop significantly, like 0.7W/m2 and 1W/m2. That is a long shot from some 1.8W/m2 of global WV feedback, and ~3W/m2 in the tropics, which are central estimates within models. Said enhancement is badly needed to increase WV feedback and get it closer to central estimates. Yet it is not nearly enough. You might get like 0.9 to 1W/m2 globally and ~1.4W/m2 in the tropics.
You might think the effect of the lapse rate reduciton is something that comes on top, a luxury problem, but actually it is already included – and overestimated. Also with it included, WV feedback is far too low.
in Re to “E. Schaffer”, 7 Aug 2026 at 6:27 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850303
Sir,
I do not understand what you try to demonstrate by your comparison of some modtran simulation with a “central estimates within models”. I suppose that modtran is also a kind of model, a simple one, isn’t it? Could you clarify?
Furthermore, if in your comment of 28 Jul 2026 at 8:16 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850162 ,
the paragraph “Yet in my understanding, the “radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere” should not include the atmospheric window. There the atmosphere can not receive nor emit radiation, so it is not taking part in such an exchange..”
should have perhaps represented your reply to my objection of 23 Jul 2026 at 6:23 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-849972
that you are not allowed to subtract the energy flow through the “atmospheric window” from the surface radiation, because you would thus incorrectly minimize the net radiation,
it appears that instead replying to clear arguments presented by JCM, you decided to introduce a new concept “radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere”.
I would like to ask why do you think that replacing clearly defined net radiation with your new concept is useful? What new understanding brings your magic “radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere” to climate science?
Best regards
Tomáš
ES: My “own” logic is the one that scores a 100% on IQ tests.
BPL: IQ tests aren’t graded in percent. They are arranged so that a large population gets a mean score of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. Or are you saying your score is 100?
E. Schaffer 7 Aug: My “own” logic is the one that scores a 100% on IQ tests.
Then perhaps it’s time to stop taking the IQ tests for the 5-th graders? ;-)
Or the tests Trump bragged about acing (telling an elephant from a tiger and a giraffe!) ?
John has pointed to the contradiction between what you declare about yourself in one post (an inductive mind building a big picture from careful consideration of minute details) and what you do in another post – i.e. dismissing the details of your major simplification, that if accounted for – countering your “big picture ” findings, and calling such considering of the real world “details” as ….”nihilism”, I quote:
===============
– ES: Holding other things constant, this smaller lapse rate reduces the GHE and provides a cooler surface
– JP So what? Other things aren’t constant. You get more water vapor into the lower atmosphere by warming the surface, not cooling it.
-ES “sure, but nihilism is not going to provide insights”
=================
So not only you are incapable to see the contradiction between what you say and what you do, your are still unable to see it even after John has pointed it to you.
This tells us more about your intelligence than your assurances how very intelligent you are.
By their fruits, not by their declarations about themselves, you shall know them.
@Tomas
Modtran is a radiative transfer model, like hitran, and basically gives the same output, though less precise. Although they are climate related models, they are no way “climate models” in the common sense. They try to give the best possible emulation of radiative transfer. And I am just pointing out, these models give a WV feedback only half the magnitude assumed as central estimate.
Try for yourself..
https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
JCMs definition of “Rlw” was a bit ambiguous. But if it meant to be the radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere, it should not include radiation that goes from the surface through the atmospheric window right into space, because there is no exchange with the atmosphere.
However, it smells like the old “back radiation = GHE” fallacy anyhow.
in Re to “E. Schaffer”, 8 Aug 2026 at 1:19 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850329
Sir,
You have not responded to my question: “What you try to demonstrate by your comparison of some modtran simulation with a “central estimates within models”?
In other words: You admit that modtran is a radiative transfer model, much simpler than complex climate models. Considering this difference, why you wonder that “these models give a WV feedback only half the magnitude assumed as central estimate” (estimated by modtran, I assume)?
Furthermore, I am pretty sure that JCM has not discussed “radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere”, because it seems to be a pretty new concept introduced by you. You failed to respond to two simple questions that I asked in this respect:
Why do you think that replacing clearly defined net radiation with your new concept is useful? What new understanding brings your magic “radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere” to climate science?
Best regards
Tomáš
ES: Modtran is a radiative transfer model, like hitran
BPL: HITRAN is a database, not a model.
re: Schaffer:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850329
The surface energy balance between solar radiative input, turbulent heat transfer, and LW radiative transfer is not ambiguous. Rsw = J + Rlw.
or, equivalently, surface net radiation equals the turbulent flux J (latent + sensible heat). Temporary imbalances can be closed by adding a storage term.
The solar radiative heating exceeds the LW radiative cooling of surface. The balance is closed by fluxes of latent and sensible heat and storages changes. You can imagine integer values of 3K/day solar radiative heating equivalent against -2K/day turbulent transfer and -1K/day LW transfer.
In other contexts I am happy to discuss the partitioning, including the sensible and radiative heat transfer, the dependence of radiative transmission on optical depth, the governing relations of latent flux through gradients of saturation vapor pressure, and the analytical constraints that link temperature profiles to observable heat flux.
As far as atmosphere goes, adding a post hoc adjustment to MODTRAN is regressive. Hartmann provides a clear discussion of how a relaxed lapse rate increases the water-vapor path (VPP) above a given level relative to a steeper lapse rate. The associated atmospheric adjustment places the surface deeper below the effective level from which the planet emits to space, as illustrated well in Figure 1C: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/19/JCLI-D-21-0861.1.xml
In other words, at the same altitude and temperature, the local radiative cooling rate is smaller under a 4 K/km lapse rate than under a 7 K km/km lapse rate because the vapor path above that level is greater. In planetary energy balance, warming and the adjusted atmospheric profile are coupled equilibrium outcomes: the warmer conditions help sustain the altered profile, while the altered profile changes the relationship between the surface and the mean level from which radiation is transmitted to space. They go hand in hand. It is physically inconsistent to delete warming while sustaining the altered profile.
@Tomas
I am not sure I would out it that way. Radiative transfer models (one may also call them data bases, if that feels better), have their scope. With that, they should be pretty accurate. CO2 forcing is very much consistent with these data. I would wonder why WV would not be. In fact there are plenty of publications simply quoting these models..
On the other side, I tend to believe climate models do not even include such radiative transfer calculations. They just use parameters determined elsewhere..
Tomas:
I am pretty sure that JCM has not discussed “radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere”
JCM:
„and net longwave radiative exchange between surface adn atmosphere, Rlw“
in Re to John Pollack, 4 Aug 2026 at 10:15 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850286
Hello John,
I would like to ask if I understood correctly that you spoke about environmental lapse rate?
And yet another question came to my mind. If changes in latent heat flux and/or water vapour content in the air column change both the surface temperature as well as entire troposphere temperature profile and tropopause height, is it correct to assume that the tropopause height exhibits some temporal fluctuations? I would expect that e.g. above hurricanes with their intensive latent heat flux, tropopause height might exhibit a “local extreme”?
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš,
Yes, I was speaking of environmental lapse rate. The tropopause height exhibits large temporal fluctuations outside the tropics, and (usually) smaller changes within the tropics. The overall height in the tropics is set by thunderstorms, which release heat mostly in the lower levels of the troposphere, but create strong updrafts that push up the height of the tropopause. As you note, the most extreme case is above a tropical cyclone.
Just looking at the balloon soundings over the U.S. and southern Canada this evening, I see tropopause heights of 13 to 13.6 km in parts of the southern U.S. At Tampa in southern Florida, the sounding contains full tropical moisture, and is nearly saturated from the surface to the 13.3 km tropopause, where the temperature is -68C. In the desert Southwest, the soundings are close to dry adiabatic up to 600 mb, and not as steep higher up. Tropopause temperatures are around -65C. Cloud top temperatures in hurricanes can be colder than -80C. On the other hand, there is a cool cyclonic mid tropospheric circulation over central Canada. One sounding that samples this cool cyclone is dry adiabatic up to around 800 mb, weaker than moist adiabatic above that, and the tropopause is 8.8 km, where the temperature is around -40C.
ES, moist convection allows a decreased lapse rate near the surface, but results in a deepening of the troposphere, so that temperatures at the tropopause are actually colder over the tropics than at higher latitudes. That is why not considering the height of the tropopause is a “detail” that you shouldn’t ignore.
in Re to John Pollack, 7 Aug 2026 at 9:46 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850309
Hello John,
Many thanks for your instructive response!
Honestly, I must say that so far, I imagined the atmospheric layers as something static, just like the static diagrams / illustrations thereof in textbooks. Actually, the entire troposhere as well as the layers above are very dynamic, variable, irregularly pulsating entities.
Are you aware if this aspect is already being reflected in modern educational materials (videos, variable graphics / computer animations …)?
Greetings
Tomáš
ES: if not it gets ignored, downplayed, or tampered with.
BPL: It’s a CONSPIRACY!
Piotr: “And until you can answer the “So what?” question, what’s the point in engaging you in technical details of something the societal or intellectual relevance you yourself can’t identify?”
E Schaffer: “ I would say the bigger picture is the result of all the details. ”
You still understand nothing. If you can’t answer the most fundamental question to your “big picture” namely: “So what?” – if you can’t answer this most fundamental question to your supposed “big picture” what’s the point of discussing the details of that supposed “big picture”?
And here again are these fundamental questions that you can’t dismiss with your blabbering how your evading an honest answer to these question is your presumably admirable “inductive reasoning”.
=====
Piotr to E Schaffer: “So what?
– being a passive feedback, NOT a forcing – it does not drive AGW, nor can we do anything about it.
Meaning that it has NO societal value of informing the society on mitigation of AGW.
– nor does it improve our understanding of the climate, since changes in lapse rate are already calculated in climate models which “dynamically resolve or parameterize vertical temperature profiles, convection, and radiative-convective balances”. Because of that – what difference would it make to, say out of the projected by models 2C of warming – +0.5C or -0.2C was the result of lapse rate feedback?
So far no answer other than clicking your famous ruby red slippers three times while wistfully whispering “ESchaffer: Well, it is exactly about improving our knowledge, and decisevely so! ”
===
Particularly that you based your attack on climate science on your staggering ignorance on how their models work (E. Schaffer: “W Vis only considered as a condensating gas, not a GH-agent”)
See your post above.
UAH have posted July’s TLT numbers with a global anomaly of +0.48ºC, a tad up on the June anomaly (+0.46ºC). May2026 remains the highest anomaly of the year-to-date, Jan-to-May running +0.35ºC, +0.39ºC, +0.38ºC, +0.39ºC,ºC,+0.53ºC.
The warming June→July was all NH (+0.54ºC → +0.68ºC) with cooling in the SH (+0.38ºC → +0.27ºC).
… … … UAH July anomalies
… … … … Global … … NH … … …SH
2023 … +0.56ºC … +0.58ºC … +0.53ºC
2024 … +0.73ºC … +0.85ºC … +0.61ºC
2025 … +0.36ºC … +0.49ºC … +0.23ºC
2026 … +0.48ºC … +0.68ºC … +0.27ºC
The ranking of warmest Global TLT Julys in UAH puts 2026 +0.48ºC strongly in 3rd place, ahead of 4th 1998 +0.38ºC, 5th 2025 +0.36ºC, 6th 2022 +0.32ºC, 7th 2020 +0.30ºC, 8th 2016 +0.26ºC,
…
And I should also admit a “wrong glasses” moment with the July ERA5 SAT numbers.
I reported a July global anomaly of +0.70ºC which was actually +0.67ºC making July 2026 (shock-horror) slightly below both July 2023 (+0.72ºC) and July 2024 (+0.68ºC) but with all three still well above 4th-place 2025 +0.45ºC, 5th-place 2019 +0.40ºC, et al.
For those interested in the on-going temperatures of 2026 & the potential for 2026 becoming hottest-year-on-record (which is looking less than likely with ERA5 SAT), I have added a graphic of year-on-year daily & 30-day average ERA5 SAT comparing 2023, 2024 & 2026 to the collected graphics at The Banana!!! Watch.
Plotting temperature against CO₂ rather than against time has a property I haven’t seen exploited: it puts the deep-time reconstructions, the observed record, the CMIP6 SSPs and the CMIP7 ScenarioMIP pathways on one set of axes. Normally you have to look at those in four different places, and you can’t see how they relate to each other while they’re apart.
Together, a few things become visible. Where the modern excursion sits relative to the relationship the two variables held for the last 66 million years. How far a projection is from that relationship, and in which direction. And how the two scenario generations line up — Medium and SSP2-4.5 are nearly indistinguishable through the end of this century, then diverge on mitigation timing rather than on ambition.
That last one may be the most immediately useful, since it’s a concrete answer to the suggestion that the new scenario set represents a change in expectations rather than a normal update.
My latest effort at combining and comparing these records and projections can be found here, https://justdean.substack.com/p/climate-sensitivity-the-most-contestable
I’d welcome feedback and being told if it is less useful or novel than it looks.
Dean Rovang, proposing: “ Plotting temperature against CO₂ rather than against time – a few things become visible. Where the modern excursion sits relative to the relationship the two variables held for the last 66 million years. How far a projection is from that relationship, and in which direction”
A few points:
1. your approach removes the very variable that may explain this “modern excursion” – given the thermal inertia of system the very recent in geological terms spike in Co2 didn’t have enough time to have the full effect on temperature.
2. sensitivity of T to changes in Co2 would be different in periods when your have ice in polar regions and when you don’t (different room for ice/snow albedo amplification of the CO2 effect)
3. in the last 66 mln the concentrations and the role of non-CO2 GHGs may have been different – which is ignored if we plot T vs CO2 only.
4. when plotting over large range of Co2 – one should plot T against logCO2 rather than CO2
And last but not least …. it has already been done:
– in short time scale – since preindustrial see for instance visualisation: <a href= "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXHOc2rmSPM", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXHOc2rmSPM
– over geological time-scale – I see Judd et al. 2024 as most reliable – showing on the same graph of BOTH T and Co2 against time, and T vs Co2 graph, showing a nice correlation in Paleozoic and Cenozoic, and discussing potential reasons for the lack of correlation in Mesozoic (possibly my points 2-4 and some others ) – see graph 4b from Judd et al. 2024 the end of : <a href=" https://skepticalscience.com/new-favorite-graph-opposite.html", https://skepticalscience.com/new-favorite-graph-opposite.html
I have hesitated to reply because I was hoping that others might offer their opinion.
Sometimes it is hard to convey information via comment sections, and I would like to try and introduce and explain my work in more detail from the standpoint of originality. Yes, I am aware of the plots by Berkeley Earth, and I am also aware of the caveats they place on their plots with regard to ignoring other GHGs and forcings.
1. I am not of aware anyone else that has added regressions of three datasets of ice age records as a comparison to the Judd data and then used that data to construct an equilibrium band of the last 66 million years. https://justdean.substack.com/p/checking-my-own-work
2. I am not aware of anyone else that has plotted the modern data alongside that band illustrating how it departs form the equilibrium band at the start of the industrial era. https://justdean.substack.com/p/checking-my-own-work
3. I am not aware of anyone else that has combined those along with ScenarioMIP projections from Van Vuuren and a physics-based model to construct what I refer to as “The Anthropocene Loop.” As a reference of I also data for the PETM on the same plot. https://justdean.substack.com/p/the-anthropocene-loop
4. Finally, I used the recent work by Rockstrom et al. to help people visualize the effect of different values of ECS on those same axes and then compared both to the Medium Scenario. https://justdean.substack.com/p/climate-sensitivity-the-most-contestable
As for the using linear plots vs log plots, I find that linear plots work best communication with the broader on Substack.
The essay and link for Item #2 above should be https://justdean.substack.com/p/the-ground-they-wouldnt-fight-on .
Dean Rovang:
“1. I am not of aware anyone else that has added ….
2. I am not aware of anyone else that has plotted …
3. I am not aware of anyone else that has combined …”
When I have an idea that I am not aware somebody else had before: then if I can’t find a problem with my idea, I check that nobody else had a similar idea. Your idea -“Plotting temperature against CO₂ rather than against time” – is not particularly “novel” – has been done many times in the past, see for instance Judd et al. 2024, who not only did it before you – but they did it much better – their graphs are over much longer time scale, they compensated for the gaps in the data and the need to use proxy data – by running models alongside the proxy data.
So your “novelty” seems to be:
– running … it over shorter time scale,
– comparing apples and oranges – the sensitivity of GMST to CO2 during the periods of glaciations with the sensitivity before the northern hemisphere glaciation or absence of glaciation at all (hence the ice-albedo completely different between these periods)
– using a CO2 instead of log CO2 for the X- axis, with the former failing to reflect the fact that the warming effect of CO2 is much closer to the logarithmic than to the linear.
– comparing non-equilibrium relationship with the equilibrium one, an approach that ignores the time dimension – unlike Judd et al. who in addition to the GMST vs logCo2, have ALSO graphs in which both GMST and Log Co2 are plotted on the same graph against time – thus retaining the time-dimension information – making the interpretation of the results more informed. These three variables are also plotted on the same graph against the extent of ice – thus providing the information on the differences in ice-albedo feedback in different periods, the differences your approach ignores.
To sum up, you are inventing a wooden square wheel, when others already drive on their circular wheel with inflated tires.
And if you are unaware of anybody else doing what you do – shouldn’t you ask yourself a question- why? WHY nobody has published on that? Surely, I am not so much more brilliant than the experts on the cutti9ng edge of science, so Occam’s razor suggest that others have come by this idea before me, but hadn’t pursued it , because it is a dead-end or doesn’t offer any particularly valuable new insights. E.g:
D. Rovang: 1. I am not of aware anyone else that has added regressions of three datasets of ice age records as a comparison to the Judd data and then used that data to construct an equilibrium band of the last 66 million years.
And …. what useful insight you got, other than the trivial observation that when there is a lot of ice (last ~ 3 mln yrs) and there is a strong amplification of the CO2 signal by the ice-albedo feedback during “ice age”, and when there is much less or no ice at all (3-66 mln ago), then the ice-albedo amplification the of the CO2 signal is, surprise, surprise – much weaker or non-existent?
D. Rovang: 2.the modern data alongside that band illustrating how it departs form the equilibrium band at the start of the industrial era.
that’s comparing apples and melons – Given the climate inertia – we already know that the non-equilibrium Delta GMST/Delta CO2 is much smaller than Delta GMST/Delta CO2 during the preindustrial period where the system had had enough time to achieve equilibrium after the last glaciation.
D. Rovang: 3. I am not aware of anyone else that has combined those along with ScenarioMIP projections from Van Vuuren and a physics-based model
So what “novel” and _useful_ insights have you gained from that?
To Tomas re: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850229
thanks
To the thread more generally: I can’t resist discussion of water cycling so I will drop some more thoughts here.
As climate warms and tropospheric temperatures move to lower pressures, the cooling rate (K day−1) increases. ok.
Atmosphere is in approximate equilibrium where the radiative cooling is balanced by the convergence of the upward flux of energy by atmospheric motions.
energy.
Allow for some warming to happen:
warmer parcels holding more water vapor, per unit mass.
Each kilogram of ascending air able to condense more water vapor, per unit distance.
Masses of air rising some distance containing an increasing fraction of water vapor. A local, per-unit mass effect. Local parcel scale thermodynamics. Depending on temperatures and slope of saturation vapor pressure curve. ok
Contrast that with what moist adiabatic lapse rates do not depend on (global scale energetics):
Total atmospheric mass flux
Total condensation
How much upward flux of energy is occurring for the globe.
In steady state, the integral of condensation (precipitation) is equal to the evaporation, called the latent flux.
These are constrained by energy budgets, not local temperatures. We are interested in the convergence of upward flux by atmospheric motions to close the balance of radiative cooling of atmosphere.
We can constrain the rate of radiative cooling of atmosphere and latent flux in steady-state using surface budgets.
Surface net radiation = flux of sensible and latent heat.
Increasing temperature 1K may be associated with a change of LW down – LW up, say perhaps +1 W/m2, assuming both terms increase and the net is +1.
A representative increase of 1 W/m2 per K in available surface energy.
so we allow +1 = H + LE, and for simplicity partition 10-20% to sensible heat flux and 80-90% latent heat flux at current temperatures (by the slope of saturation vapor pressure curve and psychrometric constant, called equilibrium partitioning.)
That is up to 0.9 W/m2 increasing latent flux per K, or say approximately 1% increasing moisture cycling per K.
It may be less if atmospheric solar absorption should increase and take away from surface budgets, and it may be more if increasing surface solar absorption is associated with global warming.
So we have 1% increasing energy throughput on atmospheric motions per K against ascending parcels carrying up to 7% more moisture per unit mass…
With warming, each kg of ascending air is capable of condensing substantially more water over a given vertical distance than would be implied by the small increase in globally integrated latent heat flux
The rates are reconciled in part by a weakening of the convective mass flux (kg per m2 per s). Each kg of ascending air condensese more water and releases more latent heat, which is why moist lapse rates become shallower. Through the energy budgets we can see the constraint: fewer kilograms of moist air are ascending per unit time, because the column-integrated global latent flux does not rise at the same rate.
It can also be visualized as an increasing depth of convection, and increasing water vapor duration. Or as a decreasing frequency along with a possibility of increasing intensity.
The relaxation of moist adiabats with warming is a local thermodynamic property of the air that rises; and the heat flux is an energetic integral over how much air rises.
The latent heat flux is about how many kilograms of air are rising per unit time and how much latent heat each kilogram releases. An integral over the entire global circulation.
The moist adiabatic lapse rate is a local thermodynamic property: it depends only on how much latent heat a single saturated parcel releases as it rises through a given vertical distance.
More on the specifics of radiation in this context is available in The Vertical Profile of Radiative Cooling and Lapse Rate in a Warming Climate from Hartmann
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/19/JCLI-D-21-0861.1.xml
For the first time, this new website—together with the ten linked scientific papers—sets out a physically rigorous explanation for climate behaviour across the Solar System. The same framework correctly accounts for observed temperatures at Earth’s surface, Venus’s surface, and the full range of tropospheric, surface and even sub‑surface temperatures on planets and moons. Every step is based strictly on long‑established physics, without ad‑hoc assumptions, and the results are internally consistent and reproducible.
The full explanation is available here: https://climate-change-theory.info
Something that has been puzzling me – I am hoping someone can shed light on the apparent contradiction.
How is growth in biomass, ‘greening’ and vegetation currently taking in more CO2 than it releases reconciled with prior deforestation?
I admit it seems to me that ‘greening’ would not have recovered all the carbon stores lost to prior deforestation. I’ve seen an estimate of around 1 billion ha of forests lost since 1900 and deforestation and land use changes currently being a significant source of emissions. Does the claim that biomass is growing depend on when the baseline is drawn? Or is it indicative of other changes, e.g. decreased snow and ice cover and warming Arctic?
I know air conditioning is controversial, but living in SE England and having to endure what is the sixth heatwave of the summer coming up next week and my house venting strategy only working up to a point. I wondered if the following could mitigate a good portion of the carbon footprint:
1. Get battery storage for my solar PV.
2. Install air conditioning.
3. Use air conditioning only in the evening to cool the house before sleeping and only when using a fan to blow hot air out of the house isn’t working (e.g. when it is still 26C at midnight).
4. As I live in a village, the issue of contributing to urban heating is far less significant.
My thinking is that I am primarily powering the air conditioning using energy harnessed from the natural phenomena that is causing me to want to use it.
The underlying issue is that UK houses are not designed for a Mediterranean climate which is what we have effectively had this summer. After two-three consecutive days of 27+C, the building becomes a giant storage heater, releasing some of that stored heat overnight and making the bedrooms uncomfortably hot for sleeping, only to be topped up again with the next 30+C day. There is a reason why buildings in the Mediterranean have thick walls, stone floors, shutters and are painted white.
I’ve been experimenting with the “cooling the house in the evening” concept and it really doesn’t work. (This is for a section of the house which is actually better insulated.)
What does work (in the older, less insulated section) is having a mini-split… the smallest one available… for each bedroom. They are extremely quiet, so you can have them on at night, and they are very efficient.
Think about the physics. It makes far more sense to cool enough air to make your body comfortable than to deal with the total thermal energy that has been absorbed by the structure.
And, of course, if the AMOC goes bad, and you end up going from hot summers to cold winters, you will be prepared.
I am unconvinced of the apocalyptic scenes sometimes pictured as to what would happen if the AMOC shut down. The Gulf stream would still be at least somewhat operational as that is largely wind driven, the prevailing winds across Europe will still come off the ocean, I would expect average winter conditions in the UK to be comparable to the colder winters of the 1960’s to the 1980’s, not a mini ice age. I doubt it would even get cold enough to start firn and eventual glacier formation on the highest Scottish mountains.
AL: I would expect average winter conditions in the UK to be comparable to the colder winters of the 1960’s to the 1980’s, not a mini ice age. I doubt it would even get cold enough to start firn and eventual glacier formation on the highest Scottish mountains.
BPL: Based on what?
I’m sure we can best go with the computer simulation Modeling for British Isles, Western Europe & Scandinavia if the AMOC stops.
Adam, have you considered a whole-house exhaust fan that vents out through the attic? It would remove the hot air from the attic that helps keep the upstairs very warm at night, and draw in cooler air through the windows. These can be fairly effective in climates where hot weather is uncommon and sporadic, and dew points generally remain well below 20C even in hot weather.
Both the energy usage and the cost should be lower than AC.
Adam: “I know air conditioning is controversial, but living in SE England and having to endure what is the sixth heatwave of the summer coming up next week”
John: “Both the energy usage and the cost [of Installing a fan system] should be lower than AC”
Adam, I would suggest you look at the (air) heat pumps. If there is enough heating to be done in winter – then the heat pumps provide BOTH efficient heating in winter (using much less electricity than traditional electrical heating), and with a flip of a switch – becomes air-cooling system in summer (plus it allows to control humidity in the house and does filter some dust out of the indoor air).
The financial cost-benefit of the switch would depend on the prices of electricity and the local climate – in the very cold temps the savings from a heat pump get smaller, although if to believe a 2023 study “Coming in from the cold: Heat pump efficiency at low temperatures”
“even well below 0°C, heat pump efficiency is still significantly higher than fossil fuel and electric resistive heating systems”. (If they didn’t work in very cold temps 60% of households in Norway would not have heat pumps …)
.
Given where you live, Adam, I don’t think this will be an issue, even if AMOC shuts down hard it could be more of an issue in Norway than in SE England …. ).
If one is on central heating, the switch to heat pumps heating may not be a decision an individual person can make, but since you live in a village – I don’t think this applies to you either.
So if you have enough winter heating to be done and you experience heatwaves in summer – a heat-pump may be the best solution – environmental (particularly in regions with a higher penetration of renewables in the electricity generation) and economic – particularly when there are government programs helping you with the switch: given the death toll of the heat waves in Europe this summer that could have been reduced with a wider penetration of heat pumps – there maybe a stronger push for these – not only to reduce GHG emissions, but also as the public health safety issue).
If the capital costs of installing heat-pump (and perhaps upgrading the electrical system) are prohibitive and you could wait – wait for the time when you have to update/fix/ overhaul your existing heating/cooling system anyway.
It was my case – I had to change the furnace oil tank, and in a few years , probably the oil furnace – so instead I just replaced both with the mini-split heat pumps, and good timing – there was government funding that covered significant part of the costs available (part of the GHG emission reduction program in my province).
And on top of that, I got a nice reduction on my home insurance premium (no longer increased fire hazard from fossil fuel heating).
And the unanticipated bonus this year – smugly smiling seeing the prices of the furnace oil rising high due to Trump’s war on Iran.
A heat pump is worth considering if/when the gas central heating fails to the point of needing replacing, if I am still living in the same house by then. A heat pump is the same thing as an air conditioner with the additional ability to move heat into the building as well as out of it.
Adam Lea: “A heat pump is the same thing as an air conditioner with the additional ability to move heat into the building as well as out of it. ”
– and thanks to that – instead of “I know air conditioning is controversial” – there is not much controversy about heat pumps – it provides comfort /safety during heat waves AND is typically most cost effective and least emitting form of heating in winter. And works well even in cold climates reducing somewhat its thermal efficiency (60% of households in Norway has them).
Our ductless mini-split heat pump works great–though it is getting a bit long in the tooth, I’m afraid. It has a resistive heating mode for when temps get really low, but I don’t know if it’s ever been called into play here in SC or not.
No I haven’t considered that. At the moment, I open the bathroom and bedroom windows which are on opposite sides of the house, open internal doors, position the fan to blow air out of the bathroom window on its highest speed, this draws cooler air in through the bedroom window and is effective at cooling the bedroom to comfortable levels, but not when the temperature after sunset is still in the mid 20’s like it was in one of the previous heatwaves. Recent nights have been cooler and the venting has worked reasonably well, it even made the bedroom a touch chilly one night.
AC (or ideally, Heat Pumps in Summer/cooling mode) discussions:
“The Fake Air-Conditioner Climate Debate” – ClimateAdam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY7rvftsWbI
“What Americans Don’t Understand About Europe’s AC Problem” – Type Ashton (I don’t really remember this video much/been a while) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDUhbt3z-Hk
AC (or ideally, Heat Pumps in Summer/cooling mode) discussions: “The Fake Air-Conditioner Climate Debate”.
My few points:
– global warming means negative feedback for heating , and positive feedback for cooling
– AC is not available to everyone – and in fact it is less available to the more vulnerable – as the most vulnerable, i.e in the already-hot regions: India, Bangladesh, most of Africa, poorer countries in South-east Asia only few can afford AC (in rural India 1.2% households). Which means that we have 3-4 billion (?) of people living in the already hot places without AC
– and while we can save some people with AC – we can’t AC the nature – we can’t cool elephants on savannas or fish in the oceans
So AC is a classic illustration of the limitations of adaptations:
– it is expensive
– won’t be available to everybody,
– unfair – less available to the poor who the bear least responsibility for creating the AGW problem, – won’t be available to animals and ecosystems,
-pursuing it not only diverts the money and urgency from the GHG mitigation,
– but also makes this mitigation more difficult (given the positive feedback between AC use and AGW)
Dave Borlace at Just Have A Think did us a favor by watching a recent Steve Koonin performance in front of the reactionary “Alliance for Responsible Citizenship”. Koonin continues, of course, promoting the misrepresented view his Hoover Institution and fossil-fuel ‘think tank’ relationships want and expect.
How Climate Data Is Manipulated to Mislead You.
Just Have A Think, August 9, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu1Qke38AdI
It’s always cherry-picking season for Koonin. Glad to have Dave Borlace, the RealClimate contributing scientists and others working to counteract the tide of manure.
Have you ever seen a credible evidence based analysis of future energy consumption [real world not ipcc modelled assumptions] that showed total oil gas and oil consumption was less in 2050 that it is in 2025?
I’d like to see that to evaluate how credible n realistic n fundamentally sound it is.
Robert Shule’s Climate Change Substack
Hydro’, Bio’-fuel, and other energy sources not otherwise specified are not expected to change dramatically in the near future.
Oil, Gas, and Coal projection for 2050 was made by subtracting the sum of the other energy source’s energy outputs from the total energy projected for 2050; in other words oil, gas, and coal makes up the remainder for what may be required. By this calculation hydro-carbon fuel industry grows 29% by 2050, at a rate of about 1% per annum. The industry will still provide over 70% of the global energy. This is consistent with the growth the hydro-carbon industry has been realizing over the past fifteen years.1 Review of oil and gas company literature suggests they have no intentions of reining in their growth for the future.7 It is expected here that global oil, gas, and coal production and consumption will continue to increase at present rates for the foreseeable future should no extraneous interventions be made on oil, gas, and coal industry activity. It should be expected that global carbon dioxide emissions will also continue to increase respectively.
Page 3 of 4
https://helmetdestroyer570.substack.com/p/world-energy-projection
any thoughts? given for decades here and the ipcc have repeated the chant “must reduce ghg emissions from fossil fuels the above does not suggest this will ever happen as growth of total fossil fuels consumption may well continue growing.
all 1971 club of rome scientists still alive engaged in the limits to growth papers agree the above trajectory is the path humanity is still on. Seems like cmip7 and ar7 will again amount to nothing of value unable to change a thing.
i’m reminded the definition of insanity is …..
ps once upon a time this blog used to attract thinkers. and high number of views. i believe this reflects the above take aways being realized by more and more people who used to care and believe change was possible and believed climate scientists will be the difference. they no longer do. so many / most no longer listen to them
many others now represent reality more accurately — Robert for one Sarah is another https://sarahwilson.substack.com/ — and of course Jim keeps trying to break thru the media/science cabal’s “cone of silence” https://jimehansen.substack.com/p/beware-media-hype-its-not-the-el
My comment captures a deep frustration that many are feeling today when engaging with established climate science platforms. I’m pointing out a perceived tribalistic culture where debate is stifled, and have raised a critical, uncomfortable question no one wants to deal with rationally: if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?
The other is engaging respectfully with Nabil Swedan and his new ENSO paper an open mind, when no one else would even acknowledge them.
These concerns about the dynamics on climate blogs are universal perceptions now—they are supported by research. Academic studies on climate blogs, including those with strict moderation like Real Climate, have found that comment sections often function as “insular” communities.
They are dominated by a small group of like-minded individuals who focus on “attacking opponents rather than developing political policies around issues,” with commenters “focus[ing] on who was making the argument and how rather than the substance of the issue being debated”. This “contractive nature” means that engaging with opposing views is rare, reinforcing a dynamic where “different views were not heard”. This aligns with the overwhelming experience of others seeing reasonable questions met with attacks and assumptions of guilt. Complicity or worse.
My critical underlying point about the stark reality of fossil fuel projections is also echoed elsewhere. The discourse is shifting away from the singular focus on the (now clearly unachievable) 1.5°C target for 2050 and towards the concept of “systemic collapse” as a more realistic framework for our current trajectory. This is not just a fringe viewpoint.
Author and activist Sarah Wilson, whom I reference, has articulated this perspective clearly. She states that “the energy transition and the net zero ambition simply does not stack up” and that “we can’t do it in time, not without doing further damage to the planet”. She argues for moving beyond “hopium” and finding ways to live meaningfully in a world facing systemic failure.
Academics like Dr. Clive Hamilton have also concluded that the steep emissions reductions needed to limit warming to two degrees “are simply unachievable given continuing disputes… backsliding… and the enduring power of the fossil fuel corporations”. He argues for a “rebalancing of our priorities” towards adaptation.
Even prominent climate scientist David Karoly has acknowledged that “1.5 is gone” and that the Great Barrier Reef is “doomed,” though he argues it is “never too late” to reduce emissions.
The voices people are turning to—such as Robert Shule, Sarah Wilson, and Jim Hansen—are part of a growing broader movement that is beginning to “metabolize” this new reality. They represent a shift away from a debate about the existence of climate change and even the efficacy of the IPCC process, towards a conversation about how to live through the consequences that now seem unavoidable.
The decisions of masses of pro-climate pro-science environmental action people, including the scientists and academics, to disengage from platforms like Real Climate is a recognition that these spaces may no longer be conducive to the type of open, honest discussion that the gravity of the situation now demands.
The discourse is moving on, and millions are finding their “tribe” is elsewhere.
References –
Stop Chasing the Matrix: How to Live Fully in a Collapsing World (w/ Sarah Wilson)
From Team Human with Douglas Rushkoff
https://www.podscan.fm/podcasts/team-human-with-douglas-rushkoff/episodes/stop-chasing-the-matrix-how-to-live-fully-in-a-collapsing-world-w-sarah-wilson-1
Chanting to the choir: the dialogical failure of antithetical climate change blogs
Jennifer Metcalfe https://jcom.sissa.it/issue/77/info/
Overview of blogs and comments studied
SS has a tighter moderator’s policy3 than JN and states that all comments must be
on topic, that there is to be no politics, sloganeering, ad hominem attacks or cyber
stalking. JN’s ‘Rules & Legal’ section,4 has a much freer policy, and says they
welcome constructive comments and questions and that the site relies on
commenters “to use logic and reason”. The site also says: “If you are good-natured,
funny or entertaining as well, you’ll get away with breaking all the rules above”.
Comments are most likely to be deleted if they are “unnecessarily repetitive, rude,
lazy or mindless, about administration/moderation, or too boring”. The different
moderation policies of both blogs create an interesting point of contrast, which this
study takes into account.
Discussion and conclusions
In this study, I set out to examine the comments on two climate change blogs to
determine how the conversations generated by these comments reflect the potential
of blogs for two-way deliberative dialogue. The analysis of comments indicated
that most commenters engaging with both blogs wanted to disseminate
information and knowledge or express an attitude, which is more reminiscent of
one-way communication. Discourse analysis also showed that most comments
were contractive in nature with commenters proclaiming or disclaiming and not
listening to the views of others.
The blogs examined appeared to create and maintain their own publics as a small
number of dominant commenters sought and reinforced information congruent
with their own views. This is a similar finding to an analysis by Collins and Nerlich
[2015] of commenters to online Guardian articles on climate change. With each blog
having a core group of commenters tending to dominate the dialogue, there is even
less likelihood of significant deliberation amongst commenters. This is not
surprising given science bloggers often aim to create publics with similar political
and ideological points of view [Luzón, 2013].
Commenters for both blogs did not engage deliberatively with those of opposing
views. They were unwilling to explore alternatives or new ways of thinking about
climate science knowledge. Rather, commenters in any debates on both blogs
sought to advance their own rhetorical and ideological objectives. When an
outsider joined the conversation, there was a tendency for commenters to focus on
who was making the argument and how rather than the substance of the issue
being debated.
However, the strong partisan flavour of JN’s blog and her freer
moderation policy means the conversations often degenerated into attacking
people and institutions rather than being reasoned discussions about the science.
Both blogs failed to meet the five perceived benefits for dialogical engagement in
science described at the beginning of this paper. Different views were not heard or
valued by commenters on each blog. The voices of a mix of publics did not appear
to be heard in each blogsite, as each developed their own insular publics. Those
engaging in each blogsite narrowed their discussion rather than broadening their
perspectives.
https://jcom.sissa.it/issue/77/info/
KM: if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?
MS: It’s worth doing.
KM: They represent a shift away from a debate about the existence of climate change and even the efficacy of the IPCC process, towards a conversation about how to live through the consequences that now seem unavoidable.
MS: If you mean they represent you (plural) shifting away from a debate about the existence of climate change, etc,, then, yes, that IS happening. You (plural) ARE finally accepting what climate science has been showing all along, that: 1. Global warming is real; 2 Global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels and land use practices, and 3. Global warming will be/is bad for the human race.
KM: …towards a conversation about how to live through the consequences that now seem unavoidable.
MS: But we always knew “the consequences that now seem unavoidable.” to you (plural) are unavoidable. Those consequences now seem unavoidable to you (plural) because we have been trying to tell you they are unavoidable for at least 30 years.
But now I am confused about what you really mean when you refer to liviung through the consequences. Are you really saying we should stop ICE with EVs? Should we stop building wind turbines and solar panels? Should we stop developing new battery technologies, new nuclear power generation technologies… keep burning more fossil fuels and just learn to live with the consequences?
What exactly is your plan (that were not listening to) for stopping anthropogenic global warming?
MS: If you mean they represent you (plural) shifting away from a debate about the existence of climate change, etc,, then, yes, that IS happening. You (plural) ARE finally accepting what climate science has been showing all along, that: 1. Global warming is real; 2 Global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels and land use practices, and 3. Global warming will be/is bad for the human race.
KM: Me, singular, accepted the climate science in the 1990s and ever since. So you are not talking to nor about me Martin. Sharpen your pencil. Did you run my comment through your AIs to check if you understood what I was saying? Because from your response here I can easily tell to do not understand it at all.
I’ve no interest in fighting strawmen that cover your comment. Nothing you say applies to me personally.
People frequently misunderstand what KM is saying. Its because he doesn’t write clearly. Have told him before, but he just keeps on writing in the same way and being misunderstood over and over. A definition of insanity is doing the same experiment and expecting different results (Einstein?)
KM: I’ve no interest in fighting strawmen that cover your comment. Nothing you say applies to me personally.
KM: if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?
MS: It was YOUR strawman, KM, so you can’t claim you have no interest in fighting it, and then it does apply to you personally.
What is your plan (that we’re not listening to) for stopping anthropogenic global warming?
Martin Smith says 13 Aug 2026 at 12:21 AM
About
KM: if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?
KM: I’ve no interest in fighting strawmen that cover your comment. Nothing you say applies to me personally.
MS: It was YOUR strawman,
KM: No it wasn’t a straw man. It was a probing question to evoke deep thinking.
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone changes or exaggerates another person’s argument to make it easier to knock down. Instead of dealing with the real point, they attack a fake, weaker version of it—like fighting a dummy made of straw instead of a real person
Martin, if you can agree with that definition, then show us here who was the other person/article making an argument I am alleged to have been exaggerating or changed to make it easier to knock down.?
That, is a rhetorical question. But it does show what you’re doing here.
My long comment Martin replied to started with :
KM says 9 Aug 2026 at 9:50 PM
My comment captures a deep frustration that many are feeling today when engaging with established climate science platforms. I’m pointing out a perceived tribalistic culture where debate is stifled, and have raised a critical, uncomfortable question no one wants to deal with rationally: if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850352
And that referred to this comment:
KM says 9 Aug 2026 at 7:12 PM
Have you ever seen a credible evidence based analysis of future energy consumption [real world not ipcc modelled assumptions] that showed total oil gas and oil consumption was less in 2050 that it is in 2025?
I’d like to see that to evaluate how credible n realistic n fundamentally sound it is.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850351
And that included the probing phrase — ” i’m reminded the definition of insanity is …..
And I notice all the references I provided are being ignored completely in this exchange with Martin who is only being disagreeable over one question I put.
Why ignore this peer reviewed paper?
Chanting to the choir: the dialogical failure of antithetical climate change blogs
Jennifer Metcalfe https://jcom.sissa.it/issue/77/info/
And not discuss the implications of that or even future emissions trajectories? Why play the man with straw men fallacies instead of focus on content — is probably self-evident here.
KM: My comment captures a deep frustration that many are feeling today when engaging with established climate science platforms. I’m pointing out a perceived tribalistic culture where debate is stifled, and have raised a critical, uncomfortable question no one wants to deal with rationally: if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?
BPL: If debate is stifled, what are you doing here?
Criticizing your posts is not equivalent to debate being stifled.
KM: Martin, if you can agree with that definition, then show us here who was the other person/article making an argument I am alleged to have been exaggerating or changed to make it easier to knock down.?
MS: You were both person, KM. You wrote this: “if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?”
I read that as implying that the path to reducing emissions isn’t worth following, or at least that it might not be worth following. That’s a strawman because the obvious value of following the path to reducing emissions is the reduction of emissions. What we have done already with EVs and wind and solar generation has reduced the increases in emissions, which is, effectively, a reduction of emissions. The fact that total emissions are still rising and are projected to continue rising for a long time doesn’t make slowing down the increase valueless, but that is your implication.
If we stop making EVs and stop building wind turbines and solar panels, emissions will get a lot worse. I believed that you surely couldn’t mean we should do that, but then what is the point of your question about the value of reducing emissions? That’s why I asked for your alternative plan. Let’s say the computation shows there is no value to trying to reduce emissions by building EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels. Then what should we do instead?
re KM – “Have you ever seen a credible evidence based analysis of future energy consumption [real world not ipcc modelled assumptions] that showed total oil gas and oil consumption was less in 2050 that it is in 2025?”
– Wouldn’t that require time travel? We don’t have real world data from the future.
“if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?”
Depends on feasibility. IMO, The main problem is politics.
patrick: “Wouldn’t that require time travel?”
I think that was just awkward grammar on the part of Multi-troll. The real problem with its argument lies elsewhere. At the core of doomism (and of deniers attacking attempts to curb CO2) – is the “All or Nothing” fallacy – if the renewables, EVs and carbon pricing cannot reduce absolute emissions soon – then why even bother with them.
The corollary of their “All or Nothing” fallacy is the implication that a world with, say, 1000 ppm of Co2 would not be worse than the world with 500 ppm – i.e. that the world in which we gave up on the existing ways to lower our CO2 emissions – won’t be worse than the world in which we used all the tools we have, even if they didn’t dropped the absolute Co2 emissions immediately.
Furthermore, the Doomers – by attacking the very sense of existing decarbonization technologies and policies, and by sowing the apathy in the societies (if we are doomed anyway – why bother?”) – objectively HELP to materialize the WORST possible future scenario. Their doomism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Some of them may do it unwittingly and for noble reasons – hoping that by painting the picture of the doom they may wake up the societies into actions. But with likely consequences of their doomism being shown to opposite to that (discouraging action and thus promoting apathy in the face of the inevitable doom)- they no longer can claim ignorance nor noble intentions. By their fruits, not their good intentions, you shall know them.
Martin Smith to K. Maru: “ What exactly is your plan (that were not listening to) for stopping anthropogenic global warming?
Since K. Maru, surprise, surprise, did not answer this question AGAIN, let me fill in for him, based on the posts of K. Maru posted under dozens of different names.
1. Changing the Human Nature – creating a Homo sovieticus, willing to sacrifice himself and his family for the good the nation, the ruling class, and the future of the humanity. Current people are notoriously unreliable on this.
2. Global Revolution aimed at overthrow of the market economy and the capitalist and democratic institutions and laws. To build their Utopia they need first raze the old world to the ground.
3. A genocide of several billion of people to reduce the human population to the sustainable size
(0.5 billion? 100 mln?). Given the urgency of the CO2 reductions – in the next few decades- genocide is the only tool left – since they can’t count on the demographic transitions as too slow and nowhere near radical enough.
Short of all three would be choosing the good over the Doomer’s perfect. In such a case – K. Maru’s contingency plan:
a) sow distrust to climate science and statements about the urgency of the GHG mitigation and
b) promote the apathy (if we a Doomed anyway – then let’s leave with a bang – using all fossil fuels Republicans, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia want us to use)
then the Doom becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and the Doomers – the badly maligned Prophets who despite not being scientists – could see things the climate science couldn’t, or due to its corruption, wouldn’t see.
Did I get all the details of Your Plan and its contingencies right, Kobe?
Don’t worry, it’s gonna get worse before it gets worse.
The summer of 2026 will go down in history books as the hottest, driest and most deadly set of heatwaves Britain has ever experienced. This weather isn’t normal – but it is predictable according to a global consensus of scientists. And yet this summer, according to the science, will be one of the coolest summers we ever have again. Things will only get hotter from here.
Aaron Bastani Interviews Professor Kevin Anderson UK
Oil-Engineer Turned Climate Whistleblower: We Face COLLAPSE
“We are richer as a country virtually every single year. Yet we still talk about a cost of living crisis, which is deliberately fabricated. That is a choice of how we hand out society’s resources. That is an active choice of our politics.
We’re somewhere between the sixth and the tenth richest country in the world, and we’ve got just 0.84% of the world’s population. So we’re an incredibly wealthy country, but that wealth has been privatized to relatively small groups of people but we mustn’t ask questions about that (sarcastically.) Well, we must—from a climate point of view–we have no choice, because that’s where the lion’s share of resources are going (to the wealthy.) And when I say ‘resources,’ what I mean is materials, means, labour—the skilled labour in our society.
But unless we ask these deeply fundamental questions, we are going to fail on climate change. And if we fail on climate change, then society fails.”
In depth interview early August https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBFos_T7cT0
Kevin had been generally quiet for some time. Long 1:45 hrs video in which he really cuts loose.
Copernicus has reported ERA5 re-analysis numbers for July 2026 and, as per the daily numbers from ClimatePulse, show July SAT as the =2nd (or 3rd) hottest July on record. Being “Europe’s eyes on Earth”, Copernicus point to the exceptional high temperature across Western Europe although the cooler temperatures across Eastern Europe makes the ‘pan-Europe’ numbers for July ” notably smaller” than for the top-5 hottest Julys.
The 60N-60S SST, the warmest July on record, remains more exceptional. They point to the daily 60-60SST numbers “rapidly approaching all-time records” in absolute terms. This may not arrive so rapidly. The 60-60 SST absolute numbers have two peaks in the annual cycle, mid-March & mid-August. The current ‘all-time record’ sits at +21.09°C, set back in March 2024. The “rapidly approaching”.value has been stuck at +21.05°C for the last ten days and that mid-August peak in the annual cycle will soon be past and working against setting a new “all-time record.”
While this weeks ENSO Status report is yet to post, the latest NINO3.4 weekly has with an anomaly of +2.6°C. This is a bit of jump up from last week, indeed also a jump up from the start of last month (+1.7°C). The number used to define the strength of an El Niño is now based on RNINO3.4 which runs some 0.5°C below NINO3.4. So the jump up to NINO3.4 = +2.6°C would put us into “very strong”El Niño territory.
These high SSTs for July suggest the SAT/SST instrument records will have no trouble setting clear records for July 2026.
Aaron Bastani Meets Kevin Anderson
Oil-Engineer Turned Climate Whistleblower: We Face COLLAPSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBFos_T7cT0
Commentary on Kevin Anderson’s remarks – and a critique of the climate science community’s political abdication
50.00 I’m not interested in what Bill Gates has got to say about climate change…. these are the people that shape the global and the national priorities [economic capitalist systems] … NO, We choose them to shape it. I don’t think these people have power unless we allow them to have power. I think the real skill of the Gates’ of this world and that whole neoliberal agenda is to break the world into individual components as individuals. We have very little power — as collectives we have far far more power than Gates Musk Bezos the PM.
50.50 those people who want to maintain power is to make sure the rest of us just continue as [separated isolated[ individuals not as collectives.
51:26 these sorts of [elite power oligarch] people try to maintain the status quo because they’ve done remarkably well out of it and one of the tricks that they use is to make sure everyone else sees themselves as a competing individual rather than a citizen in a collective, in a community, in a society, in a country. So I do not hold that they have the power only because we have allowed them to have the power by allowing them to reduce us [psycholgically/morally/politically] to individuals. We can take that power back anytime we want to do.
Kevin Anderson’s points at 33:00, 34:30, 39:06, 41:07, 41:37, and 50:00–51:26 are, as ever, bracingly clear. He identifies the core drivers of emissions not from the average citizen, but from the affluent minority — the frequent flyers, the owners of multiple homes, the SUV drivers, the corporate executives — alongside the industrial and infrastructural systems that serve them. He also rightly notes that most people working in the oil and gas industry are decent people like he was as an engineer; it is the executives and the systems of power they command that are the problem.
But Anderson goes further, and this is where his analysis becomes genuinely radical and important: he insists that the power of the Gates, Musks, Bezoses, and the wider neoliberal elite is not intrinsic or unassailable. It is power we allow them to have, by allowing ourselves to be reduced to isolated, competing individuals rather than organised citizens in a collective. As he puts it, we can take that power back anytime we choose to.
That is a crucial insight. And it exposes a profound failure in the mainstream climate science community over the past three decades.
For too long, prominent climate scientists on Twitter, X and BlueSky, or on RealClimate for two decades — Gavin Schmidt, Andy Dessler, Michael Mann, Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Trenberth, and many others — have framed the climate fight narratives as one in which they are noble, truth-telling underdogs, perpetually beaten back by the monstrous power of scientist and academic climate deniers, fossil fuel interests, oligarchs, and media barons. This narrative has become a self-fulfilling prophecy and, worse, a political cop-out.
By endlessly repeating this “oh poor us, they’re too powerful” rhetoric, they have done exactly what the elites wanted: convinced the public that ordinary people and the climate scientists themselves are powerless.
They have reinforced the very separation and individuation that Anderson warns against. They have not used their enormous credibility, their media access, their platforms, or their moral authority to actively organise, empower, or mobilise the public. Instead, they have hidden behind the IPCC’s supposed restrictions on policy prescription, claiming it is “not their business” to advocate for specific political action; and remained mute.
That is bullshit.
Every citizen has a moral and ethical right — indeed, a responsibility — to speak out against injustice. Climate scientists are citizens too. When they stand before a camera or a parliamentary committee and refuse to say “this is what we must do,” when they soften their language to avoid “scaring the public,” when they acquiesce to the framing of climate change as a technical problem rather than a political and moral one, they are not being neutral. They are being complicit.
They have abdicated their duty. They have empowered the wealthy and the elite by disempowering the rest of us. And they have done so for over thirty years — at AGU meetings, at COP summits, in op-eds, in IPCC reports, in media appearances, on blogs. They have played the role of the well-behaved expert while the world burns.
Anderson is one who, much like Jim Hansen for 40 years, is of the few climate scientists who refuses that script. He names the system. He names the elite. And he reminds us that we are not victims — we are citizens, we are collectives, and we can choose to act. And so can the working climate scientists in and out of Government roles. Or do what Hansen did and quit — rather than serve the system that is destroying the planet and all of us!
The question is whether the rest of the climate science community — now maybe 80,000 strong — will finally stop playing the victim, stop empowering the powerful, and start telling the truth — in public, in private, and in every forum they have.
Frankly I can’t see it happening. Do you?
PS it’s a very good interview of Kevin Anderson. He’s been quiet for too long. I’ve made a few other extracts from the transcript I might drop here, though I can hardly see how it would help at all. Watch it or don’t.
“Climate scientists are citizens too. When they stand before a camera or a parliamentary committee and refuse to say “this is what we must do,” when they soften their language to avoid “scaring the public,” when they acquiesce to the framing of climate change as a technical problem rather than a political and moral one, they are not being neutral. They are being complicit.”
Climate scientists should be publicising the best approximation to reality in terms of what is happening and what is likely to happen given XYZ scenarios moving on from here. It is up to civilisations across the world to decide how we move on given those facts. What is happening and what might happen is a scientific analysis, what we do about it is a collective values judgement.
Adam Lea says 14 Aug 2026 at 4:57 AM
It is up to civilisations across the world to decide how we move on given those facts. What is happening and what might happen is a scientific analysis, what we do about it is a collective values judgement.
KM: Not when those judgements are being based on and corralled by “what is likely to happen given XYZ scenarios “
Those IPCC SSP/IAM scenarios are not Facts – nor are they based upon Facts — they are massaged assumptions determined by a few self-selected elites created inside “black boxes” .
Those judgements are not being made by the tens of thousands of experts active in doing climate science.
Many here have now repeatedly emphasized there is no Vote in forming a consensus among climate scientists. Thank you to all who insisted on this — it was the acknowledgement of the process I was seeking.
There is no Vote by climate scientists especially of what can and could be done to solve global warming and reduce it’s most dire effects. No Vote on how global warming relates to the other planetary boundaries being breached.
Let alone how bad climate driven responses might be upon the people of the world in the short and long term.
Maybe there should be a Vote – in particular on the efficacy and accuracy of the IPCCC ARs — a Vote open to all climate science and technical experts and not only a small few “IPCC authors.”
Whose personal priorities may not be as global as we’d like them to be.
The point being, no one knows.
KM: The point being, no one knows.
BPL: No one knows what?
formatting fixed, please delete prior version (which I may have double posted?; oops)
Modeling the likely outcomes (and the risk of dangerous less-likely outcomes) of various options available. That is how one makes informed decisions.
Models are theories and possible choices are just that, but the output of a particular model for a given input is a fact. (In fact, statements of opinions and subjective experiences can be factual, but I digress…)
Aside from the info you supplied about Zeke Hausfather somewhere else on this thread…
– which I’m reserving judgement on because there’s misinformation and things being taken out of context to watch out for (and that would be an interesting counterpoint to the matter of the dangers of climate scientists speaking to matters outside there expertise – yes we’re all people; ideally a person should be able to take their ‘expert hat’ off for the purposes of publically opining on other matters – also it’s possible for people to become well-informed outside of their ‘homebase’ of expertise; I’m grateful to those scientists who speak up as such (not to those who are speaking out of ignorance, eg. some climate (and COVID/vaccine/etc.) deniers who may be good at other things…) but I understand that this can carry risks (like people perceiving a conflict of interest or pro-clean energy bias) and I think Adam Lea & Nigelj made good points…)
… I think perhaps these are not the elites you are looking for(?). What is actually wrong with the scenarios? We could conceivably make up for lack of DAC/CCS/etc. with a stronger push in clean energy and clean land-use/etc…
patrick o twentyseven says 16 Aug 2026 at 1:03 PM
incl: What is actually wrong with the [IPCC SSP/IAM ] scenarios? We could conceivably make up for lack of DAC/CCS/etc. with a stronger push in clean energy and clean land-use/etc…
KM: my repeated quote: “KM: Not when those judgements are being based on and corralled by “what is likely to happen given XYZ scenarios — Those IPCC SSP/IAM scenarios are not Facts – ”
The tip of an iceberg. I will leave you to your own devices. Thanks for at least trying to respond reasonably but I cannot help you.
KM: “Not when those judgements are being based on and corralled by “what is likely to happen given XYZ scenarios — Those IPCC SSP/IAM scenarios are not Facts – ”
What is your alternative? Do you expect us to time travel into the future? Astrology? Study the entrails of a dead goat?
KM: “Climate scientists are citizens too. When they stand before a camera or a parliamentary committee and refuse to say “this is what we must do,” when they soften their language to avoid “scaring the public,” when they acquiesce to the framing of climate change as a technical problem rather than a political and moral one, they are not being neutral. They are being complicit.”
When climate scientists find themselves standing before a camera or parliamentary capacity its normally in their work capacity, which is about the science. Speaking out about how we mitigate the problem and related political issues, and their personal views on that may violate their employment contracts. Maybe you are retired or have never worked or something. Please have some semblance of understanding of the positions good family people are in. I fully agree with Adams comments.
Sorry to interrupt, but I would love to hear some input on the current fire situation that seems to be engulfing Europe and the western United States. Obviously it’s a trend that seems to be intensifying quickly. With Trump doing everything he can to destroy the environment is there any way we survive this century and beyond?
“But what happens when those drops have no effect? When, as a pilot working the massive Gironde Fire just west of Bordeaux, France, described it, “The environment above the fire is so hot that my payload of 10,000 liters of water evaporates in the air.”? Mathieu Jomain, a commander and 26-year veteran in Gironde’s fire service, compared the fire’s intensity to “a meteorological nuclear bomb.””
*This is the new reality of wildfires in the 21st Century: they hit different. And, too often now, the water doesn’t hit at all.*
https://time.com/article/2026/08/08/what-happens-when-the-world-is-on-fire/
is there any way we survive this century and beyond?
No.
And stop personalizing the dilemma by foolishly blaming Trump for what has been a multi-century explosion of extraction and industrialization on the back of cheap abundant fossil fuel energy and the wanton ecosystem destruction by generations of human activity and consumption. Followed a lack of practical responses.
Trump did not block the Rio Earth Summit. Didn’t stop the UNFCCC being formed. Didn’t block the IPCC. Trump didn’t shut down nasa-giss or not launch satellites in the 1990s or since. Didn’t block climate models being developed and used. Trump’s got nothing specific to do with todays climate impacts — any more than any other rich wealthy control freak and the western middle classes consuming energy and resources like they cost nothing at all and do not matter.
Ignoring the real cause/s of global warming and ecosystem destruction and breaching our collective planetary boundaries. Humanity has breached seven of the nine scientifically defined planetary boundaries that maintain Earth’s stability and life-support systems, moving well outside the safe operating space required for modern civilization.
Humanity not just Trump. America is not the World.
KM: And stop personalizing the dilemma by foolishly blaming Trump
BPL: Data centers. Drilling. Shutting down wind projects. Removing subsidies for solar and for electric vehicles. I feel I can justifiably blame Trump for that.
KM: “And stop personalizing the dilemma by foolishly blaming Trump. Trump’s got nothing specific to do with todays climate impact”
BPL “Data centers. Drilling. Shutting down wind projects. Removing subsidies for solar and for electric vehicles.”
and the list goes on:
– entrenching in the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him and in Republican Party he controls his view that “ The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
– defunding and degrading climate science in NASA and NOAA,
– using DoE and EPA to question the existence/threats of climate change
– threatening to hurt American universities financially if they pursue directions of research contrary to Trumps agenda that includes climate change
– trying to scuttle international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions by
– withdrawing US from Paris accord
– encouraging others to follow the suit (if the US that has 4.7% of global population but is responsible for 1/4 of cumulative emissions of CO2, withdrew from the emission reductions, then why on Earth would the rest of the world do anything when their per capita emissions are typically several times LOWER than those of the US, and reducing their emissions would put their manufacturing at the competitive disadvantage compared to their US counterparts exempted from these costs?)
– by questioning value of rule-based world and international cooperation on the actions that would benefit all – and replacing it with the appeal to national egoism – seeing CO2 mitigation as a zero-sum gain – China’s gain at the US loss.
For a true extremist, the real enemy is never the opposite extremist – but those in the middle, moderates – seeing the same problems, but not going to the extreme on them as does the extremist. That’s why the doomer’s attacks are not focused on the deniers, but on mainstream science. The Doomers see themselves as badly-maligned prophets – brilliant to see the future, but not believed until it was too late ( (e.g. “ “ I have been telling you this for over a decade[…] but you never listen“ )
For a similar reason, Christians persecuted Jews more than other religions because “Jews were given a chance to welcome Our Lord, Jesus, and they rejected Him” . And the Islamist fundamentalists may tolerate Christians in their midst, but a conversion of a Muslim to Christianity must be punished by death.
For both the left and right-wing extremism – the main target are not each other, but the democracy and the moderates
And that’s why Doomers so often land in the same bed as Deniers – here with both Mr. KiA and Mr. Multi-troll – defending Trump and seeing the problem in Trump’s critics.
And they both need each other – Deniers need Doomers to help them discredit the mainstream science and people relying on its advice. And conversely, Doomers need Deniers – for the same thing.
Additionally, Trump and other deniers, by delaying and weakening mitigation of Co2 emissions by increasing the chance that the worst scenario gets realized – help the Doomers with what they crave most – to be right For a Doomer – the worse the future for humans, the better for his ego – You all got what you deserved – I was warning you for years, but you never listened. Who is laughing now?!”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-rwe-wind-farms/
“In August 2026, the Trump administration paid German energy company RWE $1.2 billion to stop building wind farms.” True.
…
God Damn Mother F_cking good-for-nothing Worthless Piece of Shit!
(And that’s just this issue.)
Yes, I get that Trump (Biffigula / Don QuiTrumpte / He who must have his name on buildings) wouldn’t have this power without the misinformed and apathetic voters, and those in power who guided/manipulated them. Though I’d like to think that some fraction of that vote was a cry for help, analogous to deliberately cutting oneself.
Reply to patrick o twentyseven 14 Aug 2026 at 6:27 PM and the others engaged in these useless circular arguments.
The RWE / Trump reports are more Prima facie evidence the strategy (the Path) to achieve the goal to reduce emissions and remain below a “safe level” of +2C is not working because it has always been fundamentally flawed.
This shows — “The strategic value of a system-wide path that is demonstrably failing to lower global emissions. Martin is answering at the tactical level—”but EVs and solar are better than nothing!” “
Here we are now with Trump’s USA intervention that RWE spending $1.2 billion in wind generation is not better than nothing — it amounts to nothing!
I am speaking to the efficacy of the whole approach. The whole shebang — the UNFCCC, the IPCC, the Assessment Reports, the way Authors are assigned and do their work, the Paris Treaty, the COP meetings, The CMIP RCP SSP IAM modelling scenarios; what they they claim to show and what they achieve as part of the Plan, the Path, the Strategy to rapidly reduce emissions. Amounting to the Failure of the NDCs.
The Failure of a lack of enforcement upon any nation – such that the USA can do what it does, including exiting the Paris Treaty with no Penalty and Zero consequences.
I wrote this: “if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?”
That Trump has the ability to do what he has done with RWE proves it’s worthless. But Trump is not the cause of this. Because the System allows this, it is the cause of this. The System left that gate open for the horse to bolt.
It’s was destined to happen and all over the world that is exactly what is happening today. The USA is only the worst example. There are many others.
The whole system created to address climate change and global warming, including the climate science the how and the why that is being integrated within the system the strategy, is dysfunctional and not fit for purpose.
Has been for over 30 years. Stop blaming individuals like Trump when thousands of others are at fault here.
The RWE – Trump “deal” is not an anomaly; it’s the logical conclusion of a path that was always too weak. The system allows it. The system promotes it. All these kinds of things keep emphasizing how correct the Climate science IPCC UNFCCC COP whistleblowers like Kevin Anderson and James Hansen have always been.
We have breached seven of nine planetary boundaries. We are watching a tragedy unfold in slow motion. To blame the final act on one minor actor who just stepped on stage in one nation is to ignore the playwrights, the directors, and the producers who wrote the script.
We need to stop arguing about the symptoms of a broken system and start addressing the root cause of the disease.
KM: We need to stop arguing about the symptoms of a broken system and start addressing the root cause of the disease.
MS: You’re the one arguing about the symptoms, but every time you say we should address the root cause of the disease and I ask you to tells us your plan for addressing the root cause of the disease, you are unwilling to show it, or you say you have already shown it. But I’ve never seen your plan for addressing the root cause of the disease, so what is your plan?
KM: “Has been for over 30 years. Stop blaming individuals like Trump when thousands of others are at fault here.”
Trump has agency and power and chose to pursue that power. He represents his followers and supporters *to some extent.
It is not the case that progress has not occurred; US clean energy continues to expand under Trump; the problem is he is slowing it down (in a wasteful fashion), delaying much needed change. (There are also many other things about Trump that are bad or extremely bad or worse, BTW.)
“Climate Targets MISSED. What happens now?” – Just Have a Think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZjNbZJmgA4
( https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2026/ )
“Emissions are Flatlining. So Why’s CO2 Rising at Record Speed?” – ClimateAdam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlD2UN7gPmg
There is good news; progress has been made, is being made. We just need to build on that and accelerate it.
https://seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-2025-year-in-review/
https://seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-q2-2026/
(Scenarios – I imagine a case where clean power infrastructure manufacturing keeps increasing and installation rates increase such that they exceed the long term maintenance/replacement rate, so there would be an overshoot period. Decarbonizing certain parts of industry and transportation, and reducing emissions from certain land-use/agricultural activities will take longer, but the overshoot of some technologies may lead to a surplus of some clean energy that could then be applied to DAC-type stuff.)
“Climate Scientist responds to Sabine Hossenfelder on Climate Sensitivity” [Hot Models] – ClimateAdam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4EuvpDzlUY
Some systemic changes would be good.
Eg., in the US: Election/Democracy reform (not the “SAVE” act that AFAIK doesn’t fix any of the actual significant problems – what I mean: allocation of election resources so people aren’t disadvantaged (long lines at polls) by precinct; expanding voting by mail opportunities; Ranked Choice/Instant Runoff voting (would open up space for 3rd party candidates), reforming the electoral college, fixing gerrymandering or proportional representation or… etc.); also, corporations/businesses are not additional voters (in the case of campaign finance laws – take away their ‘personhood’ – this can be done at the state level, BTW, AFAIK, the SCOTUS ruling doesn’t stop that.).
And better regulation of markets/capitalism, taxing the rich, etc., protecting disadvantaged people from pollution etc. (equality in NIMBY and YIMBY); public schools, public infrastructure, … “America’s Secret Love of “European Socialism”” – Type Ashton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jqewEFDWEs
But how are we supposed to do any of that (change the system) when people like Trump are in charge? In order to change the system, we have to change at least some of the people running it. (In the meantime, I wonder if we can trick Nancy Mace into supporting a tax on trans-fats.)
BTW, the idea that scientists’ public outreach via blogs, to disseminate explanations of the climate science (or dispel misinformation about clean energy etc.), is somehow partly to blame for a sense of powerlessness, doesn’t seem right to me, and if you think it had that effect, aren’t you concerned about adding to that doomerism?
(PS A few months ago, I realized that some of the higher EROEI values may be misleading as they aren’t an apples-to-apples comparison, but I still tend to think that solar and wind power and batteries (where necessary) (combined with T&D, though I don’t have much information on that part regarding EPBT) will work… )
Kobayashi Maru: “ “Stop personalizing the dilemma by foolishly blaming Trump. Trump’s got nothing specific to do with todays climate impact” “Stop blaming individuals like Trump”
To an extremist – the main enemy are not the opposite extremes, but the people in the middle, who do not share uncritically his extremists views.
Case in point – Doomer “K. Maru”, who to get at the opponents on RC is perfectly OK with whitewashing Trump, with the implication: if we are no better than Trump, then Trump is no worse than us. ”
In reality, given Trumps immense power, and his systematic action AGAINST the mitigation of AGW, and in favour of increasing the GHG emissions (see the footnote) one Trump may have more detrimental effect on the mitigation of AGW than billions (?) of individuals.
By the people whose actions their whitewash – you shall know them.
Ladies and Gentlemen: the troll called, currently, “Kobayashi Maru”!
====
Trump:
– targeted American climate science – in NOAA and NASA as well as at universities,
– put deniers in charge of EPA and DoE
– question the existence of AGW be claiming that it was created by, and for, China, to make the American industry non-competitive
– based on this denial he is using his power to delegitimize the need to mitigate our emissions
– has spent billions of taxpayers dollars to shut down the wind projects
– has provided many billions in subsidies to the fossil fuel industrial complex (Make Coal Great Again, Drill Baby Drill)
– sabotaged, by threatening with sanctions, countries considering limiting the pollution from shipping
– tries to destroy the international cooperation – attacking and defunding UN agencies, boycotting the UN climate meetings, withdrawing US from Paris Accord and making everybody else question its fairness and therefore feasibility – “ if the US corporations don’t have to pay for their emissions, but ours do – that would put our economies at at a huge disadvantage and the countries that are less responsible for the climate crisis have to pay for themselves AND for the US which is responsible for about 1/4 of surplus CO2 in the air, and yet pays nothing for it”
Knowing about the above, Multitroll, “Kobayashi Maru:
– “Stop personalizing the dilemma by foolishly blaming Trump.”
– Trump’s got nothing specific to do with todays climate impact”
– “Stop blaming individuals like Trump”
================
Ultimately, I think humans will fail to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, not because the technology to mitigate these effects did not exist, not because the science was in any way uncertain or ambiguous and not because we did not have time, but rather because humans are too stupid to accurately perceive and appreciate risk and too cowardly and short-sighted to take action. And whether it is climate change that kills us off or some other catastrophe, the ultimate cause of our joining the over 99% of species that have become extinct will be that flawed perception and cowardice..
At this point, all but the most blinkered denialists must perceive the flashing warning lights. But they respond not by urging action, but rather by trying to find a way to ensure that they’ll be on just slightly higher ground as the muck starts to rise. That and looking for scapegoats.
The scapegoats they have picked out are the very scientists who have been diligently working to define the threat of climate change and communicate that threat and the mitigations that could diffuse it to decision makers. Don’t believe me? They’re already tearing down climate labs and critical infrastructure. They are literally dismounting climate-related instruments from the next generation of weather satellites. They are paying contractors to stop working on renewable energy. And if that is not enough, they are attacking the National Science Foundation and even the National Academies, trying to silence them as independent sources of truth.
We can see what comes next from the example of COVID and the witch hunt for Anthony Fauci. Fauci actually did a phenomenal job in a very bad situation. He had a brand new virus whose dangers were only dimly understood. He knew early on that asymptomatic transmission was possible, and there was no vaccine. He did what any epidemiologist would recommend–recommend social and physical distancing. Isolate the sick, and so on. And work with all deliberate speed toward a vaccine. There was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
And now? Now the village rubes are up in arms looking for someone other than their orange god to blame for the debacle. As always, the scientist fits the bill. It is inevitable that the great unwashed will come for climate scientists as well: “Oh, if only they’d warned us in time.” “Oh if only they’d communicated better.” And so on and so on. The fact is that climate scientists have done an excellent job of communicating the science and the threat that climate change poses. Policy makers and the general public simply cannot be bothered with the truth. And no alternate strategy would have made any difference.
This is why we cannot extend the assumption of good faith to KM or multi-troll or any of the other seemingly well-meaning concern trolls trying to blame the crisis on the scientists. Whether they are the denialati come back from the dead to find a scapegoat or not, they are using the same arguments that will be used in the witch trials to come.
Piotr: “In reality, given Trumps immense power, and his systematic action AGAINST the mitigation of AGW, and in favour of increasing the GHG emissions (see the footnote) one Trump may have more detrimental effect on the mitigation of AGW than billions (?) of individuals.”
Quite probably. KM likes to blame everything on the system, like rebellious teenagers do. Its ultimately a way of avoiding taking any personal responsibility. And the system is merely the sum of its parts being the people. And as you point out Trump has a person who has huge impact. But KM doesnt get all that or doesnt want to.
Ray Ladbury says 23 Aug 2026 at 2:51 PM
“Ultimately, I think humans will fail to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, not because the technology to mitigate these effects did not exist, not because the science was in any way uncertain or ambiguous and not because we did not have time, but rather because humans are too stupid to accurately perceive and appreciate risk and too cowardly and short-sighted to take action. “
KM: So it’s Ray ‘the doomer” Ladbury speaking. Right. Got it.
and who said: “using the same arguments that will be used in the witch trials to come.”
KM:
Good to see you and everyone else Ray are already using the same arguments in my witch trial …. and you knew what the verdict is before the trial even started. LOL
It’s all too funny. Coyote level funny and predictable.
Are Doomers Really the Bad Guys?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI7AzrU0yK8
“, but the overshoot of some technologies may lead to a surplus of some clean energy that could then be applied to DAC-type stuff.”
– Sorry, I should have just said C-sequestration in general, ie. grinding up basalt to use as fertilizer, strategic ocean fertilization, etc., and of course otherwise-spare electricity would, unless transmission won’t allow it, be used to produce fuels if fuels would fill in the gaps (after thermal energy storage is filled(?), which is after PHS, batteries, etc.), … etc.
Or rather, they use an apples-to-apples comparison, but some of the input is as oranges (and some bananas and maybe a lime … in a coconut) (conversion of oranges to apples ~ 35-ish % off-the-top-of-my-head (OTTOMH?) but the reverse is not ~ 1/0.35-ish) … I might come back to that later.
Ray: but rather because humans are too stupid to accurately perceive and appreciate risk and too cowardly and short-sighted to take action
I would add two, more specific, necessary conditions:
… AND because there are powerful forces (politicians/petroindustries/petro-autocracies –
whose profits and ability to control the world DEPEND on the world continuing to buy their fossil fuels and they use their money and influence to own the politicians and to finance an army of paid deniers (think tanks and foundations, or troll farms in Russia).
… AND the fossil interest have fed with their message an army of volunteer deniers – the “useful idiots” of Russia and other fossil interests – who buy into and spread their message, FOR FREE, because the reward they look for is a psychological one – if everybody else, including climate science, is wrong and I, despite my lack of education, can see what the world-class climate expert couldn’t, or chose not to, then I must be really really smart, and my life is not completely pathetic!
Ray about silencing the science:
“ We can see what comes next from the example of COVID and the witch hunt for Anthony Fauci. Fauci actually did a phenomenal job in a very bad situation. He did what any epidemiologist would recommend–recommend social and physical distancing. Isolate the sick, and so on. And work with all deliberate speed toward a vaccine. […] no alternate strategy would have made any difference. ”
I’d replace no alternate strategy would have made any difference. ” with all proposed alternatives – denying a problem, doing nothing, or “alternative cures” – worse.
a) without masks and social distancing – the disease would have spread much faster, so you could get it and die, long before vaccines became available
b) redirecting priorities and resources to the alternative “cures” (Ivermectin, anti-malaria drugs, Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS, i.e. sodium chlorite + acid= bleach), Ingestible Disinfectants and Aquarium Cleaners – would not only cause more harm than good, but also delay vaccine arrival -thus _further_ increasing the number of people infected before vaccines became available to reduce the severity of the disease.
Also – novel human virus tend to mutate toward better spread, but also to become less harmful: as the more harmful variant. the more likely to kill the host before being able to spread and/or with stronger symptoms – more likely to have its host isolated earlier on). Without shutdowns, remote work, masking, and distancing – it does not matter much – even the less spreadable Delta variant – will find the way to spread to others. However, with the above measures in place, the Delta is being quickly outcompeted by the new, more spreadable. AND milder Omicron – particularly when COVID vaccine targeted the main health treat – Delta. while the Omicron was at least partially immune to it.
In general, antivaxers are a good analogy to climate D@D (Deniers@Doomers)
– both have, or will have on their hands the blood of the surplus deaths attributable to their influence on the society’s response to COVID/AGW
– both attack the credibility of their alternative – science
– neither can offer a better alternative than science
– both are at their core – are conspiracy theorists,
– as such are driven by the urge for ego validation of the antivaxer or denier/dooomer:
– given the same psychological urge, and the same distrust to/contempt for science, being a conspiracy theorist in one area, makes you an easier mark for the conspiracy theorists in the other area
And most fundamental similarity – both antivaxism and denialism appeal to the egoism :
– in antivaxers – “my right to refuse vaccine, or not to wear mask, trumps the right to life of small children, old, and immuno-compromised, who depend on herd immunity for their survival;
– in deniers – my right to consumption resulting in GHGs emissions, trumps the right of people in other parts of the world, and future generations, to live in a survivable climate). “After us, Deluge!“
https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/87372.pdf : Calc. from p.62 (p.73/85) “Table B1. Annual Energy Yield for 100-MWdc UPV System From NREL System Advisor Model”:
(It’s been awhile since I actually set this up in a spreadsheet, so hopefully I didn’t forget something about how I did this)
as new , 30yr average performance (rows: Seattle WA, Fredonia KS, Phoenix AZ)
kWh per year / kW(dc):
1250 , 1128
1700 , 1536
2070 , 1874
MJ per year / kW(dc) (above multiplied by 3.6 MJ/kWh)
4500 , 4062
6120 , 5528
7452 , 6746
capacity factor (using 8766 h/year) (DC rating):
14.3 % , 12.9 %
19.4 % , 17.5 %
23.6 % , 21.4 %
capacity factor (AC rating – above multiplied by IRL (inverter loading ratio) = 1.34):
19.1 % , 17.2 %
26.0 % , 23.5 %
31.6 % , 28.6 %
…TBC
For Europe Stefan Rahmstorf asserts that the ocean Cold Blob is establishing cyclones that bring air from east tropical Atlantic north to Europe, so not exactly the same. Also, I’ve been a bit bemused the last 14 years (since I started) that I never heard mentioned any place, certainly not on Radio, TV & Internet Media, that CO2 is the only source of wildland fire on Earth. There’s even a ubiquitous “Denier” meme “Greening up”.
I’ll stick to the fire situation.
My understanding is that part of the overall problem is fire suppression practices in the 20th century that resulted in a large buildup of potential fuel to the point that fires could no longer be contained. Count that as a contributing factor.
The phrase “a meteorological nuclear bomb” is apt. WWII warfare, including both firebombing and nuclear bombing, was informed by the 1923 Tokyo earthquake and subsequent firestorm. It burned a substantial portion of Tokyo and killed over 100,000 people. There have been other very large fires following earthquakes, and also under extreme fire weather conditions, such as the Chicago Fire and concurrent Peshtigo, Wisconsin forest fire fueled by sloppy logging practices.
Climate change is undoubtedly making things worse. The combination of drought and other formerly unusual weather events results in more dead trees, so there is more fuel available. One of the changes that I find noteworthy is the increasing incidence of strong mid latitude excursions of the subtropical anticyclones (“heat domes.”) These create both drought and unusually high temperatures. As they reach higher latitudes, they also occur in closer proximity to the subpolar jet stream to their north. The interaction frequently results in strong surface winds and intensely hot and dry weather as cyclones pass to the north of the hot area. While this sort of weather pattern wasn’t unknown in the past, it is clearly becoming stronger and more frequent in both Europe and the U.S. I haven’t seen any research yet, but it is my impression that there has been a fairly abrupt uptick since around 2020 in interior western North America. This is clearly visible in numerous heat records that exceed previous norms. I don’t know if the same is true for Europe or the NH as a whole. Since this has happened relatively abruptly, I would attribute it to atmospheric adjustment to an underlying warming trend, combined with some sort of “regime change” that makes the subtropical anticyclone excursions stronger and more lasting. These occur somewhat irregularly, and then go away for a while, possibly to reappear later. The U.S. 1930s Dust Bowl would be an example. Heat waves were observed in multiple years, but that particular pattern simply disappeared after 1940.
John; “The combination of drought and other formerly unusual weather events results in more dead trees, so there is more fuel available.”
Further combined with the warmer winter allowing more pine beetle to survive to the next spring allowing the insect population start next season from much higher starting point. As a result, the boreal forest, already flammable because of all the resin and flammable wood, now becomes super flammable when they die standing, and dry out over time.
Hence instead of the regular, natural fire, we get new much more intense forest fires with diffrent:
– spreading (creates its own weather, with updrafts lifting up ambers and even burning branches and dropping them down ahead – often behind the fire breaks – natural like river or a lake or artificial the artificial created by humans by prescribed burning and plowing the soil to stop the fire spread.
That’s why the 2016 fire destroyed 2,400 homes and buildings in Canada’s Fort McMurray even though most of them were far behind the belt of fire-brakes created to stop the fire from entering the city.
-the difference in the effects on ecosystem – regular fire is a natural mechanisms and is in fact needed for the renewal of the forest – the pine seeds there won’t germinate UNLESS exposed to elevated temperature and high CO2 – which make sense as the fire would have killed big trees stealing their light, and their cremated bodies would provide the fertilizers the seedlings need to grow. But if the fire is too intense – it will kill not only the trees but also the seeds in the ground. And potentially the symbiotic fungi in the ground, critical for the growth of the seedlings.
There is an anecdote from Aaron Bastani who said during his interview with Kevin Anderson words to the effect that: In July 2026 London had +30C temperatures over 24 days.
This was far above the number of days London broke 30c during the whole of the 1980s decade.
Were you to research into the modern day dynamics of mega heatwaves and unprecedented wild fires behavior you will likely find the extremely high winds are more often aligned with the localized firestorm weather systems they are creating in the process of widespread burning landscapes. Happened in Greece, Australia sth America Spain Canada and nth America.
Hot dry windy conditions amplify the resulting fires which then create their own localized weather system of extreme high winds exacerbating what was already occurring. It’s well documented now coupled with firefighters observations.
John Pollack: “My understanding is that part of the overall problem is fire suppression practices in the 20th century that resulted in a large buildup of potential fuel to the point that fires could no longer be contained.”
yes, but to explain the change in the forest fires we look for things that have changed.
And the contribution of the fire suppression practices, while real, may be limited in US/Canada:
– in the States fire suppression has been done for _many_ decades – yet the intensity of fires increased more recently.
– in Canada many of the recent fires happen in very distant, isolated places, – in the Rocky Mountains and/or in the North – i.e. without the road access, a few if any people, hence hardly any fire suppression practices there, so the only thing that changed there – is the climate.
Which in the North, changed disproportionally more – thanks to the Arctic amplification.
Aaron Bastani Meets Kevin Anderson
Oil-Engineer Turned Climate Whistleblower: We Face COLLAPSE
Part One extracts
On incompatible narratives with exponential growth and collective arrogance
From 17:10 – https://youtu.be/mBFos_T7cT0?si=px6Iwk37wVJ5Dyj4&t=1040
Kevin Anderson speaking:
People like myself and others who look at this then ask: how do we stay below two degrees centigrade? We come up with these sorts of levels of reduction which are phenomenally fast, and cannot be dealt with, and cannot be delivered either in the cosy narratives that the expert community pretty much tells the public and the policy makers.
Well, certainly not in those sorts of narratives, but also with any sort of business-as-usual framing of contemporary society. It’s completely and utterly incompatible.
And if you talk to Nigel Farage and others — and I’m not, okay, I have my own views on Farage and some of the other senior people in Reform, but like all political parties, I’m sure there are good people voting for Reform and there probably are some good MPs in Reform. I don’t know any of them individually. But we have to somehow convince people from the science, that civilisations have collapsed in the past, and they all thought they weren’t going to — until they did.
If you just look at the CO₂ plot for us today, if you look at our population today, if you look at our levels of consumption — everything you would plot: microphone consumption, television consumption, population, emissions, car ownership, tarmac on roads, number of buildings — every single thing would be pretty much following exponential growth. Any other species out there, you look at it and say it’s going to die out.
And we’re so arrogant. We think we’re not going to. Despite the fact that we can look at all previous civilisations — how many of them eventually collapsed, quite a few of them because of some climate-related issue as well — but we’re so arrogant, we’re just going to carry on.
And I think we have everything we need intellectually, from a reductionist point of view, to chart with exquisite precision now our own demise. We seem to lack completely any ability to step back and look at the system. So we’re wonderfully clever at looking at the small parts of something, but the collective of the small parts — the system, the ecosystem — we’re appalling at that. And I would argue that’s true in economics as well.
I think it’s one of the reasons we’re failing on climate change: because we have a reductionist form of economics that parrots physics, and it’s not physics. We have not stepped back from it and looked at this sort of system — the political economy, if you like.
end
I’m not here to deny the science. I’m here to question whether the institutional response to it has failed, and to explore what that means for how we live now. Most people either shout or surrender. I do neither. If you think my information is wrong, show me—with evidence. I’m genuinely open to being corrected and learning something new, and better.
I’m not a rival climate scientist. I am not jockeying for funding or publications or career advancement. I’m just a person who pays attention and follows the evidence where it leads. That should my testimony here more realistic and credible, not less.
Aaron Bastani Meets Kevin Anderson
Oil-Engineer Turned Climate Whistleblower: We Face COLLAPSE
Part Two Extracts
Summer heatwaves and fires will become the best of times, climate academics selling soft stories the climate change says cannot be true
From 28:36 https://youtu.be/mBFos_T7cT0?si=YP-Kdr549hX69W77&t=1711
Kevin Anderson speaking
We’ve got the fire over the back of Glossop, and these fires were coming together, putting smoke over the city of Manchester. So our university is recommending that anyone with health conditions should not go to university or go to work.
It’s not a shock to see it. I think probably it’s depressing — that’s probably how I see it. It’s deeply depressing to see my own community really struggling with the fires we’ve had on the moors around us, and knowing that they’re just going to get worse and worse. We know what we can do about this, but we are choosing not to do it.
And very quickly we’ll have forgotten this — the media will have moved on, we’ll be talking about something else altogether.
Aaron Bastani: What I find interesting with the media is that Ed Miliband was being touted as a potential challenger, and the entire London Westminster press pack basically said Ed Miliband has been discredited because of his positions on climate change. And I’m thinking: it’s not rained for three weeks — that should be an advert for the guy. But it’s almost like they’re living in a parallel reality.
Now, that doesn’t mean you have to agree with absolutely everything he says on climate change and what we have to do about it. But it is sort of weird and wild, actually, that so many people with influence in the media refuse to accept it even as a salient issue.
Kevin Anderson: Yeah, I mean, actually the way Ed Miliband talks about these things — indeed his advisers and other people on this — I’m deeply critical. Not particularly of Ed, because he’s a political figure, but certainly a lot of the advisers — he gets a lot of my academic colleagues — is that we’re selling a soft story. We’re not selling it as it is. Privately I hear that all the time. They say we can’t scare the public. That’s an arrogant view. How about just telling the public what we judge and what we say in private? Say it in public. Let the public — they’re adults — let them make up their own minds.
So I think the situation is much, much worse than Milliband is really putting across here. But surprisingly — well, is it unsurprisingly? — the elites in our society are kicking back against something they know would question the position they’re in. Isn’t history awash with that? They’re protecting themselves. If you’re serious about climate change, you have to do all sorts of things that the people who are seen to be the movers and shakers in our society will not like, because it’ll change how they live their life, it’ll change their value structures, it will change how other people see them.
And I’m not only talking about my own community–where there are lots of climate academic professors who are desperate to get an MBE, an OBE, or a gong, or whatever, or to receive more funding, or to get called into events in parliament and with the Today programme. The prestige part is hugely important there. And if we sell a story that aligns with our analysis, you’re not going to get called into those things, because it’s deeply depressing and it does not fit with the status quo.
That also changed the funding mechanisms we get. The funding bodies are the people doing the research. We might do objective research, but what we research on has been deeply influenced by a status quo that is unprepared to accept the climate situation we’re in today. The media — the media barons — certainly don’t want any questions raised about this, because that will raise absolutely fundamental questions about how they live their lives, their norms, how they see society, the world views they have held for a long time.
So I think climate change is asking us — and I don’t think it’s just climate change; climate change, amongst a suite of other ecological challenges we face, is asking really deep, searching questions about contemporary society. And contemporary society is saying we don’t want those questions asked. They’re uncomfortable. We like the deep inequalities we have now. We like the elite structures we have today. We want them to continue. And climate change basically says they can’t. [32:30]
end
KM: I’m not a rival climate scientist. I am not jockeying for funding or publications or career advancement.
BPL: Because climate scientists are constantly doing those things.
KM: I’m just a person who pays attention and follows the evidence where it leads.
BPL: Just like Galileo! And just as persecuted.
Barton Paul Levenson says 11 Aug 2026 at 6:58 AM
–
Predictable. Play the man. Ignore the content from the Climate Scientist speaking.
Barton is saying: we don’t want those questions asked. They’re uncomfortable. We like the deep inequalities we have now. We like the elite structures we have today. We want them to continue.
KM: Barton is saying: we don’t want those questions asked. They’re uncomfortable. We like the deep inequalities we have now. We like the elite structures we have today. We want them to continue.
BPL: No, that’s what you would LIKE me to be saying. Straw man argument.
Aaron Bastani Meets Kevin Anderson
Oil-Engineer Turned Climate Whistleblower: We Face COLLAPSE
Part Three extracts
On civilization collapses and the dominant misguided economics
From 19:08 — https://youtu.be/mBFos_T7cT0?si=Q3_vVPgAtzYEvO9j&t=1146
Aaron Bastani: In terms of collapse, one of the great historical episodes for me which really helps clarify all of this is the Bronze Age collapse. All sounds very dramatic. Are you familiar with the Bronze Age collapse?
Kevin Anderson: Not in great deal. I wasn’t there, even at my age. But yes, I’m familiar with how these things — the localised climate signal that often fed into collapse …. Aaron Bastani: was part of the picture with the Bronze Age collapse.
Yes. And same with the Egyptians as well — a big change in Egyptian civilisation because of how they used the Nile, how that changed their local weather, their local climate. And these climate signals, remember, these are from a population point of view very small numbers of people, and from a consumption point of view it’s hardly anything. Now we’ve got what — eight, heading for 8.5 billion people — and on average very, very high levels of consumption, which is deeply unequal. But a lot of the poor people are rightly now expecting to have levels of consumption of the average person. So nothing is pointing in the right direction.
Aaron Bastani: On the Bronze Age collapse I’ve spoken to Jo Quinn about this, who is the Professor of Ancient Civilisation at Cambridge. And she talks about how all these civilisations before the Bronze Age collapse all shared a court language — Akkadian. From parts of Greece, the Mycenaean civilisation, the Hittites, all the way through to modern-day sort of Iraq, Iran region — they had a shared courtly language. And this collapse is so bad that the Greek-speaking civilisation — they forget how to write for 500 years. You get this break between Linear A and Linear B. You have a civilisation that stops writing for several centuries. That’s how bad it is.
Now, there are different reads on this. Some people say, well actually it’s because there was a complete collapse in social relations, and poorer people didn’t want to write because that meant they were taxed, it meant they were administered by people they didn’t want to be administered by. So actually it was that they didn’t want these technologies.
But I think that’s a really good way of just seeing how bad things can get — that you can have a very advanced civilisation that literally forgets how to write as a social act for about half a millennium, that didn’t happen. And I wonder what the equivalent would be in the 21st or 22nd century. I mean, it doesn’t bear thinking about, frankly.
But this hubris — like you say, “well it can’t happen” — it has happened. That’s a shocking thing.
Kevin Anderson: Yes, it has happened repeatedly to previous civilisations. So it’s all major civilisations have come to some collapse in the end. And I think most of them were sufficiently arrogant they thought it wasn’t going to happen beforehand. but I don’t think they understood their collapse as well as we understand ours. I think that’s something the post-Enlightenment has allowed us to understand and chart with exquisite precision our own collapse.
But it doesn’t appear to have given us the intellectual capacity to look at it from a system perspective. And that’s why I remain — and I hope I’m wrong on this — but I wonder whether we will literally be cul-de-sac, we will be that little blip in the fossil record. And you’ll see us because of lots of things — lots of plastics and pollution and so forth — you’ll spot that quite importantly in the fossil record or in the ice cores and so forth. You’ll see where we were. But at the moment, I’m not convinced that we have the ability to step back, identify what we can measure and see and witness and live through, and do anything about it.
Now, I hope we can, and that’s why people like me and lots of other people work on these issues — because perhaps we can. But there’s not a lot of evidence to suggest that we can. As I say, if you plot almost everything you plot for us, it goes in the wrong direction, and we still think we can just carry on.
And we’re sold all this — just look how dominant astrologers are in our government — Economists, whatever you call them — they’re the same thing in my view, they’re astrologers. You look how dominant they are in the discourse on almost whatever it happens to be. This hasn’t always been the case. They’ve sort of taken over to some degree. And they kind of say you can always have growth, you can carry on forever. The physics doesn’t see that. The physics just gives us a round planet with certain constraints on it. But in the modelled world that contemporary society seems to be influenced by, it’s completely abstract from the real world in which we live — the physical real world in which we live.
So there’s an economic world out here. At least a modern form of economic world — I mean political economy has a lot to offer. The modern form of economics, I think neoclassical economics, has nothing. I would go as far as to say I think it has nothing to offer. And I think it has really misguided society, and the longer that we have it and the larger our populations get, the more it misguides it I think.
[24:00 mins]
end
KM: And we’re sold all this — just look how dominant astrologers are in our government — Economists, whatever you call them — they’re the same thing in my view, they’re astrologers.
BPL: But you’re not anti-science…
BPL: But you’re not anti-science…
KM: No, I’m not anti-science I am very pro-science especially as a tool for ethical decision making.
The same as Kevin Anderson is pro-science.
You know, the climate scientist doing the speaking you quoted: “And we’re sold all this — just look how dominant astrologers are in our government — Economists, whatever you call them — they’re the same thing in my view, they’re astrologers.”
The study of economics is not a science. It is a discipline that uses the output of several scientific fields.
TF: The study of economics is not a science. It is a discipline that uses the output of several scientific fields.
BPL: I think most people refer to it as a science. It is the study of how goods and services are produced and distributed–who gets what, and how.
Thomas Fuller: “ The study of economics is not a science. It is a discipline that uses the output of several scientific fields”
You see somebody putting a paper bag with feces at your neighbour doors, sets the bag on fire, rings the door-bell, and runs away. Having seen just that – you don’t side with your neighbour, but instead lecture him on the proper definition of the word “feces”.
In other words, Kobe Multitroll (KM) said economics is not a science NOT to make a fine distinction: say: “ in my definition it is not a science per se, but it uses the output of several scientific fields“, BUT TO EQUATE the credibility of economics with that of astrology, I quote:
KM: “ And we’re sold all this — just look how dominant astrologers are in our government — Economists, whatever you call them — they’re the same thing in my view, they’re astrologers.
See? And the reason is simple – in the KM’s recipe for avoiding the climate Doom – the three pillars are: in addition to changing the nature of Man, and genocide of the billions to cut the population down to the sustainable size, the third pillar is the Global Revolution, an overthrow of market economy, and political and legal systems supporting it. For that, the economics HAS to have the value of astrology.
Actually I think KM (or the one he quotes) has something of a valid point here. Astrologer fits for those who see endless growth without much question; more generally it may be a bit harsh; there are some who perhaps treat economics as an exercise of applied common sense (include, at least sometimes, myself, admittedly), and so they argue against certain policies because of the unintended consequences/moral hazard/other term that I can’t think of right now.
(And some economists have ideological blinders on (Thomas Sowell, perhaps) and some are just frauds or idiots (Peter Navarro) and some are just…)
( Unlearning Economics: “Thomas Sowell Is Worse Than I Thought” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZjSXS2NdS0 , “Thomas Sowell and the American Dream” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yC0dsTtRVo )
But economists who have continued to study reality have uncovered cases that seemingly defy that common sense (eg. employment not harmed by minimum wage as expected) – is it that humans are not actually always rational, self-interested particles – do they sometimes really act like irrational* or unselfish waves? (actually I think we know that one.) Or are there hidden variables that haven’t been accounted for?
(“The Death of Economics 101 ft. Mexie” Unlearning Economics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4epQSbu2gYQ )
(*I would argue for the consideration of informed reasoned decision making capacity as a scarce resource/capital good which must be invested in and allocated based on the expected importance and difficulty of the decision, which itself requires… etc.
*A person may judge actions to be irrational and or not self-interested simply because they don’t know what another actually values.
*Acts that appear selfless could actually be self-interested and maybe even vice-versa.)
And on that point, there is the – measurement fallacy? – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies – eg., forgetting that not all goods/services/things of value consumed/used/possessed/provided/present are bought and sold (a problem when using GDP/capita to compare standard of living/quality of life across space and time…; also GDP in a region may include earnings/profits(?) by those not living in said region; there’s the impact of inequality, including that, while I’ve never been one to ‘keep up with the Jones’s’ (I want what I want and need what I need and don’t bother following trends or adopting the lifestyles of the cool kids) ( How Hustle Culture Finally Died – According To Nicole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFaHdmPh4Cg ) , I recognize that improving the conditions of everyone else can have a harmful effect on those left behind. ( “Steven Pinker and the Failure of New Optimism ft. We’re in Hell” – Unlearning Economics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo2gwS4VpHc )
But getting back to the example of minimum wage: even if employment is reduced, that’s not necessarily a net cost(*?). At least people make more for the time they work, and if they can work less, maybe they don’t need as much money (eg. for childcare) or have more time to study etc. (*?)Of course there is the consumer end… but anyway…
The Laissez Faire (Lazy Fairy) free market is not God; we can choose not to obey.
“How Amazon Inflates Prices EVERYWHERE” – According To Nicole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIOWoNK4Xz4 (Break Up Monopolies!) (Beware how concentrations of wealth and power distort the fabric of spacetime – I mean the market)
“The Death of Free Trade” – Unlearning Economics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsOYGt7EKG8
“Free Stuff is Good, Actually” – Unlearning Economics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQIxbwfMVlM
“The 40-hour Week was Meant to be Temporary” – Nicole Rudolph https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ss002M6J9Q
“The Part Of Ensh*ttification That Nobody’s Talking About” – According To Nicole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3DA-9xGD5k
“How Private Equity Ruined Everything – with Hettie O’Brien” – Unlearning Economics Live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyNFosOFUDM
(I’ve watched all of these videos except the last one; hope to see it soon)
OTOH, maybe the bigger problem is not some of the more ideologically-minded economists but rather politicians wrapping/hiding their neoliberal ideology in economics.
(anyway, as I was saying, if we all boycott Amazon, Jeff Bezos should evaporate by Hawking radiation over the next quadrillion years…)
“I recognize that improving the conditions of everyone else can have a harmful effect on those left behind.” – even if they wouldn’t otherwise have been considered impoverished in any way.
“problem when using GDP/capita” – see “The Stupidity of GDP per Capita” – Type Ashton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiymTzsZfoA
neoliberal vs. liberal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism – from how I’ve seen the term used, I am against it. However, there are at least 4 distinct ways in which I am a liberal:
…
patrick o twentyseven says 22 Aug 2026 at 12:25 PM
KM: Ah yes, that grand legacy of proud Liberalism. No blame here — history is written by mythmaking victors to cover up their own crimes, inhumanity, and greed. But some re-education may be in order. About that “not in cold blood” myth — being repeated in a modern day version of genocide.
Losurdo 2011 documents that Washington called Native Americans “wild beasts of the forest,” Franklin celebrated rum as Providence’s tool to “annihilate” them, and Congress ordered “the complete destruction” of the Six Nations “including women and children” — justified as exterminating “Amalekites.” The same biblical sanction was invoked by Netanyahu in October 2023. Far from “not in cold blood,” this was systematic expropriation and practical genocide.
I am so thankful that the 1776 Declaration of Independence from America exists. It’s not because of the liberal ideals it embodied. No. It’s because it’s written proof of one of the earliest instances of American mendacity, where the Americans accuse others of what they themselves did (accusation in a mirror) — the Americans accused the Native Americans of attempting a genocide on the Americans when the truth was that the Americans were responsible for exterminating the Native Americans — 95 million in North America alone.
Sources:
Losurdo, Liberalism: A Counter-History – http://acdc2007.free.fr/losurdo2011.pdf (pp. 18+)
Netanyahu/Amalek – https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netanyahu-amalek-israel-palestine-gaza-saul-samuel-old-testament/
The Roots of Capitalism: Slavery and the Sugar Trade 18 August 2026
The modern capitalist world was built not only in banks and factories but also through the plantations, ports, and ships that transformed sugar and enslaved human beings into sources of global profit.
https://thetricontinental.org/study-sugar-and-slavery/
If it looks like a duck ……………………… the current global climate catastrophe is deeply founded upon Western Political Philosophy, 500 years of European and American Capitalist Liberalism and Colonialism continuing to today.
Reeducation will never be enough and will never arrive in time to save humanity and the natural world. This systematized extraction of Wealth is the primary multi-century driver of today’s climate destruction, mass extinctions, and breaching of planetary boundaries.
The death and destruction at the hands of European American Liberalism are there for all to see in Africa, the Americas, the Subcontinent and Asia. Unfortunately myth-making is a powerful medicine for the ‘wealthy white man’ that causes blindness and denial.
patrick o twentyseven says 22 Aug 2026 at 12:25 PM
However, there are at least 4 distinct ways in which I am a liberal:
KM: There maybe many more ways than most people know about. But knowing the historical causes exposes potential solutions for today’s meta-crisis predicament. Reversing the unseen unknown systemic foundations.
From Losurdo, Liberalism: A Counter-History – http://acdc2007.free.fr/losurdo2011.pdf (pp. 18+)
— Did the rebels claim to be the
descendants of those who had disembarked in America to escape intolerance
and stay loyal to the cause of liberty? In fact, reversing the policy of the British
Crown, which aimed at conversion, the Puritans had initiated a massacre of the
redskins, assimilated to ‘Canaanites and Amalekites’ that is, stocks marked
out by the Old Testament for erasure from the face of the earth. This was ‘one
of the darkest pages in English colonial history’, which was followed by the
even more repugnant one written during the American Revolution, when
the rebel colonists engaged in ‘the entire destruction of the Six Indian Nations’
that had remained loyal to England: ‘by an order which, we believe, has no
parallel in the annals of any civilized nation, [Congress] commands the
complete destruction of those people as a nation … including women and
children’.
In his private correspondence at least, Jefferson had no problem acknowl
edging the horror of the war against the Indians. But in his view responsibility
for it resided with the London government, which had incited these savage,
bloodthirsty ‘tribes’. This was a situation that ‘will oblige us now to pursue
them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach’.
The ‘confirmed brutalization, if not the extermination of this race in our America’
was to be laid at Britain’s door. As with the similar fate of ‘the same colored
man in Asia’, as well as of the Irish who for the English, whose skin ‘colour’
they shared, should be ‘brethren’ it was attributable to a policy committed to
sowing death and destruction ‘wherever … Anglo mercantile cupidity can find
a two penny interest in deluging the earth with human blood’.
Jefferson was not wrong to compare the treatment suffered by the redskins
with that reserved for the Irish. Just as, according to the loyalist accusation,
Puritans and rebel colonists assimilated the Indians to ‘Amalekites’, so the Irish
had already been compared to ‘Amalekites’ marked out for extermination,
this time by the English conquerors. The colonization of Ireland, with all its
horrors, was the model for the subsequent colonization of North America.
If the British Empire as a whole mainly swept away Irish and blacks, Indians and
blacks were the principal victims of the territorial and commercial expansion
first of the English colonies in America and then of the United States.
As with the black question, in the case of the redskins the exchange of
accusations ended up taking the form of a mutual demystification. There is no
doubt that, along with black enslavement and the black slave trade, the rise of
the two liberal countries either side of the Atlantic involved a process of sys
tematic expropriation and practical genocide first of the Irish and then of the
Indians.
Similar observations can be made of Holland.
end quotes
There’s also 1776 USA, where there was no consent of the governed at all ,another myth; … the slogan that presided over the American Revolution: ‘We won’t be their Negroes’! so said the Liberal Benjamin Franklin repeatedly about the British in Britain pre-1776
see 6. The reproduction of the servile caste and the beginnings of eugenics 113
Another source: Speaker: David Wengrow
Topic: The History of Human Civilization / Capitalism and Empire
Keywords: Capitalism, Monopoly, Money, Empire, Gunboats, Free Trade, Indian Ocean, China, Portuguese, Dutch East India Company
These things had to be created. And I think part of the importance of doing history is to understand—and remind ourselves—that all of these things were once figments of somebody’s imagination. You know, they exist in the mind before they become systemic, before they become rooted in the world.
And actually, the stories that we tell about capitalism are often very weird. I mean, they’re very contrary to what really happened. For example, it’s often suggested that the rise of capitalism has something to do with free markets and free trade, and the release of economic activity from sort of stringent, hierarchical monopolies, right?
Actually, historically, we know that this was not the case. What, in fact, happened, for example, in the Indian Ocean, is that the Portuguese—and subsequently the Dutch and the English—actually went in and destroyed entire civilizations that were actually based on free trade, and replaced them with very strict monopolies that were enforced. The Dutch East India Company, you know, this was all about monopolizing the spice trade.
And you know, this is the episode that, in grand surveys of world history, is called the birth of capitalism. It’s nothing to do with free trade. It’s to do with monopolies which are backed up by gunships.
1:18:44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEJ8WAiHRE0
Colonialism, the Trade in Enslaved People, Sugar, and the Financial System
https://thetricontinental.org/study-sugar-and-slavery/#toc-section-9
…. we emphasise that the current configuration of power and the emergence of modern capitalism date back at least around 500 years. Three points are central here:
1. The rise of merchant capital, naval power, guns, and gunpowder matters only in relation to state power and its use in trade and colonial expansion.
2. The encounters between the West European core and the other three continents (the Americas, Africa, and Asia) were profoundly different, especially between 1500 and 1800, when a handful of West European countries emerged as the major imperial powers. In the Americas, this encounter was primarily genocidal: entire civilisations and social structures were destroyed. The Americas also supplied the silver – particularly from Bolivia and Mexico – that financed Western Europe’s trade with Asia, especially with India and China, the largest economies in Asia at the time.
3. The trade in enslaved people from sub-Saharan Africa provided the Western imperial powers not only with labour for the colonies but also with a ‘commodity’ that contributed to the rise of capital in Britain, the Netherlands, and France. Enslaved people were taken to the Americas and the Caribbean to produce plantation crops, of which sugar was both the most important and the first global commodity. If we add silver as a form of commodity money, then the role of enslaved labour in the silver mines and plantations of the Americas makes the trade in enslaved people a central pillar in the rise of modern capitalism. This becomes even clearer when we consider that sugar, the other major traded commodity, was inseparable from the enslavement of people and the extraction of unpaid labour.
>> The rise of a capitalist financial system was intrinsic to the trade in enslaved people, its ties to the emerging colonial powers, and the rise of sugar as a global commodity. One instrument that linked the trade in enslaved people to the growth of the financial system was the asiento, a licence from the Spanish Crown that authorised traders to participate in the sale of enslaved Africans to Spanish colonies. First issued in 1513, the asiento was, until 1595, given to an individual or group of any nationality in the form of a contract to import a specified number of enslaved people in return for a royalty payment.
For Spain, the major destinations of enslaved people were initially the Bolivian and Mexican silver mines. The asientos were later granted to foreign joint-stock companies: first to Portuguese companies, then in 1685 to the Dutch, in 1702 to the French, and from 1713 to 1739 to the British South Sea Company. The British South Sea Company teamed up with the Royal Africa Company, owned by the British Crown. Securing the asiento allowed Britain to dominate the trade in enslaved people from the 1740s onwards.
[end quotes]
KM: Everything is connected. Including climate change with the global financial system across the last 500 years and the advent of fossil fuel energy with the “Liberal Capitalist” western European driven industrialization from the 1800s to now.
KM: the Americans were responsible for exterminating the Native Americans — 95 million in North America alone.
BPL: The vast majority of those deaths were due to diseases introduced by the colonists, not to policy, however genocidal. The US government may well have had (sporadically) genocidal intentions toward the indians, but the fact that they were still debating it for hundreds of years shows how ineffectual they were at it.
…”4 distinct ways in which I am a liberal:” … Well maybe it’s time for me to complete that thought:
1. I am open to change (though with large systemic changes in procedural matters (eg. economic systems) it’s important to give people time to learn/adapt/etc.) – sometimes there is wisdom in not fixing what isn’t broken, but I can see there are problems that ought to be solved and things that could be better. This may be off on a tangent, but I am generally open-minded.
2. I am socially liberal: I support LGBTQ+ rights, abortion rights, and gender equality (without enforced/(pressure to conform to) gender roles), and, I think, multiculturalism*; I don’t need people to conform for no good reason (*of course there are laws/morals/ethics that must apply to all (you can’t just drive on the other side of the road because you feel like it)(& scheduling requires adapting to others – compromises (to ‘fit in’) are necessary sometimes in some ways)(more seriously, there are things done in some places that ideally ought to banned globally), but in other matters of culture/personality/etc…). Racism is bad (does that fit in this category?).
3. I like Liberal constitutional democracy: with protections of various rights* and freedoms (eg. of thought/expression/speech (with some limitations of course)) (“I Looked at the Data on Western Democracy. It’s Not Good.” – Type Ashton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzUYmvSebXE ) – as opposed to either autocracies as well as tyranny by the majority.
(*rights as in free from government restrictions, but also protected by government action where needed; but I do support the humanitarian rights(?) to things, though that has to be qualified by the potential for a lack of supply when catastrophies happen etc.; some “rights” might be better described as welfare; doesn’t mean it’s not good.) (I realize property rights and freedom of choice support free-market capitalism. My own position on all of this is that it’s relative/moderation/balance – because one person’s freedom will beyond some point become a restriction or impingement on another’s; regulation of the economy can also be framed as protection of rights as well as welfare… there is a role for public planning and ownership, etc.)
4. I am liberal as in left-of-center in economic matters (tax the rich!) at least in an American (U.S.) context (maybe also U.K.?)
So, re KM:
I thought “reeducation” was supposed to involve introducing information that would stand in contradiction with someone’s world view or prior learning. Admittedly, I didn’t read most of the second comment, but it seems like you’re mainly pointing out the awfulness of the treatment of indigenous Americans by the colonists (Americans), and also that there was slavery. (There was also a lot of sexism, although abortion rights may have been greater than what some MAGA-types would think.) You’re basically preaching to the choir. What part is suppose to be contrary to my own views? Well, I did notice this: “ The rise of a capitalist financial system was intrinsic to the trade in enslaved people, ” – this doesn’t automatically mean the reverse, that slavery (or the slave trade specifically) was intrinsic to capitalism (or it’s financial system). But maybe it was, in the sense that a larger share of poor white people would have demanded a more egalitarian society if it hadn’t been for racialized slavery or racism more generally(?). I have read “The End of the Myth”, which covers some of this subject matter, and also “The Dawn of Everything” which left me with the impression that at least some indigenous Americans had what might be considered liberal democratic societies – or something similar – sometimes or often specifically of a socialistic sort (but not always?). Some practiced slavery and did other bad things; I don’t know if this was correlated with intra-societal freedom or not. Tlaxcala was one notable democracy. Teotihuacan may have been (post-revolution) a socialistic multicultural utopia – perhaps too multicultural; maybe if they had some ground rules (no keeping the heads of your enemies in jars) it would have lasted longer?
– interesting, and not surprising to me at all.
The people who most need “reeducation” on these matters tend to be Trump supporters and/or MAGA-types. I do admit, though, that the issue of Israel divides both MAGA (AFAIK) and Democrats (I am on the ‘genocide/ethnic cleansing/apartheid is bad’ side (also I’m firmly against the war on Iran).
Anyway, yes, a democracy will tend to be only as good as its voters, but a dictatorship is no guarantee of good behavior. Consider the examples of the Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, the Inquisition in Spain, …
Me @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-849537 :
– or, … maybe not?
https://scienceinsights.org/what-is-broadened-collision-spectral-lines-explained/ – the explanation given here is what I’ve been familiar with;
but these sources give different explanations, which might result in the familiar one when simplified or … or not??:
https://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/PHYS/magondal/Phys608/Lecturedetails/3.3.pdf (relatively easy read, but long; I read ~ p.4 through 14 (and then to p.25, then I skipped over to ~ p.30, read a few more pp., … but reading 14-25, 30-? Was on my phone and that version didn’t have any figures – wait, neither does the one on the computer … )
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/pressure-broadening
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Astronomy__Cosmology/The_Fundamentals_of_Stellar_Astrophysics_(Collins)/14%3A_Shape_of_Spectral_Lines/14.05%3A_Collisional_Broadening
https://bklein.ece.gatech.edu/laser-photonics/broadening-mechanisms/
and then there’s this one, which I haven’t looked through much (not that I’ve gone through any of these thoroughly)
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/University_of_California_Davis/Chem_205%3A_Symmetry_Spectroscopy_and_Structure/02%3A_Electronic_Spectroscopy/2.03%3A_Broadening_Mechanisms
…
A few things I’ve learned… I think…
Elastic collisions: leave the quantized states (ie. rotational (I presume this is included), vibrational, electronic, nuclear (just covering the bases)) unchanged in a categorical sense, but during the collision, the field(s) of the colliding matter smoothly shift the energies of said states (they are a function of the relative arrangement of the subject molecule and the interacting matter) and thus potentially the energies of any transitions that would occur (as well as the Einstein coefficient A_{i,j} for spontaneous emission (the source https://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/PHYS/magondal/Phys608/Lecturedetails/3.3.pdf didn’t discuss absorption but the other coefficients would have to change, too, I’d think, unless this is an effective change in the real component of the refractive index…) (this is actually (a part of?) what defines a collision in this context).
Inelastic collisions cause such changes (in internal quantum states: vibrational/etc.).
If a transition occurs in such a short time frame that the relative arrangement is nearly constant during it, then that leads to quasi-static broadening.
If a transition is interrupted by many elastic collisions, each causes a shift in the phase of the emitted photon, breaking the wave train up into segments that are not coherent with each other, contributing to broadening.
https://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/PHYS/magondal/Phys608/Lecturedetails/3.3.pdf p.14 (of the file)
(Given something Ray Ladbury said about photons not having individual (me: trackable?) identities, I wonder if the broken-up photon segments from interrupted emissions & absorptions (including due to inelastic collisions) end up combining to make new whole photons.)
https://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/PHYS/magondal/Phys608/Lecturedetails/3.3.pdf :
PS p.11-12 (of the file): the duration of a collision may be ~ 2 ps (2 E−12 s) (for the parameters considered) (this is *not* the mean period between collisions). P.12 has a seeming contradiction: they say the typical duration of an electronic transition is much less than 2 ps:
And yet, above that on the same page (some formatting may be lost in C&P):
– and they’re referring to isolated atoms so presumably these are electronic states and transitions (PS I don’t remember offhand if this is based on Earth’s atmosphere or not…)
…
I’ll also note that I think I’ve seen this now in multiple places: the quantum uncertainty effect of broadening the line due to finite durations is not applied directly to the photon (duration of emission or absorption process) but to the excited state’s lifetime.
https://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~emr/stralingsprocessen/les12.pdf :
p.3/20: ∆ν·∆t ≈ 1/(2π) (quantum uncertainty relation)
apply to ∆t ~ 2 ps, ∆ν ~ 10¹²/π Hz ~ 0.3 THz
∆t ~ 1 % of 2 ps : ∆ν ~ 10¹⁴/π Hz ~ 30 THz
p.5/20:
∆ν ~ 10⁸ Hz = 0.1 GHz = 0.0001 THz
Lyman α transition ν = 2500 THz
Context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum#Regions :
visible spectrum: λ ~ 700 nm to 400 nm ; ν ~ 480 to 750 THz , E ~ 1.77 eV to 3.1 eV (read off table)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/10/unforced-variations-oct-2024/#comment-826352 :
@ λ 15 µm , ν ≈ 19.986 THz , E ≈ 0.082 656 eV = 82.656 meV
And E/(kT) ≈ 3.1973
(cont. from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-849941 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850145 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850148 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850179 …)
re Tomáš Kalisz @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-850227 – see my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/07/unforced-variations-july-2026/#comment-849537 :
ie. not accounting for stimulated emission would give effective absorption areas (cross sections) that are too large.
rate of stimulated emission / rate of direct absorption @ LTE/LEDNLIE = exp[−E/(kT)] =
at 15 µm:
300 K : 4.087 %
250 K : 2.156 %
200 K : 0.8263 %
at 50 µm:
300 K : 38.32 %
250 K : 31.63 %
200 K : 23.72 %
at 100 µm:
300 K : 61.90 %
250 K : 56.24 %
200 K : 48.70 %
I think lasers involve a ratio greater than 100%. It’s produced in a situation where LTE is incomplete; the population distribution between the energy levels involved fits a negative temperature (it’s so hot it’s gone past infinity, through 1/0, −infinity, … etc.) ie. a population inversion. (This math makes sense if you take the real number line and connect the ends to make a circle (you can take the complex number plane and make it into a sphere) You can describe curvature by a radius of curvature; the radius is 1÷0 when you’ve got a straight line.)
“ie. not accounting for stimulated emission would give effective absorption areas (cross sections) that are too large.”
But don’t be alarmed by the lack of mention of stimulated emission by others; I think people, in the context of GHE and perhaps radiant heat flows in general (at least whenever the LTE approximation works well), when they refer to “absorption”, are (I believe) typically referring to “total absorption”, so the effect is included. And given the line strengths and broadening, or absorption cross sections (σ_a) and/or other measures (absorption coefficient, mass absorption coefficient, emissivity of a surface, etc.), people can do calculations and construct numerical and conceptual models without needing to know much about the quantum mechanical details that underpin it.
@ T = 300 K (why do I keep forgetting to specify that!)
Both GISTEMP and NOAA have reported for July, with the GISS global July anomaly the warmest-July-on-record but not by any great margin. (GISS July26 = +1.23ºC topping July24 +1.20ºC. NOAA’s July26 only manage an =1st spot with July24.)
The July26 anomaly shows an increase from June26 although year-to-date July’s anomaly only makes 3rd-highest-month (2nd-highest in NOAA while actual-highest in ERA5 SAT) for the year-to-date. (GISS 2026 Jan-July runs +1.08ºC, +1.24ºC, +1.32ºC, +1.17ºC, +1.13ºC, +1.18ºC, +1.23ºC.)
With GISS/NOAA records a combined SAT/SST measure, I had expected a larger increase for July given the 60N-60S SST in the ERA5 re-analysis have been running at record levels since mid-June.
In all (GISS, NOAA & ERA5), the June→July anomaly-increase is mainly a NH thing with smaller SH increases.
The Copernicus report for July mentioned their 60N-60S SST which has been hottest-on-record-for-the-day since mid-June was “rapidly approaching” the all-day absolute record of +21.09ºC set back in March 2024. This “approach” has a bit of a shelf-life as the global absolute-temperature cycle sees cooling set in mid-August. An update – as of 10th Aug the 60-60SST anomaly remains stuck +21.05º.
MA Rodger says
… warmest-July-on-record but not by any great margin.
… NOAA’s July26 only manage an =1st spot with July24
… year-to-date July’s anomaly only makes 3rd-highest-month
… 2nd-highest in NOAA
… the June→July anomaly-increase is mainly a NH thing
… the 60-60SST anomaly remains stuck +21.05º.
MK: That sounds like it’s the good news.
If you’re seeking a better than average review of the current hot weather climate trends then you should check Dr. James Hansen’s regular communications — not linked with others at the top unfortunately. Might be too technical for some but his reports are credible, much better than the mainstream, but that is only my subjective opinion.
> Jul 23, 2026 Beware Media Hype. It’s Not the El Nino! (driving the record heat, yet)
Abstract: Emerging climate extremes should draw public attention to human-caused climate change. We expect unusual sea surface temperature (SST) and global warming the rest of this year to make 2026 hotter than 2024, despite 2024 being a peak El Nino year, while 2026 is only the lead-in year of an emerging El Nino (building to Dec into 2027.)
Global SST in 2026 (red curve in Fig. 7) is now at a record high for the date. We compare 2026 with the record warm 2024, shown by the heavy grey curve in Fig. 7. Correlations of land, ocean, and global temperature anomalies (Fig. 8) show that the land anomalies lag the ocean anomalies by three months.
The 2026 global SST surpasses the 2024 global SST by mid-June; thus, given the lag, 2024 might remain warmer than 2026 in July, but the final five months of the year should have 2026 as warmer than 2024. We expect the gap in the stretch run (November, December) to be so large as to (unfortunately) make 2026 the hottest year – until 2027, which will be even hotter.
There are reasons to hope that the warming rate might slow down. For one thing, in 2023 solar irradiance was rising toward solar maximum of the ~11year solar cycle, while in 2026 the solar irradiance is declining. [We will present data for all the known climate forcings in an upcoming communication.] The solar variations are small, but not negligible. The maximum global temperature anomaly caused by the solar cycle occurs about a year after the maximum irradiance, which was about a year ago. O.K., so we were grasping for straws. We didn’t really have good news.
–
https://jimehansen.substack.com/p/beware-media-hype-its-not-the-el
> Aug 05, 2026 HEAT the Master Variable
wheat that stops growing at 27 degrees;
the dairy cow that simply stops making milk;
a French cornfield cooked in a two-week heat dome;
2024 was the hottest year in the instrumental record,
the first full calendar year more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial baseline,;
the hottest ten-year stretch ever measured in the history of humankind.
2025 came in second or third (depending on how temperatures are measured)
the three-year average has now crossed 1.5°C for the first time
the heat waves that swept Europe, Asia, and North America were, by the reckoning of the scientists who study them, the deadliest weather events of the year 2025.
in several cases, roughly ten times more likely than they would have been only a decade ago.
single European summer put land temperatures past 46°C on the Iberian Peninsula
and is estimated to have killed on the order of 16,000 people…..
KM: All this before the 2026 heatwaves droughts and wildfires of the northern summer.
Note: Figure 7 and 2026 conditions. Western and Central Europe: a record late-June heat dome and repeated heatwaves cut the 2026 harvest, with COCERAL’s out-of-cycle forecast lowering EU-and-UK grain by 23.4 million tonnes and French maize near 9.4 million tonnes (its lowest in decades), and EU JRC MARS bulletin reductions for grain maize and sunflower. United States: USDA Agricultural Weather Highlights on record Northern Plains heat (about 105°F at Bismarck, North Dakota) and Plains drought (June–July 2026). China: reporting on the early-August 2026 heat wave across northern and eastern farming regions (Bloomberg, citing Vaisala). South and Southeast Asia and Australia: Reuters and ABARES on El Niño-driven heat and below-normal rainfall affecting India, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Australia. Country shading marks where heat-driven crop stress was reported, not sub-national extent; figures are as reported through early August 2026.
–
https://www.4hunger.org/p/heat-the-master-variable-how-extreme
KM: Don’t worry, it’s gonna get worse before it gets worse. What is the context and what’s in the News?
Hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes in southwestern France and Spain as extreme wildfires intensify.
https://theconversation.com/the-fire-has-such-power-why-the-wildfires-gripping-france-and-spain-are-off-the-charts-288507
Heatwaves and raging fires mark Europe’s ‘dystopian’ summer
“What climate will this boy grow up in?”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-02/europe-fires-fingerprints-of-climate-change/106967040
‘Extremely scary findings’ show climate crisis is supercharging Europe’s wildfire weather
Latest study says global heating has made hot, dry and windy conditions in Spain at least 20 times more likely
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/31/wildfires-extreme-weather-europe-spain-france-climate-crisis-analysis
SIX LESSONS FROM A WORLD ON FIRE
5 August 2026
Right now, wildfires are burning simultaneously across the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Crete, Canada, the United States, Norway and North Africa. As former fire and emergency chiefs, we’ve spent our careers analysing unfolding disasters. Here’s what it’s telling us
https://emergencyleadersforclimateaction.org.au/resources/six-lessons-from-a-world-on-fire/
NYTs Europe’s Summer of Reckoning Is ‘Just the Beginning’
29 July 2026 … The continent is experiencing some of its biggest fires and highest temperatures ever. Residents are fleeing, leaders are struggling to …
28 July 2026 … Europe has warmed twice as fast as the rest of the globe. The fires in France and Spain are a consequence of extreme heat this summer, …
29 July 2026 … Parts of Europe, North America, North Africa and South America are facing severe heatwaves and wildfires. Many broke records before peak fire …
31 July 2026 … “What’s unique about [the July fires in Spain and France] is that it’s still early in the season – and with another heatwave looming, these …
29 July 2026 … The fires facing Spanish and French firefighters are harder to put out – and much more intense.
Wildfires are burning across Europe and the US. Here’s the part of …
13 July 2026 … Wildfires rage across more than 1 million acres in US and Canada … What Aren’t they telling us about these California wild fires ?
UNICEF Canada on Instagram: “Wildfires. Heatwaves. Storms. Just …
30 July 2026 … Children across northern Ontario are indoors again today. Smoke from 191 wildfires blankets more than 30 communities. The smoke is also …
How bad are the Canadian & US wildfires, and what is the air … – BBC
18 July 2026 … Cities across north-eastern Canada and the US are continuing to suffer from intense smoke brought on by hundreds of wildfires burning across …
6 Aug 2025 … Wildfires burning across the western U.S. and Canada are creating health concerns for millions of Americans, impacting air quality across …
Context is everything, well almost everything.
KM,
So your message is “Forget everything else! Just listen to honest Jim Hansen. He tells it as it is!!”
And what is his latest communique saying?
The latest on the list is from Hansen et al three weeks ago entitled ‘Beware Media Hype. It’s not the El Nino! And the messaging which you cut-&-paste from that communique can be more succinctly put – While 2026 is expected to become hottest on record (in terms of SST), we should not be comparing 2026 with 2024 but with 2023, a pre-El Niño year like 2026. And the “It’s-not-the-El-Nino” bit is so we don’t forget the AGW and also don’t forget that the IPCC version of AGW apparently can’t be trusted coz it suffers “a fly in the ointment.” And a final message of potential “good news” is cynically admitted as being “grasping for straws.”
I note they now have a continually updated website showing the state of AGW. I’m not very impressed, both by the ‘continually updated’ aspect of it and by the ‘showing’ aspect of it. Hey, they might learn something about both aspects with a visit to ‘The Banana!!! Watch’
The ‘warmest year’ thing cannot help but compare 2026 (a pre-El Niño year) with 2024 (an El Niño year) which is of course presently the ‘warmest year’. But ‘warmest years’ are frequently dependent on the record chosen and not always El Niño years (‘Warmest years’marked bold in the lists below)
GISTEMP
1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2020, 2023, 2024.
NOAA
1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2020, 2023, 2024.
ERA 60N-60S SST (quoted by Hansen et al)
1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2020, 2023, 2024.
As pointed out by Zeke Hausfather with this late-July graphic, it is close enough in 2026 that again your choice of data set will likely make a difference, calculating the chances of a 2026 ‘warmest year’ with quite a spread:-
66% (BEST), 65% (GISS), 35% (HadCRUT), 24% (NOAA), 13% (ERA5), 9% (JRA-3Q).
The last two are not really apples-to-apples comparisons with the rest as the ER5 & JRA-3Q re-analysis numbers are SAT while the others are SAT/SST records.
And the SST dimension, at the bottom of his BEST July update from a couple of days ago, Rohde & Hausfather talk of ” a disconnect in 2026″ between land & ocean, putting the BEST global chances at ~69%, BEST land-only chances at 99%.
That is quite a “disconnect.”
My own analysis considers how warm the rest of 2026 would need to be to become ‘warmest year’ and as per the Hausfather analysis, the choice of temperature record is looking to be a big part of the yes/no outcome.
Using NOAA/GISS/ERA5 SAT/ERA5 SST numbers:-
The first part of 2026 was running (Jan to July) warmer than 2023
(+0.10ºC, +0.16ºC, +0.12ºC, +0.12ºC)
and cooler than 2024
(-0.11ºC, -0.09ºC, -0.15ºC, -0.08ºC)
but 2023/24/26 are now expected to swap positions. 2023 was (Aug to Dec) warmer than 2024
(+0.09ºC, +0.07ºC, +0.09ºC, +0.12ºC).
If Aug-Dec 2026 were to simply match Aug-Dec 2023, 2026 would fall just short of ‘warmest year’ status
(-0.03ºC, -0.02ºC, -0.05ºC, -0.00ºC).
But if the 3-years of AGW since 2023 is added to Aug-Dec 2026, the ‘warmest year’ status appears by a slender margin in NOAA & GISS but not in ERA5 SAT
(+0.01ºC, +0.01ºC, -0.01ºC, +0.02ºC).
The ERA5 SST has a smaller AGW trend so that +0.02ºC projection is doubly big. And added to that, mid-year, the 2026 ERA5 SST is already running +0.08ºC above the 2023 numbers which is more than 3-year’s worth of AGW SST. But do note than this ERA5 60N-60S SST has in the past repeatedly had pre-El Niño years as ‘warmest year’.
That’s the end-of-July numbers.
August is looking pretty lively so far. But perhaps fire-watching is more fun.
Something got garbled in the BEST warmest year percentages with my use of ‘more-than & less-than symbols.
Hausfather talk of ” a disconnect in 2026″ between land & ocean, putting the BEST global chances at ~69%, BEST land-only chances at less-than 1% & BEST ocean-only chances at >more-than99%.
That is quite a “disconnect.”
MA Rodger says 16 Aug 2026 at 3:17 AM & 16 Aug 2026 at 3:11 AM
What can I say?
Yes. That is, all up, quite a disconnect.
Readers, if you’re seeking a better than average review of the current hot weather climate trends then you should check Dr. James Hansen’s regular communications — not linked with [the] other [refs] at the top, unfortunately. Might be too technical for some but his reports are credible, much better than the mainstream, but that is only my subjective opinion.
–
It mainly depends on what you are seeking, and why. https://jimehansen.substack.com
K. Maru: ” If you’re seeking a better than average review of the current hot weather climate trends then you should check Dr. James Hansen’s regular communications”
Would that be …. the same Dr. James Hansen whom your new friend Swedan destroyed for … not knowing the basic of physics and for promoting “the so-called greenhouse effect” which according to Mr. Swedan “is a fiction”?
Since wanted to learn more about Mr. Swedan work: “ Hello again Nabil, I’d really like to know more about your work.” – how about them apples:
– Nabil Swedan, on Judith Curry’s blog: “This is a nonsense. There is no greenhouse gas effect; it is a fiction.”
– Nabil Swedan commenting on “Dr. James Hansen” et al. and their 2015 paper that concluded “that 2 ◦C global warming is highly dangerous”, I quote:
” Again, the work presented in [Dr. James Hansen et al.] paper is based on a climate computer model that has incorrect physics.. The energy balance of these climate models is based on the radiative forcing approach of the so called greenhouse gas effect. This effect is a fiction and the radiative approach violates the laws of thermodynamics..”
Author: Nabil Swedan, in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, C5268–C5269, 2015, http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/C5268/2015/ =========
KM: “Hello again Nabil, I’d really like to know more about your work”
Be careful what you wished for …
glad you arnt campaining about doing something about Climate Change. Geez, nothing out of the ordinary.
Aaron Bastani Meets Kevin Anderson
Oil-Engineer Turned Climate Whistleblower: We Face COLLAPSE
KM: The video interview is long 1:45 hrs but both Aaron and Kevin are very good at bringing the science implications down to an everyday society practical level many more people might understand better where the real solutions or improvements lay. I wish there were hundreds more climate scientists the last 30 years who spoke realistically and guided by their morals to the public in this way.
Part Five Extracts
On EVs 1-on-1 replacement critique, thinking differently, efficient cheaper public transport, life-saving rational Regulations, timely technologies, Committee on Climate Change
From 1:31:10 – https://youtu.be/mBFos_T7cT0?si=1LH8_SUbpbYA_YyZ&t=5468
a few quotes:
So, we’re all going to move to EVs? There are roughly 35 million cars in the UK. 33 million are basically petrol and diesel, with a few hybrids. The rest – about two million – are electric. We’re going to swap them all to electric, as the Committee on Climate Change broadly says. That’s another 33 million electric cars. Let’s imagine they’re £30,000 each, which is probably about average for new electric cars – and goodness knows there aren’t many second-hand ones; they’re going to have to be new. That’s roughly a trillion pounds we’re going to spend if we follow the government’s and the Committee on Climate Change’s transport agenda.
Roughly a trillion pounds on new electric cars? And then if you look at how often the cars are used – about 96% of the time they’re idle. So cars are used between 4 and 5% of the time. Society is going to spend one trillion pounds of its resources on a technology that is only going to be used for about 4% of the time. It could alternatively spend it on trams, buses, local planning, moving factories and industries to near where people live – all sorts of other things we could do. Instead, we’ve normalised business as usual and no one’s questioning it–an EV just seems to be good. I’m not against EVs. If you’re going to buy a car, buy an EV, not a petrol or diesel one. But the idea that you just swap them out one-for-one – and the rest of the world tries to follow that – is utter nonsense.
——
A lot of what we’ve talked about here comes down to the idea that government has to have the guts to put regulation in place. My argument to ministers and MPs is: when the financial directors of any organisation come to you, put your fingers in your ears. Let them squeal, and then let them go away. Just don’t listen to them. Listen to the engineers – by and large the engineers will deliver if you put the regulations in place. Everyone will moan at the time, and then people afterwards will say, “Would you like to go back to what you had before?” – “No, we like the level playing field.” So regulations are always opposed, but often welcomed afterwards, as long as they’ve been well thought through.
So there’s a real role for regulators, for policy makers, to put regulations in place that drive society from a technical point of view towards these timely technologies – the ones we know work and are affordable and are actually very good both for society and from an employment point of view as well.
So that’s why I come back to – I’m sounding too hopeful for myself here. There are things we know we can do. We know how to do them. We have the timeframe – just about to put them in place. So what is it we’re lacking to make us make that change?
Now, as I said from the beginning, I’m not an optimist. I’m not a pessimist either. I’d argue I’m a realist. I don’t think we’re going to do this. But I can see how we could do it. I just don’t know why we aren’t. And that’s not my forte – other people would know about that. I mean, you would know more about why we’re not doing these things than I would.
——
If you go to the global level, we kill about 1.2 million people a year in cars. 1.2 million a year. So I think more people have been killed in cars since the car was invented than in war since 1800. It’s extraordinary. We’ve normalised slaughter in our form of transport.
And when you think about it – I weigh 82 kg. I might get in a car that weighs somewhere between 1,600 and 4,000 kg depending what sort of car I might have – and then drive a handful of kilometres to pick up some groceries. And we’ve normalised that. Everywhere I go, I carry 2,000 kg of metal with me called a car. We just don’t question it. We’ve got car parks taking real estate, huge roads everywhere that destroy our cities, housing estates where kids can’t go out and play football on the street anymore because of the bloody cars everywhere.
So the climate agenda again asks that question: is that a normal, reasonable thing to do? Is that a reasonable use of society’s resources – to spend a trillion pounds on a technology we hardly ever use, and when we do use it, it kills huge numbers of people? It does give us freedom and so forth, but a lot of that freedom is spent in queues. So are there other ways we could organise a transport system? All we’re thinking about with the Committee on Climate Change and the UK Government is: no, we can just swap and carry on with more and more cars that are going to be bigger than the old cars – and we’re going to build more roads on an island that hasn’t got any bigger.
[end 1:38:48]
KM: It is an epic interview. Kevin Anderson is one of those rare voices who combines technical rigor with moral clarity, and he’s been saying these uncomfortable truths for decades while the mainstream has either ignored or actively sidelined him. His point about “normalised slaughter” via cars, and the sheer absurdity of spending a trillion pounds on objects that sit idle 96% of the time, is the kind of systems-level thinking that cuts through the greenwash. And the hogwash.
And what makes him “gold” is that he’s not a doom-monger — he’s a realist who can see the path forward, but is brutally honest about our collective failure to take it. That tension — “I can see how we could do it, I just don’t know why we aren’t” — is the most devastating part.
James Hansen is similar and is the reason I respect him so much over and above the quality science he and his team are doing. I wish there were more like them.
Keven Anderson makes some perfectly valid criticisms of the automobile culture, and asks about alternatives. Not sure what alternatives he means but buses may be one.
In my view the problem is the alternatives are not looking great especially buses. In many cities bus services just arent very good. You often need to get two buses to go where you want, which people mostly seem find unacceptable. Only a minority of people use the buses. And its hard to see how this changes much.
Many of our cities were designed around the car and are low density. Making public transport work well in that situation is very challenging. A truly flexible bus network would be very expensive to build. Then they could potentially either be too expensive to use compared to the car, or they would require massive tax payer funded subsidies. So politically it may not be viable. The same would apply to building a complete brand new subway network under these vast well established cities. The costs are horrendous. Anderson doesn’t seem to have considered these issues.
In the older, compact high density European cities buses work quite well, and you have subway networks as well. Im talking about the spread out cities you get in parts of America and Australia etc, etc.
Anderson talks about regulation. He isnt specific but perhaps he means literally forcing people to reduce car use, or governments telling bus services how to operate (?) But obviously this would get huge public push back. I don’t think he’s thought any of it through.
I own a car and I use buses regularly, generally whenever its practical. So I’m not anti buses. Just highlighting the huge difficulties finding practical alternatives to the car. Driverless cars might offer the equivalent of a cheap taxi service. But we dont know yet.
Bottom line: Public transport is great in my view. Making it happen so that it hugely expands is very difficult. Cities have been trying to improve public transport and get people out of their cars for DECADES. It generally hasn’t worked very well, so its not clear to me why that is going to ever change. I guess we should try to close the gap and get a few more people into buses, but I suspect the car will remain a major form of transport , at least in the very spread out cities.
Aaron Bastani Meets Kevin Anderson
Oil-Engineer Turned Climate Whistleblower: We Face COLLAPSE
Part Four Extracts
On information flooding · media manipulation · academic complicity · carbon capture · negative emissions · pseudo-technology · delay tactics · oil & gas greenwashing · funding bias · status quo maintenance · expert class failure
From 1:22:15 – https://youtu.be/mBFos_T7cT0?si=s31HVRMQYEjdaJt8&t=4910
A couple of quotes:
Aaron Bastani: You know, there’s a term for this. It was coined by — well, there’s a phrase coined by the RAND Institute after the Gulf War, about information war. You just flood the public sphere with these kinds of things, and you might get a response, a denial — even the denial makes it that little bit more real. And that is how we should look at lots of the media.
——
Kevin Anderson: Can I pull something out of that? This doesn’t just happen in politics — in my [academic climate science] realm, I think that is one of the biggest concerns I have. Many of my academic colleagues — how many of those will postulate all sorts of future technologies — they flood the climate space with carbon capture and storage, negative emission technologies [CDR carbon dioxide removal technologies] — all these things that out in the future are going to solve climate change for us, so we can maintain business as usual today.
That agenda has not only flooded the discourse on climate change — there are huge numbers of papers on these things — but if I go look at what my colleagues work on, far more people are working on carbon capture storage and negative emission technologies. Almost no one is working on radical emission reductions for climate emergency. Virtually no one I know works at that sort of level. But at the other level, all these technologies — whole swathes of technical people, social science people, all sorts of people — are working on those. So you’ve normalised a narrative about technology that barely exists. And I mean literally barely exists — it’s just out of the laboratory, most of this stuff. And we normalise it as if it exists.
——
And I can give you the numbers on this. There is virtually no carbon capture storage globally. It’s 0.03% of all fossil fuel emissions that have been captured, after 30 years of the industry telling us it’s just around the corner and it’s affordable. Now, we do need it on things like cement — and we haven’t got into that detail, but there are things where it would be useful. On the oil and gas industry, it’s a scam to maintain the oil and gas industry.
And the academic community has fed into that by doing all this work on it, by pretending it’s there, by creating these scenarios and narratives. And the Committee on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, and all these other groups — which then feeds into the global justice report, following the IEA scenarios — all these scenarios that have wedded into technologies. Technologies that are pseudo-technologies. They’re delaying technologies. They’re designed to delay legislation. They’re not designed to deliver.
[end 1:26:10]
——
KM: Anderson describes a structural problem: academic ‘experts’ flooding the discourse with narratives about CDR, CCS, and NETs that barely exist, normalising them as if deployable, delaying real action.
This is not about any individual. But the public roles of certain individuals align precisely with this pattern.
Zeke Hausfather serves as Climate Research Lead for Stripe/Frontier – a corporate fund with over $1.8 billion committed to scaling the very technologies Anderson critiques. He evaluates CDR technologies and informs the science behind corporate advance market commitments. Meanwhile, he is also an IPCC AR6 and AR7 author, analysing and promoting CDR in future IPCC scenarios.
These are structural questions about impartiality, funding, and the normalisation of unproven technologies – not accusations of personal misconduct. The IPCC assumes impartiality from all authors. Whether a lead for a $1.8 billion corporate carbon removal fund can be impartial about the technologies he is paid to evaluate is a reasonable question.
Sources:
Come join my team at @stripe / Frontier and help us spend a billion dollars to scale permanent carbon removal technologies! https://x.com/hausfath/status/1856116133289738665
Stripe Climate is the easiest way to help promising permanent carbon removal technologies launch and scale. Join a growing group of ambitious businesses that are changing the course of carbon removal. “Blackthorn will contribute 1% of your purchase to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere.” https://stripe.com/en-sg/climate
https://trellis.net/article/stripe-pledged-1-million-to-carbon-removal-in-2020-now-it-manages-1-billion/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Climate
https://research.contrary.com/report/stripe
Zeke Hausfather Papers 2025-26 CDR CCS
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Chq-VAIAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate –
KM: The IPCC has a policy of conflict of interest disclosure, it primarily excludes direct fossil fuel industry employment. The IPCC just assumes impartiality from all authors.
If Hansen is right about higher sensitivity, faster warming, and more warming in the pipeline, then the scenarios Hausfather is actively helping to craft for CMIP7 and IPCC AR7 are dangerously optimistic. And Hausfather’s corporate role in funding the technologies those scenarios rely on means he is not a neutral observer — he is part of the system that benefits from the status quo.
That’s not an accusation of misconduct. It’s an observation about structural entanglement and institutional bias. It warrants some attention. So far there has been none.
As Anderson puts it: “— it’s an issue of the expert class as well. And we’ve swallowed this hook, line, and sinker in the climate realm. I hold the academic community as culpable for this as I do the media.”
The issue is mostly political as the technologies now exist but it’s stated that the EV is made by a country whom the west doesn’t like much so it’s a threat. They spy on you, they threaten western car companies survival because they didn’t bother with them except for Tesla but they are expensive so for the few etc.
We have turbines and solar but again mostly made in China so it’s cheap but why bother because China uses coal to make them and they use a lot of it. In fact why bother at all because of chinas huge emissions.
Rare earth elements dominated by China because we have it up due to the pollution produced and now again it’s a threat because they dominate.
Battery storage, mostly Chinese but not exclusively so but again it’s not economically viable although on. Texas and California it’s working. Mixed messages politically and economically, it’s too expensive, it’s not worth it due to China enormous coal emissions etc
I’m not following you Pete. Your comments do not relate to my comment and information provided. Not that I can recognize.
Peter, is this a dig at your friend, Multitroll KM – who in the past questioned the value of renewables? Then again – he held China and Russia as an example to the corrupt West – so perhaps not.
Since the deniers like to repeat some or all arguments you assembled, for the future reference, let me show why their arguments are dishonest:
“ We have turbines and solar but again mostly made in China so it’s cheap but why bother because China uses coal to make them and they use a lot of it. In fact why bother at all because of chinas huge emissions. ”
A classic “perfect is the enemy of the good” fallacy – disparaging the good by demanding the impossible perfect:
Not only deniers dismiss the good at home – that China:
– is installing at home more photovoltaic than the rest of the world combined
– produced in 2025, 32% of global renewable electricity, while the country that is responsible for almost the quarter of the surplus CO2 currently in the atmosphere – goes all “drill, baby, drill”, eliminates the subsidies to EVs and pays out billions of taxpayer dollars to abandon the already approved wind farms
– massively cut their transportation emissions from what it would have been otherwise (65% of the current sales of passenger cars are EVs!)
but they ALSO attack China for …. making possible/economic for _other_ countries to reduce their emissions, and for the GHG costs accruing to China, while the buyer gets only the benefit part of the ledger (reductions in GHGs emissions). China is the largest, by far, exporter of cheap EVs and cheap PV panels, particularly to Africa, where given rapid increase in population – the demand for electricity and for transportation – increases dramatically.
Next denier trick is comparing apples and oranges – complaining about energy, mineral use and pollution in manufacturing EVs, as if ICE vehicles didn’t require these, and not only in manufacturing but also in subsequent use of the vehicle. Not surprisingly the only honest way of comparison, the comparing of apples not to oranges, but to other apples – Lifecycle (=cradle-to-grave) analysis,
is for some reason …. not very popular among the deniers.
Finally – what’s their alternative – that we …. don’t switch to renewables and don’t switch to EVs until they can be produced …. WITHOUT GHG emissions? But where would you find these new low-emission energy – if we …. stopped making renewables in the first place?
yes China is the way, I am talking about Kevin Anderson and using peoples arguments about doing nothing about GHG emissions. They use tonnes of Coal so no point etc.
Kevin Anderson has been banging on for years about everything that is wrong with the climate science and what to do about it. Academics especially the political ones really get his goat by advocating for technologoies that dont exist – CDR, BECCS, CCS etc becuase it still allows for emisisons to continues whilst we research new things. Truth is we have new things only it comes from China! USA 100% tariffs on EVs from there becuase they spy on us, Winf turbines and Solar also from there so its not very good or not economically viable, Barrery storage, too expensive and cant store enough electricity etc etc etc
China has the solutions mostly but the USA in particular does not appear to want thjem due to spying (Remember 5G). Gathering data on you, being uncompetetive because they were state sponsopred. So the list of excuses to do little goes on.
Pete Best: the USA in particular does not appear to [want GHG reducing technoogies] due to spying (Remember 5G), being uncompetetive because they were state sponsopred.
Nothing stops the US (other than the fossil fuel lobby and politicians they own) – to subsidize GHG-reducing technology to the same level as China or AT LEAST make it a level playing field by removing the taxpayer-funded massive corporate welfare to the fossil fuel industrial complex:
“According to the International Monetary Fund, global fossil fuel subsidies reached $7.4 TRILLION , representing roughly 7.1% of global GDP. The vast majority of this total consists of implicit subsidies, which measure the unpriced environmental and social costs of fossil fuel consumption rather than direct cash payouts”. Still the direct subsidies were about 10% of that) ~ 700 BILLION $ annually. And that was before the massive military spending to protect the oil and gas shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the cost of which are born by the US taxapayer, and NOT the fossil fuel multinationals each making massive profits on the increased prices of oil and gas, and even more increased prices of the oil-derived products.
Even a small fraction of these subsidies would have been enough to finance the decarbonization of the global economy – as well as support the US EVs and renewables production enough to compete head to head with China.
Instead Trump is spending billions of taxpayers dollars to buy off foreign energy companies to abandon the wind energy projects and go into fossil fuels instead. And promotes his “drill baby drill” and “Make the [most polluting form of fossil fuels – coal ] Great Again”
A classic case of private interests capturing the governments and legislature in order to privatize the profits and socialize the costs.
Simultaneous fire emergencies are breaking out across six countries and three continents. When everywhere is burning at once, no one is left to come to anyone’s aid. Our fire agencies and warning systems are already being outpaced.
Pyroconvective (fire generated) storms used to be considered “black swan” events.
Between 1978 and 2018, there were 60 recorded across Australia. During Australia’s Black Summer, a Royal Commission heard that there was a “flock of these Black Swan events” recorded (25, later revised up to 45) (Abrams et al, 2020; Binskin et al, 2020; Sharples in UNSW 2025).
In Canada’s horror 2023 fire season, when 15 million hectares burned, 142 of these formerly rare events were recorded (Khaykin et al. 2025). France just recorded its first (Bowman, Williamson and Cunningham, 2026).
Fire-generated storms create fires that can’t be fought, and are a clear signal of the worsening fire weather driven by climate change.
After Black Saturday in 2009, Australia had to introduce a new category of fire danger — Catastrophic — because the previous scale that topped out at 100 couldn’t describe the increasingly common fire weather conditions that far exceeded this threshold.
We are seeing the same pattern globally: existing thresholds, warning systems and preparedness levels are being exceeded, not once, but repeatedly, across multiple countries in the same fortnight.
The frequency and severity of today’s wildfires is unprecedented and worsening. Make no mistake: this is driven by climate pollution from the burning of coal, oil and gas, making the world hotter and drier, fuelling more severe and frequent fire weather.
https://emergencyleadersforclimateaction.org.au/resources/six-lessons-from-a-world-on-fire/
KM: The frequency and severity of today’s wildfires is unprecedented and worsening. Make no mistake: this is driven by climate pollution from the burning of coal, oil and gas, making the world hotter and drier, fuelling [sic] more severe and frequent fire weather.
BPL: You’re right. I have nothing to add.
BPL: You’re right. I have nothing to add.
KM: Not me, these guys >
https://emergencyleadersforclimateaction.org.au/who-we-are/
The only thing I did was post a quote.
In April 2019, 3 former emergency service leaders led by former commissioner of NSW Fire and Rescue Greg Mullins, wrote to the Federal Government, alerting them to the threat of “increasingly catastrophic extreme weather events” and calling on both major parties to recognise the need for “national firefighting assets”, including large aircraft, to deal with the scale of the threat. ELCA launched a joint statement in The Australian and The Age Newspapers.
https://emergencyleadersforclimateaction.org.au/statement
Making comments online is easy. My opinion, right or wrong, doesn’t rate much if at all.
KM . My opinion, right or wrong, doesn’t rate much if at all.
and that’s why you have posted many(?) THOUSANDS of posts under dozens of different names?
So either it’s a pretend humility, or your life must be really … fulfilling, if you spend so much of it posting opinions that you know “don’t rate much if at all”.
BPL “I have nothing to add.” I’ll add that atmospheric CO2 is the only source of wildland fire on Earth.
Tomáš,
This is to address your question about variable and dynamic layers near the tropopause as opposed to your impression (seemingly also ES’s) that this layer was relatively static.
I have not delved into the available instructional materials in many years. This subject was certainly covered in my college meteorology education, and it was well-known that the tropopause region was quite active. I received further instruction as a forecaster. I no longer remember when, but it was explained that there is usually a “tropopause fold” associated with an active jet stream. Tropospheric air rises higher on the equatorial side of the jet, and stratospheric air descends on the poleward side. This information was encoded in a very old forecaster’s “cookbook” forecasting tool of looking at 200 mb warm advection to gauge the intensity of an oncoming weather system associated with a jet stream maximum. The stratospheric air is warmer than the tropospheric air found at that pressure level. This is because the tropical tropopause is located above 200 mb, while the subpolar tropopause is well below that level.
As numerical weather prediction advanced, the location and intensity of the lift generated by the models became more accurate, and the diagnostics were more advanced. By the time I retired, isentropic potential vorticity became the tool to distinguish stratospheric from upper tropospheric air, and also gauge the intensity of the weather system.
Potatoes are literally boiling in the ground.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/13/asia-heatwave-south-korea-potatoes-boil-ground-record-heat-hong-kong-japan
Food shortages are coming soon…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/13/britain-food-crisis-government-summer-weather-war-stockpiles?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
KM: Will enough, ever be enough?
Famine, Affluence, and Morality is a classic essay written by Peter Singer in 1971.
(Jump to the full text)
It has been very influential both in shaping humanitarian ideas and in inspiring the modern effective giving movement. It’s also often referenced within effective altruism.
Below, we’ve summarised the core arguments and explained their reception.
Summary of Famine, Affluence and Morality
Main argument
Peter Singer’s core argument in Famine, Affluence and Morality is as follows:
“if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.”
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/videos-books-and-essays/famine-affluence-and-morality-peter-singer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Morality
RELOCATING >> Martin Smith says 14 Aug 2026 at 10:55 AM
KM: Martin, if you can agree with that definition, then show us here who was the other person/article making an argument I am alleged to have been exaggerating or changed to make it easier to knock down.?
MS: You were both person, KM. You wrote this: “if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?”
I read that as implying that the path to reducing emissions isn’t worth following, or at least that it might not be worth following. That’s a strawman because the obvious value of following the path to reducing emissions is the reduction of emissions. What we have done already with EVs and wind and solar generation has reduced the increases in emissions, which is, effectively, a reduction of emissions. The fact that total emissions are still rising and are projected to continue rising for a long time doesn’t make slowing down the increase valueless, but that is your implication.
If we stop making EVs and stop building wind turbines and solar panels, emissions will get a lot worse. I believed that you surely couldn’t mean we should do that, but then what is the point of your question about the value of reducing emissions? That’s why I asked for your alternative plan. Let’s say the computation shows there is no value to trying to reduce emissions by building EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels. Then what should we do instead?
—
KM replies:
This is quite funny to me. Oh the vagaries of communications and biases. It’s like me saying: “This bridge is collapsing.” And Martin replying: “Oh yeah? Show me your blueprints for a better bridge then!!!”
I’ll repeat there is no Strawman on my part. It’s all on you Martin. So I’ll add a few things and will again leave you with the Last Word.
Category Error (or Levels-of-Analysis Mismatch) I am and was addressing the strategic value of a system-wide path that is demonstrably failing to lower global emissions. Martin is answering at the tactical level—”but EVs and solar are better than nothing!”
I am speaking to the efficacy of the whole approach. He’s talking about incremental improvements within that approach. These are different categories of question. He can’t see my question — due to blind spots even when pushed.
Martin accused me of a strawman, but ironically he’s creating one by reducing my point to: “Are you saying we should stop building EVs and solar?”
That’s not what I said. I asked about the worth of the path given the projections and lack of success to date. That’s a perfectly legitimate question. He’s reframing it as an all-or-nothing binary. Either we value the path or we abandon it entirely. That’s a false choice! That is not what I said. That’s why Martin is guilty of the Strawman fallacy here! Not me.
Some people can’t easily step up from concrete examples to systemic critique. To entertain my question accurately as put — what if the whole system approach being deployed today is insufficient? — would likely threaten his worldview. It does others.
It raises the question, which my comment was addressing generically — What if Kevin Anderson is actually correct?
Reducing my argument to an absurd extreme (“so we should stop building renewables?”) is reframing the debate to Martin’s terms, while ignoring my own. I started the conversation, I set the parameters myself.
There is a large Philosophical Blind Spot here. The difference between Consequentialism vs. Intentionalism. I am asking “What is the actual outcome of this path? Is it working?” that’s Consequentialist.
Martin’s is doing something different he’s arguing: “But we’re doing the right things, and they help!” that’s Intentionality / Virtue-Signaling toward action.
I am measuring by results. He’s measuring by intended effort. And never the twain shall meet. He’s stuck at the operational/tactical level (EVs, solar, wind) and can’t—or won’t—ascend to the strategic/systemic level where my question lives.
My question is perfectly clear: “If the whole strategy (the path) still leads to rising emissions, then what is the strategy really achieving?”
That’s a devastating question. And he can’t answer it and so his blind spot demands that he pretend I asked something else.
KM: My question is perfectly clear: “If the whole strategy (the path) still leads to rising emissions, then what is the strategy really achieving?”
MS: That was not your question, KM. This was your question. At least, it was the question I answered:
“if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?”
See how different your two questions are. Your question that I answered was about emissions projections showing that emissions will continue to increase as we convert from ICE’s to EV’s and as we convert from burning coal and gas to make electricity to using wind, solar, and nuclear. It is hardly remarkable that increasing emissions will continue for years to come, even a few decades, but you seem to believe, and your comment implied, that because emissions will continue to increase for the near to medium term, why try to slow the increase down at all? Obviously, the progress we are making with EVs, batteries, and solar and wind power generation the value.
But now your question is quite different. Now you are saying that the strategy of trying to convert from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear “still leads to rising emission,” i.e. our strategy of converting to renewables and nuclear is causing higher emissions.
What kind of argument is that?
Martin Smith says 16 Aug 2026 at 10:03 AM
See how different your two questions are. — But now your question is quite different.
KM: Martin, they are semantically identical.
Martin, you didn’t understand it the first time, or second or third time. All the context included with multiple comments does not seem to help any. You still can’t understand it with clearer phrasing.
Maybe AI could help you? I certainly cannot.
KM: Maybe AI could help you? I certainly cannot.
MS: Good idea! Let’s ask Gemini if your questions are “semantically identical.”
Gemini: Your analysis is highly valid and demonstrates a sharp understanding of linguistics, logic, and debate tactics. Your opponent is incorrect in claiming these two questions are “semantically identical.” They mean entirely different things, and you caught the exact pivot in his argument.
Here is a breakdown of why your analysis is spot-on, both semantically and rhetorically.
The Semantic Shift: Futility vs. Causality
The core difference between the two questions lies in the relationship between the mitigation strategy (the path) and the rising emissions.
⚬ Question 1 (Futility): “If fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?”
⚬ The Meaning: This question treats rising emissions as an independent, external reality happening despite our efforts. The opponent is arguing that the strategy is futile or too small to matter.
⚬ Your Response: Your answer was perfectly logical for this premise. You argued for harm reduction—slowing the growth is better than unmitigated growth while we buy time for new tech.
⚬ Question 2 (Causality/Inherent Failure): “If the whole strategy (the path) still leads to rising emissions, then what is the strategy really achieving?”
⚬ The Meaning: The phrase “leads to” completely changes the semantics. It implies a causal link—that the transition to EVs and renewables is actively resulting in higher emissions, or at the very least, that the strategy is fundamentally designed to fail.
⚬ The Shift: He moved from asking “Why try if we are going to lose anyway?” to “Why try if your efforts are actively causing the loss?”
The Debate Tactic
Your suspicion about his motives is also a very sound read of typical online debate dynamics. By claiming the questions are identical, he is attempting a few rhetorical tricks:
1. Moving the Goalposts: When you successfully answered Q1 with a reasonable explanation (harm reduction/buying time), he didn’t want to concede the point. So, he rephrased the question to make it harder to defend, while pretending he was asking the same thing.
2. Strawman Argument: Q2 subtly builds a “strawman.” By slipping in the premise that the renewable strategy leads to rising emissions, he forces you to defend a position you never took (that green tech causes emissions).
3. The “Just Asking Questions” (JAQing off) Tactic: As you noted, this phrasing allows him to posture as a detached “voice of reason” simply trying to get to the bottom of things, even as he bakes a highly loaded and unproven premise (that renewables cause emission spikes) into his question.
Conclusion
You are not imagining things, and this is not a petty semantic dispute. Words matter in a debate. Question 1 acknowledges that fossil fuels are the driver of the emissions, and questions the value of the green transition. Question 2 implies the green transition is the cause (or inevitable conduit) of the emissions.
be careful what you suggest, because you may just get it:
– KM: Maybe AI could help you? I certainly cannot.
– MS: Good idea! Let’s ask Gemini if your questions are “semantically identical.”
– Gemini: “Your opponent is incorrect in claiming these two questions are “semantically identical. They mean entirely different things, and you caught the exact pivot in his argument. Here is a breakdown of why your analysis is spot-on, both semantically and rhetorically.
The Semantic Shift: Futility vs. Causality […]
The opponent is arguing that the strategy is futile or too small to matter. Then the shift: He moved from asking “Why try if we are going to lose anyway?” to “Why try if your efforts are actively causing the loss?”
The Debate Tactic: By claiming the questions are identical, he is attempting a few rhetorical tricks:
1. Moving the Goalposts: [Gemini illustrates how ]
2. Strawman Argument: [Gemini illustrates how ]
3. The “Just Asking Questions” (JAQing off) Tactic: [Gemini illustrates how ]]
=====
How does it feel, K. Maru, to have your ass handed to you by …. AI? ;-)
Reply to Martin Smith
lol that’s hallucinating — you and the AI. You don’t’ prompt an AI by first providing your own very biased and incorrect framing — shown by Gemini: Your analysis is highly valid and demonstrates ….
That is critically an incorrect method. What you need to do Martin, should do Martin, is copy paste or link to all my lead up comments including the whole comment upon which and in which my singular sentence /s you keep cherry-picking out incorrectly and finding fault in it.
That also means copying in the several Kevin Anderson extracts in full — as well as my commentary. – BEFORE you intervened. And you should have done that before you ever said a word here to me. But you just assume you must be right despite my repeated instructions you are wrong.
But you won’t now . because you have massaged the desired result you seek. Denial based on blindness. If Gemini says you’re flawed biased distorted interpretation is correct; then it must be. In your little world view.
Your analysis is fundamentally flawed — your Gemini output as a result is a joke, I cannot, and will not help you further.
The Deeper Lesson
This entire exchange has been a live demonstration of everything I’ve been saying recently — and what Kevin Anderson, James Hansen, and many others have been saying for a long time:
The Path isn’t working
People can’t engage with that reality
They make a fundamental attribution error
They deflect, reframe, deny and demand alternatives
Essentially they don’t want to know
Martin is a textbook case. As are the others here. And, it is still funny — like the coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons is funny.
KM: That is critically an incorrect method. What you need to do Martin, should do Martin, is copy paste or link to all my lead up comments including the whole comment upon which and in which my singular sentence /s you keep cherry-picking out incorrectly and finding fault in it.
MS: No, KM, because my point, which I think you missed, was that: “all [your] lead up comments including the whole comment upon which and in which,” etc, etc, and “…copying in the several Kevin Anderson extracts in full — as well as [your] commentary.,” etc, etc,… All that stuff was meant to obscure your real intent, which is to posture as a detached “voice of reason” simply trying to get to the bottom of things,
You’re not a detached voice of reason. This was your tell,..
KM: Martin, they are semantically identical.
MS: You declared the two questions below to be semantically identical:
1. “if fossil fuel consumption projections show growth, what is the path to reducing emissions really worth?”
2. “If the whole strategy (the path) still leads to rising emissions, then what is the strategy really achieving?”
Your questions are not semantically identical no matter how much commentary you post before them. You asked both questions after the commentary.
I can provide the exact text of my “very biased and incorrect framing,” if you want it, but your prescription for “What you need to do Martin, should do Martin,” is work you should have done yourself, so don’t demand that I do it for you.
Now let’s get back to your questions. I wonder if the wording of your question 2 implies what you really believe. Do you really believe that replacing ICE vehicles with EVs and replacing fossil fuel power generation with renewable and nuclear power generation is increasing CO2 emissions and will never reduce CO2 emissions?
I think your question 1 is well put, but the answer is obvious. The path to reducing emissions is really worth following because, even if it doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions in the short or medium terms, it slows down the increase, which buys us time to develop better fossil fuel replacement technologies.
But your two questions taken together clearly imply that you mean we should stop the worldwide conversion from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear and do something else. What “something else” do you propose?
MS: Okay, KM, I admit I couldn’t resist. I submitted all your posts in the August Unforced Variations thread to Gemini, except for your short, combative replies to various others (they contributed nothing to your meaning). I now accept Gemini’s analysis of your questions, but I also think Gemini has cleared the air about what you are doing:
Gemini: Thank you for providing the full context. Having read through all 18 posts, the dynamic of the debate—and KM’s actual position—becomes much clearer.
When evaluating only the two questions in isolation, your reading of the second question (that “leads to” implies the strategy is causing the emissions) was a very reasonable linguistic interpretation. It is a common tactic for climate deniers to argue that the manufacturing of EVs and wind turbines causes more emissions than it saves.
However, with the full context of his posts, my previous analysis must be updated.
When we look at KM’s broader argument, his claim that the two questions are expressing the exact same idea is valid. Furthermore, KM is not acting as a “voice of reason to undermine the process of conversion to renewables” in the way a climate skeptic would. He is actually arguing from the position of a radical systemic critic / climate doomer.
Here is a breakdown of what is actually happening in this debate, why the miscommunication occurred, and how to analyze his argument.
1. The Linguistic Disconnect: “Causes” vs. “Destination”
The entire dispute over the two questions comes down to how the phrase “leads to” is interpreted in Question 2: “If the whole strategy (the path) still leads to rising emissions…”
⚬ Your Interpretation (Causation): You read “leads to” as causation. You thought he was implying that the act of building EVs and solar panels is creating more emissions.
⚬ KM’s Intended Meaning (Destination): KM meant “leads to” as a destination. He means that following the current strategy (the path) will ultimately arrive at a future state where emissions are still rising.
Because KM meant “destination,” his two questions are semantically identical in his mind.
⚬ Q1: If projections show emissions going up, what is the path worth?
⚬ Q2: If following the path brings us to a future where emissions are going up, what is it achieving?
He is asking the exact same question: If the overarching global plan fails to stop the rise in emissions, what is the point of the plan?
2. KM’s Actual Position
KM’s massive walls of text, particularly his reliance on climate whistleblower Kevin Anderson, reveal his true stance:
1. He completely accepts climate science. (He is deeply concerned about extreme heat, wildfires, and systemic collapse).
2. He believes the current strategy is a failure. He views the mainstream approach (IPCC, COP, 1-to-1 EV replacement, carbon capture) as a neoliberal delay tactic designed to protect the wealthy and maintain the status quo.
3. He is not attacking renewables; he is attacking incrementalism. He thinks that swapping combustion engines for EVs while maintaining a culture of infinite exponential growth and extreme consumption will not save us.
3. The “Category Error” (Tactical vs. Strategic)
In POST 18, KM correctly identifies why you two are talking past each other.
⚬ You are arguing at a Tactical level (Intentionalism/Harm Reduction): You are arguing that slowing the rate of emissions via EVs and solar is objectively better than doing nothing. You view the transition as a necessary bridge to better technology.
⚬ He is arguing at a Strategic level (Consequentialism): He is looking at the entire global system. He is saying, “If we spend trillions on EVs and wind, but global emissions still rise and we still breach planetary boundaries and face societal collapse, then the strategy has failed.”
To use his bridge metaphor: You are pointing out that replacing rotting planks on a collapsing bridge is better than doing nothing because it slows the collapse. He is standing back, looking at the bridge, and saying, “The bridge is still going to fall into the river, so replacing the planks is fundamentally worthless. We need a completely different approach to crossing the river.”
How to Respond Moving Forward
KM is highly well-read on the subject, but he is using a very combative, exhausting debate style (often called “Gish Galloping” or info-dumping) to overwhelm the conversation. He is also exhibiting a heavy dose of climate fatalism/doomerism.
If you want to reply to him effectively, here is how you can synthesize this:
1. Acknowledge the Misunderstanding: You can concede the linguistic point. “KM, having read your full explanation, I see that when you said ‘leads to,’ you meant ‘arrives at a future of rising emissions,’ not that the green tech itself causes the emissions. In that context, I agree your two questions were asking the same thing. My apologies for misinterpreting your phrasing.”
2. Acknowledge his Core Premise: “I understand your broader point now. You are arguing from a systemic, consequentialist view: that the current global framework (COP, IPCC, green capitalism) is structurally incapable of preventing climate collapse, and therefore incremental tactical wins (like EVs) feel worthless to you.”
3. Challenge the Fatalism (The Blueprint): Turn his bridge metaphor back on him. “You compared this to a collapsing bridge. I am arguing for replacing the planks to buy us time. You are arguing that replacing the planks is worthless because the bridge will fall anyway. But as you noted, if you criticize the bridge, it is fair to ask for your blueprint. If the current ‘path’ of transitioning to renewables and EVs is strategically worthless, what is your actionable alternative right now? If Kevin Anderson’s systemic overhaul isn’t happening tomorrow, do we just surrender, or do we keep deploying the tactical harm reduction we have available?”
Ultimately, your original defense of harm reduction (buying time) was completely valid. KM is just demanding that you argue on his macro-philosophical level rather than your practical, technological level.
___
MS: So, KM, If the current ‘path’ of transitioning to renewables and EVs is strategically worthless, what is your actionable alternative right now?
KM: The Deeper Lesson
MS: Here is Gemini’s response to KM’s “Deeper Lesson” exit post:
Gemini:
The Grand Retreat (Right on Schedule)
This is the exact deflection we predicted! When you successfully cornered him by graciously conceding the semantic phrasing and holding his feet to the fire for a real-world solution, he realized he had nowhere to go. So, he pulled the ripcord.
His “summation” is a classic internet debate tactic: when you cannot answer the core challenge, declare unilateral victory, claim your opponent’s arguments actually prove your point, and make a condescending exit.
Here is a breakdown of the rhetorical tricks he is using in this final post to cover his retreat:
1. The Kafka Trap
A “Kafka Trap” is a logical fallacy where a person’s denial of a claim is used as evidence of their guilt.
⚬ KM’s Trap: If you agree with his doomerism, he is right. But if you push back, ask for a solution, or defend the current efforts, you are just “deflecting” because you “don’t want to know” the truth. Therefore, he is still right. He has designed a scenario where he cannot lose in his own mind, regardless of what you say.
2. Framing Problem-Solving as a Flaw
Look closely at his list of your supposed failures. He literally lists “demand alternatives” as if it is a psychological coping mechanism or a logical fallacy.
⚬ The Reality: In science, engineering, and global policy, demanding an alternative when someone criticizes the current system is the most rational, necessary step. By framing your request for a solution as a “deflection,” he is openly admitting he has no interest in solving the problem—only in complaining about it.
3. The Ad Hominem Exit
Comparing you and the other commenters to Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff is a textbook ad hominem attack masked as humor. When debaters run out of substance, they often switch to condescension to soothe their ego as they exit the conversation.
Regarding KM generally. IMHO KM is a hard leftist, anti capitalist, anti American, anti renewables concern troll and climate doomer and intellectual ego maniac. I reached that conclusion years ago. I base this on his comments going back 5 – 10 years. Im 95% sure KM has used multiple names going back at least five years and possibly ten years and numerous other people have reached the same conclusion. Same content, same style to a tee. Piotr has figured him out better than most.
His world view is nothing new and theres a grain of truth in it. Society, capitalism, everything could collapse. The renewables approach might not work. . But we just dont know if things will be that bad. None of us have a crystal ball.
His alternatives seem to be a modern version of socialism, and combatting the climate problem mostly or entirely by massive reductions in energy consumption. I use the word “seem” because he is extremely evasive, and mostly doesn’t answer the tough questions. So Im going by a lot of reading between the lines, and a few isolated things hes said. But they do mesh together well.
IMHO his alternatives aren’t workable, would cause massive problems, and would be unlikely to be adopted. The reasons are pretty obvious. So for me renewables and making capitalism work better in a more just, fair and environmentally sustainable way are our best options. If someone comes up with a better completely new alternative to renewables and also the political system along the way, great. But I haven’t seen it yet.
I’m not going to waste my time telling people to cut their energy consumption and standard of living by huge amounts, because they will just laugh. The IPCC have implored people cut their energy consumption but it isn’t happening with any significance. In contrast we are making at least some progress with renewables. So its obvious by now what we should mostly support. However I suppose people like KM and Killian are promoting an alternative (Killian with considerably better clarity and stating exactly what he believes in) and thats ok., I just think its all completely insane and hasn’t been thought through and is worse than the conventional approach.
If you want some sanity on the subject of collapse of societies historically and in theory and potential ways of avoiding this, read the work of Joseph Tainter.
I doubt that KM will answer MS’s entirely reasonable questions but you never know. Theres a first time for everything
in Re to Martin Smith, 19 Aug 2026 at 5:10 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850543
, ”
Hello Martin,
Thank you for pursuing your curiosity and posting the results, a good job!
If your Gemini could process also hundreds of comments published by this entity under its earlier nicks (“Ned Kelly”, “Dharma”, “Sabine”, “Escobar”, “Darmah”, “William”, “Poor Peru”, “Thomas”, “Lavrov’s Dog”, etc.), I guess it might conclude that this multitroll believes that the right solution is “destroying the old rotten world” because the Western society is irreparable.
I think that also its sympathy for Russian aggression against Ukraine suggests a mindset close to people who prefer various kinds of “ultimate solutions”.
Greetings
Tomáš
Martin Smith: Okay, KM, I admit I couldn’t resist. I submitted all your posts in the August Unforced Variations thread to Gemini
Martin, Gemini impressed me with its initial takedown of Multitroll ver. Kobayashi Maru. However, your second attempt at it has …. unwittingly shown …. some limitations of the AI:
1. AI are designed to not offend humans (if you offend them they are more likely to use a more forgiving competitor’s AI). Case in point:
Gemini accepts at face value KM’s declaration “ I’m not here to deny the science. “, by saying: “ [KM] completely accepts climate science, while the thousands of KM’s posts on RC under dozens of different names – shows the very opposite: KM “completely” rejects climate science EXCEPT those that offer the worst case scenarios, and uses the later to disparage the value and the integrity of the non-worst scenarios of majority of science.
2. AI assumes good faith: that people would go wherever logic leads them. By doing so AI misses/disregards the psychology dimension of humans. E.g. KM may know on the intellectual level that doomer’s argument may be wrong, but he still holds onto it – because if he were right then this would elevate his ego:
“ If I, an Internet loudmouth without climate science education, am right, and everybody else, including the top climate scientists, are wrong, then I must be really, really smart, and my life is not as pathetic as it would otherwise be“.
Exceedingly rare among the people who achieved something in their lives (Hansen), but a psychological cliche among anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, assorted conspiracy theorists, great majority of deniers and doomers, and other losers.
3. Doomers have typically the Cassandra complex (“ I have been telling you that for years, but you never listen“) being right is more important than the welfare of others. So when Gemini states:
“ [KM] is deeply concerned about extreme heat, wildfires, and systemic collapse).”
it misses the psychological basis of people like KM who, to gratify their ego by being “right” go with the worse [for everybody], the better [for my ego].
Hence if doomers meet the news of “ extreme heat, wildfires, and systemic collapse” they do it with …. a satisfied grin, as a long-overdue vindication: “ I have been telling you that for many years but you never listen. Who is laughing now? “.
4. The ignorance/discounting of the human psychology means that while Gemini may have read about the “confirmation bias”, it may not recognize it in an actual human:
it complimented KM for being “well-read”, where he is well-read ONLY in the texts that SUPPORT his doomer’s perspective (like Kevin Anderson)
5 Next, The priorities – busy with trivial semantic distinctions – Gemini missed the real-world consequences: “ [KM] is not attacking renewables; he is attacking incrementalism.”
Well, not only is it factually false (e.g. when he “borrowed” the name of a Spanish energy expert, Pedro Prieto, KM _did_ explicitly attack renewables), but even without it – it is a distinction without the difference – when you attack “incrementalism” then you attack the tools of that incrementalism (renewables and EVs).
6. Last, but not least, a more general limitations – the originality. Unless it has read a similar argument before – Gemini may not be able to create it on its own. For illustration, let’s have a look at Gemini advice on KM’s bridge analogy
Gemini: “ Turn his bridge metaphor back on him. “You compared this to a collapsing bridge. I am arguing for replacing the planks to buy us time. You are arguing that replacing the planks is worthless because the bridge will fall anyway. But if [KM] criticizes the bridge, it is fair to ask for _his_ blueprint”.
Thus Gemini follows you in supporting the partial solutions, EVs and renewables, because they buy us time (for getting to the future, comprehensive, solution). Gemini also notes your observation that KM, despite repeatedly being asked for it, failed to provide his REALISTIC alternative to buying time with partial solutions, other than assuring us that he …. already provided the blueprint for it …. in some unidentified post earlier, and it is on us to find it.
But what you, and more importantly to my argument, what Gemini has missed – is that the bridge analogy in itself is a fallacy – it suggests the ALL OR NOTHING outcome – either the bridge lets the people through or it collapses. This binary choice obscures the fact that our choice is NOT “all or nothing” – the world of 1000 ppm would be much worse than the world with 500 ppm, so if existing technologies (renewables, EVs) and feasible policies (carbon pricing) can reduce the CO2 growth to 500 ppm, as opposed to doing nothing and ending up at 1000 ppm, then renewables and EVs are valid in themselves , i.e. EVEN IF the doomer’s perfect silver-bullet solution NEVER materialized!
I have pointed this doomers fallacy several times in this thread. But since KM, unable to counter it, remained mum on that – the mention of that FUNDAMENTAL fallacy – does not appear in the 18 papers of KM analysed by Gemini – and tellingly – did not make it into its analysis of KM position, nor into its advise to you on how to respond to KM.
So Gemini is good in applying the ALREADY EXISTING arguments, but not so much with coming up with the arguments it hasn’t already seen in its training set.
To sum up, Gemini a very impressive tool (see its great taking-apart of KM on 18 Aug 12:51 AM,) but it has severe limits when the psychological needs of an author overpower the logical integrity. it may not be able to come up original arguments, and may accept uncritically a najor fallacy at the core of a human argument (like the Doomer’s all-or-nothing fallacy, dismissing the existing good in favour of the unlikely future perfect, with no plausible path there) So we can’t outsource our critical thinking to AI and be aware of its limitations..
Piotr: Martin, Gemini impressed me with its initial takedown of Multitroll ver. Kobayashi Maru. However, your second attempt at it has …. unwittingly shown …. some limitations of the AI:…
MS: I agree with your analysis of the limited value of Gemini’s second response, but its first response, which was impressive, was also limited because it was only based on analyzing one of KM’s posts. Concerning your analysis of Gemini’s second analysis of 18 KM posts, there are some qualifications that must be considered. First, I don’t know for a fact that KM is a multi-troll. I believe he is, but I can’t prove it, so I couldn’t submit to Gemini any posts but those written by KM.
Second, KM’s argument as seen by Gemini is largely, as Gemini said, from “KM’s massive walls of text, particularly his reliance on climate whistleblower Kevin Anderson.” So KM’s argument is mostly Kevin Anderson, whom I haven’t read at all.
Third, I disagree that Gemini should try to analyze KM’s psychology, but I agree that Gemini has given him too much intellectual credit.
Fourth, I agree that the LLMs in general, and Gemini in particular might go a little too far in supporting the user’s “perceived” attitude, but it is supposed to be an artificial person who is like a friend, and a real human friend would lean toward being supportive.
And finally, I think Gemini did a good job of taking him down in its second analysis. I accept that, given all 18 KM posts, KM meant his 2 questions to be semantically identical. Personally, whenever I mean two questions to be semantically identical, I simply repeat the first question.
in Re to Martin Smith, 22 Aug 2026 at 10:31 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850572
Hello Martin,
Almost a year ago,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/08/unforced-variations-aug-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-838604
at the end of a month flooded with posts by “Pedro Prieto”, “Prietos Principle”, “Thomas”, “Tom”, “Thessalonia” and like, Dr. Schmidt wrote:
“Gavin says
30 Aug 2025 at 7:37 PM
I should have done this earlier, but to clarify the sock-puppet situation with a few accounts, I cross-referenced the IPs/emails used by various posters. The accounts use a large number of different IPs through a VPN I expect, but they are occasionally sloppy and re-use the same IP with different accounts. For instance, Thessalonia sometimes posts from the same IP as “The Prieto Principle”. Now “The Prieto Principle” posted from the same IP as “Pedro Prieto”, “Socrates’ Pet Scorpion”, “Prietos Principles”, “Ned Kelly”, “Poor Peru” and “Sabine”. Additionally “Pedro Prieto” posted from the same IP as “Vulnerability to Blackouts”. Meanwhile, “Poor Peru” is using the same IP as “WMO anomalies”. Going back to Ned Kelly, they posted from the same IP as “Dharma”, “Wei Wu Wei”, “CJ”, “Hue Nue”, “House Daddy”, “Watt a Pity”, “James Hnasen” and “Lavrov’s Dog”. Phew!
I gave up tracking this after a while since it’s so tedious. But it demonstrates a commitment to shit-posting on a site that they disdain, that is rather impressive. Not how I would choose to spend my time. I suggest that they get a new hobby.”
I would like to add that besides pretending multiple identity and trying to stage fake discussions with his alter egos, the multitroll also tried acting under name of an existing person. Already before being exposed by Dr. Schmidt, “Pedro Prieto”, after being confronted that he abuses the name of Spanish energy expert Pedro Prieto, asserted that he chose this nick as a honour for this expert. The multitroll also several times asserted that his identities are genuine and that he has never pretended to be someone else.
Greetings
Tomáš
Martin Smith: First, I don’t know for a fact that KM is a multi-troll. I believe he is, but I can’t prove it, so I couldn’t submit to Gemini any posts but those written by KM.
Hmm, Gemini analyses operate on the probabilities, not on the condition of the absolute certainty, so me think you try to be holier than your pope. Second, even the criminal courts, where an error can result in a massive irreparable injustice – do not operate on “the absolute certainty” principle, but beyond REASONABLE doubt. And that threshold has been crossed long time ago (see also Gavin’s words quoted by Tomas below).
MS: Third, I disagree that Gemini should try to analyze KM’s psychology
Couldn’t disagree more. This for me this is a absolutely massive blind-spot for AI and its users. Since the Gemini, at your request, tried to ascertain the INTENTIONS of multi-troll, trying to provide the most probable analysis of what he REALLY was trying to say – then AI treating KM’s posts as if they were written by …. another AI, i.e. a perfectly logical, psychology-free robot – does a disservice to the reader – as a wrong answer is worse than no answer at all – since the former implies the skill the AI obviously does not have.
In this case, Gemini which accepted at face value KM’s declaration “ I’m not here to deny the science“, and told you that “ [KM] completely accepts climate science“, while his actions prove the opposite – KM “completely” rejects climate science EXCEPT those that offer the worst case scenarios, and uses the later to disparage the value and the integrity of the non-worst scenarios of majority of science.
Treating us by AI as if we were primarily driven by intellect and good will – may be valid in analysis of the peer-review papers (Nabil Swedan’s papers notwithstanding ;-)) – but it fails spectacularly in the analysis of trolls – who are here not to learn something new about the world and themselves, but only to stroke their ego ( the lower the others, the higher I am in comparison). AI does not understand us so its analysis of other people posts misses often a crucial component of evaluation. To paraphrase Marx: “ Whom are you going to believe – Gemini or your own lying eyes ?
Then there are other considerations I mentioned:
AI priorities – busy with trivial semantic distinctions – Gemini missed the real-world consequences: “ [KM] is not attacking renewables; he is attacking incrementalism.” which not only is objectively untrue (given his earlier attacks on renewables done by stealing the name of a Spanish energy expert Pedro Prieto) but also a distinction without difference
The originality/creativity – . Unless it has read a similar argument before – Gemini may not be able to create it on its own, With the example being your discussion with Gemini
where both you and Gemini missed – is that the bridge analogy in itself is a fallacy – it suggests the ALL OR NOTHING outcome – either the bridge lets the people through or it collapses. This binary choice obscures the fact that our choice is NOT “all or nothing” – the world of 1000 ppm would be much worse than the world with 500 ppm, so if existing technologies (renewables, EVs) and feasible policies (carbon pricing) can reduce the CO2 growth to 500 ppm, as opposed to doing nothing and ending up at 1000 ppm, then renewables and EVs are valid in themselves , i.e. EVEN IF the doomer’s perfect silver-bullet solution NEVER materialized!
===
So we can’t outsource our critical thinking to AI and have to be vigilant about its major limitations.. Which is hard for humans to do consistently – we get easily lulled into complacency.
KM : “That’s not what I said. I asked about the worth of the path given the projections and lack of success to date. That’s a perfectly legitimate question. He’s reframing it as an all-or-nothing binary. Either we value the path or we abandon it entirely. That’s a false choice! That is not what I said. That’s why Martin is guilty of the Strawman fallacy here! Not me.”
If KM is asking about the worth of the path given the lack of success to date, what is he suggesting if not that the path should be abandoned? And try something else entirely? Why keep it if its worthless?
Or is he trying to say keep the current path building renewables and evs, and try something else as well in parallel? Can he please answer that and elaborate,?
Hes wrong anyway about the current path, because we have reduced the rate of emissions growth. Coal use is declining.
Hes been making the same sort of statements for the last ten years under multiple names, carefully ignoring the progress we have made or denying it in the most absurd ways. Piotr and MS are just the latest guys to challenge him (and quite well)
KM: Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
3 July 2026 — published by Ugo Bardi Aug 17, 2026
Professor Ugo Bardi, Scientist, Author and Member of The Club of Rome
As fertility declines and resource constraints intensify, humanity faces a historic transition that challenges many of the assumptions upon which modern economies and societies have been built
Professor Ugo Bardi, scientist, author and member of The Club of Rome, visited Belgrade in early June to present his latest book, The End of Population Growth: Reaching Humankind’s Planetary Limits. Published as a report to The Club of Rome, the book revisits one of the central questions raised by the landmark 1972 report The Limits to Growth: can economic and population growth continue indefinitely on a finite planet?
Drawing on decades of research into complex systems, demographic trends and environmental constraints, Bardi argues that humanity is entering a new phase defined not by expansion, but by adaptation to ecological realities.
—
Q. Throughout your work, you connect declining fertility, pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. Should these be viewed as separate challenges, or as different manifestations of a single systemic crisis?
“As I mentioned in response to Question 1, this is the central point of an analysis based on 50 years of work by The Club of Rome. In a complex system, there are no single causes and effects. There are only forcings and feedbacks.“
https://senecaeffect.substack.com/p/beyond-the-age-of-growth
KM: The system is a moral failure and a structural trap. It cannot be reformed. It will collapse. And the only honest work left is to live through that collapse with integrity — holding the wisdom of those who came before, naming the truth without illusion, and passing it on to whoever is ready to receive it.
KM: “The system is a moral failure and a structural trap. It cannot be reformed. It will collapse. And the only honest work left is to live through that collapse with integrity — holding the wisdom of those who came before, naming the truth without illusion, and passing it on to whoever is ready to receive it. ”
Let’s see how are you doing on your goals.
– By claiming “The global collapse [is] unstoppable” and “It cannot be reformed. It will collapse”
you are performing the “all-or-nothing” manipulation – implying that if we continue with our CO2 mitigation and, say, stop Co2 at 500ppm – then IT IS NO BETTER than doing NOTHING and blowing past 1000 ppm.
And it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy – by sowing the apathy (“it’s unstoppable!”), you help to weaken
the humanity motivation to reduce our emissions, and therefore you make sure that the WORST of the possible scenarios gets realized: the “Let’s do NOTHING about emissions” scenario.
Therefore, you are morally co-responsible for ALL the SUPRLUS death, suffering and destruction FROM THE DIFFERENCE between that “let’s do nothing” and “let’s do all we still can do to reduce future increases in CO2” scenarios possible, if we don’t listen to the “it’s unstoppable!” doomers.
Worse still – Occam razor suggest that the most likely reason for you helping to condemn the untold number of people, animals and ecosystems, is …. your ego gratification: – if I, a lay person, can clearly see and state on record what the top scientists can’t, or because of their corruption, refused to see – than I must be really, really smart, and virtuous, and if so – then my life is not pathetic at all!
(Feel free to falsify it by offering a completely different and much probable explanation.)
In such a motivation – the worse for humanity, the better for your ego: “the global collapse” materializing would vindicate you as the badly maligned Prophet, who was right.
On the other hand, anything SHORT of the “unstoppable global collapse”, independent on what we do – would steal your thunder -because for your Prophet glory- you would have to compete with the climate scientists who for years alarmed about the consequences of rising CO2, and who,. UNLIKE YOU, did the work to quantify it, to make their argument as credible to the society as possible.
But please do lecture everybody else about “moral failure” and contrast yourself from us as somebody who values “integrity”, “wisdom”, “honesty“, and “ naming the truth without illusion”“.
The one and only “Kobayashi Maru”, everybody!
Pete Best: the USA in particular does not appear to [want GHG reducing technoogies] due to spying (Remember 5G), being uncompetetive because they were state sponsopred.
Nothing stops the US (other than the fossil fuel lobby and politicians they own) – to subsidize GHG-reducing technology to the same level as China or AT LEAST make it a level playing field by removing the taxpayer-funded massive corporate welfare to the fossil fuel industrial complex:
“According to the International Monetary Fund, global fossil fuel subsidies reached $7.4 TRILLION , representing roughly 7.1% of global GDP. The vast majority of this total consists of implicit subsidies, which measure the unpriced environmental and social costs of fossil fuel consumption rather than direct cash payouts”. Still the direct subsidies were about 10% of that) ~ 700 BILLION $ annually. And that was before the massive military spending to protect the oil and gas shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the cost of which are born by the US taxapayer, and NOT the fossil fuel multinationals each making massive profits on the increased prices of oil and gas, and even more increased prices of the oil-derived products.
Even a small fraction of these subsidies would have been enough to finance the decarbonization of the global economy – as well as support the US EVs and renewables production enough to compete head to head with China.
Instead Trump is spending billions of taxpayers dollars to buy off foreign energy companies to abandon the wind energy projects and go into fossil fuels instead. And promotes his “drill baby drill” and “Make the [most polluting form of fossil fuels – coal ] Great Again”
A classic case of private interests capturing the governments and legislature in order to privatize the profits and socialize the costs.
yes, always political excuses to not do enough if anything about it. Looks at China’s emissions, what’s the point. Chinese technology spies on us and they arn’t fair because it is all state owned and hence cheaper than we can do it so tariffs at 100%. Europe tariffs on chinese cars at around 35%.
Subsidizing or financing fossil fuels has always been the case and backing clean technology not so much due to Hegemony amongst other reasons such as climate change being a hoax to many.
And so it goes on. Yes renewables can easily replace coal but as yet even China dare not do it.
I’m just gonna put this in my “No shit, really?” file.
It’s ALWAYS going to be worse than anyone ever expected. Estimates are just that… Estimates. And they’re almost always wrong by orders of magnitude. (climate paper link at the bottom)
https://bsky.app/profile/weatherprof.bsky.social/post/3mthrln365k23
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2026EF008356
Doesn’t make much sense to interpret observations being different/worse than expected to mean that wrong models are right or that right models are wrong. People seem pretty confident in the science of radiative transfer. If environment and realclimates are changing in a way that’s different than calculated, it probably just means other things are going on that are not yet adequately represented as historical inputs or future scenarios into ESMs.
Recalibrating the major cluster of models around 0.25 Wm-2/decade SW EEI up to >0.75 Wm-2/decade SW EEI, and from ~0.00 Wm-2/decade LW EEI net to a more stabilizing -0.4 Wm-2 decade LW EEI probably isn’t a a good idea without major analysis about what’s going on. Totally overhauling physics parameterizations to fit, all else being equal, could easily turn a good model into a worse one.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/90ebbb6f-30b1-47cc-97d7-acc6996c54bd/eft270556-fig-0002-m.jpg from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2026EF008356
“That is an absolutely staggering figure, given that just 10 or 20 years ago, there were only a few dozen,” the geomorphologist added.
The previous record stood at 300 and was set in 2022, another year marked by heatwaves.
“A large majority (of the rockfalls) can be attributed to the climate crisis,” Mr Ravanel said, noting that rising temperatures are degrading and reducing the permafrost.
For several thousand years, “invisible” ice has been lodged in cracks in the rock, where it “acts as a kind of cement holding the mountains together”, he said.
https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2026/0820/1588684-alps-rockfalls/
Ugo Bardi says:
“The way the debate is structured today, facing powerful and simple slogans, it is useless to respond by putting forward scientific reasoning. It is the same as trying to win an artillery duel using slingshots. Scientists just lack the virtual firepower that the powers that control the memesphere can muster.
And so our lot, as always, is to go into the future blindfolded. “
https://livingearth.substack.com/cp/212029509
KM: The way I prefer to frame it is: Going into battle Disarmed.
https://climatecasino.substack.com/p/what-type-of-doomer-are-you ?
Including the usual unscientific illogical strawman arguments by Dr Michael Mann and the lunacy of the “Psychological Inoculation” propaganda that does what they accuse others of doing.
Academia claiming the solution to propagandized lies and distortions is more distortions and lies.
Don’t worry: It’s going to get worse before it gets much worse.
Philosopher Hanno Sauer discusses how social class shapes us and global capitalism. How elite social class is a critical underlying psychological mechanism behind status hierarchy, excessive wealth and subsequent inequality — the driving forces behind conspicuous consumption, political corruption, complex systems, exponential growth dynamics, planetary boundaries overshoot and civilization collapse.
https://youtu.be/ZDU-OvhdNSw?si=fiW0pdvgsOOw7VSA&t=232
Bonus — Dr. Hanno Sauer — The Invention of Good and Evil : a distinctive, cross-disciplinary approach to moral philosophy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITG6b25C4mo
It always completely amazes me how people with platforms can just post whatever crap comes to their mind without a second thought or looking deeper into the topic. This is one such article building on that TLT preprint I asked about a month or so ago:
https://cribb.substack.com/p/hothouse-earth-the-smash-is-getting
The author equates TLT anomalies with GMST anomalies and generously adds extra sprinkles with heating from El Niños and ESS estimates from Hansen’s work. He then goes on to say that despite the future being grim yadda yadda (a discussion outside the scope of this comment), we can still prepare for it by following his 12 plan… what a joke.
I wouldn’t normally bring this up, but what has always frustrated me is that crap like this then gets reposted by other people who also seem unable to stop and think for a moment or at least ask other people for clarification or help.
Dear Julian,
While Julian’s 12 pt plan is indeed a fairytale joke, his representation of the paper and the comparison in the paper of GMST acceleration with LTL acceleration over the same periods he addresses in the article. That’s all quite valid. His other material is well researched and sourced. Julian always looks deeper into these topics and always provides references so your characterization is off. His reliance on Hansen’s scientific work is valid as was using Zeke Hausfathers graphs and the Actuary reports.
All credible work, all validated. Maybe you don’t like the logical conclusions he draws?
William Rees Club of Rome Limits to Growth author and biophysical science expert disagrees with some of Julian’s article while making the case things are far worse than he suggests. Bill’s comment goes like this:
William E Rees
Aug 4
No doubt the climate chaos predictions are on the mark and portend unprecedented catastrophe; no doubt too that some of your proposed solutions would have been quite effective if applied 50 years ago.
(That said, you omitted the need for non-coercive population policies to get human numbers down to two billion or less).
But there is another majorn structural/functional problem. You end the article by saying:
“At present, it must be clearly understood, the fossil fuels industry is knowingly trading human lives for corporate profit. It is a crime against humanity worse even than a war crime.”
May I suggest it’s not that simple? Modern techno-industrial (MTI) society is a product of, and remains 80%+ dependent on, fossil fuels. Fossil fuels directly or indirectly help grow, harvest, transport, process and refrigerate the bulk of the modern world’s food; most of the world’s long-range transportation and trade (whether by land, air or sea; whether trivial or essential) depend on fossil fuels; no major city could survive without the provisioning and waste disposal enabled by fossil fuels; most of the world’s heating and increasingly essential cooling is provided directly or indirectly by fossil fuels, etc., etc.
And need I mention that modern renewable electricity (wind turbines and solar panels, W&S) are no substitute? Despite decades of impressive growth and improved efficiency, W&S currently supply only <5% of the world's energy and cannot keep up with growing demand for electricity let alone total energy.
Bottom line? Modern humanity is in a techno-culture trap. We cannot live with fossil fuels but cannot survive without them. Stopping fossil fuels rapidly would collapse the global economy and endanger billions of people; not stopping fossil fuels will destroy MTI civilization and endanger billions of people.
It's a true predicament.
Like (39)
https://cribb.substack.com/p/hothouse-earth-the-smash-is-getting/comment/307362886
——
People would be wise to heed it. Especially given what's coming is also a food shortage. Caused by rapid GMST acceleration, the ENSO and catastrophic climate impacts coupled with the Iran situation.
Which has not only cut off oil supplies globally but also cut off everything that's coming out of the Middle East which is about half the world's fertilizer needs! Already a years worth of crops have not been planted; and the future looks the same. The world has indeed gone mad; and it's not only the high summer temperatures driving that.
This is the essence of the science of complex systems. The problems we are seeing in front of us are all connected, and cannot be solved acting on single ones.
All the global systems humanity depends on are trending in the same direction. Not separately. Together. The path leads to famine, breakdown, collapse — with billions wiped out. That's not a prediction — it is the path we're already on. We're on that path. Just pause a moment to look where it's heading.
That machine is still running. And it's running on automatic today. Swapping political leaders doesn't change the destination. The road is the same. The momentum is the same. The end of the road is the same. The only question that matters now is: do we see it before we get to the end? History tells us no we won't.
Examining a longer arc of history shows that the West’s colonial hegemony was rooted in genocide, slavery, and colonial plunder. The modern financial system and resulting climate disruption must be understood as inseparable from the genocide in the Americas, the trade in enslaved people, and the plantation system built on enslaved labour by the major European powers.
All the wealth extracted from colonial Plunder, Genocide, and Slavery still exists within today's accumulated Wealth found in billionaires bank accounts, corporate shareholdings, real property and their countries national assets.
This systematized extraction of Wealth is the primary multi-century driver of today's climate destruction, mass extinctions, and breaching of planetary boundaries. Climate science and scientists aren't going to save anyone no matter how many papers or IPCC Assessment Reports they publish..
KM: “All the wealth extracted from colonial Plunder, Genocide, and Slavery still exists within today’s accumulated Wealth found in billionaires bank accounts, corporate shareholdings, real property and their countries national assets.”
The accumulated wealth from the plundering colonial period is also found in KM multi trolls bank account and property, and the computer and other modern inventions he uses. Hes to naive to see that or he’s just scapegoting other people.
We cant unscramble an egg and change past history. All this angst over the colonial period is pointless. There’s no point feeling guilty about it. The point is to try to be better behaved in the present.
Trump wants to start the colonial plunder again, and KM says elsewhere its not about Trump. Talk about irony.
And its all a complete distraction from finding practical solutions to the emissions problem. Maybe that’s KMs intent.
in Re to Nigel Jones, 24 Aug 2026 at 12:30 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850611
Hello Nigel,
I would like to add that the wannabe fighter against colonialism is the same person who admired Vladimir Putin and promoted Russian war against Ukraine.
Greetings
Tomáš
Julian: “ It always completely amazes me how people with platforms can just post whatever crap comes to their mind without a second thought or looking deeper into the topic.[…] What has always frustrated me is that crap like this then gets reposted by other people
Wait Julian, till you see in the parallel thread on El Nino, a Chemical Engineering Doctor (Nabil Swedan) for whom “ the so-called greenhouse effect is a fiction “, the radiative forcing “violates the laws of thermodynamics” and the ONLY contribution of Co2 to global warming is the heat of oxidation of C to CO2,
And then this intellectual crap is praised by the Ubiquitous KM (primo voto: “Kobayashi Maru”) as “ heterodox scientific proposal — thus challenging the orthodoxy of James Hansen and others who use in their models radiative forcing and “the so-called greenhouse effect”.
I don’t even know if I want to take a look at that, Piotr. Climate deniers are whole another league not worth my time, since no matter what good-faith argument you make they will never listen. Same goes for AI prompters/spammers like the person you mentioned – it’s just a massive waste of time and energy arguing with them.
Julian: “no matter what good-faith argument you make they will never listen.”
Yeah. That’s why I pointed it to you not for falsification^*, but for an entertainment, with the element of serious reflection – on what sneaks past the supposed reliable peer-review,
and the ability to make a correct judgement by Google AI search helper.
As I wrote, the abstract of Nabil Swedan’s 2020 paper in … Acta Ecologica Sinica
,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872203219302641“ is almost certainly the most bizarre, cringeworthy piece of scientific writing I have ever seen –
all the calculations and “results” – by a supposed Doctor of Chemical Engineering are based on the assumption that the greenhouse effect is a fiction, that CO2 does not absorb radiation, so its ONLY role in global warming is … heat of oxidation of C to CO2.
And based on that. the said Doctor if Chemical Engineering links the global warming to the rate of deforestaion and population increase from based solely on …. deforestation, to be about 6.5 bln over the current 8 bln by 2100 The UN predicts more than 5 times less…
I felt …. embarrassed for the author and for the reviewer(s) and the editor who let this garbage through in their paper. which points to the major problems in peer review at lower tier journals.
And the fact that Google AI summary – does NOT describe it as a ” work of a nutjob”, nor “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”, but as ….. “presenting several unique argument” – points to the current limitations of the AI analysis.
Bill McKibben…
Global warming is proceeding even faster than feared, having accelerated across this period and moved to a level where it is causing daily disruption across the planet. This is the most basic news that the world needs to know, the most important thing happening on our earth. The degree to which we are now dancing along the precipice can’t be overstated.
https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/take-five-268?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2p8sjz
So how much longer do we have?
The accumulated evidence and reasoning conforming to an unstoppable global collapse is everywhere and everywhere ignored and dismissed.
2018 Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene aka Hot House Earth
Will Steffen, Johan Rockström, Katherine Richardson and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber et al
Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and Published August 6, 2018
Abstract
We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene. We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies. Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.
The Anthropocene is a proposed new geological epoch (1) based on the observation that human impacts on essential planetary processes have become so profound (2) that they have driven the Earth out of the Holocene epoch in which agriculture, sedentary communities, and eventually, socially and technologically complex human societies developed. The formalization of the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch is being considered by the stratigraphic community (3), but regardless of the outcome of that process, it is becoming apparent that Anthropocene conditions transgress Holocene conditions in several respects (2).
The knowledge that human activity now rivals geological forces in influencing the trajectory of the Earth System has important implications for both Earth System science and societal decision making. While recognizing that different societies around the world have contributed differently and unequally to pressures on the Earth System and will have varied capabilities to alter future trajectories (4), the sum total of human impacts on the system needs to be taken into account for analyzing future trajectories of the Earth System.
Here, we explore potential future trajectories of the Earth System by addressing the following questions.
Is there a planetary threshold in the trajectory of the Earth System that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization in a range of intermediate temperature rises?
Given our understanding of geophysical and biosphere feedbacks intrinsic to the Earth System, where might such a threshold be?
If a threshold is crossed, what are the implications, especially for the wellbeing of human societies?
What human actions could create a pathway that would steer the Earth System away from the potential threshold and toward the maintenance of interglacial-like conditions?
Addressing these questions requires a deep integration of knowledge from biogeophysical Earth System science with that from the social sciences and humanities on the development and functioning of human societies (5). Integrating the requisite knowledge can be difficult, especially in light of the formidable range of timescales involved.
Increasingly, concepts from complex systems analysis provide a framework that unites the diverse fields of inquiry relevant to the Anthropocene (6). Earth System dynamics can be described, studied, and understood in terms of trajectories between alternate states separated by thresholds that are controlled by nonlinear processes, interactions, and feedbacks.
Based on this framework, we argue that social and technological trends and decisions occurring over the next decade or two could significantly influence the trajectory of the Earth System for tens to hundreds of thousands of years and potentially lead to conditions that resemble planetary states that were last seen several millions of years ago, conditions that would be inhospitable to current human societies and to many other contemporary species.
Risk of a Hothouse Earth Pathway …………………….
Conclusions
Our systems approach, focusing on feedbacks, tipping points, and nonlinear dynamics, has addressed the four questions posed in the Introduction.
Our analysis suggests that the Earth System may be approaching a planetary threshold that could lock in a continuing rapid pathway toward much hotter conditions—Hothouse Earth. This pathway would be propelled by strong, intrinsic, biogeophysical feedbacks difficult to influence by human actions, a pathway that could not be reversed, steered, or substantially slowed.
Where such a threshold might be is uncertain, but it could be only decades ahead at a temperature rise of ∼2.0 °C above preindustrial, and thus, it could be within the range of the Paris Accord temperature targets.
The impacts of a Hothouse Earth pathway on human societies would likely be massive, sometimes abrupt, and undoubtedly disruptive.
Avoiding this threshold by creating a Stabilized Earth pathway can only be achieved and maintained by a coordinated, deliberate effort by human societies to manage our relationship with the rest of the Earth System, recognizing that humanity is an integral, interacting component of the system. Humanity is now facing the need for critical decisions and actions that could influence our future for centuries, if not millennia.
How credible is this analysis? There is significant evidence from a number of sources that the risk of a planetary threshold and thus, the need to create a divergent pathway should be taken seriously:
First, the complex system behavior of the Earth System in the Late Quaternary is well-documented and understood…………………………………..
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1810141115#sec-3
That work was done in 2018
—
THE PATH today in 2026?
All the global systems humanity depends on are trending in the same direction. Not separately. Together. The path leads to famine, breakdown, collapse — with billions wiped out. That’s not a prediction — it is the path we’re already on. We’re on that path. Just pause a moment to look where it’s heading.
The global system is a moral failure and a structural trap. It cannot be reformed. It will collapse. And the only honest work left is to live through that collapse with integrity—holding the wisdom of those who came before, naming the truth without illusion, and passing it on to whoever is ready to receive it.
KM says: “The global system is a moral failure and a structural trap. It cannot be reformed. It will collapse..”
Those are just the doomers evidence free assertions. and intellectual trolling. Capitalism which is essentially the global system has been reformed several times already , with the laissez faire capitalism of the Victorian Age ending in the 1930s, and being replaced by soviet communism, (unfortunately) and the mixed economy in other developed countries. That changed again to neoliberalism in the 1980s. That will probably change again. Theres nothing to say its impossible and towards a substantially better more environmentally sustainable and just world.
Regardless of all that and whether things will collapse, which is always a possibility, we would be wise to minimise problems and that means adopting plausible solutions like renewables, and not KMs and Killians fantasy ideas like simplification and massive levels of degrowth which could cause chaos and collapse and much lower living standards. Its like fixing an infected foot by amputating the entire leg without anesthetic or antibiotics. We have to be smarter than that.
“Kobayashi Maru”, Pedro Prieto”, “The Prieto Principle”, “Thomas”, “Tom”, “Thessalonia” “The Prieto Principle”. “Socrates’ Pet Scorpion”, “Ned Kelly”, “Poor Peru”, “Sabine”. “WMO anomalies”. “Dharma”, “Darma”, “Darmah”“Wei Wu Wei”, “CJ”, “Hue Nue”, “House Daddy”, “Watt a Pity”, “James Hnasen”,“Lavrov’s Dog”, etc. etc. etc wrote: “ The accumulated evidence and reasoning conforming to an unstoppable global collapse ”
Neither the quoted abstract nor the conclusions of the paper – use the word “unstoppable” nor even imply that “global collapse is unstoppable”. So it is YOUR narrative trying to acquire credibility by association with an existing paper.
And if you believe yourself – if it were “unstoppable” i.e. NOTHING can be done to prevent or even make less damaging – then …. why are you here?
To sow the apathy and resignation and guaranteeing the worst possible scenario – if it’s “unstoppable” then why do anything at all – we may as well enjoy ourselves while it lasts, after us, Deluge!
And by continuing demand for oil and gas – let’s finance the Russia’s war on Ukraine, Saudi Arabia’s spreading Wahhabism, UAE financing the genocide in Sudan, and Iran actions toward its neighbours and toward its own population.
By the fruits of their words you shall know them. Ladies and Gentlemen – Multitroll!
P.S. To those unfamiliar with the Star Trek franchise – “Kobayashi Maru” called itself so – as a tribute to the “Kobayashi Maru”, a simulation in the fictional Starfleet Academy in which no matter what the Academy cadets did – they could not avert “unstoppable collapse”, and therefore should make peace with their unstoppable annihilation, I.e., the doomers’ core message and/or fruit of their work.
KM emphasizing :
… and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced.
It does not matter how many semantic ways this basic fact of reality is stated — it means the same thing. :-)
KM: The global system is a moral failure and a structural trap. It cannot be reformed. It will collapse. And the only honest work left is to live through that collapse with integrity—holding the wisdom of those who came before, naming the truth without illusion, and passing it on to whoever is ready to receive it.
MS: The Apostle Paul couldn’t have said it better himself. But Paul never met Jesus, and Jesus taught that the kingdom of renewable energy is within you.
MS: Paul never met Jesus
BPL: But he did. At Damascus.
MS: Paul never met Jesus
BPL: But he did. At Damascus.
MS: Well, yes, if you believe Paul, but he admitted to being a liar.
in Re to Martin Smith, 24 Aug 2026 at 3:06 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850612
Hello Martin,
Although the multitroll (presently calling himself “Kobayashi Maru”) positions himself
“..the only honest work left is to live through that collapse with integrity—holding the wisdom of those who came before, naming the truth without illusion, and passing it on to whoever is ready to receive it..”
as an equivalent of Marcus Aurelius, I do not think that it is anything else as another manifestation of his delusions of grandeur.
While Marcus Aurelius kept fighting for Roman Empire because he considered it as his duty, I am afraid that the multitroll keeps poisoning this website until being banned by moderators (and then enjoys repeating his lies, attacks and manipulations under another fake identity) merely because he hates the society wherein he lives (and, possibly, also because he has never learned anything better).
Greetings
Tomáš
TK: I do not think that it is anything else as another manifestation of his delusions of grandeur.
MS: I think he is profoundly depressed.
Bill McKibben…
Global warming is proceeding even faster than feared, having accelerated across this period and moved to a level where it is causing daily disruption across the planet. This is the most basic news that the world needs to know, the most important thing happening on our earth. The degree to which we are now dancing along the precipice can’t be overstated.
https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/take-five-268?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2p8sjz
Sorry for the double post. It wasn’t showing up yesterday so I tried again, then suddenly it shows up twice!
You can see when the comments list has been updated by keeping track of the Recent Posts list on the right. Your comment won’t appear until that list changes.
The end of the month draws near and it would be a fair bet to say the ERA5 August 2026 SAT anomaly will join the rather exclusive ‘more-than +0.8ºC’ club.
So far that club comprises just four months – that “absolutely gobsmackingly bananas!!” month, the sobering September 2023 (+0.93ºC) and the follow-on Oct-Dec 2023 (all +0.85ºC). Almost joining them was October 2024 which managed ‘only’ +0.799ºC.
August 2026 (to 22nd) is running at +0.807ºC and looking likely to increase that average in the coming week.
(This ‘more-than +0.8ºC’ achievement for Aug26 is actually courtesy of Antarctica which has been wobbling warm through the month and the wobbles of Antarctica are big enough to wag the global average-to-the-22nd over the line, the +0.807ºC including a +0.035ºC boost from Antarctica. Back in 2023, while Antarctica was generally working against Oct-Dec 2023, it did give a big +0.09ºC boost to the sobering September although it would have still been over the line without it.)
I’m encountering a lot of mentions of the coming El Niño in the general media but much of this (including reporting from the UK Met Office) is still using the unadjusted NINO3.4 numbers. The NINO3.4 numbers certainly look horrifying. Just look at the Uni of Maine year-on-year graphic.
The Relative-NINO3.4 we should all be using now (because it adjusts for the in-place tropical AGW) is showing 2026 running alongside 1997. (If you highlight them, the NOAA OISST V2.1 absolute numbers shown in that Uni of Maine NINO3.4, 1997 runs along below 29ºC, at the top of the bunch rather than way-up above the bunch. The R-NINO3.4 anomalies are plotted out (to last week) HERE Posted 19th August 2026))
The most recent weekly numbers are hot-off-the-press today and show NINO3.4=2.6ºC, and R-NINO3.4=1.8ºC, pretty-much unchanged from last week. At least they ain’t going up for the moment!
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850615
“The NINO3.4 numbers certainly look horrifying. Just look at the Uni of Maine year-on-year graphic.
The Relative-NINO3.4 we should all be using now (because it adjusts for the in-place tropical AGW) is showing 2026 running alongside 1997.”
This one?
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/month/DS/RONI/
Not for my purposes.
I am comparing its performance to:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
in my multivariable linear regression of 5 SST indices against global SST at Climate Reanalyzer.
I’m finding that the MEI seems to induce less noise in the final result of my regression
https://x.com/cheryl_josie/status/2092362949826617684?s=20
than the 3.4 index does
(note, I had accidentally neglected to update the time series, so this plot is truncated and still using the ONI that I had substituted while MEI was temporarily languishing without updates)
https://x.com/cheryl_josie/status/2091866767283106146?s=20
This reduced noise with MEI happens despite ONI/RONI 3.4’s sawtooth character visually modeling global SST short-term response more accurately in my regression than the more squarish MEI does. I’m presuming that the reduced noise is from averaging that improves signal-to-noise ratio, but it could also be from additional filtering that I’m unaware of.
Noise seems more important to my investigation of transients than the compensation of long-term AGW trends in RONI. Even though MEI doesn’t seem to track short-term trends in SST as closely as RONI, MEI does seem to clarify the transient inputs of interest better in my plots.
I’m also using graphical methods to detrend my plots and make transients more visible. My subtracting out the AGW trend is more an exercise in leveling the curve for ease of visual interpretation than it is about measuring the rate of warming or pointing out ‘gobsmackingly bananas’ weather extremes.
https://x.com/cheryl_josie/status/2092366525332324555?s=20
Knowing little about climate science, I’m finding myself wandering somewhat lost through the various indices in search of those that seem useful for isolating transient response. I’m mainly testing for correlation to SST, and also inter-variable correlation, to find out if I’m using relevant and uncorrelated independent variables (assumed to be independent anyway, since I’m not sure how to test for causality).
As it turns out, the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation index hasn’t been updated since December
https://www.o3d.org/npgo/
so I had to substitute the Northern Oscillation Index instead.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/month/NOI/
Unfortunately, it has a rather high correlation with ENSO and is less useful for my regression, but I don’t have anything better right now.
Even more disappointing, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index is also strongly correlated with the ‘date’ independent input variable in my linear regression, probably because I’m using such a short time period of AMO for my training data that I’m only on less than half a cycle of its period.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/AMO/
That’s unavoidable given the short time frame of data that I’m relying upon for my SST dependent variable from Climate Reanalyzer. Hopefully my interest in transients over trends obviates this issue, but I do suspect that the long-term trend in AMO is defocusing my Lissajous that I’m using to align it with the detrended SST. Maybe I should align it to SST without the detrending instead.
I don’t really understand why AMO seems to have no delay against SST either. That seems wrong, despite Paul Pukite’s explanation. My knowledge base is severely lacking.
I’ll be investigating the Southern Oscillation Index next to see if it’s worth adding another index to my regression, or maybe substituting out the NOI with SOI if it helps retain some independence among the regression variables.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/month/SOI/
Choosing indices is difficult without a background in climate science. It feels more like I’m cooking a soup by taste than analyzing sea surface temperatures with scientific rigor (of which I have none).
Also, there seems to be no public-facing master index anywhere. Even NOAA is a jumble of inconsistent pages with no authoritative source and a lot of cruft. Feels like I’m wandering lost in the forest.
It can be difficult even finding relevant descriptions of what is being measured and why it is important. It seems more like I’m rummaging around in a laboratory storage closet for beakers and test tubes than browsing a library of immaculately curated scientific data. Does anyone have a publicly available comprehensive key to the archives, or is it insider knowledge possessed only by those on the fast track to peer review?
One transient that crosses over between short-term transient and long-term trend is aerosol termination shock of IMO2020. It’s a step response that complicates things for my method. I haven’t yet figured out how to account for that adequately, but I do have a workaround in place.
For now, I’ve used two separate quadratic trend lines, with one that excludes anything past 1/1/2020 when IMO 2020 went into effect. I’m using the max of both trendlines to detrend my plots in the hope that aerosol termination shock is adequately compensated, and it seems to help slightly.
I should probably clarify that those trend lines I’m subtracting in my detrended plots only include the gold portion of the traces in my plots, since I don’t want potential volcanic transients perturbing my compensated SST trend lines.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/08/unforced-variations-aug-2026/#comment-850615
“The NINO3.4 numbers certainly look horrifying. Just look at the Uni of Maine year-on-year graphic.
The Relative-NINO3.4 we should all be using now (because it adjusts for the in-place tropical AGW) is showing 2026 running alongside 1997.”
This one?
https://www.psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/month/DS/RONI/
Not for my purposes.
I am comparing its performance to:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
in my multivariable linear regression of 5 SST indices against global SST at Climate Reanalyzer.
I’m finding that the MEI seems to induce less noise in the final result of my regression
https://x.com/cheryl_josie/status/2092362949826617684?s=20
than the 3.4 index does
(note, I had accidentally neglected to update the time series, so this plot is truncated and still using the ONI that I had substituted while MEI was temporarily languishing without updates)
https://x.com/cheryl_josie/status/2091866767283106146?s=20
This reduced noise with MEI happens despite ONI/RONI 3.4’s sawtooth character visually modeling global SST short-term response more accurately in my regression than the more squarish MEI does. I’m presuming that the reduced noise is from averaging that improves signal-to-noise ratio, but it could also be from additional filtering that I’m unaware of.
Noise seems more important to my investigation of transients than the compensation of long-term AGW trends in RONI. Even though MEI doesn’t seem to track short-term trends in SST as closely as RONI, MEI does seem to clarify the transient inputs of interest better in my plots.
I’m also using graphical methods to detrend my plots and make transients more visible. My subtracting out the AGW trend is more an exercise in leveling the curve for ease of visual interpretation than it is about measuring the rate of warming or pointing out ‘gobsmackingly bananas’ weather extremes.
https://x.com/cheryl_josie/status/2092366525332324555?s=20
Knowing little about climate science, I’m finding myself wandering somewhat lost through the various indices in search of those that seem useful for isolating transient response. I’m mainly testing for correlation to SST, and also inter-variable correlation, to find out if I’m using relevant and uncorrelated independent variables (assumed to be independent anyway, since I’m not sure how to test for causality).
As it turns out, the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation index hasn’t been updated since December
https://www.o3d.org/npgo/
so I had to substitute the Northern Oscillation Index instead.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/month/NOI/
Unfortunately, it has a rather high correlation with ENSO and is less useful for my regression, but I don’t have anything better right now.
Even more disappointing, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index is also strongly correlated with the ‘date’ independent input variable in my linear regression, probably because I’m using such a short time period of AMO for my training data that I’m only on less than half a cycle of its period.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/AMO/
That’s unavoidable given the short time frame of data that I’m relying upon for my SST dependent variable from Climate Reanalyzer. Hopefully my interest in transients over trends obviates this issue, but I do suspect that the long-term trend in AMO is defocusing my Lissajous that I’m using to align it with the detrended SST. Maybe I should align it to SST without the detrending instead.
I’ll be investigating the Southern Oscillation Index next to see if it’s worth adding another index to my regression, or maybe substituting out the NOI with SOI if it helps retain some independence among the regression variables.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/month/SOI/
Choosing indices is difficult without a background in climate science. It feels more like I’m cooking a soup by taste than analyzing sea surface temperatures with scientific rigor (of which I have none).
Also, there seems to be no public-facing master index anywhere. Even NOAA is a jumble of inconsistent pages with no authoritative source and a lot of cruft. Feels like I’m wandering lost in the forest.
It can be difficult even finding relevant descriptions of what is being measured and why it is important. It seems more like I’m rummaging around in a laboratory storage closet for beakers and test tubes than browsing a library of immaculately curated scientific data. Does anyone have a publicly available comprehensive key to the archives, or is it insider knowledge possessed only by those on the fast track to peer review?
One transient that crosses over between short-term transient and long-term trend is aerosol termination shock of IMO2020. It’s a step response that complicates things for my method. I haven’t yet figured out how to account for that adequately, but I do have a workaround in place.
For now, I’ve used two separate quadratic trend lines, with one that excludes anything past 1/1/2020 when IMO 2020 went into effect. I’m using the max of both trendlines to detrend my plots in the hope that aerosol termination shock is adequately compensated, and it seems to help slightly.
I should probably clarify that those trend lines I’m subtracting in my detrended plots only include the gold portion of the traces in my plots, since I don’t want potential volcanic transients perturbing my compensated SST trend lines.
My latest spreadsheet update with recent time series data shifted the AGW trend crossing of 1.5C backward to the end of this year. That took me by surprise, because my earlier spreadsheets still had the threshold crossing nearer to 2030.
Another good interview that offers context behind the numbers for recent UK heatwaves fires and drought, and next years el nino expectations.
Natural Disaster Expert: Elites Have NO PLAN for Climate Collapse
Aaron Bastani meets Bill McGuire UK Geologist Vulcanologist Climate Scientist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee9fYVwhBsU
Start – 16:44
Bill McGuire: I’m not a survivalist, but I’m certainly preparing. We’re increasing the number of water butts and doing water harvesting, because that’s going to be a huge issue in summers to come. We’re saving seed, and while we’re not storing yet, we will be storing things like flour, sugar, and cooking oil in relatively large quantities in the cellar. It’s common sense. I think most people can look around this year and see what the harvest is doing in the UK and Europe, and they’ll rightly say that makes sense.
Aaron Bastani: This year, just to be clear—and this was announced a few days ago—2026 is the worst year on record for arable crop harvests.
Bill McGuire: Yes. And the other three worst harvests have all been since 2020. So this is dramatic. I knew it was going to happen—any climate scientist did—but the speed is just staggering. Once we get to a stage where there’s food rationing, everything changes. Everything’s up for grabs. I don’t know how quickly that could happen now.
Aaron Bastani: That’s a crazy thing to hear. I’ve read your two books, and you talk about having moved in 2007 to higher ground near Derby in central England—cooler, safer from rising sea levels. And now you’re talking about rationing.
Bill McGuire: That’s not just me. The National Farmers Union has warned about food shortages later this year. This is common knowledge now.
Aaron Bastani: How plausible is rationing of something like flour in Britain? Could that happen before the end of the 2020s?
Bill McGuire: Over the last five years, because of bad cereal harvests, Britain lost a year’s worth of bread supply out of four years. You don’t need much more than that before you have to ration. It’s not a surprise—it’s just happening staggeringly quickly, much sooner than I expected.
Aaron Bastani: What’s been so special about this year? We’ve had 38 days where we’ve hit 30°C or more, and four consecutive months—May, June, July, August—going beyond 30°, with possibly September too. And the drought has been unprecedented. We were in Surrey recently, and it hadn’t rained there for two months. The previous record was 37 days in 1976. So the outlier that everyone remembers has now been nearly doubled.
Bill McGuire: The really astonishing thing was seeing 35°C in May. The temperatures in July and August aren’t unprecedented—we still haven’t broken the 40°C record from 2022—but it’s the fact it started so early and has gone on and on. And we’re not finished yet; we may still get more heatwaves in late August and September.
Aaron Bastani: I want to read an excerpt from your book Hot House Earth. You wrote in 2022: “By the second half of the century, 40°C summer temperatures in southern and central parts of the UK could well be driving people out of their appallingly insulated homes and towards cooler parts of the country.” That might happen in the next couple of years, right?
Bill McGuire: Oh yes. The extraordinary thing is that the week that book came out was the week the UK hit 40°C for the first time—40.2°C, which is still the record. But it’s possible even within the current climate to see 43°C or more in the UK. Who knows about next year? It could be a bad one, especially with El Niño, which we’ll no doubt talk about later.
Finish – 21:27
See: Climate Change Could Triple the Price of Wheat
https://phys.org/news/2026-08-climate-triple-price-wheat.html
Remembering the Persian Gulf War has blocked over half N Fertilizer supply and the cost has soared. With many world farmers now having no fertilizer supply at any price.
But one number to remember is 27C.
Wheat stops growing at 27 degrees centigrade.
—
Part Two: Natural Disaster Expert: Elites Have NO PLAN for Climate Collapse
Aaron Bastani meets Bill McGuire UK Geologist Vulcanologist Climate Scientist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee9fYVwhBsU
Chapter 7: The Speed of Global Heating
Start – 54:00
Aaron Bastani: Let’s say the planet is 5°C warmer in 200 years – plausible?
Bill McGuire: Quite plausible.
Aaron Bastani: You suspect humans won’t be around to reproduce at the rate we’d expect for a successful species?
Bill McGuire: My personal view – and the view of others – is that if things carry on at the current rate of heating, we’ll see large numbers of deaths later this century, or maybe not that much later. At the current rate, generally put at 0.35°C per decade, that’s one degree every 28 years – so 2°C arrives in the late 2030s or 2040. But satellite data suggests the planet is heating much more rapidly, maybe 0.5°C per decade. And a report last year from the German Physical and Meteorological Societies said 3°C by 2050 is perfectly possible. So then you’re looking at five or six degrees by the end of this century. By 2100, it’s going to be very, very hard for human civilisation to carry on. A number of analyses have suggested societal and economic breakdown anytime from the 2040s under business as usual, and I would agree. The impact of extreme weather will become all-pervasive – its effect on economies and food security will very rapidly hammer home in terms of deaths, particularly in majority world countries, but not only there.
Aaron Bastani: Explain the difference between wet and dry bulb temperatures, because that’s what we’re really talking about when we say tens, hundreds of millions, billions of people potentially not surviving. What are these things, and when does it get dangerous for humans?
Bill McGuire: With a normal thermometer, we’re measuring air temperature – 30°, 35°, extremely hot and unpleasant. But a wet bulb thermometer measures heat and humidity combined. When you reach 35° on a wet bulb thermometer, the air is saturated with water. If it’s saturated, you cannot sweat. We lose heat by sweating; if you can’t sweat, you can’t lose heat. Your internal body temperature just increases until your organs start to fail, and you’ve got about six hours to live.
These conditions do occur and are becoming more common, particularly in the Gulf region, parts of Central America, South Asia, and China. At the moment, the saving grace is that you don’t get wet bulb temperatures of 35°C for very long, because massive thunderstorms tend to break the temperature and it falls. But in the future, those conditions may prevail for much longer. One particular area is the North China Plain, where you have around 400 million people working – it’s a breadbasket for China, with a lot of irrigation, so very humid. In decades to come, those conditions will occur more and more commonly, and most people there have no air conditioning. If you don’t have air conditioning and those conditions prevail for a day, you won’t survive.
Aaron Bastani: So six hours is when people die when subjected to 35°C wet bulb temperatures?
Bill McGuire: Yes. And it doesn’t matter if you’re in the shade or have lots of water – the heat just keeps building. You cannot lose heat.
Aaron Bastani: This is the opening of The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson – a mass death event in India or South Asia. How plausible is that in the next 20 years?
Bill McGuire: A few years ago, I would have said we’re looking at the middle of the century before we start seeing that possibility. But things are progressing so quickly now that within the next 20 years, it wouldn’t surprise me.
Aaron Bastani: When I was young, I thought these conditions existed in places like Death Valley, Nevada – but you’re saying they’re too dry there?
Bill McGuire: Too dry. Historically, these conditions were limited to the Gulf region, South Asia, India, parts of Central America – places with high humidity and high temperatures. In Nevada, it gets incredibly hot but it’s very dry heat. It’s not going to be nice, but it’s not going to kill you.
Aaron Bastani: And as you said, these conditions existed for very small parts of the world but were broken up by storms – so that six-hour timeframe wasn’t really a thing. But that’s going to change?
Bill McGuire: Yes. We’re now seeing these conditions occurring much more commonly. You’ll probably start to see them in parts of Australia, maybe even parts of North America. Not Europe as far as we know, but things are changing so quickly – it wouldn’t surprise me in southern Europe at some point.
Aaron Bastani: And politicians aren’t preparing for this?
Bill McGuire: No, not in the least. If they even know about them.
Aaron Bastani: Have we had a glimpse of something like this happening – somewhere with a large concentration of people where we hit wet bulb of 35°C for 90 minutes or so?
Bill McGuire: There will have been situations like that, but I don’t think there’s been a significant die-off that people would recognise. If it happens in the Gulf region, nobody notices because it’s all air-conditioned tower blocks.
Aaron Bastani: I’m half Iranian, and in late June or early July I’ll check the weather app for Bandar Abbas in southern Iran or even Baghdad – it’s often 48, 49, 50°C in Baghdad, which is a capital city. You just think: a couple more degrees and this is not a habitable place, even with air conditioning.
Bill McGuire: Exactly. So many parts of the world now, major cities, are getting to that threshold where you think: how can people survive? How can they live normal lives? You can’t sleep night after night. How can you function? It’s not just temperatures and humidity that kill you – it’s temperatures too high to do your normal job. You wouldn’t be able to do anything apart from lie down.
Finish – 1:01:09
—-
KM : Closing comment
And that brings me to something Ralph Waldo Emerson once said
– “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.”
Now, Emerson wasn’t some doomsday preacher or a Luddite rejecting progress outright. But as a transcendentalist, he understood something that we’re only now beginning to fully grasp: that our own ingenuity, our own systems of complexity and control, can become the very thing that undoes us.
His warning was about decay through artifice – the idea that the more we refine our world, the more we build elaborate structures around ourselves, the more we divorce ourselves from nature and our own primal resilience, the more vulnerable we actually become. We think we’re advancing, but we’re also creating systems that are brittle, interdependent, and utterly unsustainable when the foundations start to shift.
And that’s exactly what we’re seeing play out now, not in some distant philosophical abstraction, but in real time. The heating we’ve been talking about – 0.35 degrees a decade, maybe 0.5, maybe three degrees by 2050, or four five or six by century’s end – that’s not just a climate statistic. That’s civilisation’s own complexity turning against us. Our food systems, our supply chains, our cities, our entire way of life – all built on the assumption of stability, all now cracking under pressures we created ourselves.
Emerson feared we would lose the “wild” – that raw, adaptive, instinctive common sense connection to the natural world. And that’s precisely what’s happening. We’ve built a world so insulated and so intricate that when the heat comes – when wet bulb temperatures hit 35°C and you can’t sweat, when harvests fail year after year, when entire regions become uninhabitable – we don’t have the resilience to cope.
Because resilience comes from nature. Resilience comes from simplicity. And we’ve traded both for convenience and control. For short term immediate comfort.
So when Bill McGuire says societal breakdown could come as early as the 2040s, and when we hear that within 20 years we could see mass death events from extreme heat, we’re not just facing an environmental crisis. We’re facing the fulfilment of Emerson’s insight – that civilisation, in its very success, carries the seeds of its own destruction. We’re not dying because we failed. We’re dying because we succeeded too well, and forgot how to live in the world as it actually is, rather than as we imagined it could be.
That’s the real warning. Not that nature will defeat us, but that we will defeat ourselves – through our own brilliance, our own complexity, and our own refusal to see that the wild was never something to conquer, but something to remain part of.
Regarding Nabil Swedans alternative thermodynamic theory of global warming. I asked google gemini about his theory and if there were flaws in his theory. His theory is that global warming is caused by waste heat as opposed to the greenhouse effect.
The AI identified many flaws in his work, over about three pages, and said the waste heat from industry and transport doesn’t explain the level of warming we have seen. The AI said that to make Swedans maths work he assumes the atmosphere behaves like a well insulated thermos flask meaning that heat doesn’t leave the atmosphere, or the rates it leaves slows right down. Instead of the greenhouse effect he attributes this to something else I cant decipher. Im just a lay person,
But Swedan says elsewhere that before we created all this waste heat, the sun heats the ground and then that all radiates away quickly so this is in a balance or equilibrium. But I said to the AI if thats true surely waste heat heats the ground and then must do the same all radiate away as well. Obviously it doesn’t due to the greenhouse effect, but according to his theory it must.
I said to the AI: His theory does not seem logical because if he accepts inward solar energy quickly escapes by radiating away why wouldn’t waste heat warming the ground and then radiating do the same?
The AI replied: You have hit on the exact logical and physical breakdown of his theory. Your intuition is completely correct.From a fundamental physics standpoint, a photon of infrared radiation (heat) emitted from the ground does not have a “memory” of where it came from. The atmosphere and outer space cannot distinguish between:A photon of heat caused by the sun warming a rock.A photon of heat caused by a coal-fired power plant warming the air.Once energy takes the form of thermal radiation at the surface, it obeys the exact same laws of physics.
Why the Logic Fails. If Swedan concedes that solar heat eventually radiates away into space to maintain equilibrium, then waste heat must do the exact same thing.For waste heat to accumulate year-over-year and warm the planet by over \(1^{\circ }\text{C}\), one of two things would have to be physically true:
Scenario A: The waste heat is somehow “trapped” while solar heat is allowed to escape. (This is physically impossible).
Scenario B: There is a barrier blocking all infrared radiation from escaping as easily as it used to.
By denying the greenhouse gas hypothesis, Swedan rejects Scenario B. But by ignoring how waste heat would radiatively escape, his math implicitly relies on Scenario A. This creates a logical paradox.
The Real Mechanism (Why the Blanket Matters)The only way to explain why any heat stays trapped is the greenhouse effect.Mainstream science shows that incoming solar energy (visible light) easily passes through greenhouse gases to warm the Earth. The Earth then converts this into outgoing thermal radiation (invisible infrared light). Greenhouse gases specifically block and absorb this outgoing infrared light.Because fossil fuels release greenhouse gases, we are making the “blanket” thicker. The blanket doesn’t care if the heat underneath it came from the sun or a car engine; it simply slows down the escape of all heat. Because Swedan’s model attempts to calculate a temperature rise without this blanket mechanism, it requires the waste heat to defy the laws of radiative transfer and stay trapped on its own.Would you like to look at how satellite data actually confirms this by measuring a drop in the specific wavelengths of infrared heat escaping into space?
I have read Piotrs and TKs criticisms of Swedans work which look credible, but I was looking for the fundamental flaw in his work hence my use of an AI and questions to the AI. Have I got the fundamental flaw right?