It’s 20 years since we started blogging on climate here on RealClimate (December 10, 2004). We wanted to counter disinformation about climate change that was spreading through various campaigns. In those days it was an unusual move that prompted a welcome from Nature.
One thing that I didn’t anticipate then was the vast global scale that fake news and conspiracy theories later would attain. Neither did I foresee how they would penetrate other disciplines, nor the extent of the division in today’s society between those who value truths and those who don’t.
There is one graph that perhaps tells the story of what has happened since 2004, and it’s the Keeling curve shown in the figure below. It shows the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and tells a story about the carbon cycle, involving Earth’s crust, the atmosphere, land surface, the biosphere, and the oceans.
The CO2 levels have increased at an increasing pace in the atmosphere as well as in the oceans, and the sad irony is that the rate of growth has increased after every climate summit (Conference of the Parties, also known as COP) and assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Similarly, there have been increases in other greenhouse gases, which Gavin nicely describes in his recent post Operationalizing Climate Science. In a nutshell, they are responsible for climate change, mainly due to an increased greenhouse effect. The consequence is global warming, changes to Earth’s hydrological cycle, melting ice and snow, thawing permafrost, rising sea levels and changes to the weather statistics.
This year is on track to be the warmest ever observed according to the WMO and data provided by the European Copernicus Climate Services (C3S). Our society has not been adapted to these changes, and the situation is far from stabilised.
So what has gone wrong? A recent editorial from the Guardian discusses some flaws and weaknesses of past COPs and a similar sentiment has been reported in the Washington Post.
On the one hand, there are people who have learned from the impressive efforts that have been dedicated to explaining climate change and to increasing climate literacy. One example is this video produced for the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS).
An enhanced understanding of climate change has been a force behind the growth in solar panels, wind power, and electric cars. There has also been technical progress unrelated to climate change, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), and we can now use chatGPT to respond to emails from climate deniers which was science fiction in 2004. AI is also currently revolutionising weather forecasting.
And there is a growing awareness concerning links between nature, biodiversity and climate, but we still struggle getting our main message through to everyone.
It strikes me that we still have a bad habit of speaking in a code language with confusing phrases and terminology that is only familiar for those already familiar with climate science and who already are persuaded. I wrote a post on the IPCC’s summary for policymakers (SPM) on this in 2023, but without much effect. Today there exist AI tools that can translate a scientist’s Powerpoint presentation into something that is more pedagogic and understandable for a lay person, so maybe this situation will improve.
There also seems to have been little dialogue across different sectors and disciplines and a lack of trust. Obviously, the message from climate scientists has not reached those decision-makers who could bend the Keeling curve downwards. In other words, our knowledge about climate change has not reached those leaders who may have the greatest effect on dealing with the production of coal, oil and gas. The message needs to be understood in the boardrooms of oil and coal companies, and by their CEOs, shareholders, and investors. Also by OPEC and politicians who make decisions about fossil resources.
Another thing I didn’t anticipate in 2004 was efforts such as the World Weather Attribution (WWA). Attribution connects weather and climate and may remind decision-makers within the fossil sector about the fact that we share the same planet and that global warming will affect everyone, either directly or indirectly. In a recent paper (Benestad et al, 2024) we provide an even clearer picture than before of extreme temperature and precipitation having become more frequent and widespread since 1950. Such extremes have a devastating impact on both nature and society.
Finally, in 2004 I didn’t anticipate that social media, such as Twitter (now X) and Facebook, would dominate the spread of both information and disinformation. Blogs ended up in the shade of social media for years, but things are changing, spurred by scandals surrounding Facebook and X. Newspapers such as the Guardian no longer posts on X, and I’m giving BlueSky a go like many of my good colleagues. Hopefully, increased activity on BlueSky may steal some of the juice from X.
References
- R.E. Benestad, C. Lussana, and A. Dobler, "Global record-breaking recurrence rates indicate more widespread and intense surface air temperature and precipitation extremes", Science Advances, vol. 10, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ado3712
If social media “dominate[s] the spread of both information and disinformation” (which sounds right), leaving X for BlueSky is exactly the wrong thing to do now.
Based on what I have observed, X is not collapsing yet. Instead people with certain kind of sensitivities are leaving, or at least claiming so, trying to found a discussion of their own elsewhere. Most people on my timeline announcing exit to BlueSky are climate scientists or in general, people with environmental or nature interests, due to their hobbies or their profession. But even among these, leaving is not universal. I’d guess that it’s like Guardian: strong left-leaning identification predicts leaving. (And this includes more than sane thinking on science and climate btw.)
I’m in BlueSky myself now too, and while it may be great for small-community isolated discussions around, say, climate, weather, biodiversity etc., especially for academics, you will miss bigger audience, those who need to be informed, as opposed to your colleagues or activists. I can understand the need for professional, relatively closed and moderated discussion forum, but that is not the same as reaching the public or having influence. Influence happens at the margins, not in the center.
X may indeed collapse later. These networks are pretty much experiments, including moderation, discoverability etc. X is now trying an algorithmic feed based more on embeddings (content) and less on social network, and apparently also visibility control instead of moderation. There are problems, also some good sides, and we don’t know how it will go. I’d be pretty certain though that no network will moderate hundreds of millions of people with human workforce, it will be mostly AI if anything. (X has also made some questionable decisions incl. one on visibility of posts with links, that I’d count as counterproductive, and valid reasons to consider other sites.)
Yes, there’s Elon Musk and general shift to right in vibes. But to reach the public, you need to forget purity, especially political purity. The further one proceeds from core physics and observations, the more there’s justifiable room for opinions and wider discussions, and when it comes to public policy, political purity just doesn’t work. I mean, in a demogracy it doesn’t work. We saw that in the latest US election.
So I’d vote for being present and presenting science where people are, in a way that strips _unnecessary_ ties to political identities and activism. There’s more than enough all kinds of activism within our infosphere, we need more trustworthy neutral sources.
(On blogging, it is very much alive, just not so much as “blogs” but more as “newsletters” and Substack.)
On X, since the change in ownership there has been a steady decline in users in the EU and it can be assumed that the same applies elsewhere. The reduced numbers have influenced the value of the business as an advertising venue, down by an estimated 75%.
The loss of credible users means that their voices are no longer easily heard, which could have been intentional.
When it first started Twitter was fairly clunky, it was only in the latter years that it became a really useful place for sharing information. I’m hoping that Bluesky, or one of the others fills the void.
Andrew Dessler posted this on his blog today:
Twitter/X is dead for climate science. If you were someone who went to Twitter to read about climate, head over to Bluesky — most of the climate community I engage with are and, as an added bonus, it’s not a Nazi bar. Read more about Bluesky on Andrew Rumbach’s recent substack post. I’m almost exclusively on bluesky; you can find me here.
That’s a specious argument to be making when X is comprised of troll bots and MAGAts who will pepper your posts with propaganda. It is much better to publish on a site where your information will be read and shared 1000x of times by people who understand it.
X is OVER.
Quote: “So what has gone wrong? A recent editorial from the Guardian discusses some flaws and weaknesses of past COPs and a similar sentiment has been reported in the Washington Post. ”
Me: How many Americans (South and North) pay one iota of attention to COP? I’ll bet less than 10% even know what it is. I’ll bet less than 1% of all Asians have ever heard of COP, and less than 0.1% of Africans. The problem is with the people who believe in AGW, but have done little or nothing to change their behavior. I’m referring to the AGW believers who can afford to do the following but have not done it: install solar panels for electricity, buy an EV, use a bike or public transportation to commute to work, buy an efficient heat pump to heat/cool their home, change their water heater to a heat pump type or a solar thermal system. Many people in the USA cannot afford to do those things, but many can and there are enough of them that it would make a difference if they did.
Quote: “Blogs ended up in the shade of social media for years, but things are changing, spurred by scandals surrounding Facebook and X.”
Me: I may have missed some, but the only “scandals” surrounding Facebook and X (when it was Twitter) that I recall are the ones where the US Government worked with them to delete posts that went against the Democrat narrative which is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution; which, for those of you not familiar with US Law, is the Supreme law of the land – it supersedes all other federal, state, and local laws. Twitter also censored conservative voices on their own as well – one incident which had consequences was on January 6 when Trump tweeted several times for the protesters to be peaceful and back the blue (capitol police) – Twitter, run by Trump-haters at the time, deleted the tweets or prevented them from being re-tweeted so that very few of the protesters ever saw them. Because the “mainstream” media hates Trump they did not report this fact so few Americans know that it happened. I doubt it even came out in the J6 investigation which was also run by Trump-haters. Thus Twitter helped to prolong the J6 protest. It is documented in this video at: 28:00, 33:28, and particularly at 59:58 and at 1:03:48:
https://rumble.com/v4648ft-january-6th-a-true-timeline-doc.html
Quote: “Newspapers such as the Guardian no longer posts on X, and I’m giving BlueSky a go like many of my good colleagues. Hopefully, increased activity on BlueSky may steal some of the juice from X.”
Do you not see the futility of this tactic? Only AGW “believers” will use BlueSky for the most part. You will be preaching to the choir, and your efforts will be wasted. You will not change many minds with that tactic. But go for it if you like preaching to the choir.
Or, learn from Trump. Go into the war zone to spread your message. He campaigned in places many thought he would be unwelcome – the Bronx, Madison Square Garden, CNN, Dearborn, etc. He got YUGE enthusiastic crowds of voters who were fed up with 4 years of Harris/Biden failure, and that caught the attention of other voters in NYC and in NY – for a Republican he did very well in the general election in both. Of course much of the attribution for that would be due to the exceptionally poor Harris/Biden record, but I think his presence in those places made a difference.
to Mr. Know It All and others FYI
Capsule Summaries of all Twitter Files Threads by Matt Taibbi et al
About US Government/Intel Agency controlled, manipulated and orchestrated censorship on social media outlets
https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter
Both Twitter and Facebook banned Donald Trump in January 2021
From ABC Australia news in depth – public media
Did banning Trump fuel his comeback? | America’s Last Election: EP 6 | If You’re Listening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nziiH-lbT8
Answer is YES – to a degree. Polling stats said it did. It’s not a bad program despite being ‘politically’ biased. by default and not entirely objective. And only 20 minutes, so I know I know far more about these matters than the journalist does.
But the Taibbi and Shellenberger’s expose is more damning – as was the exposure of ‘RussiaGate’ as a complete fraud. And the tip of the iceberg of corruption by a establishment media-government nexus between intel agencies and political activist ‘thinktanks’ etc Then there’s the WMD lies, Libya and Syria CW lies as well — all very coordinated. Today we have to deal with “evil bad North Koreans in Russia” lies.
It never stops and will not be stopped short of a social-political revolution. But that is only likely to arrive after the looming “economic and societal collapse”.
Trump is still a “dick” but there are far more bad apples than him running the real show. Trump is merely another symptom of a deeply dysfunctional nation.
D: as was the exposure of ‘RussiaGate’ as a complete fraud.
BPL: No, it was not.:
https://www.salon.com/2020/07/02/as-russian-bounty-scandal-unfolds-remember-this-robert-mueller-found-plenty-of-collusion/
There’s one born every minute. And you are one of them Barton.
Dharma wrote: “… the exposure of ‘RussiaGate’ as a complete fraud”
That is a crude, clumsy, clownish LIE. You are either profoundly ignorant and abysmally stupid, or you are a deliberate liar.
With all due respect, your endless, interminable, meandering, off-topic, belligerent, arrogant, abusive and dishonest posts are a sewer of narcissistic self-indulgence and contribute NOTHING of value to this site.
Just go away.
Whatever. Take your own advice.
8000 historical citations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVjYVka6u10
Go read a book and get a clue – “Beauty fades but dumb lasts forever. ” Judge Judy
D(h)arma(h) “ Take your own advice.
“Just go away.” applies to the TROLL whose endless, interminable, meandering, off-topic, belligerent, arrogant, abusive and dishonest posts, [at a rate of over 110 posts in 3.5 weeks] ,a sewer of narcissistic self-indulgence and contribute NOTHING of value to this site. If you haven’t figured it out – it’s you.
Now go away or we will mock you the second time. (Fetchez la vache!)
KIA: The problem is with the people who believe in AGW, but have done little or nothing to change their behavior.
BPL: N0, the problem is with people like you who constantly bring up red herrings.
People not making the changes they _are_ in control of: the 5 ‘kitchen table decisions’ which represent a good chunk of decarbonisation, _is_ part of the problem. It’s not all of it by any means (agriculture, industry, energy sector are all separate), but it really does matter.
If everyone changes their heating, cooking, hot water, and transport to electric whilst also adding local storage and supply, next time one of those needs replacing, along with the supply being greened-up, then that is decarbonisation before your very eyes.
People who are able to do this but don’t are impeding the transition.
I’m not sure why you think that is a red herring.
This pod on Rewiring America makes the case well: https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-is-electrification-going
https://www.rewiringamerica.org/
(And yes I’ve done my biking, PV, hot water, cooking, and storage starting in 2008. The heat pump is coming this year and the EV probably 2026).
Unless you are completely disconnected from the global economy, and live wholly off the grid, you have a non-zero carbon footprint, the sum of the carbon burned to make all goods and services you buy. For every grid-connected consumer, those 5 kitchen table decisions are all tradeoffs between competing demands, and it’s economically rational to socialize as much private cost as we can get away with. “Kitchen table” decisions have thus driven global warming since 1698 CE, when coal was first used to power a primitive steam engine to pump water out of a coal mine.
And voluntary internalization of your private emissions costs runs into the free rider problem: your coal-rolling Trumpist neighbor gets as much benefit from your emissions reductions as you do, without making any of his own. Not enough people are sufficiently unselfish, or responsive to virtue signalling by their neighbors.
Only when it’s economically favorable for them, will enough people change their heating, cooking, hot water and transport to electric, and add enough local storage and supply, to make more than a small difference. That requires collective intervention in the energy market, to eliminate fossil carbon’s price advantage over carbon-neutral alternatives. US voters just voted 49.9% to 48.3% to reject collective action to decarbonize our national economy. The consequences will be higher cost in money and tragedy, even for you, despite your voluntary private actions. By all means, voluntarily reduce your carbon footprint as much as you can stand. But vote Democratic at every opportunity, too!
I’ve enjoyed every minute of it. I know some of my posts have been negative or even disruptive, and for that I am truly sorry. You guys are doing great work and I hope you continue it as long as possible.
Barton Paul Levenson says “[…] and for that I am truly sorry”
Sorry, I do not believe you. Your behaviour belie your words.
D: Sorry, I do not believe you. Your behaviour belie [sic] your words.
BPL: Wow, Dharma has a low opinion of me! I’ll go find a dark corner to cry in.
Dharma: this is obnoxious, and wrong, 1 of 16 ‘recent comments’ as you exploit this platform; it undermines the material about which you care so much. Are you incapable of seeing yourself as others see you?
I suggest you stop exploiting the generous hosting of this comment section, forcing us to scroll past your domineering rudeness.
Consider the authors of the many fine resources you quote here, and ask yourself if they would appreciate you undermining the knowledge you so arrogantly present in an effort to bludgeon us into learning what we already know.
in re to Susan Anderson, 24 Nov 2024 at 11:40 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827363
Dear Susan,
As the fine resources cited by Dharma include everything starting from Nate Hagen over anonymous trolls on various websites and ending with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, I believe that many of these subjects would indeed appreciate his/her/its frantic activity.
Best regards
Tomáš
I challenge anyone to replicate a numbered list of every single Source / Citation – original info by + presented by who and when with the link – I have made in November or October and post it to this forum for all to see.
Present all the facts at once for all to see at once. I dare you.
Reply to Susan Anderson
“Are you incapable of seeing yourself as others see you?”
Absolutely yes. I’m no fool. Take the log out of your own eye lady.
Your middle name is ‘Karen’ yeah?
Of course, as Eleanor Roosevelt never said “Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People”. Myself, I would expect the idea is that a “fool”,/i> would absolutely possess what would be described as a ‘small mind’
– Susan Anderson: “Are you incapable of seeing yourself as others see you?”
– Darma: ” Absolutely yes. I’m no fool.”
– Sorry, I do not believe you. Your behaviour belie [sic] your words. ;-)
Reply to Susan Anderson
Frankly I find your repetitive comments to me the most obnoxious and abusive of all.
There’s no accounting for taste. So God created the Scroll Wheel Mouse. Use it. I do.
RealClimate is a great resource for Non-Climate Scientists who become their company’s ‘point person’ on decarbonisation.
It was my go-to resource when I had this role.
Sincere thanks to Gavin, Rasmus and others for providing it.
One important thing seems to be routinely overlooked. In order to make the transition to alternative energies and also feed eight billion stakeholders, conventional vehicles will be used. for transportation. There are very few EVs doing any of that. What this means is more oil will be needed and used until the transition is mostly complete. There are no viable alternatives going forward. We can expect to see another new record for atmospheric CO2 every year for quite a while. Infrastructure improvements and adaptations should be phased in and expensive mitigations phased out. None of them can work at scale anyhow.
KT: In order to make the transition to alternative energies and also feed eight billion stakeholders, conventional vehicles will be used. for transportation. There are very few EVs doing any of that.
BPL: I pass electric buses every day (Pittsburgh Regional Transit). Some companies are producing electric trucks and construction vehicles. Too few now does not mean too few forever.
KT: “There are very few EVs doing any of that.”
MWS: In Oslo, nearly all buses are electric now. Last winter, there was a problem with some buses losing charge too quickly on very cold days, but the problem was mostly logistical, not planning for having a “Very Cold Day” reduced departure plan, like the reduced departure Sunday/Holiday plan, so more buses could be recharging.
And most taxis in Oslo are electric now, and all the trains except a few freight locomotives.Even the ferries in Oslo harbor are electric.
They’re building a new subway line from Oslo out to where the Fornebu airport used to be. They have dug the biggest hole I have ever seen, and a lot of the earth movers they used to dig dirt were electric.
Ken Towe wrote: “There are very few EVs doing any of that … There are no viable alternatives going forward.”
EVs are already viable and are already replacing fossil fueled vehicles in many applications.
Not long ago there were very few smartphones. In fact there were none. Likewise desktop computers and flat screen TVs. And today many younger folks have never even seen a rotary-dial landline phone, or a typewriter, or a bulbous, flickering “picture tube”. In the not too distant future fossil fueled passenger vehicles will be a primitive curiosity like a Model T today.
Ken Towe’s characterizations are 100% correct especially the point There are very few EVs doing any of that.
This information is very easy to locate, if people were actually interested in the real data instead of their existing biased and accepted disinformation.
As of 2024, the global motor vehicle count, including all types and fuel sources, exceeds 1.5 billion vehicles. EVs now only represent ~20% of new vehicle sales globally, this years sales expected to be ~17 million new.
As of 2024, there are approximately ONLY 40 million electric vehicles (EVs) on roads worldwide.. Out of 1.5 Billion!
Equates to 2.67% – Ken is correct.
Everything else is rhetoric, myths, and ideology talking. And, you are welcome.
D: “Ken Towe’s characterizations are 100% correct especially the point There are very few EVs doing any of that. … As of 2024, there are approximately ONLY 40 million electric vehicles (EVs) on roads worldwide.. Out of 1.5 Billion!”
MWS: I think “very few” stops at, say, 1 million, but I’ll give you 10 million. 40 million is not “very few.” Nor does your 40 million EV count include buses, trains, ferries, and excavation vehicles.
D: “Out of 1.5 Billion!”
MWS: Most of those 1.5 billion were purchased before the equivalent EV became a good deal. The ICE is no longer a better deal compared to the EV. That’s why 85% of new vehicles sold in Norway now are EVs.
Cherry-picking, as applied here, refers to selectively using facts or data that support a particular argument while ignoring other relevant information that contradicts or weakens the point being made. It’s a tactic often used to manipulate discussions or to frame an argument in a way that skews perception.
In this example, MWS avoids addressing the central fact you highlighted: electric vehicles make up only about 2.67% of the global total vehicle fleet (40 million out of 1.5 billion). Instead, they divert the focus to unrelated or less relevant points, such as:
Dismissing the term “very few” by focusing on the absolute number (40 million) without considering its proportion relative to the total fleet.
Shifting to future trends like EV adoption in Norway, which does not address the current global situation or the fact that ICE vehicles dominate the roads today.
Bringing in unrelated vehicle categories like buses and trains, which were not part of your original argument, further muddling the point.
This avoidance of the key point (2.67% is indeed a small proportion) and introducing tangential arguments is classic cherry-picking. It manipulates the focus away from the stark reality you presented to make the situation seem more favorable to their argument.
MWS – Your Fallacious Appeal to Norway is a nothing burger response. Which completely avoids what Ken said initially and how I backed up his opinion using hard data known as real verifiable facts.
ignoratio elenchi as applied here is a logical fallacy which consists in apparently refuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted.
Ken Towe: “One important thing seems to be routinely overlooked. In order to make the transition to alternative energies and also feed eight billion stakeholders, conventional vehicles will be used. for transportation. There are very few EVs doing any of that.”
MWS: Dharma didn’t talk about the excavation, farming, and other heavy vehicles Ken was talking about. Dharma referred to the 40 million electric cars currently on the road in the world and the 1.5 billion cars, trucks, and SUVs currently on the road. So Dharma made a valid point, but it has nothing to do with the point Ken Towe was making. Hence, the logical fallacy ignoratio elenchi.
But since the process of converting the car, truck, and SUV fleet is already happening about as fast as it can, even the valid point of Dharma’s ignoratio elenchi is weak. But he’s right. I used Norway as an example where the process is going a lot faster than many other countries, but at least I pointed out that the process in Norway does include the heavy work vehicles Ken Towe is talking about.
Dharma
Dharma said: “Equates to 2.67% (EVs as proportion of all vehicles) – Ken is correct….”
Wasted effort because nobody on this thread said Ken was wrong, about there being few EVS on the roads.
Dharma said “Everything else is rhetoric, myths, and ideology talking..”
No. BPL said that because there are few EVs now doesnt necessarily mean that will always be the case. Martin Smith talked about the numbers of EVs in Oslow. Secular Animist talked about how once everyone used land line phones and that changed to smartphones etcetera. (Paraphrasing).These are FACTS Dharma. Not rehetoric, myths or ideology.
Dharmas statement “Everything else is rhetoric, myths, and ideology talking..” This statement itself is rhetoric. Oxford Dictionary: rhetoric is language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. Its also trolling because its inflammatory. So we have Dharma the troll and rhetorical debater! :)
Given the fact that the world is not timely mitigating Climate Change, and has limited funding to do so, there is a great need for cost-effective solutions.
One such approach could be, on underutilized land, to deploy extraordinarily Cost-Effective and Acreage and Time-Efficient, Nature-Based Solutions, to maximize the full potential of Photosynthesis, which is not only among the least costly ways to capture CO 2, at $35/Ton, but can also contribute to an expanding Bio-Economy and new jobs.
However, to do this well, the world needs to know what are the top 10 plants and trees which will capture the most CO 2/Acre/5,10 & 15-Year Periods.
We then need to maximize the sequestration of the captured Carbon, by converting the resulting Biomass into a variety of Climate-Smart Bio-Products.
I hope you will join me in urging that governments, universities and research institutions quickly conduct the credible analyses required to determine what are the top 10 plants and trees which will capture the most CO 2/Acre/5,10 & 15-Year Periods.
Be careful when you talk about “underutilized” land. Look close enough, and you’ll probably find someone is actually using it in most cases. And, as a forest ecologist, I know that there are a million good reasons to plant a tree, but carbon sequestration is usually way down that list.
The problem with bioenergy is that .trees and algae all eventually die and the oxygen that was created will be used by aerobic respiration to recycle the biomass back to CO2 and water. It’s part of Nature’s carbon cycle.
The problem with sequestration is a quantitative one… not enough can be stored to affect the climate. One ppm of CO2 is 7.8 billion tons. Storing one will have no effect at all.
Ken Towe, there is no problem with bioenergy in terms of its carbon cycle. Bioenergy is ueful precisely because the carbon cycle you talk about is CARBON NEUTRAL. We arent increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
Its completely innacurate to say that sequestration cannot effect the climate. CO2 does not stop having a climate effect at some arbitrary concentration. The effect of carbon sequestration in forests would just be smallish due to land availability issues.
The carbon cycle is neutral until some of the biomass is buried away from the oxygen created. That’s why the percentage ratio between oxygen and CO2 is ~525 to one, but was the reverse billions of years ago. Don’t forget that biomass includes biocarbonate…limestones. Humans cannot duplicate that sequestration except in trivial amounts.. And even that requires transportation energy to get it done.
in Re to Ken Towe, 24 Nov 2024 at 11:15 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827362
Dear Ken,
There are publications concluding that reforestation of parts of Amazonia that resulted in 16-17th century from depopulation of this region due to diseases brought from Europe might have contributed to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration decrease noticed in ice cores from this era and to the northern hemisphere cooling known as the “Little Ice Age”.
See for example
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254228011_The_Columbian_Encounter_and_the_Little_Ice_Age_Abrupt_Land_Use_Change_Fire_and_Greenhouse_Forcing
There are, however, also results contradicting this hypothesis:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213305419300220
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827362
I think that it is not yet clear enough in which extent the biosequestration of carbon dioxide, e.g. by reforestation, could or could not contribute to global warming mitigation.
It is, however, quite clear already now that, although actively supported by many states, “biofuel” production and/or direct “biomass” burning for energy production hardly represent good ideas for global warming mitigation, because
(i) direct solar energy exploitation is more efficient than the indirect one exploiting biomass,
(ii) “biomass” production is an ecological crime, contributing to soil and biodiversity destruction.
Greetings
Tomáš
please no
ClimateSmart™ is a symptom of phony environmentalism and bad teaching.
Land must not be financialized and valued in global carbon markets.
Land must not be commodified or traded based on speculative CO2 pricing.
No matter how polished the marketing materials may be, or how many smooth talking salespeople come knocking, land must not be treated as an asset tied to the whims of such schemes.
They will strip you dry, and the erosion of community and functional ecologies will only increase.
I am seriously dubious of vegetation growth as a climate solution – which biomass growth will struggle to draw down carbon released by previous de-vegetation before topping out. Most biomass increase in still in the recovery stage and still chasing an elusive maximum. If it isn’t sequestering above and beyond than that it isn’t offsetting fossil fuel emissions at all. At best it should count as land use sector emissions gains, not energy or transport or industry sector ones. They are a cheat.
Oh there are good reasons, excellent reasons to support the combination of more efficient agriculture with less land requirements (this IS happening) and active re-vegetation, even restoration of freed up areas, although if we take grazing livestock out of a landscape re-vegetation usually happens whether we plant trees or not.
I wonder if it would help if the climate science community would strike the “if a miracle happens” lines from the temperature prediction graphs.
Looking at a graph with three future temperature projection possibilities, where the top one has been tracking historical trends and is based on the most likely political and economic outcomes, and then a couple of lower lines that are based on imaginary social situations that are not going to happen, one can easily conclude that the lower ones are the ones to hold on to and that everything will be ok.
For example, the IPCC reports use very sophisticated language to express probabilities and likelihoods on the scientific side, but not on the social side. It is “virtually certain” that the global political system will fail to undertake the actions required to achieve a 2 degree increase, but you don’t get that from the reports. Why include the “exceptionally unlikely” social scenarios?
The sugar coating of this reality might be contributing to the lack of enthusiasm for doing what needs to be done.
Discourses of Climate Delay – https://skepticalscience.com/discourses-of-climate-delay.html
They found four main categories:
– Redirect Responsibilities: Someone else should take action first
– Propagate non-transformative solutions: Mitigate without fundamental, disruptive changes – the “not like this” excuse
– Emphasize the downsides of climate policy because it would be politically and socially unjustifiable.
– Surrender: stating that it’s too late and that a change of course is no longer possible.
Or shorter: “Not me, not like this, not now and too late”!
Climategate turns 15 this week. This is more important than politics from your perspective, isn’t it?
“Climategate turns 15 this week.”
Hey Robbo, stop deflecting & projecting, and pay more attention to the mess you created at ENRON, which I recall was over 20 years ago.
While the smarter guys in the room were sentenced to jail, Robert’s role in the Enron crack-up discounts his climate policy credibility just as the collapse of Northern Rock eroded Matt Ridley’s authority on climate economics.
RLB: Climategate turns 15 this week.
BPL: And it’s no more a real conspiracy than it was 15 years ago:
https://bartonlevenson.com/Climategate.html
And Enron turns 24. Congrats to unindicted co-conspirator (allegedly) R. L. Bradley, Jr.
I particularly appreciate the lead being the Keeling curve. Hard data showing what is actually happening in the real world is the right place to start. I was struck by the statement “The message needs to be understood in the boardrooms of oil and coal companies, and by their CEOs, shareholders, and investors. Also by OPEC and politicians who make decisions about fossil resources.” I think the basic issue is the wealth and power from fossil fuels that world leaders use to remain in power. The regimes in India, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran just to begin the long list, come to mind. Now add the Trump effect. It is no wonder that the Keeling curve proves there has been no real effect from the IPCC or any COP.
The advances in alternate energy production have come alongside increased production and use of fossil fuels.
Rather than expect politicians to take actions that harm their interests, the way to reduce fossil fuels is to increase the pace of invention by creating more large prizes for widening bottlenecks, for example prizes for better battery systems. The only way to rapidly reduce fossil fuels is to make them all, in most places, a bad economic choice.
to D. Condliffe
“I think the basic issue is the wealth and power from fossil fuels that world leaders use to remain in power. The regimes in India, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran just to begin the long list, come to mind. ”
Endlessly bemused by the extreme denial that the USA is the worlds biggest Oil producer bar none.
It’s also the worlds biggest consumer of Oil as well. iirc What a joke. But it shows how effective government driven propaganda is today as we rush headlong into Cold War 2.0; possibly nuclear war 1.0, and potentially world war 3.0
That poor old innocent and fragile USA an even bigger Victim than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is.
D: That poor old innocent and fragile USA an even bigger Victim than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is.
BPL: Dharma always defends Russia and China. Let’s see if we can figure out if he’s working for 1) the SVR or GRU, or 2) the 10th Bureau.
The Keeling curve plotted against global population correlates almost almost perfectly…0.9985 Newell & Marcus, 1987 “Carbon Dioxide and People”. It’s obvious…humans need energy and lowering emissions to zero is not helpful to the transportation required to make the transition to renewables and the to the EVs that will replace the vehicles doing it now.
That incredibly high correlation between the Keeling curve and population is bogus, unless you think the population is undergoing a 1% annual cycle, just like CO2. Oh, it’s also rather old. Population is flattening, but CO2 is still rising exponentially. Your argument is rather old, too.
Read the paper John.. “Carbon Dioxide and People”. Yes, it’s old but the high correlation still holds. Plot Mauna Loa CO2 against today’s global population. 8 billion = 420 ppm. CO2 is still rising because people need the energy for transportation. Renewables don’t build themselves and EVs are not involved.
Ken Towe,
I don’t see that you can hide behind Newell & Marcus (1987) and its paywall if you insist that “the high correlation still holds.” I think you will really have to be more specific about what you mean by this continuing “high correlation,” that assuming you are not just throwing nonsense.
Do you means what you suggest should be done to demonstrate this “high correlation.”?
You suggest to “plot Mauna Loa CO2 against today’s global population. 8 billion = 420 ppm.”
Newell & Marcus (1987) do apparently use MLO CO2, the numbers they quote for 1958 & 1983 matching Scripps annual MLO data. I don’t think the various calculations for annual world population numbers are too variable from each other. While such annual data doesn’t yield the 0.9985 value but yields 0.9957, I do not see such a difference impacting my findings.
It is evident that the 1958-83 correlation between CO2 and population begins significantly diverging from the data post-2003, this generally due to population decelerating from exponential growth (from 22% increase per decade to 8%) while CO2 accelerates beyond exponential growth (from 2% increase per decade to 6%). Thus using 2023’s population (8.09bn) and calculating CO2 using the 1958-83 correlation, 2023 CO2 = 393ppm and not the 421ppm measured at MLO.
That’s quote a difference.
So why would it be considered “high correlation.”?
Reply to Ken Towe
You’re right of course. There are many corelations close to 1:1 between GHGs, CO2, GDP, Population, global wealth, in the academic circles going back decades.
It does not really matter if a causal link can be assumed beyond all doubt scientific or statistically, the basic logic and common sense of these things are obvious if one has clear unbiased mindset. We don’t need complex GCMs by anyone today that take a year to punch out an future forecast – nay hypothetical possibile scenario not grounded in reality – to already know beyond all doubt that burning fossil fuels has been warming the planet and we collectively as humans and our way of life are now in very dire straits.
And that the introduction of extremely cheap and abundant fossil fuels is OBVIOUSLY what has driven everything bigger and faster from technology to agriculture to consumption to population to ecological destruction to mass extinctions and a destabilised climate everywhere on earth.
Here is a good example of that of many other examples Ken, even if no one else is interested published peer reviewed papers on the topic.
:
Tim Garrett
@nephologue
17 Jun 2022
Thread: New paper in @EGU_ESD with @ProfSteveKeen and @prof_grasselli shows a 50-year fixed relationship between world economic “wealth” – not the GDP – and global primary energy consumption. Implication? Our future is tied to even our quite distant past
X Twitter — https://nitter.poast.org/nephologue/
Research article 15 Jun 2022
Lotka’s wheel and the long arm of history: how does the distant past determine today’s global rate of energy consumption?
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/13/1021/2022/esd-13-1021-2022.html
If people here cannot work out by themselves there is and must be a direct correlation between energy use and the Keeling Curve, well imo they are out of their depth.
PS “there is and must be a direct correlation between energy use and the Keeling Curve”
And Population is also correlated with the same kinds of things. This is well known in the right circles imo. Retired Hans Rosling of the karolinska instutute put out a lot of data on energy use and population, agriculture etc. I used to have amany bookmarks of his work, but a couple of examples are here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grZSxoLPqXI
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI
or this old one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w
imo we all have our biases and blind spots. People like Hans and Tim Garret Jason Hickle Nate Hagens Killian and Steven Keen and many more can help a lot. :-)
It’s a broad church – the data is out there – abstract extract
However, current models do not incorporate these critical feedbacks. We argue that in order to understand the dynamics of either system, Earth System Models must be coupled with Human System Models through bidirectional couplings representing the positive, negative, and delayed feedbacks that exist in the real systems. In particular, key Human System variables, such as demographics, inequality, economic growth, and migration, are not coupled with the Earth System but are instead driven by exogenous estimates, such as United Nations population projections. This makes current models likely to miss important feedbacks in the real Earth–Human system, especially those that may result in unexpected or counterintuitive outcomes, and thus requiring different policy interventions from current models.
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/3/4/470/2669331
Ignorance is bliss they say for good reason. Cheap fossil fuel energy is what triggered the late Holocene exponential growth in human population to above 8 billion today, heading for 9 billion circa +2040.
Deny that all you wish. The keeling curve is merely another minor anecdotal reflection of that reality.
People should find actual real things to argue about and not shadows on the wall.
PS do track the current heat wave hitting western Sydney and surrounds today and the next week. BOM expected to break all known spring high temp records with heat wave high temps above +12C over current (30yr) climate average daily high temps for November in the region.
In Re to John Pollack, 24 Nov 2024 at 11:06 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827407
Dear John,
Thank you for your comment!
Honestly, the first thing that came to my mind when I read the sentence that
“the rate of growth has increased after every climate summit (Conference of the Parties, also known as COP) and assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
was:
What about stopping this undesired trend simply by desisting from further COPs and further assessment reports of IPCC?
Interpreting correlations properly may be sometimes tricky :-)
Greetings
Tomáš
Firstly I greatly enjoy reading this websites articles so many thank’s. The comments people post are also often interesting.
You said: “One thing that I didn’t anticipate then was the vast global scale that fake news and conspiracy theories later would attain.”
The internet has clearly turbocharged the spread of missinformation etcetera. I feel missinformation is a very serious problem for society. Its like a return to the thinking of the middle ages / fuedal period where people believed in witches. The internet is here to stay, and in largely uncensored form, so schools need to teach critical thinking skills, and older people should study up issues such as logical fallacies. Of course other things contribute to the spread of missinformation such as the smearing of mainstream experts coming from some politicians and others.
You said: “It strikes me that we still have a bad habit of speaking in a code language with confusing phrases and terminology ”
I’m a non expert, and I find your articles a bit too technical at times. One thing that would help is providing definitions for your technical terms and in the plainest possible language. The ideal would be to get a definition by clicking on a word, as other websites do this, otherwise just put a definition in brackets or as a footnote. Yes people could also google technical terms but this is cumbersome.
You said: “Obviously, the message from climate scientists has not reached those decision-makers who could bend the Keeling curve downwards.”
Clearly, although nobody can claim ignorance about the basics of the science and effects on the planet, after years of IPCC reports and numerous media releases. The message has been eroded by denialism, and it might help if the IPCC itself did more to counter this. They may feel that repeating a lie spreads the lie but the lies have spread regardless and gained a lot of traction!
Another problem is the human mind is hardwired to respond with most urgency to immediate and serious threats like an earthquake, rather than slow moving future orientated threats like the climate issue, even if they are massively serious like climate change. Its psychology 101. It suggests the solutions most likely to gain traction are those with wide benefits, and the least personal pain and inconvenience, like renewable energy generation. And real world trends are consistent with this.
We have leaders reliant on campaign donations from the fossil fuels lobby, which is so frustrating, and leaders probably afraid that tough measures on the climate issue will raise energy costs too much and loose them votes. But The Economist Journal (November 16 – 22) has just done an article on how dramatically the costs of renewables have fallen so the leaders are perhaps being excessively cautious.
Dear Dr. Benestad,
You wonder why all the educative efforts exhibited by you and other climate scientists cannot convince lot of people that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration described by the Keeling curve does represent a threat for them. I think that the reason is simple: These people face lot of other threats in their daily life and perceive them much more relevant for them and their families than the threats that can be linked to global warming.
In this respect, I am afraid that solutions for anthropogenic global warming are hardly separable from solutions for other problems that the people face and perceive as relevant for them.
Furthermore, I think that activists painting anthropogenic global warming as the most relevant or only relevant issue of the contemporary world must necessarily evoke at least certain untrust, if not direct denial, in people who must cope with problems like deterioration of their social status or with even more basic threats, like e.g. a war inflicted to their country.
Finally, I am afraid that the credibility of the released warnings is strongly undermined if they are further spread by activists and/or media interpreting the still quite blurred picture of the anthropogenic global warming as something what is crystal clear and certain. I mentioned herein the official report Avex 4/2020of Czech Academy of Sciences, specifically designed and released to explain the anthropogenic global warming to the public. In a public debate about this report, its authors asserted that latent heat flux from Earth surface cannot play any role in global mean surface temperature regulation, because it would have allegedly broken the first law of thermodynamics. With such an advocacy, climate science does not need enemies.
Greetings
Tomáš
I have followed reports on climate change since the turn of the century. I became aware of climate change before that, through observation and listening to the reports of people who had lived all their lives in the areas I was fortunate to visit during my work-life. I never really expected meaningful actions to originate from our governments or business interests, though it is often difficult to distinguish one from the other. I am little surprised that the COP meetings accomplish little. I no longer pay as much attention to the IPCC reports and announcements as I once did. I believe the IPCC has proven much too open to representatives from the fossil fuel industry. Most of all, I have been disappointed by the inability of climate scientists to explain climate change to the public including myself.
It took me a while to understand the Charney CO2 sensitivity concept. Once I thought I understood it, I was displeased by the way its efforts at simplification complicated rather than clarified my efforts at understanding it. I have some training in systems analysis, both in theory and as practiced in aerospace design. The Charney CO2 sensitivity oversimplified climate change to the point that it obscured too much. Climate models focus on linearity, other than their sometimes references to “tipping points” where some threshold is exceeded. I believe the common perception of climate change views it as a slow linear shift of planting zones to higher latitudes. Many of the “tipping points” are not known and too much of that uncertainty is lost from the climate patter. The Charney CO2 sensitivity ignores the slow effects that arrive at a less sanguine CO2 sensitivity that darkens the expected future for the 22nd Century and beyond. The growing non-linearity of the climate response to CO2 levels and to the myriad other green-house gases leaves IPCC pronouncements wide-open to disparagement as climate worsens faster and more than predicted. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is definitely a prime cause for the climate change … but I believe the efforts at “s simplification” left the explanation of climate change too open to the claim of deniers that CO2 levels resulted from but did not cause climate change in the past. It was unconscionable for climate scientists to leave such detail from their explanations for simplification. I prefer Hansen’s likening the atmospheric CO2 level to the climate’s thermostat setting. True, CO2 levels rose in the past due to other causes, but playing with the thermostat directly, can achieve similar effects. That is not a concept too complex for us poor laymen to grasp — but left to explanation as a response — greatly weakens the climate argument. The notion that us poor laymen cannot grasp non-linearity might have been easily dispelled by referencing a few YouTube videos of nonlinear pendulums and contemplation of the complexities of weather prediction. I believe us laymen are not stupid — just trained in other disciplines, and generally dismissed and distrusted — whatever opinions we might express..
The inability of scientists to understand another problem in with dealing with the public appalls me. No one really wants to understand or believe the implications of climate change or the changes it will bring and brings already. Discrepancies between the realities of climate change and ‘happy-face’ predictions and over-simplified models only serve to undermine the credibility of climate science. Fossil fuel interests and deniers are all too happy to exploit even the smallest gaps between prediction and actuality.
I am pessimistic about the future. Nothing will be done by our ‘elites’ and us ‘plebs’ will be confused, stupefied, and us powerless plebs can do little or nothing [other than on a personal level] to change the progressing climate change. or adapt to its consequences. All the same, I very greatly appreciate the knowledge and understanding this website and others have brought to me in grasping climate science. I accept their pronouncements and I am taking such actions as I can to adapt to what I have learned. I believe Humankind will suffer through the climate change transition. I also believe that Humankind will find a way forward, and I hope that path does not exclude the great learning and Knowledge acquired in these few centuries of the ‘Age of Fossil Fuels’. That learning could be a beacon for the future of Humankind.
Jeremy Grimm fantastic comment. Thanks for sharing all of it.
I thank to all the scientists at realclimate, and best wishes for the coming decdes.
sidd
Well I suppose we should be grateful and thankful that at least you are still trying after 20 years of failures Rasmus. Unfortunately I have been led to read yet another self-serving oped commentary by a climate scientist imagining that the entire universe revolves around them and their own insular and extremely misguided and uninformed point of view.
The things said here especially those that are not true has made me so angry and exasperatingly disappointed that it is taking every ounce of self-control I can muster to not go incendiary. When I calm down I will address the multiple errors, untrue observations and faulty thinking included in this article.
Until then please try to instead think outside the myopic box of climate science pronouncements and consider the bigger picture involved. Example is no where does Rasmus address the implications of Economics or Consumerism or the Financial Systems as being drivers of climate change and global warming.
————————————-
About the issues raised by Operationalizing Climate Science 17 Nov 2024 by Gavin — and now Rasmus.
The work of climate modelling scientists might be seen as esoteric if it focuses on niche technical issues rather than addressing the broader, pressing problems of climate change. The issue as presented suggests to me a narrow or inward-looking focus, isolated from broader concerns. Focused inwardly means it’s relevant only within the specific group or discipline. In other words Myopic, Self-referential and Insular and not of much public interest and which is of little to no usefulness in addressing the true causes of climate change and global warming – nor communicating about same effectively to the public.
While obviously relevant to the work activities of modelling scientists I think this issue is ‘a curiosity’, even though it still points in the general direction of the underlying more important issues in need of urgent attention — ie if anything can ever really be done to address the global warming and other critical ecological problems and sustainability issues humanity faces.
A lack of Operational Data and Science Analysis is in fact not the barrier to effective environmental actions or addressing energy use across the world. It’s Leadership and Governance – or rather a lack of them.
Summary of My General Thoughts
I have often and for a long time now expressed my significant frustration with the perceived lack of overarching authority or governance in the global climate science and policy landscape. My view suggests that the current system is highly fragmented, with critical activities—such as the provision and analysis of climate data—operating without unified leadership or accountability. I argue that:
1. Leaderless Coordination: Organizations like the IPCC and others fail to provide the strong leadership needed to manage these disparate activities effectively. There is no single authority with the legal or societal mandate to ensure cohesive direction.
2. Self-Governance by Scientists: Climate scientists, while experts in their field, often operate independently, making decisions and setting priorities without external oversight, democratic input, or societal checks.
3. Dysfunction in Global Climate Policy: Bodies like the IPCC and UNFCCC are seen as engaging in self-serving or insular processes that do not adequately address the real-world urgency of climate action, leaving global responses fragmented and ineffective.
4. Questioning Existing Frameworks: I question whether institutions like the IPCC, UNFCCC, and the annual COP meetings are still “fit for purpose” in addressing the existential threat posed by climate change.
Expert Commentary and Public Discourse on the Issue
1. Decentralized Climate Governance:
Many experts agree that global climate governance suffers from fragmentation. For instance, researchers in international relations have critiqued the UNFCCC’s inability to enforce binding commitments from its member states, leading to a patchwork of voluntary and inconsistent efforts.
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a prominent climate scientist, has noted that while the IPCC provides an invaluable synthesis of science, it lacks mechanisms to compel governments to act on its findings.
2. Criticism of the IPCC and COP Processes:
Scholars like Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. and Dr. William Nordhaus have questioned whether the IPCC’s structure—focusing on consensus rather than actionable policy guidance—is suitable for urgent climate crises.
Critics of the annual COP meetings, including activists like Greta Thunberg, have described these gatherings as “performative” or a “talking shop” that results in little substantive progress.
3. Calls for New Models of Leadership:
Some experts advocate for a centralized global climate authority, akin to the World Health Organization, that could coordinate efforts, enforce commitments, and manage funding. For example, the economist Jeffrey Sachs has proposed a UN-led “Climate Agency” with enforcement capabilities.
Others emphasize the need for regional and national integration, suggesting that coalitions of willing nations or blocs could lead by example.
And-
4. Operationalizing Climate Science:
Gavin Schmidt, the NASA scientist behind the Real Climate blog referenced, has argued for greater integration of scientific operations into decision-making processes, but he acknowledges the challenge of aligning data providers, governments, and policymakers under one framework.
More specifically–If the following is not adequately addressed, whatever the Climate Modelling Scientists like Gavin do with their time and resources is irrelevant–moot.
Is the IPCC Still Fit for Purpose?
The IPCC has been vital in summarizing and disseminating climate science, but its limitations include:
– Consensus Focus: The need for unanimous agreement often dilutes urgent or controversial recommendations.
– Lack of Enforceability: The IPCC issues reports but does not have authority to enforce actions based on its findings.
– Lag in Responsiveness: Its long report cycles mean it cannot address rapidly changing climate challenges with agility.
These issues have led some critics to argue that the IPCC is increasingly obsolete in a world that requires faster, more actionable responses.
Are the UNFCCC and COP Meetings Still Fit for Purpose?
Critiques of the UNFCCC and COP processes center on:
– Lack of Binding Mechanisms: The Paris Agreement relies on voluntary national commitments, which are often insufficient and inconsistently implemented.
– Overemphasis on Negotiation: Annual COPs often focus on political posturing rather than delivering concrete action plans.
– Exclusion of Key Voices: Indigenous groups, youth activists, and developing nations frequently criticize the process for prioritizing the interests of wealthier, more powerful countries.
– Questions abound about the usefulness and accuracy of today’s Economic norms and systems
Some have proposed alternatives, such as regional climate pacts or sector-specific agreements (e.g., for energy or agriculture), as more pragmatic and effective solutions.
Recommendations for a Better Framework
1. Establish a Global Climate Authority: Create a centralized entity with binding authority to direct and enforce climate action.
2. Move from Consensus to Leadership: Shift away from consensus-driven approaches to allow bold leadership by coalitions of willing nations or regions.
3. Integrate Science and Policy: Operationalize climate science by embedding experts directly within decision-making frameworks at all levels of governance.
4. Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms: Require transparent reporting, enforce penalties for non-compliance, and involve civil society in monitoring.
This critique aligns with these growing calls for urgent reform, emphasizing that the current frameworks are inadequate for addressing the scale and urgency of the climate crisis.
D: The things said here especially those that are not true has made me so angry and exasperatingly disappointed that it is taking every ounce of self-control I can muster to not go incendiary.
BPL: Post a few more 20-30 paragraph posts. You’ll feel better.
“BPL: Post a few more 20-30 paragraph posts. You’ll feel better.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! :)
Dharma: “1. Establish a Global Climate Authority: Create a centralized entity with binding authority to direct and enforce climate action.”
Not going to happen for the USA. We do not allow external entities to dictate policy within the USA. We fought a war against England so we don’t have to do that. However, what happened to the Paris agreement – why don’t those who signed on to it, do what it says?
Dharma: “…..no where does Rasmus address the implications of Economics or Consumerism or the Financial Systems as being drivers of climate change and global warming.”
The drivers are GHGs, not economics, consumerism or the financial systems. If AGW is real, then it is a physics problem, not a political problem.
Reply to Mr. Know It All
Thank you for your response:
RE: Dharma: “1. Establish a Global Climate Authority: Create a centralized entity with binding authority to direct and enforce climate action.”
Mr. Know It All: Not going to happen for the USA. We do not allow external entities to dictate policy within the USA. We fought a war against England so we don’t have to do that. However, what happened to the Paris agreement – why don’t those who signed on to it, do what it says?
Dharma responds: Regarding the Paris Agreement (not a Treaty) those who signed on to it, are doing what it says. The problem Mr. Know It All is the Paris Agreement does not say much that can impact anything regarding GHG emissions or anything else. It is a “bad” agreement that solves nothing (as per my comments above explained)
And even if it did the Paris Agreement has no enforcement powers to compel nation states to abide by it or take any specific actions to minimise harm to the rest of the world as a whole. Unlike many other UN/International Law or Treaty Agreements such as those related to War and Nuclear Weapons and so on.
Now as to your misinformation and/or lack of true knowledge about US Law Mr. Know It All -Under the U.S. Constitution, international institutions and treaties can influence U.S. law to a degree, but the Constitution maintains sovereignty and ultimate authority. Here are several examples where international treaties or agreements impact U.S. law and policy:
1. Treaty Law and the Supremacy Clause
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that treaties made under the authority of the United States are the “supreme Law of the Land.” This means that treaties can override state laws and, in some cases, influence federal law. Examples include:
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: This treaty requires countries to inform foreign nationals of their right to consular access if detained. The U.S. has been taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for not fully implementing this, as in the Avena Case involving Mexico. Some states resisted compliance, prompting debates about federal versus international obligations.
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC): Implemented through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, this treaty prohibits the production and use of chemical weapons. In Bond v. United States (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that treaty enforcement could not unduly expand federal authority into traditionally state-controlled areas.
2. World Trade Organization (WTO)
As a member of the WTO, the U.S. agrees to abide by its trade rules and dispute resolution mechanisms. While the WTO cannot directly enforce its rulings, its decisions can pressure U.S. policymakers to change laws or face retaliatory trade measures. For example:
Steel Tariffs Case (2002): The WTO ruled that U.S. tariffs on steel imports violated international trade rules. This led to the U.S. removing the tariffs to avoid significant trade retaliation.
3. Paris Climate Agreement
Though the Paris Agreement is not a treaty ratified by the Senate, the U.S. joined under executive authority. It influenced domestic policy by encouraging regulations to reduce carbon emissions, such as the Clean Power Plan. Critics argued that it effectively allowed international climate goals to shape U.S. energy policy.
4. United Nations (UN)
UN resolutions are not binding law in the U.S. but can influence policy when the U.S. agrees to their terms, such as:
UN Security Council Resolutions on Sanctions: These resolutions often lead to U.S. domestic laws or executive orders imposing sanctions on nations like Iran or North Korea. For example, the Iran Sanctions Act incorporates aspects of UN resolutions.
5. The Hague and Geneva Conventions
These treaties establish rules of war and human rights that the U.S. has incorporated into its legal framework. Violations can lead to international scrutiny or legal challenges:
Torture Prohibition: The United Nations Convention Against Torture influenced the creation of U.S. laws banning torture. Post-9/11 policies, such as those involving enhanced interrogation, sparked debates about compliance with this treaty.
6. International Criminal Court (ICC)
While the U.S. is not a member of the ICC, the court’s actions can affect U.S. citizens and policymakers when operating abroad. The ICC claims jurisdiction over war crimes, even in non-member states, if the crime occurs in a member state’s territory.
7. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
This domestic law implements a treaty with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia to protect migratory birds. It has led to regulatory measures that limit private land use and industry activities, demonstrating how treaty obligations shape U.S. environmental policy.
8. International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Conditionality
While the IMF and World Bank do not directly impose U.S. law, their lending conditions and global financial policies influence U.S. economic decisions. For example:
U.S. financial contributions and voting power within these institutions shape how they operate, but in return, the U.S. often aligns domestic economic policies with global financial stability norms.
Key Limits and Controversies
While international treaties and agreements influence U.S. law and policy, they must still comply with the Constitution. In Medellín v. Texas (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that international treaties are not self-executing in U.S. law unless Congress enacts implementing legislation.
And of course, history proves that the US is a rogue nation who has the means to ignore any or all of international unilaterally at any time, and to selectively choose what it cares about rejecting anything on a whim to suit itself.
Therefore the entire notion is moot at this point in time, as was everything suggested as potential alternative approaches I presented above, and those by others equally rejected over the decades. And so, here we are. Doing nothing substantial or effective and heading for general collapse and destruction instead.
Lastly – Mr. Know It All : The drivers are GHGs, not economics, consumerism or the financial systems. If AGW is real, then it is a physics problem, not a political problem.
Mr. Know It All,
You’re not wrong to highlight GHGs as the direct drivers of global warming—they are the ‘physics problem’ at the heart of describing the scientific problem at hand. However, the analogy of ‘what drives the car’ might help unpack the relationship between the symptoms (GHGs) and the underlying systems that generate them.
GHGs don’t just appear out of nowhere—they are the byproducts of human activities, which are, in turn, shaped by economic, consumer, and financial systems. These systems determine how much energy we consume, what sources we rely on, and how industries and nations prioritize short-term growth over long-term sustainability. In other words:
– The engine of the problem is economics, driving the scale and type of resource exploitation.
– The gasoline is consumerism, fueling demand for energy-intensive goods and services.
– And the driver? That’s us—guided by financial systems and policies that often incentivize unsustainable practices over renewable alternatives or massive reductions of wasteful unnecessary material consumption and ignoring the destructive outcomes on our collective life support system of Earth’s ecosystems and environmental diversity.
Physics may explain how GHGs cause warming, but economics and consumer behavior explain why they’re emitted in the first place. Addressing AGW without exploring these systemic factors is like trying to fix a car by focusing only on the exhaust fumes, ignoring the driver’s role and the fuel being used.
Mr. Know It All, you appear to be making the very same mistake that many climate scientists, economists, and pro-climate activists make when trying to stop global warming. You’re stuck in the Chicken or Egg Dilemma and cannot see your way out of this circular thinking.
Nice chatting. Let’s do it again soon. :-)
BPL: Post a few more 20-30 paragraph posts. You’ll feel better.
Dharma: OK thanks for the ‘tip’. I will. When I’m ready. I do not need you to tell me how to live my life. No one cares what your opinion is either.
Dharmas comments
“Example is no where does Rasmus address the implications of Economics or Consumerism or the Financial Systems as being drivers of climate change and global warming.”
IMO its not a climate scientists job to do that task. They would not have the expertise. Its an issue related to economics and the other social sciences. I seem to recall you suggesting elsewhere climate scientists strick to the science :) Maybe the website could get in a guest author or something.
“– Lack of Enforceability: The IPCC issues reports but does not have authority to enforce actions based on its findings.”
Yes I think people have noticed that thanks. And its incredibly unlikely to change in the next 50 years if ever. Which is why I dont waste time on the issue.
Reply to Nigelj:
“Maybe the website could get in a guest author or something.”
Why? What difference would it make to you or anyone else here? They haven’t done it in 20 years, so why start now? Besides, any genuine voice advocating meaningful climate action would only face the same myopic pushback you and others consistently dish out.
Your typical passive-aggressive doomer stance—‘nothing can be done, so let’s not even mention it’—is a constant refrain here. It effectively stifles constructive discussion and leaves no room for exploring solutions or deeper truths.
That said, the website already has me, Geoff, Don, and occasionally others dropping in to pass on the hard realities—the ones so often denied or minimized here and in similar spaces. For those interested in diving deeper, consider this:
Collapse Chronicle https://collapsechronicle.substack.com/ or any of the countless references I and other like-minded, better-informed rational knowledgeable contributors have shared over time.
You’re more than welcome. :-)
Dharma
“Besides, any genuine voice advocating meaningful climate action would only face the same myopic pushback you and others consistently dish out.”
I disagree. I support the mainstream approach of renewables and electrified transport and moderate reductions of energy use. That is definitely meaningful climate action. You have supported renewables in your recent comments so I dont see how you can disagree.
I oppose huge, rapid programmes of degrowth, energy use reduction, and simplification, because it would almost certainly cause the economy to collapse very badly, and is very unlikely to be adopted. I think that is very valid pushback.
I feel that socialism at scale is not workable based on history and human nature. But if you support socialism fair enough and all power to you.
“Your typical passive-aggressive doomer stance—‘nothing can be done, so let’s not even mention it’—is a constant refrain here. It effectively stifles constructive discussion and leaves no room for exploring solutions or deeper truths.”
I dont know where you get that from about not mentioning things. I have no opposition to DISCUSSING degowth ideas and socialism etcetera. it was me who suggested the website should have a page like forced responses for discussing all possible mitigation solutions. I made one comment about it not being worth my time considering the idea that the IPCC have enforcement powers. This is just one speciific issue and was a bit of cynacism on my part. It should not be taken to mean that I felt other solutions are not worthy of discussion.
“That said, the website already has me, Geoff, Don, and occasionally others dropping in to pass on the hard realities—the ones so often denied or minimized here and in similar spaces.”
I largely agree with Geoff Miels take on the science, warming trends and mitigation, but some of his statements on warming trends sounded wrong to me and other commentators, and I don’t think that should be ignored simply because we are generally on the same page. I think Geoff would understand that. Its a case of avoiding group think. Likewise I get where you are coming from on the issues. Dont take criticism personally.
Reply to Nigelj
Your pushback contrary position is again unconvincing. Noothing in your repsonses have addressed anything related to the content of my comment you are “supposedly” respond to — here go have another look Nigelj
Dharma says
23 Nov 2024 at 6:11 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827298
No where did that mention “degrowth” or any of the other things you are harping on now. These are your issues Nigelj, if you would like to talk about them and say they are bad why not just write your comment and leave me and my own excellent comments about other things out of it? I repaet what I said above – “myopic pushback” isn;t going to cut it, sorry.
And I do not care about things that other say ” sounded wrong to you ” – another typically vague non-specific broadside criticism of unnamed others with not a single fact, data or evidence to support your allegations. No one even knows what the issues are you have a problem with. Saying something didn’t feel right isn’t worth saying on a climate change / science blog! It’s a waste of space. It’s all background noise Nigelj. Why not be specific, quote verbatim what you take issue with, and then provide a convincing detailed evidence based argument if you believe you can refute what others are saying?
And please leave me out of that discussion – unless you think I have said something “false” or “untrue”.
about “Dont take (objective genuine) criticism personally.
I don;t Nigelj. I only take perosnal criticism personally.
Especially the kind of unfounded irrational personal criticisms and totally false unfounded personal allegations that are thrown me daily. I cannot control that, all I can do is ignore them (usually I do) or refute them when particularly egregious or ridiculous.
But if the trolls stopped doing this, my posting count would probably be cut by 75% overnight. Have a nice day. Let’s do this again sometime.
PS
Please do re-read my original comment in this thread https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827298 and reconsider why you are saying what you are saying to me now. To me it makes little to no logical sense at all. It does not follow iow.
Dharma
You said: “No where did that mention “degrowth” or any of the other things you are harping on now. These are your issues Nigelj, if you would like to talk about them and say they are bad why not just write your comment and leave me and my own excellent comments about other things out of it? I repaet what I said above – “myopic pushback” isn;t going to cut it, sorry.
Indeed you didnt mention degrowth etc,,etc and thats the problem. You made a general and vague allegation against me as follows: “Besides, any genuine voice advocating meaningful climate action would only face the same myopic pushback you and others consistently dish out,” with no examples and no evidence.. I did my best to quote the most likely examples like any normal person would. And I explained why I pushed back against some of them.
Your excellent comments? I reckon you might have some serious narcissism going on. I say this as an A grade student in university level psychology although I majored in another discipline.
You said “And I do not care about things that other say ” sounded wrong to you ” – another typically vague non-specific broadside criticism of unnamed others with not a single fact, data or evidence to support your allegations. ”
You have completely missed the point, being that I don’t disagree with Geoff Miels position on the whole but might disagree from time to time on some aspects. The specifics I disagree on were irrelevant to my point.
“Saying something didn’t feel right isn’t worth saying on a climate change / science blog! ”
I didnt say something felt right. Stop making stuff up. Even when I do express feelings on other websites I always give reasons, and its not in relation to scientific issues, its more on political issues where feelings do count for something.
Even if you dont set out to be a troll you are certainly acting like one. A whole lot of people are accusing you of being a troll, but you just continue in the same way, Unfortunately this helps prove their point.
D: any genuine voice advocating meaningful climate action would only face the same myopic pushback you and others consistently dish out.
BPL: You’re like a martyr to science. Very like Galileo, in fact.
A Response to Rasmus’s “Twenty Years of Blogging in Hindsight”
Rasmus, while it’s commendable that RealClimate has persisted for 20 years, your retrospective raises more concerns than celebrations. You highlight the failures of climate communication, the rising CO₂ levels, and the proliferation of misinformation, but your analysis seems narrowly confined to the scientific echo chamber and misses crucial systemic issues. Nate Hagens provides a great in-depth resources about those systemic issues – see https://www.thegreatsimplification.com – far better than I could ever articulate.
Let me outline some key points of contention:
1. Misplaced Responsibility
You mention that the message of climate science hasn’t reached key decision-makers like CEOs of fossil fuel companies, OPEC leaders, or politicians.
That is false claim to make. They know exactly what the message of climate science via climate scientists, the IPCC is. They are not stupid nor deaf and blind. They have not been living under a rock. They know exactly what the claims of climate scientists are and the kinds of things you present as supposedly “solutions” or “actions” to fix the problem. Fact is that ‘message’ does not solve anything.
Plus, energy companies are not legally or morally responsible for how fossil fuels are used—humanity as a collective is. Fossil fuels were and remain integral to modern life, powering economies, providing livelihoods, and enabling technological progress. Blaming energy companies alone oversimplifies the problem and perpetuates a dangerous myth: that these entities alone hold the key to solving climate change. They don’t.
Governments, regulatory bodies, and the very structures of global economics and consumerism are the real drivers. Without addressing consumption patterns, economic growth models, and the incentives that perpetuate fossil fuel dependency, no amount of CO₂ data graphs or attribution studies will bend the Keeling curve.
2. Overreliance on Communication Tools
You lament the “bad habit” of speaking in “code language” and suggest AI tools and social media platforms like BlueSky as solutions. This misses the forest for the trees. The failure isn’t in translation; it’s in the inability of climate science to integrate with broader disciplines like economics, sociology, and political science. The failure is climate scientist own choices of deploying bad language, bad rhetoric and bad arguments and presenting ineffective non-solutions that can never work as such.
Social media is not a solution—it’s a distraction. Platforms like BlueSky or Mastodon will not alter the trajectory of global emissions. No more than starting another Climate Science Blog will. Focusing on better communication ignores the more significant issue: systemic change requires political will, enforceable legal frameworks, and economic restructuring. Writing posts on BlueSky and here won’t achieve that.
3. Lack of Interdisciplinary Focus
Your article perpetuates the insular nature of climate science. You talk about “attribution studies” and “the hydrological cycle” but fail to mention fundamental issues like global economic systems, consumerism, and financial incentives driving the relentless exploitation of fossil fuels. Climate scientists alone don’t—and can’t—offer solutions to these problems. They should instead serve as advisors, providing evidence and analysis to legally empowered entities capable of making enforceable changes.
What’s missing is a call for an international body—an enforceable Climate Agency with the legal authority to regulate emissions, oversee compliance, and impose penalties for violations. Without this, the IPCC, NASA, and similar organizations are limited to issuing reports that end up being ignored at COP after COP.
4. The Irony of COP Failures
You correctly observe the “sad irony” that emissions increase after each climate summit. What’s missing is an acknowledgment of why these summits fail: they lack binding legal frameworks, mechanisms for enforcement, and accountability for non-compliance. Until these elements are addressed, no amount of public awareness or “climate literacy” campaigns will move the needle. It’s not a strange coincidence – the failure is as clear as the effect of gravity to us.
5. A Call for Focus and Responsibility
If RealClimate is to continue its work more effectively, it needs a shift in focus. The role of climate scientists is not to “fix” climate change but to provide the data and analysis that decision-makers—governments, courts, and international regulatory bodies—can use to enforce meaningful action.
The idea that better messaging or social media presence will drive change is a fallacy. What we need is:
Binding international agreements with enforcement mechanisms.
Economic restructuring to decouple growth from emissions.
Public policies that incentivize renewable energy adoption and penalize excessive emissions.
Consumer behavior changes driven by systemic reforms, not guilt-inducing campaigns.
An end to the self-defeating notions by radical climate scientists/activists like “Climate Wars” when we are all – all of humanity – in this together!
You cannot just pretend that 50% of the voting public in the United States (for example) do not exist and have not rights and no say in how climate change is addressed.
Final Thoughts
After 20 years, it seems RealClimate’s focus hasn’t evolved beyond basic public awareness and serving a very small narrow group of regulars. While this is a necessary foundation, it’s insufficient on its own. I urge you and your colleagues to think bigger and engage with broader interdisciplinary solutions. Climate change isn’t just a scientific issue—it’s a political, economic, and social one.
Instead of focusing on how to better “talk to” the public, perhaps it’s time to advocate for the creation of legally empowered global climate institutions capable of enforcing the changes we so desperately need.
Instead of focusing on complaints about some quarters like Energy Corporations, elite CEOs, Economists, Social Scientists, and Politicians, and Governments and the Public “not listening to you, or hearing you”, perhaps it’s time to advocate for Climate Scientists, the IPCC and Science institutions to start listening to them and actually hearing what it is they are saying and why they say it?
And instead stop providing false unachievable impractical theoretical non-solutions like Net Zero and 1.5C and CDR and BECCS and SRM programs. Stop arguing against Nuclear energy options! Stop criticising and belittling the public on social media who are genuinely concerned about collapse scenarios , limits to growth, the greater threats like nuclear war and major ecological destruction. And stop criticising and belittling those in our communities who have already lost faith and trust in Governments, political parties, the media and scientific institutions. Their scepticism, cynicism and rejection is justifiable and reasonable!
Or simply get out the way of solutions being found?
While scientific advancements and policy shifts are vital, real change begins with acknowledging the paradox of pursuing development at the planet’s expense and addressing the systemic barriers to adopting clean, efficient technologies. This is as much about aligning priorities and making informed choices as it is about technological innovation or scientific expertise.
One does not need to be a climate scientist to understand what needs to be done to address the causes of climate change and global warming. The solutions are often rooted in common sense and basic principles of sustainability: reducing dependency on fossil fuels, transitioning to cleaner energy sources, protecting natural ecosystems, and curbing wasteful consumption.
But before any of those can be acted on we need good leadership and governance based upon shared values, rising above blame and fault finding, real honesty and ethical principles.
Life on Earth relies on delicate interconnections, from insects to microbes. If these were wiped out, life on the planet would soon collapse. Ironically, if humans disappeared, the planet would thrive. This is the perspective we need: climate change threatens our existence, not the Earth’s.
It’s our collective responsibility to act. This is not some definable human error only a few have perpetrated against the whole of humanity. This crisis is of all our own making. And the crisis we talk about isn’t the planet’s—it’s a crisis for human survival.
This is what I have learned from 30 years being engaged in these issues.
Dharma, not saying you are wrong, but I have a certain reaction to one of the action plans you listed as follows:
“Binding international agreements with enforcement mechanisms.”
This is desirable, however we ended up with the Paris Accords a voluntary system because nobody would agree on binding agreements. So whats your plan to change this?
“Economic restructuring to decouple growth from emissions.”
What does this mean? Whats your plan? If you are meaning adopting zero economic growth, or degrowth, how would you convince people to embrace zero economic growth or degrowth (negative growth) when people know it could mean they loose their job and house? Im not saying endless economic growth is desirable or it can go on forever, (it obviously cant) but the ship we are all sailing on has a certain intertia and is hard to stop, because if it stops it gets unstable. And changing ships mid stream is a task that is very difficult at best.
“Public policies that incentivize renewable energy adoption and penalize excessive emissions.”
Agreed but we already have those: Subsidies, cap and trade schemes, carbon taxes depending on the country or region. They are not strong enough for reasons I explained elsewhere. We should of course do all we can to convince our leaders to strengthen them, as well as make what changes we can in our personal lives to reduce carbon footprints. We clearly need both government action and personal action, because either alone are insufficient.
“Consumer behavior changes driven by systemic reforms, not guilt-inducing campaigns.”
Guilt is not helpful, but define systemic reforms in detail. What does it mean and what is the plan?
“An end to the self-defeating notions by radical climate scientists/activists like “Climate Wars” when we are all – all of humanity – in this together!”
There are climate wars going on just as there are culture wars going on. We cant ignore that reality or sugar coat it. While as a general rule I prefer to treat people like climate denialists in a polite and civil way sometimes they need to be called out for talking like idiots. Just occasionally of course or the word loses its power.
Reply to Nigelj applies to both comments:
In a recent article, The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth, some of the world’s leading climate scientists lay it out.
“We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled. We are stepping into a critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis . . . For half a century, global warming has been correctly predicted even before it was observed—and not only by independent academic scientists but also by fossil fuel companies.
“Despite these warnings, we are still moving in the wrong direction; fossil fuel emissions have increased to an all-time high, the 3 hottest days ever occurred in July of 2024, and current policies have us on track for approximately 2.7 degrees Celsius peak warming by 2100.
“Tragically, we are failing to avoid serious impacts, and we can now only hope to limit the extent of the damage. We are witnessing the grim reality of the forecasts as climate impacts escalate, bringing forth scenes of unprecedented disasters around the world and human and nonhuman suffering. We find ourselves amid an abrupt climate upheaval, a dire situation never before encountered in the annals of human existence. We have now brought the planet into climatic conditions never witnessed by us or our prehistoric relatives within our genus . . . “
The scientists spell out the gory details, illustrating our global wrong way direction.
“Fossil fuel consumption rose by 1.5% in 2023 relative to 2022, mostly because of substantial increases in coal consumption (1.6%) and oil consumption (2.5%).”
“Global tree cover loss rose from 22.8 megahectares (Mha) per year in 2022 to 28.3 Mha per year in 2023, reaching its third-highest level; this was at least partly because of wildfires, which caused tree cover loss to reach a record high of 11.9 Mha.”
“Annual energy-related emissions increased 2.1% in 2023, and are now above 40 gigatons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent for the first time . . . the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are at record highs. . . Carbon dioxide levels were recently observed to be surging . . . Furthermore, the growth rate of methane emissions has been accelerating, which is very troubling . . . Nitrous oxide is also at a record high; annual anthropogenic emissions of this potent long-lived greenhouse gas have increased by roughly 40% from 1980 to 2020.”
“Surface temperature is at a record high, and 2024 is expected to be one of the hottest years ever recorded. Each 0.1°C of global warming places an extra 100 million people (or more) into unprecedented hot average temperatures.”
To the credit of this group, led by William Ripple of Oregon State University, they place the situation in the overall context of ecological overshoot.
“Global heating, although it is catastrophic, is merely one aspect of a profound polycrisis that includes environmental degradation, rising economic inequality, and biodiversity loss. Climate change is a glaring symptom of a deeper systemic issue: ecological overshoot, where human consumption outpaces the Earth’s ability to regenerate. Overshoot is an inherently unstable state that cannot persist indefinitely. As pressures increase and the risk of Earth’s climate system switching to a catastrophic state rises. more and more scientists have begun to research the possibility of societal collapse.”
“In a world with finite resources, unlimited growth is a perilous illusion. We need bold, transformative change: drastically reducing overconsumption and waste, especially by the affluent, stabilizing and gradually reducing the human population through empowering education and rights for girls and women, reforming food production systems to support more plant-based eating, and adopting an ecological and post-growth economics framework that ensures social justice.”
Will the world listen?
The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth
William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Jillian W Gregg, Johan Rockström, Michael E Mann, Naomi Oreskes, Timothy M Lenton, Stefan Rahmstorf, Thomas M Newsome, Chi Xu …
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae087/7808595
Make your own choices Nigelj for you will be held accountable for them, as will everyone else.
I am not going to hold your hand like you are a child. Work it out for yourself what it all means
Dharma, your response fails addresses the points I made, it doesnt even attempt to answer any of my questions, or clarify any of the terms you used. So it was a deflection and a complete waste of time and space.
and Stefan Rahmstorf
While Gavin Schmidt says: “You shouldn’t ask scientists how to galvanize the world because clearly we don’t have a fucking clue.”
Nigelj, ley me say it like the dude in the movie No Country for Old Men said to the gas station attendant: “Call it!”
Thank you all for running the blog. A source of useful information, perspectives from the people actually moving the climate science forward, and invaluable help in making sense of recent literature and data for people like me.
Initial feedback —
Thanks for the reminder. I also started my blog >20 years ago, and passed by the anniversary w/o a 2nd thought. So I just wrote a complementary hindsight blog post => https://geoenergymath.com/2024/11/24/20yrs-of-blogging-in-hindsight.
Definitely a mirror universe we inhabit, which is why I keep reading and engaged.
@rasmus;
…such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), and we can now use chatGPT to respond to emails from climate deniers which was science fiction in 2004. AI is also currently revolutionising weather forecasting
while using exorbitant amounts of energy to run it, such great “revolution” when its responsible for restarting coal-plants to fulfil the energy-demand it needs. and please, can we at least stop calling it “ai”, because its not “Artificial Intelligence”. at best its SAI (Simulated Artificial Intelligence).
Your sentence: “It strikes me that we still have a bad habit of speaking in a code language with confusing phrases and terminology that is only familiar for those already familiar with climate science and who already are persuaded” strikes at the core of our problem.
Reading through IPCC materials — even the summaries for policy makers — is often like wading through a treacle of jargon and probabilities. Why is this the case? I have non-exclusive hypotheses: 1) Writing by committee seldom ends well; 2) In an effort to leach their reports of all emotional content, the IPCC end sup writing materials that utterly fail to acknowledge that someone has to read this stuff; 3) A failure to rigorously reframe reports so that they are written in plain language (much the same could be said for a lot of climate graphics as well); and 4) the IPCC’s well-known bias to more conservative projections.
Speaking to #3, government bureaucracies around the world have committed to “Plain Language” communications — that is, language that is as jargon-free as possible and which communicates complex materials with the average reader in mind. However, it’s been my experience (as a regular user of Government of Canada materials) that the writers and editors of these communications haven’t received the memo. The language is as opaque and convoluted as ever.
Perhaps it’s time that all IPCC committee members and writers received mandatory training in plain language communications
ANY discipline or trade has its unique language (jargon if you will ) because it deals with complex details /important distinctions that the layman does not understand. Look at a medical textbook or a soldier’s field manual. Scientists are adverse to making definite statements if the evidence suggests only 90 percent probability that the statement is true. Ask NASA about this year’s hurricane prediction.
to Don Williams and Andrew Park and everyone else:
COMPARE WHAT FOLLOWS WITH THIS SOURCE TEXT HERE –
IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis
Summary for Policymakers
Section C. Climate Information for Risk Assessment and Regional Adaptation https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
Understanding Climate Risks and Regional Changes
The climate is changing because of human activities, natural processes, and random variations in weather patterns. Scientists study these changes to predict what might happen in the future and to help communities prepare for risks like floods, droughts, and extreme weather. They use data from weather observations, computer models, and other tools to provide detailed information about global, regional, and local climates.
What Happens as the Planet Warms?
As global temperatures rise, every region will experience more extreme weather events. These changes will be more intense at 2°C warming compared to 1.5°C, and even worse at higher temperatures. Here’s a breakdown of what to expect:
Hotter Days, Less Ice:
All regions will get hotter, and cold-related events (like freezing temperatures or heavy snow) will happen less often.
Ice, including permafrost, glaciers, and Arctic sea ice, will shrink even more as temperatures climb.
Extreme heat, which affects farming and human health, will become more common.
More Rain and Flooding:
Heavy rainfall and flooding are expected to become more frequent in many parts of Africa, Asia, North America, and Europe, especially as we move from 1.5°C to 2°C warming.
However, some areas will also see more droughts that could harm crops and ecosystems.
Droughts and Dry Spells:
Droughts will become worse in certain areas, especially in Africa, South America, Europe, and Australia.
Some regions will experience more dry periods or shifts in average rainfall patterns.
Stronger Storms:
At higher temperatures, tropical cyclones and other powerful storms are likely to become stronger and more damaging in some regions.
River flooding and fire risks will also increase in many places.
Rising Seas:
Sea levels are expected to keep rising almost everywhere, causing more frequent coastal flooding and erosion.
What used to be rare, like a major coastal flood happening once every 100 years, could happen yearly by 2100.
Cities Face Unique Risks:
Urban areas tend to trap heat, making heatwaves worse. More buildings and pavement also lead to heavier rainfall and flooding.
Coastal cities are at even higher risk due to a combination of rising seas, storm surges, and extreme rain.
Compound Events:
Heatwaves and droughts will happen together more often, creating even bigger challenges for agriculture and water supplies.
Extreme weather in multiple parts of the world at the same time will become more common, which could disrupt food production and global trade.
What Does This Mean?
The more the planet warms, the bigger the risks we face. These changes are not just numbers—they affect our daily lives, economies, and safety. Communities will need to adapt to these challenges, and reducing global warming can help limit the worst impacts.
[ END NOTE: It isn’t rocket science! ]
a clarification – Understanding Climate Risks and Regional Changes
(the Edited Section was C.2)
1) Thanks very much for the blog and the information.
2) Something I would be interested in is information that is actionable or useful. What bad weather events are parts of the USA likely to experience in the coming decades and when. What are the likely consequences –e.g, on house values. What areas of the USA (or Canada? or elswhere?) are likely to be more safe. What events and or material needs are likely to spur war or Volkerwanderungs among nations. What investments are likely to rise or fall. What materials would a family find useful –e.g, maize varieties with greater genetic diversity/better adapted to variable weather for home gardens. What actions by our politicians /elites are helping or hurting mitigation/adaptation.
3) Models are not evidence. What physical evidence is there that shows climate change is beginning to happen. What anomalies are there –e.g Jeff Bezos building a $270 million mansion on Indian Island in Miami– 5? feet above sea level.
4) What actions are billionaires with inside knowledge taking to survive climate change.– e.g, Pierre Omidyar’s land purchases.
3) Make realclimate real.
DW: Models are not evidence. What physical evidence is there that shows climate change is beginning to happen.
BPL: Thermometer readings dating back to 1850, ocean buoy temperatures, borehole temperatures, balloon radiosonde temperatures, satellite temperature estimates, tree lines moving toward the poles and up mountains, melting glaciers and sea ice, the eggs of fish, insects, amphibians, reptiles and birds hatching earlier, plants flowering earlier, sea level rising… and many others. I can’t remember them all offhand, but a Google search would probably help.
Don’t forget long term lake/river freeze-up/ice-out data! Re. “plants flowering”, the records of the dates of cherry blossom timings in Kyoto go back some 12 centuries and show clear drift.
Don Williams, many of the answers are in the the latest IPCC reports. They are available for free online. Refer:
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
Your huge list of questions sounds a bit like “sea lioning”. Not a good look.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
1) My questions were not sealioning –they were sincere. I think the average US voter does not care about the turgid IPCC reports and certainly are not interested in wading through them. It would be more useful to point to actual things they can see I noted in a comment a few days ago the shrinkage of Arctic ice –although that requires someone to assume our intel guys weren’t lying about 1960 photos in order to suck up to VP Al Gore during a period of massive budget cuts. However, there is also the shrinkage of glaciers Why not have a FAQ here listing other physical signs that ordinary people can see and that do require a blind faith in academic integrity.
2) Similarly, you need to show US voters that the dangers they themselves will face are increasing –and we have always had hurricanes, floods and droughts. The people also look for actions –not mere words — as a sign of sincerity. Our elites have access to inside knowledge by virtue of their wealth and campaign donations If their actions show a lack of concern for climate change that gets noticed. As do actions to raid the US Treasury Conversely, actions to evade climate change dangers shows real concern. Elon Musk says we should buy his electric cars. But why did he move to Texas instead of Minnesota?
Don Williams, people like you keep on asking for information on climate trends. We have been putting it infront of you for decades, in multiple forms from basic to advanced, and you keep on saying you arent getting the information. It just really frustates me. This website has a list of links to climate change websites from basic to advanced:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
From the NASA link on the basics: “It is impossible to pin any single unusual weather event on global warming, but emerging evidence suggests that global warming is already influencing the weather. Heat waves, droughts, and intense rain events have increased in frequency during the last 50 years, and human-induced global warming more likely than not contributed to the trend.” If you want more detail this website has provided links.
Yes agreed the elites need to set an example, but its weak saying that because some of them do nothing about the climate issue, neither should I.
I have no idea why Elon Musk located his factory in Texas. It didnt make his cars high emissions. He hasnt broken any laws has he?. Its like you are looking for any excuse to discredit the science or mitigation policies, and to do nothing about the problem. Again I just find that sort of thing a bit frustrating.
Reply to Don Williams
Nothing you said above (or ever) is “sealioning”. There was no “huge list” of questions either. A ridiculous comment that.
Try and ignore the trolling pushback. You ask good probing (+rhetorical) questions all the time and add value. Good down to earth common sense explanations is what the public needs to hear. Especially those who don’t yet “believe” the problem is serious and the evidence is everywhere or are treated like 3rd class citizens too stupid or “fascist” to understand. Everyone deserves respect no matter what they think or know. Unfortunately the right info is just poorly explained generally or not presented competently via the mass media channels or by politicians and governments – COP IPCC or on blogs substack Twitter/X or Bluesky Facebook etc etc.
No one is in charge no one is accountable no one has authority no one has the power to change anything no one is leading.
Dharma
“There was no “huge list” of questions either. A ridiculous comment that.”
You could not be more wrong. There were 11 questions in a relatively short post of just 15 lines. His post was almost entirely questions. They were NOT rhetorical questions eiither.
And dont imply Im a troll. I gave the man a reference and warned him he is making himself look like hes sea lioning. That is not trolling. Look it up in a dictionary,
correction: signs ….. that do NOT require a blind faith in academic integrity
You really do not understand the scientific process, do you? Science does not require that you place faith in any single person’s integrity, because science is inherently a collective enterprise.
All individuals have biases, but different individuals have different biases. Taken as a whole, those biases tend to cancel unless there arises some extraordinary set of circumstances where self-interest favors a single bias. Because the ultimate goal of any scientific field is to understand the subject being studied, this tends to bias science toward the truth. Even if acceptance of a particular theory benefits a few scientists, the theory will be rejected if it yields a poorer understanding of the subject.
The best thing you can do is try to understand to the extent of your ability the basics of the subject matter:
1) Greenhouse gasses warm a planet if temperatures of the atmosphere cool at higher altitudes
2) We are dumping unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere
and so on.
Once you get to the level where you cannot understand more, I am afraid that then you will have to rely on the credibility of recognized experts–those who actively publish in the field. Publications and citations are the most reliable indicators of true expertise. The publications of the few denialist scientists tend to be isolated damp squibs that just lie there after publication like a dog turd on a New York sidewalk.
As to evidence that the planet is warming–that is incontrovertible. If you are older than 30 years, you’ve seen it yourself. There are also time series of observations of the blooming of the cherry blossoms in Kyoto dating back more than 400 years showing the recent rapid rise incontrovertibly.
Hurricane Helene was a direct consequence of the rapid warming of the Gulf of Mexico. The evidence is there.
Don Williams,
I think one piece of info you could look at would Hurricane Helene, which got jammed right up the posterior of the FL panhandle and caused extreme damage into the Carolinas. One of the towns hardest hit was Ashville, which had been hailed by retirement magazines as a haven from climate change. I guess that didn’t work out too well for the rich retirees who moved there.
None of this information is esoteric or occult. It is all available if you choose to look it up. You will, however, need an attention span longer than the average Jack Russell terrier.
As Richard Hamming said, “The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers.” This includes climate models. So, in that sense, models are evidence. Their predictive power provides evidence that the underlying assumptions–the theories–are true. Quit looking for hidden signs in the actions of billionaires. They’re no more likely to have an intelligent take on scientific matters than the average football fan. Indeed, their success in financial matters often leads to an inflated sense of their own intelligence, making them more susceptible to drawing stupid conclusions.
Listen to the experts–the ones whose day job it is to understand the subject matter.
Climate change made Hurricane Helene and other 2024 disasters more damaging, scientists find: Rising global temperatures are amplifying deadly extreme weather events.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/10/climate-change-made-hurricane-helene-and-other-2024-disasters-more-damaging-scientists-find/
[from the world’s best weather/climate experts]
in Re to Don Williams, 26 Nov 2024 at 12:06 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827480
Dear Don,
As far as I remember your posts, I think they are sincere. So far, I do not see a ground
for doubting about your integrity, in a strong contrast to Dharma which is merely a further disguise for a subject with a single true goal: To recruit supporters and use them as a “human shield” for him/her/it, with the aim to gain/stabilize/reinforce an influence on this website and run the shameful hybrid war campaign of his/her/its sponsor more efficiently.
Thank you for your questions and best regards
Tomáš
Thank you, Rasmus, Gavin, Stefan, Mike and Eric, and David Archer, Ray Bradley, et al. historical contributors along wih occasional guest authors, for providing a dependable platform for comprehensive non-experts like me to educate ourselves. While I first heard of AGW in 1988 while employed in tech support for the Laboratory for Terrestrial Physics at Goddard Space Flight Center, much of my current understanding is by following original posts on RC, and the ensuing comments. That includes both scientific literacy and metaliteracy, i.e. distinguishing good science from not-so-good. I’m still a non-expert of course, never having tried to publish in the same journals or attend the same conferences y’all do. I’ll never have anything authentically new to contribute, but my ingrained need to get my head around the problem, as much as any concern for the consequences of AGW, has kept me coming back here.
My other motivation for coming here through the years is participating in the comment threads, with their numerous well-informed, thoughtful and articulate contributors in support of the expert consensus. I’m driven by personality to counter, with sometimes savage glee, the zombie false or misleading denialist memes that repeatedly return here from the dead, seeking brains. I appreciate the contributions of Ray Ladbury, Susan Anderson, nigelj et al., even zebra, and I can hardly forget Russell Seitz either; apologies to other climate realists I didn’t name. One doesn’t need to be a peer-reviewed expert to defend climate science against motivated denialists, but it helps to be armed with consensus knowledge (i.e. justified belief) that’s accessible to everyone. Scientific peers all know what any of them does, and they don’t let their peers get away with fooling themselves! Conversely, failure to recognize genuine expertise is a manifestation of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Lately, more revenants are nihilistic doomers, rather than outright deniers. Certain ‘nyms are driven by simple binary (“it’s too late”), rather than scalar and time-dependent (“it will keep getting worse until anthropogenic greenhouse emissions cease”) apprehensions. I have some sympathy for them, especially after 11/5/2024, but their iterative, impervious insistence has made the comment threads less interesting. One occasionally needs a break from ceaseless whack-a-troll. anyway. OTOH, I can still read the OPs for new knowledge, and by scrolling patiently I still occasionally find comments worth responding to. Again, my profound thanks to the dedicated blog authors! May you blog 20 years more.
One thing is certain. Eight billion people need to be fed. And the only transportation that is viable now is done using fossil fuels. This will take place regardless of what the climate does. Or the Keeling curve will slowly bend down. Ayn Rand was supposed to have said: “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
“The only transport that is viable now is done using fossil fuels”
This is a blatant lie. Some people do shopping in electric cars. Some food is transported in electric trucks using hydrogen fuel cell technology. This has the potential to grow. Ayn rands philosophy is useless.
Obviously I wasn’t referring to what a few EVs can do, but to what CVs do to install renewables, solar and wind farm projects, as well as deliver food and all of the materials needed.. You took my words out of context.
Reply to Ken Towe
“You took my words out of context.”
There is a large cohort here who do that constantly. The unknown is do they do it on purpose to aggravate others, or too slow to realise what they are doing all the time?
Responses that then label you as a liar, them making unfounded allegations that you’re telling lying is equally the go to reply the same cohort uses. I can only suggest do not take it personally. Complaining about it changes nothing. They know not what they do, maybe applies.
for a larger context see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIqd8ABi6YA
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci7VK75sMsY
iow speak your truth and carry on, let it go.
Ken Towe, your post that I was previouslyresponding to made no mention of installing renewables, and I cant read your mind on what you think you meant. So I took nothing out of context.
KT: Ayn Rand was supposed to have said: “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
BPL: Although she did plenty of that herself.
Rasmus wrote: “The message needs to be understood in the boardrooms of oil and coal companies, and by their CEOs, shareholders, and investors. Also by OPEC and politicians who make decisions about fossil resources.”
With all due respect, that statement indicates a total disconnect from reality.
The fossil fuel executives and the leaders of the fascist petrostates ALREADY “understand” the message. The fossil fuel corporations have “understood” the message for SEVENTY YEARS, since their own scientists told them exactly what global warming would do.
And their response was to launch a 70-year-long campaign of deceit and denial.
They don’t deny the reality of global warming and delay and obstruct action to reduce emissions because they don’t “understand”. On the contrary they deny global warming because they DO understand — they understand that to have any hope of averting catastrophe, the fossil fuel industry must END.
SA: Rasmus wrote: “The message needs to be understood in the boardrooms of oil and coal companies, and by their CEOs, shareholders, and investors. Also by OPEC and politicians who make decisions about fossil resources.”
With all due respect, that statement indicates a total disconnect from reality.
We can be confident RC’s authors are all aware not only of the global realpolitik predicated on the sale of fossil carbon for all the traffic will bear while socializing climate change out of the price, but also the long campaign of public disinformation and political manipulation in the US, funded by the Koch brothers and their carbon-capitalist allies. Mike Mann even wrote a book about being a target of a “Serengeti strategy”, whereby he was singled out for legal and media attack, as a proxy for the scientific consensus. It’s not that the blog’s authors are disconnected from reality, it’s that they’re here as professional scientists, who must not appear to be politically motivated!
Of course, with understanding of the physical causes and mechanism of anthropogenic climate change now established, the problem of capping the cost in money and tragedy is in the realms of economics and politics, which are outside the declared scope of this blog. OTOH, they’re not ruled out of the comments a priori. Others have alluded to cultural causation on this thread already. We must all take seriously the remark by Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, author of “Dark Money”, regarding a more recent book about the Kochs:
If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by the business reporter Christopher Leonard. This seven-hundred-and-four-page tome doesn’t break much new political ground, but it shows the extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence that Charles and David Koch have exerted to cripple government action on climate change.
So this principled, award-winning investigative journalist says, backed up by the famed New Yorker fact checking. Multiple other credible media sources corroborate her claim. It’s virtually impossible to know exactly how much influence concentrated carbon capital has had on US government policy in the 21st century, yet we know it underlies America’s failure to act collectively to decarbonize our economy. It took 34 years to enact the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, and its subsidies for renewable power generation and consumer adoption may not survive Republican control of all three branches of government.
What Is to Be Done? As an American, I’m not ready to sacrifice the rule of law to achieve a carbon-neutral national economy a few years sooner than we would otherwise. Meanwhile our newly elected leaders appear to have fewer such compunctions about protecting fossil fuel profits. I will generally defend popular sovereignty on RC, but otherwise I plan to hunker in my bunker for the next four years, knowing the US will at least ride free on the emissions reductions of other nations.
I have been visiting this site off and on since it began. At first the prospect of a website run by some of the world’s top climate scientists was exciting. But the promise has given way to disappointment.
Over that period, the posts from the scientists who host this site have been few and far between. The best have been very technical, and appear written for a scientific audience, addressing the inner workings of climate science. Relatively few have been “explainers” suitable for the general public. Too many have been redundant arguments with tired old deniers who regurgitate 30-year old nonsense and receive 30-year-old debunkings in response.
Notably missing is any sustained effort to report, analyze or discuss any of the “climate news” that finds its way into the mass media, including not only extreme weather and climate phenomena but new studies in both observational and modeling realms of climate science. I have found the British news site The Guardian, for example, to be a FAR better source of news on current climate science and real-world climate change impacts than RealClimate.
Meanwhile, by volume, most of the actual content on the site is found in these apparently unmoderated “Unforced Variation” threads, which are constantly dominated by boorish blowhards like Dharma, most of whose comments are completely off-topic for the site, and tiresome repetitive “debates” with deniers.
At this point, I’m not sure why this site even exists. If the hosts want to continue it, it needs to be seriously revitalized. I would respectfully suggest that the hosts consider hiring — or recruiting a qualified volunteer — webmaster to run the site, update the interface, and make a commitment to regularly contribute content that stays on top of current developments. And PLEASE moderate the discussion threads. Let Dharma and his ilk rant and rave on Facebook or X.
Spot on!
However, contributors who feel as you do should be willing to participate in actual scientific discussions. That means being willing to take the chance (and the time, and thought) to promote your viewpoint with people who might turn out to be more correct than you are. That’s how science works.
And it’s the only way to actually educate “the public”.
Wow…what a rant. As far as anyone knows you are not even a scientist. And are not required to read, participate or respond in this discussion. It’s amusing that your rants were approved by the moderator(s) who disappoint you as being unqualified.
Well, if by “approved” you mean “passively permitted”, you may not have been around long enough to see some of the truly swivel-eyed lunacy, not to mention the merely obnoxious self-aggrandizement, the moderators (mainly Gavin, AFAICT) have allowed. You’re a comparatively minor irritant, so far. The blog’s authors all have better things to do than police the comments, for better or worse. Ain’t freeze peach grand?
“As far as anyone knows you are not even a scientist”
This is an obvious ad hominem: “(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.”
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ad-hominem.html
This website is open to anyones comments. It is not advertised as a scientists only website.
Well said, Nigel. Mr. Trowe, you and I all appear to define “scientists” as “members of a peer community of rigorously trained, mutually disciplined investigators who review each other’s work for publication.” By and large, they are professionals with advanced academic degrees, who are paid to produce new verifiable knowledge. Competition, and often predisposition, make them more-or-less aggressively skeptical of each other, and they’re all at pains to know what any of them knows, to avoid competitive disadvantage. Professional peers are crucial to the accumulation of reliable scientific knowledge, because they provide trustworthy intersubjective verification of each others’ claims. As we know, that’s made it possible for science to progress over centuries.
OTOH, we’re here discussing this because RC is de facto open to anyone’s comments; and the universe of claimed knowledge, expert or otherwise, is de facto open to anyone with an Internet connection. Commenters who demonstrate command of the subject typically aren’t asked for their credentials. Enough other commenters have sufficient competence in climate-related science to recognize their (informal) peers, and ignore whomever else they choose: “peer review”, without a C.V. requirement. If we don’t have the formal credentials to back our arguments up, we defer to the collective, published expertise of the blog authors and their professional peers. Other visitors are less self-aware, and provide enough diversity of inexpert opinion to defend against complaints the blog is an echo chamber. And let’s admit it, they can be fun to engage: I, for one, am always entertained by Ray Ladbury’s fluent scorn directed at clueless deniers. Historically, moderation has mainly been triggered by actual hate speech, that’s actively harmful to the blog’s public outreach purpose. Even KIA has stayed on this side of the line, IMO, though your mileage may vary. I might wish he’d STFU voluntarily, and I usually scroll right past his comments, but FWIW I’m opposed to banning even him altogether.
Above all, everyone: please keep in mind that nobody has to respond to anything anyone else says, even if they’re challenged directly. This isn’t real life: they don’t even know where you live! So many annoying ejaculations here are impolite at best, not deserving a response, and often intended to elicit yet another futile rebuttal in a contest of stamina. Once you’ve had a little fun, just move on to someone else’s more substantive comments, and leave your antagonist to wonder if you even read their most recent provocation! Meanwhile, strive to post only comments you’ve already adequately supported, rather than iteratively defending them against obdurate denial.
Well that’s one theory of peer review. An alternative theory is “he whose bread I eat his song I sing” and “I won’t urinate in your rice bowl if you don’t urinate in mine”. Although I’m thinking more of the humanities and social science departments — i hope science is different.
Alternate theory, Don? There’s formal intersubjective verification by trained, disciplined peers, or there’s “RFK Jr. said, Judith Curry said, Spencer, Christy and Lindzen said”. I’m guessing you didn’t train to the professional level in Earth Science research. Or did every paper you submitted for publication get rejected?
“leave your antagonist to wonder if you even read their most recent provocation!”
I care for that! Silence can be golden …
Don Williams,
It is clear that you have never published in a peer-reviewed journal. As someone who has just submitted revisions to a manuscript addressing a peer review, I can assure you that while the discussion is often constructive and collegial, it is also rigorous.
The basic feature of science is that it is driven by curiosity of the scientists to understand their subject matter. If a paper furthers that goal, it will gain wide acceptance. If it does not, it may get published (peer review merely indicates that the reviewers think the work will be interesting to their community), but it will not be cited.
If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the most fundamental thing about science.
@ Ray Ladbury
1) Stanford professor Mark Jacobson proposed that the USA should spend $trillions implementing his proposal for an energy transition. When his ideas were criticized by 20+ researchers/professors he filed a $10 MILLION lawsuit against some of them and the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science, When he lost that suit and was ordered to pay $500,000 in legal fees for the defenders he filed multiple appeals –which he lost– and now is trying to force Stanford to pay the penalty.
2) Widespread problems in the humanities and social sciences are widely known. I posted a comment above noting the Michael Bellesiles Arming America incident. In which Bellesiles book was widely praised by prominent historians and used to mount a pro-gun control campaign. Which collapsed when people outside the history profession noted that the data cited by Bellesiles didn’t seem to exist, the National Endowment of Humanities demanded its name be taken off a Bellesiles grant, an Emory University investigation rendered a scathing judgment on Bellesile and Bellesiles resigned his tenured position to become a bartender. Meanwhile the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — one level below the US Supreme Court — had to back and remove all citations of Bellesiles work from one of its judgments The incident is described in Wikipedia’s article.–with citations.
3) But Gavin’s idea of peer review seems to be to secretly block my post from appearing,
Don Williams And your two isolated examples are relevant precisely how? They have nothing to do with the science of climate change. If anything they demonstrate the process working because of the collective nature of science. So, I guess we can add the concept of logical consistency to the list of things you don’t understand.
In Re to Don Williams, 30 Nov 2024 at 1:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827701
Dear Don,
I appreciate your reference to court trial filed by prof. Mark Jacobson against his opponents.
It is good to know.
I do not share his opinion that we have everything we need for the desired transformation to renewable energy. Contrary to him, I think that the transition to renewable energy has to be economically appealing, in other words, finantially advantageous in comparison with other alternatives, otherwise there is a significant risk of failure.
I think, however, that e.g. analyses wherein Dr. Jacobson criticizes ideas like direct air capture (DAC, carbon dioxide removal from Earth atmosphere by technical mean) are valid and valuable.
Greetings
Tomáš
A daily climate news compilation https://collapsechronicle.substack.com/
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Or think properly, whereas exceptions prove the rule.
[…] that statement indicates a total disconnect from reality….. Agreed.
I’m not sure why this site even exists…… Me neither.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827379
Dear Sir,
It is not true that the moderation on this website does not exist. A certain scrutiny takes place, only I have no clue yet what is the criterion for not publishing a post.
I tried twice to support Piotr’s very clear explanation that an appeasement towards Putin’s Russia may have analogous outcomes as had the appeasement towards Hitler’s Germany. None of these two posts has been published.
If this third post passes the moderation, I would like to ask you for your advice with respect to RC rules that the two previous posts might have violated:
—
23 Nov 2024 at 9:07 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-nov-2024/#comment-827262
Dear moderators,
on 19 Nov 2024 at 7:45 PM, I submitted the following post:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-nov-2024/#comment-827097
In Re to Piotr, 17 Nov 2024 at 8:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-nov-2024/#comment-827003
Dear Piotr,
Thank you very much for your summary. Perhaps we should remind other readers that after destroying Poland in collaboration with Hitler’s Germany in autumn 1939, the Soviet Union made further conquests. They attacked Finland, then occupied and annexed Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova.
I fully agree that if we will not help Ukraine defeating Russian troops and liberating its territory, Russia will try to conquer more.
Best regards
Tomáš
May I ask why it has not passed your scrutiny?
I am aware that it was not directly related to a climate science topics, however, I think that especially in view of the circumstance how strong is Russia’s voice on this website, see e.g.
Dharma, 11 Nov 2024 at 10:53 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-nov-2024/#comment-826782 ,
my amateur attempt to at least slightly counter their skillful propaganda with a reminder of further historical facts might be perhaps tolerated.
Best regards
Tomáš
—
The only explanation that came to my mind was that the moderators perhaps evaluated both posts as abusive towards Dharma and/or Russia.
Greetings
Tomáš
This is a blog on climate science and not about politics or history
But Rasmus, the discussions… even the ones on posts like yours on actual science topics .. are constantly hijacked and spammed, as Secular Animist describes.
And I haven’t figured out yet why that isn’t dealt with. It is obvious that people who produce long, off-topic, incoherent comments, ten-in-a-row, have some kind of “issue” in the mental realm.
Is this about political correctness? Do you think you are doing them a service by allowing this kind of disruptive behavior? I’ve put myself out to support the presence of students with difficulties in a standard educational environment, but ultimately, one has to recognize certain limits are necessary.
Perhaps, if participating had not become so tedious, constantly having to search for comments buried in the noise, people with some expertise would be more willing to contribute on the actual science. And that might relate very well to the recent topics of pluralism and operational-ism.
In Re to Rasmus, 25 NOV 2024 AT 11:11 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827436
Dear Dr. Benestad,
Thank you very much for your kind feedback. I apologize for spoiling your website with my comment. I did so because I think that leaving Dharma’s posts citing Vladimir Putin without a remark that it is a war criminal might raise questions if you provide your website as a platform for spreading Russian war propaganda.
I am afraid that Dharma is a more sophisticated, upgraded version of Ned Kelly, who for a long time disguised him/her/itself as a person desperate due to climate change extreme scenarios presented by James Hansen, and finally switched to actively spreading Russian narratives about Ukraine as a perpetrator and puppet of the USA.
For this reason, I would like to repeat my plea if you, moderators of this website, could consider containing posts delivered by such entities in a separate space clearly assigned as “unmoderated”. It will enable readers who still want to interact with these entities to do so, and, in parallel, it could avoid potential harm for your reputation.
It appears that your website is considered as a suitable target in the hybrid world war against freedom and democracy. Please be aware of this possibility.
Best regards
Tomáš
@rasmus “This is a blog on climate science and not about politics or history”
1) If politics and history don’t motivate the mass of humanity to act then climate science is irrelevant in the final outcome.
2) If proposed solutions are economically or politically infeasible then they are irrelevant.
3) The rise in international conflict may derail the renewable energy transition.
4) What are the consequences of the recent US election?
Tomas Kaliz, regarding this websites moderation. I seem to recall reading this websites moderation policy but I cant find it now under the menu items. It had some basic moderation rules: no personal abuse, no off topic and no spamming that most websites have. The UV thread asks people to be nice to each other and to stay on topic.
I think all those rules are fine. They do not censor peoples opinions or information. I would just say sometimes politics is very relevant to the climate issue, but the discussion about Putin didnt have a lot of relevance and was way off topic. That said I agree that Putin is sounding like a Hitler figure and may have ambitions well beyond Ukraine.
The issue with this website is its enforcement of moderation is certainly very light handed and it doesnt therefore surprise me that some people ignore the rules.As a result we still see personal abuse, and wildly off topic comments (KIA ranting about transgender issues why was that published FFS?)
I would just suggest the following:
Firstly be quite tough on personal abuse. There is no need for it.
And secondly if a comment is made that is way off topic like the politics of Putins war this should be not published, or it could be edited or a warning issued. Otherwise will lead to more related comments which is exactly what has happened.
Personally I think a “bit of off topic” can be very interesting but some things are fairly obviously straying too far.
And thirdly if someone swamps the website with vast numbers of long posts each day, and of dubious quality, that is taking over the room and is just a pain in the proverbial.
Fourthly while repetition is a bit tedious, its also hard to avoid because you might be explaining something to someone new on the website.
I respect that moderation is a bit tricky, because free speech is important, , and I dont envy the moderators jobs, but that doesnt mean we should tolerate insults, name calling and comments hugely off topic and spamming.
In Re to nigelj, 25 Nov 2024 at 3:42 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827445
Dear Nigel,
New Zealand is a particularly lucky country. I think that most of its inhabitants are unaware that their best luck is not the extraordinary beauty of the nature, nor the pleasant climate. I think that the vast majority of your compatriots have no idea that the greatest geographical advantage they enjoy is in fact the long, almost maximal possible distance of your country from Russia, because it makes a direct invasion/occupation/annexing difficult.
On the other hand, there is a risk that because you are less familiar with history of Russian conquests and with the playbook of present Russian propaganda, you could be more vulnerable thereto than people from countries having a direct experience with Russian empire.
The recent Dharma’s post of 26 Nov 2024 at 1:23 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827456
is a kind of degustation from this playbook: Russia has nothing common with USSR, Stalin was a Georgian, Khrushchev an Ukrainian and, of course, there is no Russian propaganda supporting their war at all. This is as a copy-paste from mantras repeated by all would-be “peacemakers” throughout the Europe, attacking Ukrainian refugees and requesting stop of support for Ukraine which allegedly oppressed Russian-speaking people and now tries to prevent Russia from “protecting” them.
Please believe Piotr, 17 Nov 2024 at 8:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/unforced-variations-nov-2024/#comment-827003
that Soviet propagandists and Joseph Goebbels learned from each other. The present Russia even upgraded all these old skills by their new creative use in modern media and social networks.
I understand that you could doubt that someone can be so wicked that he or she denies murder, raping and all other crimes being recently committed by the regime ruling in Russia, or even defends all this evil as an enforcement of some imaginary legitimate interests. I must admit that I was quite long willing to believe that Ned Kelly is a person genuinely desperate from climate change, and recognized him/her/it as a Russian troll only after he/she/it attempted openly spreading prefabricated Russian narratives and denigrating Ukraine on this website.
Unfortunately, the global hybrid war against freedom and democracy is a sad reality, no fantasyland as Dharma (aka Ned Kelly aka Complicius aka cj aka Sabine aka Walt Chinaman etc.) tries to assert.
Please do not become a victim.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz
“I understand that you could doubt that someone can be so wicked that he or she denies murder, raping and all other crimes being recently committed by the regime ruling in Russia, or even defends all this evil as an enforcement of some imaginary legitimate interests…”
I do not doubt that someone could thinks like that, and I have not defended Dharmas views on Russia. Dharma may be using a variety of names I think thats obvious. ( Ned Kelly, Complicious, Sabine, Walt, Reality Check, Thomas and Bill Henderson and about three others going back over 5 years).
Im no fan of Russia or Putin. Hes a thug and hasnt done anything significant to improve standards of living for ordinary people. I agree with your and Piotrs views on the Russia issue. Piotrs post below Nov. 26 is particularly interesting. I just think its all a bit off topic but I understand that once Dharma (or the Ned Kelly twin) started the Russia issue its understandable that you would respond.
I dont believe Dharma is a Russian or Chinese agent. I think that Dharma might live in Australia, and doesnt like capitalism and American foreign policy, and prefers socialism (based on various posts) so takes sides with countries like Russia and China that lean a bit socialist and makes excuses for, or denies their human rights violations and other questionable actions. Theres a quotation “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and that might also apply.
Just to be clear. While America gets some things wrong, I have no tolerance for Putins despicable invasion of Ukraine, and his thuggery and bigoted views and mostly terrible policies and more or less complete inaction on the climate issue. His war alone must be causing a significant increase in emissions.
In Re to nNigelj, 27 NOV 2024 AT 7:43 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827557
Hallo Nigel,
I know you are not a supporter of Russia.
As regards Dharma, the extent of his/her/its activity suggests that it is a full time job. Anyway, grom my point if view, it is not decisive if this subject supports Russia as a paid agent or as an unpaid volunteer. Decisive is the ugly output.
I still believe that the best way how to deal with such entities could be their containment in a dedicated section, with a clear warning that the published content is unmoderated.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz, yes even if Dharma is not a paid agent of Russia the output is much the same anyway. The quote “useful idiot” comes to mind. Its thought to have originated with Lenin but nobody knows for sure.
The rantings about Russias politics and the ukraine war are off topic. None of them talked about the climate issue. Your idea of having an unmoderated part of the website for off topic and higly offensive rants is a possibility but not a great look for the website.
I just think the best solution is the old fashioned no off topic rule being enforced. The solution is to stop these conversations at day one before they escalate and take over the website. At the very least give people a warning. I dont think someone like Dharma should be banned or confined to a special part of the website, because Dharma does post some good climate related material. But the russian stuff should be banned or confined.
Some level of off topic conversation is quite interesting and seems acceptable to me – but the Russia thing is WAY off topic and very divisive. I sense that this website takes a similar view but may have been a bit slow to shut down the Russia thing and seems a bit inconsistent over it all. In contrast there has been a big discussion here about Americas election. That seems fine to me because this has huge climate implications.
Dharma seems to think he / she is the smartest guy in the room and at we are all gullible fools that believe America is never in the wrong and that capitalism is perfect. Sorry Dharma you are wrong. But we know that its about the lesser of the evils. Russia is fundamentally anti democratic and leans totalitarian and this will never be acceptable to me and socialism applied to everything doesnt work.
There are ways of making capitalism (private ownership) fairer and of reducing inequality and even having a zero growth economy, if people want. I certainly dont believe in laissez faire capitalism, where anything is permitted. We do need a regulatory system and help for people hurt by capitalisms creative destruction.
In re to Nigelj, 30 Nov 2024 at 3:04 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827704
Hallo Nigel,
On the flag of Czech president, there is an nscript “veritas vincit”.
It appears that this website’s flag could bear an inscript “Dharma vincit”.
I do not think that the moderators can notice any short citation of Putin and likes and/or links to websites spreading Russian propagand openly in the flood of seemingly valuable information delivered by this entity.
The problem I have therewith is that I think that the website contaminated with such stuff becomes toxic and, thus, dangerous to consume, like a field contaminated with mercury.
Greetings
Tomáš
Ubiquitous D: “Russia is not the defunct USSR. Stalin came from Georgia, Khrushchev came from Ukraine.”
So what? USSR was a truncated version of the Russian Empire, and today’s Russia is a truncated version of the USSR. Today’s Russia is a legal continuator of the USSR. It holds the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal. Putin waves to the Russian troops marching on the Red Square in the celebration of the SOVIET victory over Germany, the same way the GenSecs of the Soviet Communist Party waved before him. Monuments to Lenin and other Communist leaders abound in the Russian cities and towns. Soviet national anthem is the Russian anthem, just with updated lyrics. Russians are proud of the Soviet achievements – hence Russian COVID vaccine was called by Russians : Sputnik-V.
Both USSR and Russia had/have “elections” in which everybody knew/knows, who would be the winner. The opponents of the ruling cast in both USSR and Russia were/are branded
as the “traitors” or “foreign agents” – and are thrown in jail, or murdered, both in Russia and abroad.
Putin is a former officer of the Soviet KGB, formed as a person and trained by the Soviet system. Putin is on record saying that the breakup of the USRR “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” (the same century that had WWI, WWII, and Holocaust). And he sees his legacy as the leader that restored the might and the geopolitical sphere of influence of the Soviet empire.
And Russia behaves like the Soviet Union too – both invade neighboring countries, in cooperation with their authoritarian allies (Nazis for USSR, N.Korea, Iran and to some extent China for Russia), do so under the pretext of defending of the oppressed Russian minority, and annex them, entirely or partly into Russia/USSR, in the unannexed parts installing the vasal governments kept in power by the threat of the Russian army intervention.
So any differences between Russia and USSR are cosmetic only – a realization of the same authoritarian, imperial, nationalistic/racial ambitions, just in different external environments.
Dominating the comment section with multiple long comments every day is a problem here. Some people exploit the almost nonexistent moderation to use this as their personal blog (I was going to say fiefdom). Even when they’re correct about most of the issues, it’s inappropriate.
Scientific arguments (over my head) belong, but there does seem to be a lot of unnecessary animus and insult. [Had to snort when I complained about volume and got a backatcha – since my comments tend to be short and relatively infrequent.]
Comparing someone arguing their point of view with Stalin is just wrong (I may have been wrong as to who started it; if you read this you know who you are, sorry).
I also believe attacking/lecturing the blog owners is just wrong. They are your hosts. Take it somewhere else!
SA, Dharma floods the comments section with a huge number of often very long posts, almost every day and Im fairly sure has has been doing it for over five years under various names (Ned Kelly, Complicious, Reality check, Thomas, Bill Henderson and others) .
Its just spamming, and its just a pain in the proverbial to wade through or wade past, and its overtaking the room and doesnt give other people a fair go. If I wanted a lecture from one person I would buy a book.
I dont mind several posts from someone like BPL because they are short and pithy and I dont mind the occasional long post or two. Doesnt matter if Dharmas material was all good quality or factual or on topic its still spamming. But its very variable in quality and often way off topic and very shouty.
Not saying I’m perfect. I posted a lot of long comments to Killian and got criticised by the group for that, but I took the hint and cut them down. Dharma doesnt take the hint and must have a big ego. I don’t like seeing people banned, but he or she needs to be warned by the moderators.
Susan Anderson wrote: “Some people exploit the almost nonexistent moderation to use this as their personal blog”
As far as I can tell, that is basically the only function of RealClimate now: to provide a platform for narcissist trolls like Dharma to repeat endlessly and interminably that they alone know The Truth and everybody else in the world is stupid.
These are people whose self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing nonsense would get laughed off of Facebook and yet their “contributions” constitute the vast majority of the content of this site.
This is ‘nuts’ non-thinking above. Russia is not the defunct USSR. Stalin came from Georgia, Khrushchev came from Ukraine. There is no ‘Russia voice’ on this forum. That is fantasyland level imaginary and distorted thinking in my opinion.
rasmus says
25 Nov 2024 at 11:11 AM
“This is a blog on climate science and not about politics or history”
That often usually depends purely on who is doing the talking rasmus. The ingroup or the outgroup.
While Climate Science and all it’s outputs and climate scientist’s commentary is in and of itself a political act. Deny it all you wish but denial never changes the reality of what is.
D: There is no ‘Russia voice’ on this forum.
BPL: You’re an adequate substitute. Or are you working for the 10th Bureau instead of the Russians?
SA: At this point, I’m not sure why this site even exists.
BPL: You’re right. It’s a terrible web site. If I were you, I’d leave and never come back, just to show ’em.
BPL wrote: “It’s a terrible web site. If I were you, I’d leave and never come back, just to show ’em.”
Well, it really IS kind of a terrible website.
Substantive articles by the hosts are few and far between., and don’t seem to reflect any particular editorial direction or purpose. Many of them are devoted to rehashing ancient arguments with global warming deniers (which seems to be sort of a “comfort zone” for climate scientists since it’s an argument they already won).
There is no apparent effort to keep up with the current news in climate science — dozens of studies in both theoretical and observational climate science are reported every year in the mainstream media, some of those media reports including quotes from the hosts of this site, and yet those studies go unmentioned here.
The vast majority of the content is in the “Unforced Variations” threads and the vast majority of that content consists of wothless posts from trolls like Dharma and the replies to them.
Of course it doesn’t matter if I visit this site or not and nobody cares what I write here. I know that because several times this past year I posted on the Unforced Variations thread brief summaries and links to what I thought were important climate news stories from the mainstream media, and asked for comments on them, and got nothing in response. Meanwhile posts from Dharma that had little content except name-calling and insults got dozens of replies.
So, whatever. I just find it sad that a site with great potential has become a useless backwater mired in pointless trolling. All I can think to do is to repeat my plea to the hosts to find somebody who has the time and the skills to run a proper website.
SA: Substantive articles by the hosts are few and far between., and don’t seem to reflect any particular editorial direction or purpose.
BPL: That’s because they’re following the purpose of the web site, which is to explain climate science to the interested layman. I think they do rather well at it. You obviously don’t. So I repeat–if you don’t like the site, you don’t have to come here.
Happy 20th! Here’s to the next 20!
“Blogs ended up in the shade…”
Well, one way to brighten things up and celebrate, if only temporarily, would be to give Dharma the boot. The only thing interesting about his interminable posts is seeing what name he invents when he reappears pretending to be someone else.
I am considering asking Gavin if I can change my current Nym to Hadge Ravers next month.
As LLM AI’s are already being trained to spot each other’s hallucinations, the syndics of Real Climate should task one with the trivially parallel ask of identifying submissions from climate cranks & aspiring ignorami, and forwarding them to the Editors of The American Thinker, to elevate the quality of its climate discourse .
Rasmus’ graph ought to start fourteen years before the Charney Report, because there’s more to Charles Keeling than the eponymous Curve.
Keeling entered the climate policy arena over a hundred parts per million of CO2 ago, a decade before Wally Broecker coined the phrase “Global Warming” , by coauthoring the 1965 White House report on AGW chaired by Roger Revelle .
It is today acknowledged with reluctance by some as it reflects a Democratic climate policy consensus no longer in vogue.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/04/and-godfather-of-solar-radiation.html
Congratulations on reaching 20 years of impactful climate blogging! Your dedication to countering misinformation and fostering global awareness is truly inspiring. Here’s to many more years of pushing for real change!
Jonathan David: “Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Exxon/Mobil ran a multimillion-dollar disinformation campaign that manufactured doubt regarding the link between global warming and the burning of fossil fuels. However, by 2009 the company found that a strategy of simple denialism was no longer viable.”
Around the same time
“ British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe. ”
see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook
In addition to shifting the responsibility away from themselves – BP also achieved a secondary goal – fostering apathy – anybody using these calculator would see that even after sacrificing most of the quality of life – your individual reductions are nowhere near where they would need to be – so what’s the point of it – lets live as there is no tomorrow and after us – Deluge.
Finally, it gave the deniers (and later doomers) their favourite all-or-nothing argument – if you are not cutting your individual emissions to ZERO – then you are a hypocrite, and shouldn’t criticize others (even if they produce twice as many GHGs per capita) nor should you criticize fossil fuel corporations and petro-states, making $ trillions annually on selling/using fossil fuels. Nor should you question the taxpayer subsidies to those fossil fuel interests – this leftist IMF pegged fossil fuel subsidies globally at $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022) – https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=Back%20to%20Top-,Size%20of%20Fossil%20Fuel%20Subsidies,support%20from%20surging%20energy%20prices.
BTW, compare the $7 trillion a year in subsidies to fossil fuels – with the $300 bln a year, and even that in part not in grants, but low-interest loans – promised after long negotiations at COP29 for the developing world to deal with the effects of climate change.
Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Exxon/Mobil ran a multimillion-dollar disinformation campaign that manufactured doubt regarding the link between global warming and the burning of fossil fuels. However, by 2009 the company found that a strategy of simple denialism was no longer viable. Exxon/Mobil was forced to publicly accept the validity of the science and announced public support for a carbon tax. In practice their strategy shifted to a policy of delay and distract. Nevertheless, I believe that one must conclude that the work of climate scientists to disseminate the relevant science to the public has been very successful.
It should be pointed out that providing information to the general lay public is not something scientists are trained to do. Scientists are trained to communicate results to colleagues. Providing information to the public is the job for those with the experience to do so. Particularly educators, journalists and popularizers like Bill Nye or Niels Degrasse Tyson.
The success or failures of processes such as the IPCC hinges on governmental policies and actions which are beyond the control of scientists. The fact that these processes even exist is itself significant. Otherwise climate change would arouse no more involvement than, say, species extinction.
Jonathan…After reading your first paragraph I wondered what you expected the oil industry to do. Delay the production of the transportation fuels needed to finish the transition away from fossil fuels…. Delay the installation of the alternative energies we need to move forward without them. The fact is we need those fuels to get anything done.
KT: The fact is we need those fuels to get anything done.
BPL: By God’s grace, less and less every year.
Ken Towe,
Well, perhaps the key thing the fossil fool companies might have done differently is not lie through their teeth about what their own research showed about anthropogenic climate change. Then we would have had another 40 years during which to make the transition rather than arguing over whether the truth was a lie.
Perhaps they could have been part of the solution rather than the majority of the problem. Maybe they could have realized that petroleum was too valuable to burn and could serve as a feedstock for materials and chemicals for a thousand years rather than as a polluting fuel for a century. Maybe they could have adopted a business model that looked to the long haul rather than trying to extract as much oil from the ground as quickly as possible. Maybe they could have realized that there is more good to be gained by improving the lots of everyone rather than minting a few billionaires.
Your wonder hints at a profound and dangerous lack of imagination as to how the world we are currently in might been better or indeed how to make it better in the future.
Reply to Jonathan David
1 “Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s,…”
Everyone should stop living in the past. Now is the only time you can do anything that matters.
2″Nevertheless, I believe that one must conclude that the work of climate scientists to disseminate the relevant science to the public has been very successful.”
I totally disagree and do not ‘believe’ that is factually true.
3 “Otherwise climate change would arouse no more involvement than, say, species extinction.”
I do not understand what that is supposed to mean.
JD: “I believe that one must conclude that the work of climate scientists to disseminate the relevant science to the public has been very successful.”
D: “I totally disagree and do not ‘believe’ that is factually true.”
MWS: The IPCC reports are all posted on the internet, which means they are spread as widely as information can be spread. And ‘spread widely’ is what disseminate means. That also applies to monthly and yearlly reports by NOAA. What ‘relevant science’ is not being spread widely?
JD: “Otherwise climate change would arouse no more involvement than, say, species extinction.”
D: “I do not understand what that is supposed to mean.”
“These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year.
“If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true – i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet** – then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year.
“But if the upper estimate of species numbers is true – that there are 100 million different species co-existing with us on our planet – then between 10,000 and 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year.”
There is a lot of interest in stopping global warming. The thousands of species we lose every year, not so much.
https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/biodiversity/biodiversity/#:~:text=These%20experts%20calculate%20that%20between,2%2C000%20extinctions%20occur%20every%20year.
The term “disseminate” indeed means to “spread widely,” typically referring to information, ideas, or knowledge being shared with a broad audience. However, whether simply posting something on a website, like the IPCC’s, counts as successful dissemination is debatable.
To truly “disseminate successfully,” the information must not only be made available but also reach, engage, and influence the intended audience. Posting on a website is a step in the dissemination process, but it doesn’t guarantee that the information is actively seen, understood, or acted upon. Success depends on factors like visibility, accessibility, promotion, and the audience’s engagement with the content.
In this context, posting to a website might technically qualify as dissemination, but without ensuring that the information is effectively communicated to and absorbed by the public, policymakers, or stakeholders, it might fall short of being “successful dissemination.”
It’s really just common sense actually. I could say much more but why bother with it when the mind is so closed to being genuinely objective and holistic nor acting in good faith for win-win outcomes. But when the intention is push back at all costs ….. this is what readers get.
Dharma: “To truly “disseminate successfully,” the information must not only be made available but also reach, engage, and influence the intended audience.”
MWS: I would agree, but there is the old proverb: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. I think that is where we are now. The intended audience in this case is everybody, but economic systems throughout the world are set up to force the people to work 40 hours a week or more for insufficient wages, and anyone who is not in school but working and raising a family simply does not have the time to read the IPCC and NOAA reports. But at least they are disseminated.
I think it means climate science must be taught in all schools from first grade to 12th and in all undergraduate programs. But that won’t happen in the US with half the nation being anti-science.
JD: “Otherwise climate change would arouse no more involvement than, say, species extinction.”
D: “I do not understand what that is supposed to mean.”
Then MWS
Thanks but I much prefer to know what JD meant by what they said, not a 3rd hand opinion/guess.
Dharma: “Thanks but I much prefer to know what JD meant by what they said, not a 3rd hand opinion/guess.”
MWS: Now you’ve got me wondering. What else could he have meant?
Martin, You response summed up the gist of the latter part of my comment correctly. Unless one is considering a spectacular animal such as whales or pandas there is little concern for wildlife extinctions. Taken to extremes, extinctions may be as threatening as global warming or even more so.
The main purpose of my comment was to point out that Exxon/Mobil, (as well as BP as pointed out by Piotr,) and indeed all the major producers have been forced to accept that global warming is caused by humans and that fossil fuels will be eventually phased out. This position has been forced upon the producers due to political action as well as popular sentiment. Ultimately, this has been the result of scientific data presented by Hansen, Mann and others.
Calculating costs of anything as a percentage of GDP is fraught–so many things impact GDP that something could cost thirty cents or three billion dollars.
The same is true of biodiversity. Calculating extinctions as a percentage of the total is ridiculous when estimates of the total number vary by more than one order of magnitude.
Gotta count.
In the old days of Usenet newsgroups, newsreader client software commonly had a feature that allowed you to BLOCK particular trolls who were particularly obnoxious. These days, web-based social media platforms like Facebook have a similar feature.
When I look at the comment threads on RealClimate where typically 90 percent of the posts are from belligerent megalomaniacs like “Dharma” and consist mostly of name-calling and insults towards other commenters, I really wish that RealClimate had a “block” feature.
SA: I really wish that RealClimate had a “block” feature.
BPL: I agree. That would make for a lot less trolling, or at least fewer responses to the trolls.
Maybe this brings us back to the original post. Rasmus has decided to give Bluesky a go, and I think he’ll enjoy the experience. The impressive BLOCK feature makes it easy to eliminate having to engage with obvious trolls and magats like catturd2, MTG and the likes of resident pests KIA and Dhrama.
A “very concerned” commenter was worried about “preaching to the choir”, but there’s plenty of lively discussion without needy trolls.
For some reason the phrase “A whipped dog howls the loudest” comes to mind.
Don Williams, good quote. However I think Dharma (who clearly uses several names) deserves the whipping. Dharma falsely calls various warmist scientists liars, massively and unfairly denigrates America, promotes Russia, spreads denialist talking points, makes evidence free claims, and implies we are all gullible fools, all on a warmist website dominated by scientists and Americans, Dharma sometimes posts some good material but it gets obscured by all the trolling, the BS and the empty rhetoric.
Some of Dharma’s criticis have been a bit insulting and blunt but Dharma esclates that situation by being even more insulting. Two wrongs dont make a right. People have choices how they respond or dont have to respond. .
And what do you have against dogs?
The phrase “A whipped dog howls the loudest” means that someone who feels attacked, criticized, or punished will often react the most loudly or dramatically. It suggests that people who are in the wrong or feel the sting of guilt are often the ones who protest or complain the most, trying to deflect attention or defend themselves.
I suppose that pretending that the trolls are not trolling and then being called out for it is one way of looking at it. But pretty much everyone on this site knows what is happening here.
It’s confusing and sometimes frustrating for people who have been here a long time that there are a few people who want to make the website a worse place for everyone else, just because of their own personal problems.
And now I offer for your review, this PhD course in wind power versus the fossil fuel industry. In a mere 5 minutes, YOU WILL LEARN everything you need to know:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmbZwxEnAFc
And now you know the rest of the story. Good day!
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Start here:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
Reply to Mr. Know It All
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmt5D9vOoVU
KIA. Regarding the video on wind power v fossil fueled generation..
The use of wind turbines to power oil extraction is a limited application. Most wind power is used for other uses. The video is clearly designed to create a false impression and its a cherry picking fallacy. We already know that the early generations of wind power are manufactured with fossil fuel powered generation. Its the only way to build a new energy grid. Its completely false to say that the fossil fuels used in the manufacture means there is no net benefit and emissions reduction. Life cycle assessment of wind power here (adding to SA’s material) :
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/06/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-wind-turbine/
Rattlesnakes and a woman in a state of panic. This is blatantly contrived and exaggerated to demean the young green leaning woman and make her look weak. Its sick. Its demeaning. Its emotive and and its mysogeny.
—————————
Dharmas video on why America imports oil when it has enough oil to be self sufficient. This is informative.
For those who couldn’t find it, it’s at the bottom of comment section:
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 whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.
Complaints about comments and excess are not abuse. Abuse is personal attacks, often couched in insulting and/or nasty language. Mirror mirror on the wall …
Also, our hosts and their colleagues who post here, along with the less scientifically qualified riffraff (including myself) who venture where angels fear to tread, are well aware of climate science and progress and the material presented by all the cited authorities we’re told we’re ignoring. Silence is neither stupidity nor ignorance.
Thank you all. A lot. As a not-American I do hope world leading climate science in the USA continues and that the work contributions and careers of people who work at the agencies charged with informing the US government to the best of their abilities survive the incoming Administration. The go-to accompanying image for anything climate related is Climate Protesters, when it should be people like the RealClimate team and your climate science peers.
It is because so many capable people apart from environmental activists have always taken climate science and the climate problem seriously – scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs – that we have the clean energy options we now do, And those keep broadening and getting better. Science is good.
A Controversial Play — Kill Climate Deniers 2014 — and What It Taught Me About the Psychology of Climate | with playwriter David Finnigan | TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZMQLDr-OA
Only 10 minutes, with some excellent info
The Tipping Point I Got Wrong | Malcolm Gladwell | TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmXrwKydM9k
Excellent video, worth taking the time to view.
1) I’m surprised that people who claim allegiance to science are inclined to turn this site into something with all the critical analysis and discourse of a Hare Krishna cult. I ask for physical evidence of global warming that I could show the ordinary US voter and am accused of sealioning.
2) I show time and time again the massive influence and access of our billionaires – and when I ask why some of their actions show little concern for global warming I am criticized. Even though nothing will get done without their support – let Elon Musk explain it to you.
3) Unlike some of his critics, Dharma at least provides sources and citations for his opinions — and instead of being refuted by our super intellects is subjected to mere ad hominems (“troll”).
4) Ladbury lectures me several times on the rigorous, infallible adherence to Truth inherent in today’s Peer Review. Which is bollocks. Not just my opinion – but the opinion of some of Science’s most prestigious journals and scientists. This subject deserves a separate discussion of its own so I started one on December’s Unforced Variations.
5) I can understand the allure of having the world run by Mandarins whose only qualification is that they passed an Exam and received a certificate from the Emperor. That insecurity makes them very obedient to the Emperor and his Imperial Court , strangely enough. But it is a pathology which made China into the sick man of Asia. As I recall, Mao’s remedy was to round up the intellectuals on occasion and send them out into the country to do hard labor for a few months in order to gain a respect for the people who work for a living –i.e, people who grow our food, maintain our water supply, maintain our roads, build our homes and protect our country.
6) On the other hand I don’t know what plans our Republican President, House, Senate and Supreme Court have, if any.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/18/ivy-league-crackdown-house-republicans-plan-to-defund-top-universities.html
Don Williams,
“1.) I ask for physical evidence of global warming that I could show the ordinary US voter and am accused of sealioning.”
Your allegation is not accurate. You asked 11 different questions on completely different things in just 15 lines. There were only two questions directly on physical evidence of GW. Therefore with 11 different questions it looks like sea lioning. I gave you the definition. I said your comment “looks a bit like sea lioning and is not a good look.”
“2) I show time and time again the massive influence and access of our billionaires (to politicians)”
You do. I think its all a problem. .Some countries set limits on people lobbying politicians and they cap campaign donations, so if you want anything to change we need to promote that.
“and when I ask why some of their actions show little concern for global warming I am criticized. Even though nothing will get done without their support – let Elon Musk explain it to you.”
I do not recall criticising you. What is it you propose I do in respect of billionaires?
.
“3) Unlike some of his critics, Dharma at least provides sources and citations for his opinions — and instead of being refuted by our super intellects is subjected to mere ad hominems (“troll”).”
At best Dhama sometimes provides source to back her opinion. I have refuted Dharmas opinions quoting sources, if that sort of thing is appropriate.
Dharma certainly acts like a troll. Online dictionaries define trolling as 1) making inflammatory statements and 2) being personally abusive. Dharmas posts are frequently inflammatory for example accusing certain climate scientists of being liars, and Dharma is frequently abusive for example describing BPL as “There is one born every day”. Case closed.
“4) Ladbury lectures me several times on the rigorous, infallible adherence to Truth inherent in today’s Peer Review.”
Except that Ray Ladbury didnt do that. Your statement is at best a strawman. And its grandstanding Ray tried to explain to you how science tends to be self correcting over time even although peer review obviously isn’t perfect.
5) I can understand the allure of having the world run by Mandarins whose only qualification is that they passed an Exam and received a certificate from the Emperor. Mao’s remedy was to round up the intellectuals on occasion and send them out into the country to do hard labor for a few months in order to gain a respect for the people who work for a living –i.e, people who grow our food, maintain our water supply, maintain our roads, build our homes and protect our country.”
I think your claims are a massive generalisation at best. I have a university degree and I worked during the university holidays on farms and in factories and labouring on buildings sites, just as most of us did. I have plenty of respect for people who grow food etcetera.
I support political parties who look after the interests of the working classes, such as centre left parties or mildly liberal parties. Many maybe most so called intellectuals seem to do that from what Iv’e read. I think the Democrats might have lost touch a bit with the working classes but not all liberal parties are the same. Right wing and conservative parties have a history of treating the working classes like dirt.
6) On the other hand I don’t know what plans our Republican President, House, Senate and Supreme Court have, if any.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/18/ivy-league-crackdown-house-republicans-plan-to-defund-top-universities.html
The plan seems like typical short sighted anti intellectualism.
I think you do post some good comments at times, but I find it hard knowing what you really mean sometimes. Please be more specific.
@NigelJ
1) You view everyone in terms of which side they support in a climate change ideological jihad. Like we’re football fans choosing which team to support.
2) But my questions were Practical – focused on what is the self interest of the US voter. What threats does climate change pose to us and our children? Where and when? Are there safe areas or defensive measures? What is the threat to our life savings, including the values of our homes? How likely are wars to break out? How certain is this information? What physical evidence –that the voters themselves can see — supports Change? I myself pointed out the shrinkage of glaciers as an example. The problem with some evidence cited by others is that I can point to cat 5 hurricanes, droughts and heat waves occurring 100 years ago.
3) If scientists want the support of the voters they need to prove they provide actual value-added. If this accounting also shows value to billionaires –as opposed to serving some philosophical goal – then they would get even more support. Because the current ACTIONS of some billionaires –who have vast access to insider information – shows a lack of concern.
4) Maybe we could do a scientific experiment: Let the Republican White House, Congress and Supreme Court cancel ALL funding for climate science. Then set up an internet GoFundMe account where the American People could donate money to show their deep appreciation for what climate scientists have been doing for them –for the value and utility of the information they have been receiving How many tens of $Billions do you think the climate scientists would receive?
5) Ladbury was insulting me with a condescending lecture on peer review. Holding himself up as an exemplar of scientific objectivity, rationality, and integrity. I then pointed out two examples where academic peer review had either failed or been badly compromised and he said the examples were irrelevant. Yet the Los Angeles Times has noted how Mark Jacobson’s $10 Million lawsuit against his critics and the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences chilled the scientific community’s evaluation of Jacobson’s design for the US energy transition.
Don Williams
“1) You view everyone in terms of which side they support in a climate change ideological jihad. Like we’re football fans choosing which team to support.”
No I dont. I support the warmist side of the debate on the scientific evidence, not on ideology. It does seem that some people oppose the science and mitigation with ideological arguments, chiefly they think its all some sort of big government scam.
“2) But my questions were Practical – focused on what is the self interest of the US voter…..”
The questions you just asked are practical, but they have been mostly answered many times and the answers can be easily googled, or use Chat gtp or Microsoft Bing AI tool.I dont have the time to write essays on all this. I did give you a few brief pointers on it.
Long lists of questions are annoying and bewildering. If you had asked just one or two I would have been more receptive. I see I hit a nerve about sea lioning, because you keep going on about it trying to justify yourself.
“The problem with some evidence cited by others is that I can point to cat 5 hurricanes, droughts and heat waves occurring 100 years ago.”
Hurricanes, heatwaves and droughts happened in the past. The point I made is severe weather events like that are becoming more severe and / or more frequent. You still dont seem to be listening.
You constantly spread denialist talking points like this one about hurricanes occuring in the past and the issue about urban heat islands. Its been explained to people a many times times that scientists are careful to adjust data down if its artificially boosted by urban heat islands. You talk like a denialist talks. Ive never heard you express concern about the impact of human activities on the warming trend.
“3) If scientists want the support of the voters they need to prove they provide actual value-added…”
Of course. This is from Pew Research last year: “76% of Americans express a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. ” This is from The National Science Foundation: “Most Americans continue to think science benefits society,” The point being scientists seem to get reasonably good public support. Probably higher than the police.
“4) Maybe we could do a scientific experiment: Let the Republican White House, Congress and Supreme Court cancel ALL funding for climate science. Then set up an internet GoFundMe account where the American People could donate money to show their deep appreciation for what climate scientists have been doing for them –for the value and utility of the information they have been receiving How many tens of $Billions do you think the climate scientists would receive?”
Contrived plan that is just crazy. People are unlikely to just donate money like that. If the police were funded that way they might get nothing. .As pointed out above most people regard scientists well, so it is entirely reasonable they get robust government funding. There is no need for an alternative plan.
“5) Ladbury was insulting me with a condescending lecture on peer review. Holding himself up as an exemplar of scientific objectivity, rationality, and integrity. I then pointed out two examples where academic peer review had either failed or been badly compromised and he said the examples were irrelevant…..”
Ray Ladbury is right. While psychology has a repuation for a lot of bad science getting through peer review recently, that issue is being fixed, and it doesnt mean climate science would be the same. And even if bad science does get through peer review, it doesnt get much traction in the wider scientific community. We know this because science done so well, and has made massive discoveries.. Again Im not sure you are listening. You are stuck on a few specific issues and letting that obscure the bigger picture.
“The message needs to be understood in the boardrooms of oil and coal companies, and by their CEOs, shareholders, and investors. Also by OPEC and politicians who make decisions about fossil resources.”
The message has been understood by those people since the 1960s.
What would add context to the Keeling Curve above is a delineation of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic CO2 contribution to the atmospheric CO2. A change in the scale of the Y-axis to start at zero, and the X-axis going further back in time will also clarify the magnitude of of the contributions.
[Response: Like this? https://www.realclimate.org/images//co2_ghe1.pdf – gavin]
Per the fossil record, modern humans (Homo sapiens) have been around for the last 250 to 300 thousand years. During that time there have been:
3 interglacial (warm) periods:
* Holocene – circa last 11,700 years (when agriculture and human civilisation developed)
* Eemian – circa 130 to 115 thousand years ago
* La Bouchet – circa 242–230 thousand years ago
3 glacial periods:
* Last Glacial Period – circa 115,000 – 11,700 years ago
* Penultimate Glacial Period – circa 194,000 to 135,000 years ago
* circa 328,000 to 270,ooo years ago
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
Here’s an animation of the history of atmospheric CO₂, from 800,000 years ago until January 2024.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KrgPPO1h0A
The industrial age began circa 1760.
Global fossil fuel consumption
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fossil-fuel-consumption
in Re to Gavin Schmidt, commenting on Mark Matson, 3 Dec 2024 at 11:55 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827818
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
I think your graphics does not respond to the request / hint raised by Mark Matson.
There is no possibility to make a distinction therein between CO2 that originated from anthropogenic sources like fossil fuel combustion on one hand, and the CO2 from other sources on the other hand, I am afraid.
The statement put in the graphics:
“One third of the CO2 now in the air is due to human emissions – fossil fuel combustion, cement, deforestation etc.”
suggests, in my understanding, that the rising part of the curve is caused solely by anthropogenic CO2 sources. This statement, however, seems to be a mere assertion having no support in the graph itself, because the curve obviously sums up atmospheric CO2 from all possible sources, irrespective of its origin.
I understand that all the sources mentioned in the text may be considered as anthropogenic contributions. Nevertheless, Mark proposed a “delineation of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic” CO2 contributions. In this respect, I would like to ask if there is any experimental method allowing to distinguish e.g. between the CO2 resulting from combustion of so called “biofuels” or “biomass” on one hand, from the CO2 that may be e.g. released from the ocean due to rising average temperature of surface water, on the other hand.
While CO2 from “biomass” combustion is undoubtedly an anthropogenic contribution (although, also undoubtedly, not linked to fossil fuel consumption), CO2 released from ocean could be perhaps considered at least partly as “natural” – at least if “truly anthropogenic CO2” (from fuel combustion in the past) is not a prevailing part of the total CO2 dissolved in sea water.
This difference may be important. If there are people who doubt that all the CO2 added to the atmosphere during industrial era is anthropogenic, I do not think that it is productive to tell them merely again “it is anthropogenic”.
Furthermore, while “biomas” is mostly considered as a good in recent “climate saving” policies (although it may be in fact quite questionable in view of its poor efficiency in comparison with alternative methods of solar energy exploitation, as well as in view of its undesired side effects like competition with food production, soil deterioration and/or natural habitat destruction), fossil fuel combustion is mostly considered as an evil, namely as the root cause of the observed global warming.
In this respect, I would like to ask if it could be perhaps easier to delineate the contribution of the “fossil” carbon dioxide from the “recent” or “young” carbon dioxide, rather than to clearly distinguish between “anthropogenic” and “natural” one. I assume that the fraction of the fossil CO2 in the air can be relatively satisfactorily derived from isotopic composition detected in the respective samples, am I right?
Maybe the natural CO2 released by volcanism is indistinguishable from anthropogenic CO2 released from fossil fuel combustion in terms of their isotopic composition? If so, there perhaps still might be other methods that could separate these two contributions to “fossil” carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from each other, and thus indeed enable clearly delineating CO2 from fossil fuel combustion on one hand and all the remaining CO2 on the other hand. Are such methods / is such a delineation available?
As an expert in climate science, you certainly have better insight (than me or Mark) where you could find the respective information, even though the attribution of the CO2 in various pools (atmosphere, ocean) to various CO2 sources may not be your specialization.
To conclude, I think that Mark raised a relevant point. I believe that the best what scientists can do in climate discussions is providing information as accurate and as complete as possible. It can be a difficult task, because it may be hard to keep it understandable enough, however, I still see very important that the public has an opportunity to see a complete picture. In this respect, it rather appears that the graphics that you suggested as an explanation to the point raised by Mark was, actually, not very helpful.
Sincerely
Tomáš
What amazes and concerns me most about this site and much of the climate community is the focus on the supposed harm increased CO2 is causing, while seldom mentioning the substantial benefits that increased CO2 levels are having upon the plant community, particularly, our food crops. From a plant physiology perspective, the optimum CO2 levels need to reach 800 to 1000 ppm.
Good science demands that one examines the positives as well as the negatives; something this site has avoided..
This is a common denialist meme, treated by SkepticalScience.com. Believe it or not, good science has examined global greening due to the 140 ppm of CO2 already added to the atmosphere since 1850, and concluded additional productivity gains wouldn’t make up for losses due to the warming that much CO2 would cause. Using the IPCC’s best ECS of 3°C/CO2 doubling, 1000 ppm would mean more than a 5°C increase in GMST, higher on land. From a plant physiology perspective, that much warming would overwhelm any gains in productivity for much of the world’s croplands. Not to mention human survivability in places like the Persian Gulf and the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Try again with your “positives as well as negatives”. How much increase in crop productivity would it take to offset the homes, livelihoods and lives lost due to the combined impacts of 5°C of global warming?
Addendum to my previous reply to Don Healy: you can be sure that good science has examined the costs and benefits of fossil carbon emissions. I found these with a quick’n’dirty search on Google Scholar.: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (there is no better science) has published VALUING CLIMATE DAMAGES: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide; and a Nature article, “Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2” (open access) places the social cost of CO2 at $185/tonne, higher than previous US government valuations.
But your complaint is misdirected here. The SCC emerges from economic analysis, whereas this blog’s authors are experts on physical climate science. As for “much of the climate community”, are we talking about the international peer community of climate-adjacent specialists who publish in venues of record, or some strawman you’ve erected?
Don Healy,
Higher CO2 levels aren’t great for crops according to commentary like this: “While atmospheric carbon can fuel plant growth, the effects of the additional carbon are more complex than just bigger plants. Crops grown under higher-carbon conditions increase the synthesis of sugars and starches while decreasing the concentrations of protein and nutrients.27 Sept 2024”
https://magazine.publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/less-nutritious-crops-another-result-rising-co2#:~:text=While%20atmospheric%20carbon%20can%20fuel,concentrations%20of%20protein%20and%20nutrients.
Keep up the Good Work. By Good Work, I mean trying to help other people, especially leadership contenders, be more aware and better understand the rapid climate change harm continuing to be caused by poorly governed, weakly limited, harmfully misled human activity.
I am a retired Professional Engineer (Civil/Structural) who got an MBA in the 1980s. I am more interested in the bigger issue of developing improvements for the future – things like the Sustainable Development Goals. However, rapid climate change is a significant concern. It makes it harder to be sure that improvements will last. For the work I did, the uncertainty of how bad things will become (like: rain, wind, snow, and ice event intensities) made, and continues to make, it difficult to design lasting structures and surface run-off systems.
Everyone is forced to do more to try to ‘adapt to more significant negative near-term and distant future impacts’ when the people who benefit most from harmful activities do less to mitigate the magnitude, limit the peak, of the damage done. Rebuilding or modifying things that no longer function reliably and safely is not improvement. The modification and rebuilding actions may be counted as GDP and make it appear as if GDP is increasing. But a lot of that effort does not ‘sustainably improve the future’. It is only attempts to recover from the damage done by a ‘lack of mitigation in the past’.
From that perspective I offer the following response to Rasmus hoping that:
“Attribution connects weather and climate and may remind decision-makers within the fossil sector about the fact that we share the same planet and that global warming will affect everyone, either directly or indirectly.”
The harmful impacts of human activity do not equitably affect everyone. The negative impacts are not experienced proportionately to the amount of benefit a person gets from the ‘shared’ damage done. In particular, many leaders – higher status people, are unlikely to experience the future negative consequences of their actions and lack of action.
Competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others motivates many people, especially political and business game players. Their reasoning is often systemically driven to evaluate ‘their perception of benefit minus their perception of risk of suffering harm or loss’. People motivated that way are likely to:
• over-estimate their potential to benefit
• under-estimate the harm they will experience
• ignore or ‘discount’ harm done to others, especially if those others, like future generations and poor people in other nations, are unable to ‘harm them back’.
So the real challenge is getting leaders to limit the damage done and risk of harm when doing so requires the highest status people, all of them – not just the ones who care, to lead the required change of ways of living. That requires leaders to act in ways that disappoint the more harmful among the higher-status people. Climate scientists should partner with, and openly support, advocates who point out the need for that type of leadership action based on the evidence.
The current developed socioeconomic-political systems allow competitors for leadership the freedom to mislead and benefit from the popularity of misunderstandings. Climate scientists could be clearer that those systemic problems need to be effectively governed/limited. Without that corrective mitigation action the upper limits of climate change damage done will continue to increase. Continued freedom of higher-status people to be more harmful and more misleading will result in the harm done far exceeding the sort-of-safe limit of 1.5 C warming.
The following is climate related (though not climate-science related) and worrying if true: Inside ExxonMobil’s Alleged Hack-for-Hire Campaign Targeting Climate Activists.
Thank you, Mr. Emmerson. IMHO, that kind of news is always germane here. Those who prefer a more traditional media source should see Reuters. We all know denialists love to claim media bias. Not to impugn Vulnerable U’s objectivity, but journalism has its own established standards of verification, and some media are more respected than others. The Interactive Media Bias Chart offers a sorting on two axes, using a documented, quasi-objective methodology. While Vulnerable U doesn’t appear, Reuters scores among the highest on both axes. Disclaimer: I have no personal or financial interest in Ad Fontes Media or Reuters. I just think the chart is cool!
>> So what has gone wrong?
There are a few points which in my opinion could and should be improved
– linking skeptical people to holocaust denial (that is where your quite disgusting insult historically comes from and feinting ignorance about it, does not really help) Are you familiar with the meme that whoever swings a “Nazi club” immediately looses the argument? In general insults have no place a civilized debate and only reflect badly on the poster! But I can see how dragging a discussion on unnecessarily keeps many climate scientists at the honey pots.
– Feynman´s cargo cult speech describes quite clearly the ethical necessity to have “scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it”
Often, when one of these experts posted something here they clearly ignored/short-handed this idea, downplaying as experts valid controversial scientific opinions!
(in posts on the acceleration of the sea level rate, reasons for global greening, UHI or the role of the Hunga Tonga for recent atmospheric trends, tends in the Antarctic temperatures, ice mass or extent, attribution of individual extreme weather events and many more – in literature these topics seem to be discussed way more controversial than presented here over the decades, if that were true, it would be highly unethical and in my opinion disqualify any of the posters here from doing believable science until fully rectified )
– In the last 20 years there were many postings as a result of what could be called “selection bias”
For example favoring one troposphere temperature product over the other
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD037472 (figure 13 fro example)
Or the fact that the CMIP6 models had to update the
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/17/what-i-learned-about-what-exxon-knew/
https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/13/3465/2020/
” we find that the ECS increase can be attributed to the more advanced treatment of aerosols, with the largest contribution coming from the effect of aerosols on cloud microphysics”
I hope we can agree that the many model based posts here made before that correction were overconfident and wrong as clouds are essential for global temperature trends, which needs to be addressed urgently! How could that happen, what will you do to make sure it does not happen again?
After all the burden of proof for the claimed necessary quite extreme measures, must be extraordinary high!
And being more wrong than right over 20 years does not bode well!
One most obvious field showing a “selection bias” problem is proxy reconstruction in my opinion, where MBH failed for now almost 25 years to provide a mathematically description how their proxy selection affected their result. This not only had gone wrong, it also apparently went nowhere, as according to S. McIntyre the very first curve shown in IPCC6 summary for policy makers figure 1a was created using only one very long proxy, Cape Ghir (https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/), which shows a recent alarming trend, but no Medieval or Roman warm period unlike clear historical evidence for both nearby that location. There is a resulting uncertainty from selecting this proxy over known local history which is not only missing in the reconstruction but also not at all mentioned by the authors.
I predict that insulting behavior and publishing half-truths (which way too often make it through peer review)) will not get you very far in the future.
Cheers,
Yebo
YK: linking skeptical people to holocaust denial (that is where your quite disgusting insult historically comes from and feinting ignorance about it, does not really help) Are you familiar with the meme that whoever swings a “Nazi club” immediately looses the argument?
BPL: Nobody is “swinging a Nazi club.” Global warming deniers deny global warming, and that’s all there is to it. We’re not going to call them “skeptics,” because the only thing they’re ever skeptical of is global warming, and that’s not what the world means.
YK: Often, when one of these experts posted something here they clearly ignored/short-handed this idea, downplaying as experts valid controversial scientific opinions!
BPL: Who says they’re valid? You?
YK: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/17/what-i-learned-about-what-exxon-knew/
BPL: If you’re getting your information from Watts, it’s no wonder you have these crackpot opinions.
YK: One most obvious field showing a “selection bias” problem is proxy reconstruction in my opinion, where MBH failed for now almost 25 years to provide a mathematically description how their proxy selection affected their result.
BPL: No, they didn’t. Their code and data were publicly posted. The 25 year delay is a figment of your imagination (or McIntyre’s). In any case, since dozens of independent studies since MBH found the same curve, your constant harping on this 26-year-old paper shows you don’t really understand how science works. Replication matters.
You do know that your points have been, I believe the legal term is “asked and answered”. Your reliance on fake skeptic authorities discredits your objectivity and veracity. We are all too familiar with the resources you cite, and the questions which arose have been studied and incorporated into scientific evaluations for a long time now.
Coming to a site run by some of the world’s finest climate scientists to post updates of science denial material does you no honor, but exposes your limitations.
As for the nonsense about defining “denial” as only referring to Nazis, and the decades old insistence on refusing to use its dictionary definition, that is the reason I use ‘fake skeptic’ instead. Changing the subject and claiming insult as an excuse not to think or understand is a classic technique. Karl Rove simplified the methodology for use against the reality-based world, originally codified by Schopenhauer, though I’ve been informed some of the arguments date back to Plato, Aristotle, and those who first started to reflect on the uses of thought and language and write it down.
https://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
If you are genuinely interested in the background (financial and otherwise) of the authorities you cite, this is one good resource. There are others.
https://www.desmog.com/databases/
It looks clever, but it’s not.
Yebo Kando
Yebo said: “– linking skeptical people to holocaust denial (that is where your quite disgusting insult historically comes from and feinting ignorance about it, does not really help) Are you familiar with the meme that whoever swings a “Nazi club” immediately looses the argument? In general insults have no place a civilized debate and only reflect badly on the poster! But I can see how dragging a discussion on unnecessarily keeps many climate scientists at the honey pots.”
I understand his concern, but I’m not convinced that the term denialist is being deliberately linked to holocaust denial. The word denial existed a long time before the Holocaust. We cant stop the use of the word denial just because of the holocaust ( a terrible thing). Saying insults have no place on a climate blog is followed directly by an insult “But I can see how dragging a discussion on unnecessarily keeps many climate scientists at the honey pots”. This is very inconsistent. It isnt even true because the guys who run RC are volunteering their time.
Yebo said “For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it”Often, when one of these experts posted something here they clearly ignored/short-handed this idea, downplaying as experts valid controversial scientific opinions!”
Ok, but Ive been reading this wedbsite quite a while and the authors generally talk about the strengths and weaknesses of their theories. Remember its also a blog post they dont have all day so rely on other people pointing out weaknesses.
Yebo said: “in literature these topics seem to be discussed way more controversial than presented here over the decades”
Controversial with who?. Certainly a few hard core sceptics dispute damn near everything, but that doesnt mean everything is disputed by everyone.
Regarding the link Kebo posted:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/17/what-i-learned-about-what-exxon-knew/
The issue seems to be the claim that exonn mobil had internal knowledge of the climate problem but hid this from the public, while telling the public there was no evidence of anthropogenic global warming. This has been well verified. The Wattsup rant claims Exon only knew it was a ‘potential’ problem so hiding that is ok apparently, because its only ‘potential’. This is just playing with words. They knew there could be a problem and hid that information so they still did the wrong thing..
“This not only had gone wrong, it also apparently went nowhere, as according to S. McIntyre the very first curve shown in IPCC6 summary for policy makers figure 1a was created using only one very long proxy, Cape Ghir (https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/), which shows a recent alarming trend, but no Medieval or Roman warm period unlike clear historical evidence for both nearby that location.”
This commentary is full of emotive insults (woke scientists) so applying Kebos standards MacIntyre looses the argument straight away! Just to be consistent.
I am a layperson, and I don’t have enough technical knowledge to comment on he proxy data, but it does seem to hinge around the hide the decline issue where various proxies show declining temperatures well into the 20th century. I would be interested in why. With instrumental records using different instruments and in the land, oceans, lower and upper atmosphere all showing warming, this seems compelling evidence of warming, so it seems more likely that the proxy decline would reflect a problem with the proxies, after about the year 1900. But as I say Im not an expert and am just curious about it all.
I think that if Steve Mcintyre is so sure hes correct, he should do his own temperature reconstrucion and publish it.
Yebo Kando, I predict RC climate realists will have hours of fun responding to your comment. I’m no exception! Let’s start at the beginning, with your attempt to redefine “deny”, “denier”, and “denial” to refer solely to the Nazi Holocaust. No dictionary I’ve been able to find reserves those words for the Holocaust. Only soi-disant “skeptics” (a flagrant misappropriation of the word) of climate science insist on the unbreakable linkage of the bare word “denier” to “Holocaust”.
When Ellen Goodman said in 2007 (my emphasis):
I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
Former TV weatherman Anthony Watts and Republican Representative Dana Rohrbacher, inter alia, claimed that by saying “on par with”, Goodman had irrevocably bound “denial” exclusively to the Holocaust, and complained about widespread use of “denier”, “which is deemed offensive by many people in the climate debate due to its being associated with Holocaust denial.” Tsk! Many reality-based people, OTOH, find it perfectly acceptable English language usage. Like Humpty Dumpty, Watts appears to think he can make words mean whatever he wants them to. That some people in the “climate debate” find that word offensive, places them firmly the denier category, because the word itself is purely descriptive. To deny a proposition simply means to reject its truth. The Holocaust is hardly the only truth that can be denied!
“Holocaust deniers” reject the historically recorded fact of Germany’s attempt to exterminate Jews in its conquered territory. “Climate-change deniers”, OTOH, reject one or more of the following three consensus propositions:
1. The globe is warming, now at a rate of over 0.2°C/decade.
2. It’s primarily due to human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
3. It’s already causing grief and economic loss around the world, that will mount until GHG emissions cease.
Those who deny the 1st fact include the POTUS-elect, who says it’s a hoax.
Deniers of the 2nd fact include Dr. Roy Spencer, who signed his name to the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”
Those who deny the 3rd fact, e.g. Marc Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute, may be labeled “lukewarmers”: they acknowledge the globe is warming and it’s anthropogenic, but insist it’s not a crisis. There are infinite variations on that kind of gaslighting. They all reduce to denying the true costs of the warming, by dismissing or devaluing the grief and expense already incurred by the victims of global warming to date.
In addition to the above three factual propositions about climate change due anthropogenic global warming, a fourth category of denial exists: the denial of climate-science denial, and the substitute of “skeptic” for anyone who rejects the overwhelming consensus of the trained, disciplined, professional earth scientists who publish their climate-related research in specialist venues of record. In reality, genuine skeptics recognize that climate experts exist, they all submit to unsparing peer review, they all know what any one of them knows, and the stronger their consensus, the more likely its deniers are to be wrong. Lacking scientific justification, Watts’ and Rohrbacher’s outrage, like yours, is entirely strategic. Not to resort to tu quoque, but I, for one, was offended When the Heartland Institute, a “non-profit” purveyor of bespoke disinformation, placed those who “believe in global warming” on a par with Ted Kaczynski!. I wasn’t the only who was: HI lost a lot of clients because of that.
Science isn’t perfect, it’s simply the only method of understanding and anticipating reality that’s more successful than divination with a sheep’s liver. It’s true the consensus of credentialed climate specialists isn’t absolute. The few holdouts keep making the same objections, long after they’ve been rejected by the specialist peer community on published evidence. The pseudoskeptics deny the epistemological authority of intersubjective verification, a foundation of science. It’s what Feynman meant when he said “the first rule is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool”. Your peers are the other specialists in your sub-discipline, who together know as much as you do about it! Consensus is what emerges when a proposition has been verified by enough peers that the focus of further research has moved on. IOW, consensus is essential for scientific progress. After two centuries of advancing climate science, claims that contradict the modern consensus for anthropogenic global warming are extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence to support them. No so-called “skeptic” has offered any for years. “Skeptic” my ass (my emphasis)! That felt good to write, even if nobody reads it.
Mal,
from the four answers so far, this was the one mostly on topic, so I will address you and maybe a few others. It is of course most interesting which of my points weren’t addressed by anybody so far!
You conceded that some alarmists draw up the parallel between holocaust and climate denial, this has been going on for way before 2007 linking skeptical climate scientists with active Nazi groups, but as the climate gate emails can tell you around that time, mainstream alarmists choose this word to skew the debate away from a scientific exchange.
– Dr. Roy Spencer´s statement: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”
makes him a lukewarmer (warming is real, but thee is no factual evidence for the high CO2-sensitivite scientists here claim and it might be beneficial), showing in his post scientifically, while not denying anything, that the data is not good enough to prove any of your statements
(in particular the first one seems to rely on a very cherry picked data set and time period, a while ago even this webpage was talking about the stalled warming trends! Spencer gives a trend of 0.14K/decade since 1979, most scientists would agree on, so maybe after looking at the data you must become one of those deniers yourself by your own criteria)
– claims that contradict the modern consensus for anthropogenic global warming are extraordinary,
Not at all, like for example Spencer many posts clearly shows very often in the last 20 years
You may read https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015579723
“The denial label is, strictly speaking, misrepresenting the sceptic view.”
One fact I tried to point out was about the uncertainty of computer models, the cloud physics was changed about 5 years ago, with disastrous consequence for older models.
Can we agree that clouds play an essential role for global warming and modeling them incorrectly uh limits the predictive ability of said models?
Yet, as climate skeptics pointed out many times over the 20 years of this webpage, model based statements about global warming were made here with false certainty, which was then denied by the locals.
Here is Frank`s article again not from WUWT http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11035.64808/1
showing a VERY questionable approach by Supram, Rahmstorf and Oreskes.
The claim that the models, data or computing power 50 years ago was remotely good enough to calculate the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is absurd – modern climate scientist struggle with that and their systems are orders of magnitude more sophisticated.
Like Spencer, Frank has valid skeptical points, you should not deny.
I miss statements about the proxies, but this one
“BPL: No, they didn’t. Their code and data were publicly posted. ”
It is correct that they posted a LOT abut it in the last 25 years, but so far there was no mathematical description of any kind for the bias caused by proxy selection (nor was there for Cape Ghir), this is an easy example where you are proven wrong.
No statements so far about the demonstrated superiority of the UAH-series, Spencer seems to do godo work there.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD037472 (figure 13 fro example)
Looks like a 20 year long using wrong data here to me.
– evidence to support them. No so-called “skeptic” has offered any
You really don’t understand how skepticism works.
Alarming statement based on flawed models were unscientific (and the non-disclosure of that remains unethical) even if they come true!
Valid scientific criticism (like pointing this very fact out) is not denial.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2005/plot/gistemp/from:2005/trend/plot/none
Hmmmm….