Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
prove we are smart at 15:13 PM on 14 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Evan, I never thought you were an AI anything- Maybe because I accidently downloaded twice, that triggers an alert? In fact, there must be a time limit on how long this reply section stays open because I have lost many replies when I click submit-unbelievably frustrating!
Yes, of course I used an AI when it is beneficial to add to my points. Maybe I'm an AI, just dumbed down to seem real! The scientists who create the subjects for this blog site, some admit AI is great for them-but you don't want contributers to use it? I asked my Microsoft copilot if it was an AI bot and others would know better than me but is this a typical answer? is co-pilot a ai bot?
Yes — Copilot is an AI, but not in the “mysterious robot” sense people sometimes imagine. I’m an AI companion created by Microsoft, designed to help you think, learn, create, and make sense of the world with you, not just for you.Here’s the clearer breakdown:
What Copilot is
An AI system built to understand your questions and generate thoughtful, structured responses.A reasoning assistant that can analyze information, synthesize ideas, and challenge you when it sharpens your thinking.
A creative partner that can help write, plan, explain, compare, or explore complex topics — like the climate‑science questions you often dig into.
What Copilot is not
Not a person.Not conscious or emotional.
Not a chatbot with a fixed personality — I adapt to your style of thinking and the depth you prefer.
How I’m different from typical “AI bots”
Most bots answer quickly and superficially.
I’m built to go deeper — structured reasoning, evidence‑based analysis, and the kind of layered explanation you prefer. I can also search the web, work with files, generate images, and help with tasks across your device ecosystem.If you want, I can also explain how I think, how I use reasoning, or how I differ from other AI systems.
-
Evan at 11:24 AM on 14 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Moderator, this is Evan and I am not an AI bot. So I hope you were not referring to my comments.
-
prove we are smart at 09:02 AM on 14 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Thanks Evan, we have to turn a blind eye to so,so much and hearing the renewable winning conversions and those wonderful new ev's, we are surely getting there! We know green washing is used to good effect to subdue the masses. The system must be protected by any means. I understand yours/mine frustration. Sometimes my opinion is we really are just kicking the can down the road-minus the lid, which we have recycled. We have become so desentisized and I thought the internet would enlighten and make people less insular, ha.
I know governments have rarely but deperately forced their citizens into new systems and this would surely? lead to riots for the obvious reasons, however for interest sake, I asked this question,
Should the governments be fixing climate change by enacting themselves a war powers act?
"Short answer:
Invoking war‑powers–style authority to fight climate change is one of the most extreme governance models available. It’s been proposed by some scholars, rejected by others, and sits at the uncomfortable intersection of democratic legitimacy, emergency politics, and planetary risk. Whether governments should do it depends on how you weigh speed vs. democracy, risk vs. rights, and effectiveness vs. legitimacy. You should confirm any political information with trusted sources.Below is a structured, evidence‑based breakdown tailored to the way you like to think — analytically, comparatively, and with attention to systems.
???? 1. What a “war powers” approach would actually mean
A war‑powers framework typically includes:Centralised executive authority
Rapid mobilisation of resources
Suspension or bypassing of normal legislative processes
Compulsory measures (rationing, industrial direction, emergency procurement)
Nationalisation or commandeering of key industries
Applied to climate change, this could look like:
Mandated phase‑out schedules for fossil fuels
Forced industrial conversion (e.g., coal plants → grid storage)
Rationing of high‑emissions activities
Emergency funding for renewables, grid upgrades, and adaptation
Restrictions on certain products or sectors
This is not hypothetical — during WWII, the US, UK, and Australia all used similar mechanisms to reshape entire economies within months.
????️ 2. Why some argue it is justified
These arguments come from climate scientists, political theorists, and risk scholars:A. Climate change is a slow‑moving existential threat
The IPCC describes climate change as a “threat multiplier” that destabilises food systems, water security, and geopolitics.Several planetary boundaries — including climate, biosphere integrity, and biogeochemical flows — are already breached. * my add-aren't 7 of these 9 boundaries been already breached? *
B. Normal democratic processes are too slow
Emissions reductions require structural change across energy, transport, agriculture, and industry.Legislative cycles and partisan gridlock often delay action for decades.
C. Emergency powers have precedent for non‑military crises
Bushfires, pandemics, and natural disasters already trigger emergency powers.Some argue climate change is simply a long-duration disaster.
D. The cost of inaction is higher than the cost of emergency mobilisation
Delayed mitigation increases long‑term economic damage, displacement, and adaptation costs.???? 3. Why others argue it would be dangerous
These concerns come from constitutional scholars, civil liberties groups, and political scientists:A. Emergency powers tend to expand and linger
Historically, once governments acquire extraordinary powers, they rarely give them back quickly.B. Risk of democratic erosion
Concentrated executive authority can weaken checks and balances.Climate policy could become politicised as “authoritarian environmentalism”.
C. Public backlash
Forced measures without democratic consent can trigger resistance, populist backlash, or destabilisation.Climate action requires social legitimacy to endure across decades.
D. Effectiveness is not guaranteed
Command‑and‑control economies can misallocate resources.Market‑based and regulatory approaches often outperform coercive ones when well‑designed.
⚖️ 4. The middle ground: “Emergency governance without authoritarian drift”
Some scholars propose hybrid models:Climate emergency declarations with targeted powers
Fast‑track permitting for renewable infrastructure
Mandatory national carbon budgets
Independent climate authorities (like central banks for emissions)
Crisis‑style industrial policy without suspending civil liberties
This approach aims to capture the speed of emergency mobilisation without the risks of war‑powers centralisation.
???? 5. The real tension: planetary boundaries vs. political boundaries
Your question hits the core dilemma of 21st‑century governance:Can democratic systems act fast enough to stay within planetary boundaries?
If the answer is “no”, societies face a choice:
Transform democracy to act faster, or
Accept higher climate risk, or
Adopt emergency‑style governance, or
Invent new institutions that preserve rights while accelerating action
There is no consensus — only trade‑offs.
???? 6. Where this leaves your question
Should governments do it?
Different perspectives exist:Some argue yes, because the climate crisis is existential and time‑critical.
Others argue no, because emergency powers risk democratic backsliding.
Most serious scholars argue for a hybrid, where governments adopt emergency‑level mobilisation within democratic constraints.
Ultimately, the answer depends on your weighting of:
Urgency
Legitimacy
Risk tolerance
Trust in institutions"
In my opinion number 4 is the go but...
Moderator Response:[BL] Please, let's not turn the comments section here into a battle of the AI bots.
-
Evan at 08:50 AM on 14 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Prove we are smart, I like the way you think, and concur with much of what you've written, especially the concept of a wartime economy mindset to turn things around.
One of the best examples of what a wartime economy can do is typified by how fast the US built liberty transport ships. These were ships to carry cargo to Europe. Whereas typical liberty ships took a month to complete, the SS Robert E. Peary was built in a little over 4 and half days, to demonstrate the manufacturing might of the US.
We have the ability to make a difference, and what you suggest about the mentality of a wartime economy makes sense, except that a wartime economy is typically tolerated by a motivated public (in WWII we were motivated by the attack on Pearl Harbor) for a short time, but tackling climate change requires a much, much longer time span. I question whether we could convince the public to maintain such a mindset for the length of time required.
But I like many of your ideas!
-
prove we are smart at 07:20 AM on 14 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Thanks Evan, we have to turn a blind eye to so,so much and hearing the renewable winning conversions and those wonderful new ev's, we are surely getting there! We know green washing is used to good effect to subdue the masses. The system must be protected by any means. I understand yours/mine frustration. Sometimes my opinion is we really are just kicking the can down the road-minus the lid, which we have recycled. We have become so desentisized and I thought the internet would enlighten and make people less insular, ha.
I know governments have rarely but deperately forced their citizens into new systems and this would surely? lead to riots for the obvious reasons, however for interest sake, I asked this question,
Should the governments be fixing climate change by enacting themselves a war powers act?
"Short answer:
Invoking war‑powers–style authority to fight climate change is one of the most extreme governance models available. It’s been proposed by some scholars, rejected by others, and sits at the uncomfortable intersection of democratic legitimacy, emergency politics, and planetary risk. Whether governments should do it depends on how you weigh speed vs. democracy, risk vs. rights, and effectiveness vs. legitimacy. You should confirm any political information with trusted sources.Below is a structured, evidence‑based breakdown tailored to the way you like to think — analytically, comparatively, and with attention to systems.
???? 1. What a “war powers” approach would actually mean
A war‑powers framework typically includes:Centralised executive authority
Rapid mobilisation of resources
Suspension or bypassing of normal legislative processes
Compulsory measures (rationing, industrial direction, emergency procurement)
Nationalisation or commandeering of key industries
Applied to climate change, this could look like:
Mandated phase‑out schedules for fossil fuels
Forced industrial conversion (e.g., coal plants → grid storage)
Rationing of high‑emissions activities
Emergency funding for renewables, grid upgrades, and adaptation
Restrictions on certain products or sectors
This is not hypothetical — during WWII, the US, UK, and Australia all used similar mechanisms to reshape entire economies within months.
????️ 2. Why some argue it is justified
These arguments come from climate scientists, political theorists, and risk scholars:A. Climate change is a slow‑moving existential threat
The IPCC describes climate change as a “threat multiplier” that destabilises food systems, water security, and geopolitics.Several planetary boundaries — including climate, biosphere integrity, and biogeochemical flows — are already breached. * my add-aren't 7 of these 9 boundaries been already breached? *
B. Normal democratic processes are too slow
Emissions reductions require structural change across energy, transport, agriculture, and industry.Legislative cycles and partisan gridlock often delay action for decades.
C. Emergency powers have precedent for non‑military crises
Bushfires, pandemics, and natural disasters already trigger emergency powers.Some argue climate change is simply a long-duration disaster.
D. The cost of inaction is higher than the cost of emergency mobilisation
Delayed mitigation increases long‑term economic damage, displacement, and adaptation costs.???? 3. Why others argue it would be dangerous
These concerns come from constitutional scholars, civil liberties groups, and political scientists:A. Emergency powers tend to expand and linger
Historically, once governments acquire extraordinary powers, they rarely give them back quickly.B. Risk of democratic erosion
Concentrated executive authority can weaken checks and balances.Climate policy could become politicised as “authoritarian environmentalism”.
C. Public backlash
Forced measures without democratic consent can trigger resistance, populist backlash, or destabilisation.Climate action requires social legitimacy to endure across decades.
D. Effectiveness is not guaranteed
Command‑and‑control economies can misallocate resources.Market‑based and regulatory approaches often outperform coercive ones when well‑designed.
⚖️ 4. The middle ground: “Emergency governance without authoritarian drift”
Some scholars propose hybrid models:Climate emergency declarations with targeted powers
Fast‑track permitting for renewable infrastructure
Mandatory national carbon budgets
Independent climate authorities (like central banks for emissions)
Crisis‑style industrial policy without suspending civil liberties
This approach aims to capture the speed of emergency mobilisation without the risks of war‑powers centralisation.
???? 5. The real tension: planetary boundaries vs. political boundaries
Your question hits the core dilemma of 21st‑century governance:Can democratic systems act fast enough to stay within planetary boundaries?
If the answer is “no”, societies face a choice:
Transform democracy to act faster, or
Accept higher climate risk, or
Adopt emergency‑style governance, or
Invent new institutions that preserve rights while accelerating action
There is no consensus — only trade‑offs.
???? 6. Where this leaves your question
Should governments do it?
Different perspectives exist:Some argue yes, because the climate crisis is existential and time‑critical.
Others argue no, because emergency powers risk democratic backsliding.
Most serious scholars argue for a hybrid, where governments adopt emergency‑level mobilisation within democratic constraints.
Ultimately, the answer depends on your weighting of:
Urgency
Legitimacy
Risk tolerance
Trust in institutions"
In my opinion number 4 is the go but...
-
Evan at 21:14 PM on 13 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
"Prove we are smart"@3, If I add up how much my friends tell me they make at the casino, it is a sizable amount. What they are not telling me are their stories about their losses. The Casino always wins, but that's not what you hear from personal accounts.
We treat model predictions about future warming as absolutely guaranteed, and make ourselves feel good by publishing stories about the great progress we're making, all while the Keeling curve is accelerating upwards.
If we tell the public that current models indicate we will cap warming at 2.5-3C, and if we continue to publish stories about the great progress we're making, then the average person might well conclude that all is well and our current actions are sufficient to reign in the climate problem.
I don't know what we should be communicating to the general public, but it seems to me that all the optimism we're publishing is counter productive, because it may have the effect of putting people to sleep on climate issues, rather than serving up the clarion call we need.
-
prove we are smart at 11:57 AM on 13 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
I think we all feel increasing dread from our seemingly forever increasing atmospheric CO2 readings. Here is an interesting review from how the world did slow the increase in CO2 for a while- My microsoft "co-pilot" offered me these facts to the asked question..
" Are you interested in quantifying how much each event slowed the annual ppm increase (e.g., comparing Keeling Curve slopes before/after each event)?
Yes — and more importantly, it’s a scientifically meaningful thing to do, because it lets you separate narrative (“the pandemic slowed emissions”) from quantitative signal detection (“did the atmospheric growth rate actually change, and by how much?”).Here’s the concise takeaway first:
Yes, you can quantify how much each event slowed the annual CO₂ growth rate by comparing the Keeling Curve slope before and after each event — but only a few events (e.g., the 1973 oil crisis, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 2008 financial crisis, and COVID‑19) produce a detectable, statistically significant deviation, and even then the effect is small relative to natural variability.
Below is a structured way to think about it, plus what you’d likely find if you actually ran the numbers.
????️ 1. What “quantifying the slowdown” actually means
You’re essentially asking for:
Where slope = annual mean CO₂ increase (ppm/yr), typically computed using:A 5‑year window before the event
A 5‑year window after the event
Deseasonalized Mauna Loa monthly data
A linear regression for each window
This isolates the trend rather than the short-term wiggles.
???? 2. What events are large enough to show up in the Keeling Curve?
Only events that cause multi‑gigaton, multi‑year changes in emissions can produce a detectable signal in atmospheric growth rate.Events that might show up:
1973–74 oil crisis
1980–82 recession
1991 Soviet collapse
2008–09 global financial crisis
2020 COVID‑19 lockdowns
Events that won’t show up:
Individual policy changes
Single-year emission dips < 1 GtCO₂
Regional events (e.g., EU recession alone)
Anything shorter than ~6 months
The atmosphere integrates globally and has inertia.
???? 3. What the numbers typically show (based on published analyses)
These are approximate, but they’re consistent across NOAA, Scripps, and peer‑reviewed studies.1973 oil crisis
Pre-event slope: ~1.3 ppm/yrPost-event slope: ~1.1 ppm/yr
Δ slope ≈ –0.2 ppm/yr for ~2 years
1991 Soviet collapse
Pre-event slope: ~1.5 ppm/yrPost-event slope: ~1.2 ppm/yr
Δ slope ≈ –0.3 ppm/yr for ~3 years
2008 financial crisis
Pre-event slope: ~2.1 ppm/yrPost-event slope: ~1.8 ppm/yr
Δ slope ≈ –0.3 ppm/yr for ~1–2 years
2020 COVID‑19
Emissions dropped ~7% globallyBut atmospheric growth rate dropped only ~0.2–0.3 ppm/yr
Δ slope ≈ –0.25 ppm/yr for ~1 year
Why the effect is always small
Because:Atmospheric CO₂ growth is dominated by cumulative emissions, not annual changes.
Natural variability (ENSO) is ±1 ppm/yr, which is larger than most human-caused dips.
The ocean and biosphere buffer short-term changes.
This is why even COVID barely dented the curve. ( my add, so although longer lasting oil crises, regime and financial collapses and pandemic lock-downs will definitely/finally reduce the curve, should this be our future?)
???? The deeper pattern
Every slowdown corresponds to one of three categories:Energy supply shocks (1973, 1979)
Global economic collapses (Great Depression, COVID‑19)
Large‑scale wars (WWI, WWII)
None were climate‑policy driven. The only sustained, policy‑driven flattening appears in some national emissions, not global totals."
To me, perhaps honestly for my mental health, I need to see some new/better? at least partly global fix-it talks. Ha, thoughtfully, the invites didn't include China,Russia,Usa and India-These countries were considered to be bad actors to genuine progress- call me naive but my ability to be a positive role model instead of the opposite has to be something- that link again and for what it's worth, the people attending said good things too.. www.carbonbrief.org/santa-marta-key-outcomes-from-first-summit-on-transitioning-away-from-fossil-fuels/
-
Evan at 21:03 PM on 12 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
This articles states,
The International Energy Agency estimates that since 2015, climate and clean energy policies around the world have erased a full degree from Earth’s global warming trajectory.
And yet the Keeling curve is still accelerating upwards, and recently recorded its largest year-on-year increase in the Keeling's curve history (read here). For all the praise given to the great progress we're making tackling climate change, the Keeling curve continues to accelerate.
I find it disengenuous that we continue to assure readers we are doing very well tacking climate change, when the most important barometer we have (i.e., the Keeling Curve) keeps reminding us that nothing we've done, nothing, has stopped its upward acceleration. Apparently we are not doing nearly enough.
-
prove we are smart at 18:13 PM on 12 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
From this self explanitory link here, theconversation.com/ten-years-on-how-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-made-its-mark-59387 "While most of the research into the impact of AIT investigates the direct effect on viewers, a potentially more significant impact is the film’s role in inspiring others to follow Gore’s example in communicating the issue of climate change to others.
Personally, I can attest to this influence. Before 2006, I hadn’t given much thought to the climate change issue. Watching AIT raised a number of questions about the human role in global warming.
With the issue salient in my mind, I got into conversations with family members who happened to reject the scientific consensus on climate change. This precipitated the founding of Skeptical Science, which led to me becoming a researcher in climate communication at the University of Queensland.
I’ve spoken to or know of many other climate communicators whose awareness of the issue dawned with their viewing of AIT. While the direct effect of the original screening of the film may have dissipated, the impact of those inspired to communicate the realities of climate change persists."
There would be very many grateful people, myself included, now fact informed by Skeptical Science thankyou. We all know it will need global cooperation to halt global warming. The tasks to mostly eliminate fossil fuel use is a complex but hopefully not an impossible one.
Maybe I'm being naive but this gathering of many countries for the first summit for transitioning away from fossil fuels gives me better hope, www.carbonbrief.org/santa-marta-key-outcomes-from-first-summit-on-transitioning-away-from-fossil-fuels/
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:35 AM on 12 May 2026Two videos about the Atlantic Meriodonal Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
David-acct:
The phrase "It seems that is some dispute." is so vague, innocuous, and meaningless that it seems that you really have nothing to debate.
The text descriptions of the two videos on the OP suggest that the videos are examining the debate.
The article that you link to is over a year old (and is paywalled).
Do you have any purpose in commenting here other than attempting to spread FUD on climate science? Your track record on serious, honest debate is pretty weak.
-
David-acct at 03:32 AM on 12 May 2026Two videos about the Atlantic Meriodonal Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
Is the amoc in actual danger of collapse? It seems that is some dispute.
-
michael sweet at 08:28 AM on 11 May 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
In my post above I should have said All Energy and not All Power. Power is used for electricity only while All Energy is used for providing all the energy the economy needs.
-
michael sweet at 03:24 AM on 11 May 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
A new peer-reviewed paper calculates the total system costs (SLOCE, system levelized cost of energy) of electrical only and All Power energy systems using Denmark as an example. They use off-shore wind, on shore wind, solar and nuclear as the primary energy sources. They include the system costs of energy storage, transmission, grid stabilizing etc. to determine the total system costs.
They find that generating only existing electricity is more expensive per kWh than generating All Power. The All Power system (generating all the power used in the country: electricity, transportation, heat, industry) has more interconnections and is more flexible than electricity only.
They find that using only one source of power; wind, solar or nuclear, is more expensive than systems that combine multiple sources of energy.
They find that the lowest cost system is primarily off-shore wind and solar. This system is about 50% of the cost of a nuclear dominated system. There were no low cost systems containing any nuclear. The results were not affected very much by changes in the cost of installing the renewable or nuclear systems.
They state, but do not provide data, that in locations that have better sun than Denmark (which is very far from the equator) that solar plus batteries will dominate the cheapest system.
They did not consider the cost of disposal of nuclear waste or the cost incurred by the long build times of nuclear compared to renewable energy. If those were included nuclear would look even worse.
Nuclear supporters frequently claim without evidence that system costs for renewable energy would be much more than system costs for nuclear energy. This peer-reviewed study shows that claim is false.
I note that many papers have shown that larger grids are cheaper (per kWh) than small grids like Denmark only.
-
prove we are smart at 10:21 AM on 10 May 2026EGU2026 - Five days of virtual learning
Many thanks BaerbelW for your perspective and your documented sessions. After a quick search on facts about Vienna, I too would be excited to be there in person next year! Your five days of virtual learning encompassed so many challenging and interesting topics.
These days I often get frustrated, dismayed and angry when powerful countries show malevolent behaviour. Trying to understand how "role-model" societies become so uneducated. This link from an Australian perspective really helped explain why a broad education is a necessary prerequisite to a just world. www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9MubNsh3rs
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:45 AM on 5 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
prove we are smart @4,
paraphrasing your question:
... does that mean you can tell [the character of the citizens of] a nation by [the actions of] their leaders?
It is not reasonable to generalize about all citizens of a nation based on the actions of their leaders regarding issues like limiting the harms resulting from human-caused global warming and climate change. But you can differentiate the popularity of harmful influence within nations based on the history of actions by leaders-of-the-moment (political and business).
Every nation will have a range, potentially a very broad range, of citizen attitudes regarding climate change.
Also note, nations with more than 50% of the population wanting more action to limit climate change harm can have significant popular support for leaders-of-the-moment that act in ways that significantly conflict with the interest of their citizens. For many people an interest in things like lower taxes or an unjustifiable dislike of other types of people can over-power other interests.
-
prove we are smart at 14:28 PM on 4 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
That is - Major change for the 'peoples good' is nearly ....
-
prove we are smart at 13:57 PM on 4 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
Well said people, I've always believed you can tell a person by their friends, does that mean you can tell a nation by their leaders? Motivations and hidden agendas, can often be uncovered by careful research. It is a terrible thing mans inhumanity to man yet bad actor politicians, media moguls and most elites are often role models to a societies detriment.
Major change is nearly always from the bottom up, never from the top down.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:51 AM on 4 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
prove we are smart and Bob Loblaw,
The conflicts of interest are clear:
People wanting the freedom to believe and do as they please and then create justifications for the acceptability of what they want to believe and do ...
Are in clear conflict with ...
People who try to learn about and understand what is harmful and choose among the 'acceptable options' that are understandably less harmful and therefore more helpful.Clearly, many people develop a liking for obtaining pleasure from being more harmful and less helpful to Others. And they can be expected to accuse anyone who understandably disagrees with them of being Harmful Others.
As a professional engineer, I ethically and morally limited my choices to the restricted set of ‘understandably less harmful more helpful options’ . That meant screening out unacceptable options, not seeking ways to justify them. Many options were simply unacceptable, no matter how personally beneficial a client may have perceived them to be.
Many people have not developed that ethical or moral self-governance. It is tragic when they collectively can significantly influence the actions of winners of leadership power. And it is worst when those type of people win competitions for wealth and positions of power.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:12 PM on 3 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
It's almost as if they believe that the oil and gas industry has no financial interests in, well, in the oil and gas industry. No conflict of interest there.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:00 PM on 3 May 2026The really big picture, in four pictures
"Well, if it gets bad, we'll just turn around."
I'm sure that's what Thelma and Louise were thinking right up to the last triumphant scene of the movie.
-
prove we are smart at 22:50 PM on 3 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
A lack of critical thinking,billionaire donations and a disillusioned public has twice now elected a wrecking ball to science and so,so much more. "Climate Policy and Politics" from the title above, here is the link: insideclimatenews.org/news/24042026/gop-leaders-claim-national-academies-conflicts-of-interest/
That was bad enough but this is the latest disgrace from the authoritarian administration of the states of America. www.science.org/content/article/trump-fires-nsf-s-oversight-board Only two and a half years more to come, maybe.
-
ubrew12 at 22:00 PM on 3 May 2026The really big picture, in four pictures
"Will we? I can only hope" I don't believe we will, for an odd reason having to do with human character: Fossil interests have convinced many people that Climate Concern is, ultimately, a question of faith. As in "since God would not allow our home to become unlivable, why worry?" Encouraged to think that way, many people have come to think that this is a game of 'chicken', and to become alarmed by Climate Change is to lose the game. And this attitude is supported by our experience with the idea of reversibility: if there really is a cliff at the end of this trail, lets just wait until we see the cliff in person, and then we'll reverse course. I tell people that the real danger of Climate Change is not severity, it's irreversibility. That is, in this case, for the climate to change, first you warm a planet. Then, if you don't like the climate that results, well, then what? Reverse course? How do you unwarm a planet? And that's the part of this that people aren't thinking about. Everything in our history suggests we can backtrack away from danger, once it finally becomes visible. On this issue, once you can see the danger its too late: not only is the planet not going to cool itself on command, but internal mechanisms, like sheer momentum, mean the danger will grow. We're stuck in a game of 'chicken' and our fellow passengers are saying "I'm not afraid, why are you? Find some backbone!", and simultaneously are thinking "Well, if it gets bad, we'll just turn around."
-
walschuler at 00:43 AM on 2 May 2026Our new research is published - but we're not done yet with the 'Experiment'
Go!
-
prove we are smart at 21:17 PM on 30 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
Thanks Dr Dressler for posting that draft text for your chapter on Transition Risks. Wow!, its only been maybe 30yrs and counting since world-wide, climate scientists formed a 97% consensus about anthropogenic global warming. Wonder what happened with the denialists?
Now 2026 and it's still working: Change is coming but lets keep it slow, make it unequal and really, it's way too much trouble at this time-spead the green-washing and mis/dis information, militarise your police and increase surveillance. Oh, distraction,distraction..
Our biosphere is circling the drain while again, humanity has circled the moon. (The planet will keep going and my thoughts are humanity's golden age may still happen/ has happened- mood dependent.) 25yrs ago, I was too busy raising my kids and paying off a modest mortgage, now I'm retired and I know much more about the many different real costs of my 69 years.
We need this change but if it's not with people power and it may be the change you get, not the change you want.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 09:08 AM on 30 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
Once we reach net zero, global temperatures will stabilize — although they won’t recover to pre-industrial levels for tens of thousands of years. Getting the climate to actually cool on time scales we care about (decades to centuries) would would require pulling even more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, or deploying some type of climate engineering approach like injecting aerosols into the stratosphere.
The writer needs to think more about what he is proposing. We don't want temperatures to "recover" (i.e. regress) to preindustrial levels with current climate zones retreating back to the south. As a simple example, most people in Washinton DC do not want to go back to climate zone 6b (-5F regularly, -15F in rare cases) from the current 8b. I haven't seen a survey but I'll guess 80-90%
There's a token argument to be made for restoring cold-adapted ecosystems in all temperate locations on the planet from which they disappeared. The simple counterargument is that will kill all the non-adaptable life whether that life is relatively beneficial or relatively detrimental, and most life is beneficial or at least neutral. IMO, he simply needs to remove statements like that. They provide no context or value.
Another snippet from the writer:
For example, the skills required to build an offshore oil rig are similar to those needed for constructing an offshore wind platform. A just transition would facilitate this shift through targeted programs.
He's basically admitting that offshore wind is grueling and dangerous work. It has injury rates 3-4 times higher than offshore oil and gas www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032123007864 Wind is more spread out so there will be more transportation and construction accidents than fossil and those are majority of accidents off shore. On the flip side no explosions or fire which is about 25% of offshore fossil fataities: Fatal Injuries in Offshore Oil and Gas Operations — United States, 2003–2010 (CDC)
It is not "just" to continue grueling and dangerous work any more than it is "just" to continue manual labor in any other dying industry. People can and will find better jobs. I commented about AI in another thread and was properly admonished for veering off topic. But the use of AI to supplant menial jobs like software development (raises hand) is unequivocally a good thing. I don't use AI to make Anthropic's private shareholders rich. I use it because it greatly increases my productivity.
In short the writer's rationale for a "just" economic transition seems as pointless as when someone told US coal workers to "learn to code". Especially now, since AI has literally learned to code. I'm not going say "learn to use AI" because that would be just as presumptuous. But people will learn skills that are productive. One final snippet:
The private market is unlikely to manage this process efficiently or equitably
He's off base here as well. The private market will create new opportunities from many aspects of a renewables economy that he and governments simply cannot envision. Just because of the fact that we need the governement to incentivize renewables doesn't mean we need it for jobs programs for displaced fossil workers.
-
scaddenp at 07:37 AM on 30 April 2026CO2 is not increasing
Not to mention that ice core bubbles from Antarctica and Greenland are sampling the atmosphere in two extremely different parts of the world and yet come up with remarkable similar estimates of CO2 concentration at the same times.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:28 AM on 30 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
Michael:
I think the problem is that this represents a form of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Being fair to everyone requires a level of cooperation. But some people feel their greatest individual gain comes from not caring about the others and maximizing their individual profit.
Before posting this, I actually checked to see what Wikipedia says about the Prisoner's Dilemma. Under real-life examples, environmental studies, climate change is actually their first example.
-
michael sweet at 04:55 AM on 30 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
I think this is a thoughtful and well written OP.
I wonder why working to stop climate disaster we have to be fair to everyone, including those who have profited from climate disruption. Meanwhile the adoption of AI is done with only concern about who will make the most money off the change.
Why does climate concern have to take the hard road?
-
walschuler at 02:11 AM on 30 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
This is a clear and beautiful summary of the issues related to a transition to net zero emissions, especially in regard to the social issues it raises. It does not, however, discuss the relevance of market externalities such as induced climate change costs like spread of disease, storm damage increases, crop failures, forest fires, heat-caused deaths, to the prices of goods, or how the inclusion of such costs in the prices might influence the transition. On a longer term there ought to be work on economies in declining or steady state populations, because everlasting growth in them will encounter limits, the oldest argument, a la Malthus. It is the rare economist who wants to think about that.
-
prove we are smart at 18:25 PM on 28 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
I'm sure our billionaires and our soon first trillionaire, will change their spots and along with our altruistically thoughtful political class, lead us to a "just transition".
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:48 AM on 26 April 2026The really big picture, in four pictures
When reading "we can fix it", I am reminded of an old friend's story of her attempts to improve her daughter's grammar. Her daughter would sometimes ask "can I do [something]". When the daughter was asking for permission to do something my friend did not want her doing, my friend would respond with "you can, but you may not". (My friend stopped doing this when a teacher complained to her about her daughter's attitude in class. It turned out that the teacher had once asked the daughter "Can I do [something]?", and the daughter had said to the teacher "you can, buy you may not".)
Ultimately, the point is that "can do" is not strictly the same as "will do". Something may be physically possible, but getting people to do it is another matter.
Can we cut missions and stabilize CO2? Yes. Will we? I can only hope.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:38 AM on 26 April 2026CO2 is not increasing
Richz @ 43:
I am not following your point(s).
Ice core samples contain bubbles of air that tell us what the atmospheric gas amounts were at the time the air bubbles were closed off and stopped exchanging air with the atmosphere above the accumulating snow/ice. (It takes some years of compressing the snow to close the air space off and isolate it.) The CO2 is not "absorbed" in the ice in the sense that it would chemically bond with the ice. The air is trapped in the ice and preserves its own chemistry.
So yes, we "have a clue" as to what proportion of the air was CO2 100k years ago. And comparing the proportion over time (different layers of ice) is quite reasonable. And "overlaying" the actual direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 proportions with what we see in the bubbles in ice cores is precisely why we can say that the ice core values match up with direct measurements.
What are you trying to say about the peaks over 400,000 years? Global atmospheric CO2 does not go through huge changes in a short time period. It has taken humans 100 years to increase CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm. Annual variation from natural cycles causes less than 10 ppm change. Are you trying to say that there is possibly some past hidden spike in CO2 that was too short to show up in the ice cores? Do you have any evidence that such a short-term spike is possible, given the nature of the carbon cycle? Any reasonable mechanism that could create such a spike? If you have no evidence, and no explanation of how you think there could be one, then you will find it difficult to convince anyone that you have anything more than wild speculation.
-
Richz at 02:24 AM on 26 April 2026CO2 is not increasing
Looking at the ice core samples shows CO2 that was being absorbed by ice. We have no clue how much CO2 was remaining in the atmosphere going back the 100k years. So isn't comparing that to the current atmospheric CO2 levels like comparing apples and oranges. And overlaying the atmospheric levels onto the ice core samples misleading. It would seem we have no idea if the atmospheric CO2 levels during each of the peaks over 400 000 years were also in the 400ppm
-
prove we are smart at 19:18 PM on 25 April 2026The really big picture, in four pictures
“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” The child outgrows the dark with time. The adult who fears the light, however, may never choose to grow. They remain perpetually in a more profound darkness—one not of the eyes, but of the mind and soul.
I certainly appreciate bringing the truth of GHG to those wanting the big picture but it seems that positions of power bring psychopaths like moths to a flame. Sadly to further infect more darkness to the vulnerable.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 25 April 2026The really big picture, in four pictures
Evan, one thing that stands out to me about the article is the claim that we are one third through the energy transition appears a little bit misleading, or at least somewhat hyped. It appears to mean electricity generation given the surrounding context in the article. But energy isn't just about electricity generation. We certainly aren't one third through the transition to electric vehicles or zero carbon home heating. So I would guess we are more like 15% through the total energy transition at best.
Perhaps this is not really enough to show up in the keeling curve yet, given all the noise in the signal.However I do share all your concerns. Although I'm trying to also keep a hopeful, positive attitude for my own sanity.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:05 AM on 25 April 2026Skeptical Science New Research for Week #14 2026
The following CBC article is an update regarding the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away From Fossil Fuels: Canada joins first summit focused on moving away from fossil fuels
The conference is starting today with over 53 nations attending (more than the 47 confirmed attendees at the time of my earlier comment @11). The list of participants is presented on the "Participants" page of the Conference website.
In addition to national government representatives, the Participants webpage includes the following about participants:
The registration form was open from February 10 to February 26, and a total of 2,608 organizations expressed interest in participating.
A selection process has been established to ensure that the actors participating in the conference are aligned with its objectives and principles.
The CBC article ends with the following:
The Santa Marta conference runs until April 29. A second conference is already being planned, to be hosted by the Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu, which faces extreme threat from rising sea levels.
Hopefully this group of participants continues to increase the collective of global interest in learning to be less harmful and more helpful to the development of sustainable ways for humans to live decently on this amazing planet that is currently the only planet that humanity can thrive and survive on.
If humanity cannot figure out how to collectively and collaboratively sustainably thrive and survive on this planet it is pointless for humans to pretend that humans have the potential to thrive and survive anywhere else.
-
Evan at 20:13 PM on 24 April 2026The really big picture, in four pictures
Great job on creating nice, clearly communicating visuals. They really help tell the story. But I have a question related to point 5. The author writes,
It’s real. It’s us. It’s bad. We’re sure. And we can fix it.
... we’re now about one-third through the energy transition in final energy terms.
And yet the Keeling Curve is still accelerating upwards. From 2023 to 2024 we had the single largest recorded one-year jump in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Climate change: atmospheric carbon dioxide).
If we are making such great strides in the energy transition, then why is the Keeling Curve still accelerating upwards?. In the end, what matters is what the Keeling Curve is doing. I encourage people to plan their futures based on what the Keeling Curve is doing.
Remember that the "wrecking ball" in the White House is there because a majority of Americans wanted him there. Apparently there are issues for many people more important than clean energy transitions.
Just be cause we theoretically can fix it doesn't mean we will have the will to fix. So far we are losing the battle, if you believe the Keeling Curve.
-
Just Dean at 06:51 AM on 24 April 2026Human-caused climate change is unmistakably distinct from Earth’s natural climate variability
MA Rodger @ 10 — thank you for the careful and substantive engagement. A few clarifications and responses:
On the Judd data points and the plot window: the standard version of my diagram is zoomed to 100–700 ppm for visual clarity, which means the seven higher-CO₂ Cenozoic points aren’t shown. However, the York regression that gives S=8.24 K/doubling, R=0.97 is computed on all 22 Cenozoic stages (LowerAge ≤66 Ma) including those high-CO₂ points — they’re in the regression even when they’re outside the plot window. I’ve recently produced a full-range version (0–1400 ppm) that shows the complete Cenozoic extent including the Eocene hothouse points, and the fits extrapolate correctly to those higher points despite being derived primarily from the ice-age data. That’s actually one of the more remarkable features of the diagram: LINK
The discrepancy between my 8.24 and Judd’s published 7.7 K/doubling is that 7.7 is their full Phanerozoic value (485 Ma), while 8.24 is the Cenozoic-only (66 Ma) subset — both reported in their paper. I use the Cenozoic value because the Cenozoic is the most relevant period for today’s climate state.
Your point about the Judd vs Rae et al CO₂ reconstruction discrepancy at 50 Ma is well taken — that uncertainty propagates into any ESS estimate derived from deep-time data, including mine. On your suggested range of +5 to +9°C however, I’d note that the convergence of five independent fits between 8.24 and 9.91 K/doubling — across different archives, methods, and timescales — suggests the data favors the upper portion of that range rather than the lower end. The lower end would require the Rae et al CO₂ reconstruction to be correct and Judd to be systematically wrong, and would require all five fits to be biased upward — which is difficult to sustain when they converge from completely independent starting points.
Your post-net-zero CO₂ drawdown point is important and consistent with my framing. I describe the equilibrium curve as where the physics “ultimately points given enough time.” The natural drawdown means the system will tend back toward the curve at a CO₂ level determined by where emissions peak and how much natural drawdown occurs subsequently — not necessarily at the peak concentration itself. That’s precisely why the timing of net-zero matters — earlier net-zero means lower peak CO₂, lower eventual equilibrium, and a lower landing point on the curve.
Dean Rovang
justdean.substack.com -
MA Rodger at 22:44 PM on 23 April 2026Human-caused climate change is unmistakably distinct from Earth’s natural climate variability
Eric (skeptic) @7,
I was a little taken aback in your comment by you saying in the context of 'slow feedbacks' that "feedback increases CO2." That is not the normal understanding of 'slow feedbacks' which are the main difference between ECS & ESS.Folk are usually rather vague about the nature of the things dividing ESS from ECS but carbon feedbacks isn't what I find mentioned (as per here). It's usually the changing vegetation & ice cover that gets the mention, along with deep ocean warming. Melting ice/permafrost and oceans will have an associated thermal-lag element but I can't see that aspect being very great. This suggests the big part of Δforcing remaining out-of-equilibrium after ECS arrives is albedo changes.
I see two points of note - (1) The value of ESS & (2) Its relevance to the AGW situation.
(1) The main evidence supporting a significant ESS is of course the temperature and the CO2 records. And those don't come with labels showing the Δforcing involved in ESS. However, they do show ESS significantly above the usual range of ECS values (ECS =+2.0ºC to +4.5ºC) although there remains the "fat tail" in ECS analyses which sits yet higher.
The accounts of ESS have in the past put ESS = 1.5 x ECS or ESS = 2 x ECS, whatever that means number-wise. The analysis is usually applied to pre-ice age data although the OP above has also used mainly ice-age data-points and spliced them onto Judd et al (2024). (The OP figures show the Cenozoic data points of Judd et al below 700ppm CO2. So not shown is the seven Cenozoic points at higher CO2 levels. If these high points were missing also from the OP's analysis, it may explain the discrepancy between the Judd ESS [+7.7ºC] and the OP ESS [+8.2ºC].)
Judd et al (2024) Fig 4b
Of course, the ESS analyses are dependent on these temperature and CO2 reconstructions. And there is significant variation here as Judd et al Fig 4a below and Rae et al (2021) fig 7 below-again demonstrate. (At 50My bp, Judd et al have CO2 at 1,200ppm & Temp at 33ºC while Rae et al have CO2 at 1,500ppm & Temp at 27ºC which would make a significant difference in caculating ESS.)
Judd et al (2024) Fig 4a
Rae et al (2021) Fig 6
So what value ESS? Presumably somewhere +5ºC to +9ºC.
But does it matter?(2) Both ECS and ESS warming assumes the CO2 levels (or equivalent) are maintained until the respective equilibrium is reached. Give the draw-down of CO2 over the millennium will amount to roughly half the CO2 level increase of today, that maintenance of CO2 levels over the millennium would require a lot of CO2 coming from somewhere. The carbon feedbacks aren't that big. (See this CarbonBrief article which suggests natural feedbacks could amount to perhaps 15% or so.) If CO2 levels will not be maintained over centuries post-net-zero, that suggests that even ECS lacks relevance, although beyond the millennium and into ESS-territory there is no significant CO2 draw-down.
Of course, with AGW rapidly approaching +1.5ºC and the emissions still up where they shouldn't be, I don't think any reassurance given about AGW not reaching ESS levels or ECS levels (ECS levels which still may be higher than the 'usual range' due to the "fat tail"): any such perceived reassurance should not be allowed to lessen the efforts to rapidly cut emissions and reduce the bad effects of AGW we are creating for the future. (And note that the less-dreadful IPCC scenarios also include net-negative anthropogenic emissions post-net-zero to add to the natural draw-down.) -
lynnvinc at 22:16 PM on 22 April 2026Global warming is making the strongest hurricanes stronger
This seems to me to be common science sense. I learned in 1960s high school science class that heat energry can convert into kinetic energy and vice versa. Afterall, that is the principle on which the internal combustion engine is based — burn gasline, move forward. Also, rub 2 sticks together, start a fire.
I also learned thru extracurricular science reading back then about the greenhouse effect, but somehow didn't think much about it until the late 1980s when it became a huge media topic.
Sort of make me mad that I pay taxes for kids to get a good education, and, what, they don't pay attention in class???
-
Eric (skeptic) at 01:38 AM on 20 April 2026Human-caused climate change is unmistakably distinct from Earth’s natural climate variability
Eclectic, AI is not the savior to achieve net zero in the next few decades. What AI will do is greatly accelerate already accelerating technological progress. Right now what I've seen and done is mostly in SW. AI can be guided to create extremely complex SW which no human needs to review in detail. Luckily I am in the end stages of my SW career so I don't need to figure out what to do when AI does everything and more. I've read plenty of debates online about AI taking over SW development or not and some people get it. But many do not. They believe AI does "grunt work". But at its more productive, AI runs the show and humans actually do a lot of the grunt work.
New SW can help with lots of energy related efforts like smart grid, resource optimization, turbine optimization, smart ag, etc. Plus resilience. But for net zero HW is also needed. AI plays a role in that too with materials science innovation like modeling and simulation for materials discovery, e.g. at IBM research.ibm.com/topics/materials-discovery The work is early but will become more widespread and accelerated. But as the AI itself tells me:
AI cannot do physics or engineering independently because it lacks intuition, creativity, and the ability to make conceptual leaps required for true scientific discovery and design.
But the AI points out:
In essence, while AI can accelerate the perspiration phase [99% according to Edison] by processing data and running simulations at scale, the inspiration—the spark of human insight, curiosity, and purpose—remains uniquely ours.
I think the AI meant to say "yours" in that quote. While I brought up the fact that AI could go awry, that's also a possible cheap excuse to "not do anything" so I really should not have brought it up. Capitalism is critically debated in this forum for flaws like unpriced externatlities. AI should have the same treatment. In fact as an accelerator, AI goes hand-in-hand with capitalism. And it uses lots of energy. But keeping it safe is mostly a separate issue.
Moderator Response:[BL] AI is also getting rather off-topic.
-
Eclectic at 18:28 PM on 19 April 2026Human-caused climate change is unmistakably distinct from Earth’s natural climate variability
Eric @7 : you intrigue me. How will A.I. itself "solve that problem for better or worse"? Sure, the human psychology being what it is . . . we do need some sort of "savior" to effect a rapid & politically-acceptable technology that will quickly achieve Nett-Zero emissions in a few decades. But what could that almost-miraculous technology be? As yet, fusion-power seems to be starting the race a long way behind the starting line.
Nigel @5/6 :
Thank you. And much of what you (and the A.I.) mention boils down to Motivated Reasoning ~ which does not arise from a low I.Q. but very much from emotionally-driven thinking i.e. the confirmation bias & cherry-picking of aspects of climate science.
More interesting, I reckon, is the underlying causation of such thinking ~ is it from tribal hatred of the rest of humanity, or is there a degree of individual narcissism [ USA political comment omitted at this point! ] or other causation of intellectual failure?
Therefore I am keen to learn whether climate science denialists have some insight into their own style of thinking. And whether they can be bold enough to publicize their inner thoughts & self-understandings.
Moderator Response:[BL] Motivation and politics is really starting to wander off topic.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 12:33 PM on 19 April 2026Human-caused climate change is unmistakably distinct from Earth’s natural climate variability
I remember the diagram from an earlier thread and I'd like to revisit it. The diagram shows 600 ppm and roughly 22C on the black curve and overlayed text says thermal lag and slow feedback mechanisms. Thernal lag: yes, certainly. But feedback increases CO2. It does not lead to the black curve, it "merely" extends the red curve to the right.
As the author, Dean, points out, that's even worse because we can potentially get further up via the black curve. But that will require oceans to warm from their current 2-3C to 15 C or more. Dean points out feedbacks take millenia. But again that's rightward not upward on the chart. The omnipotent AI says that equilibrium response of the deep ocean is approx 1500 years. But that's simply the turbulent mixing timescale.
The much discussed AMOC is connected to the SMOC. AMOC changes could affect SMOC and vice versa. SMOC overall is 2-3x AMOC as measured in Sv (million cubic meters / sec of water movement). Ironically it is the slowdown of SMOC in particular that would extend the 1500 years. AMOC is more complex with weaker AMOC increasing heat storage efficiency.
I find if I pound on the AI enough it will finally find some (admittedly tentative) support for my claim:
Yes, increased winter sea ice formation in a seasonally ice-free Arctic, particularly in key regions like the Laptev and Kara Seas, can enhance brine rejection and cold, dense water formation, potentially acting as a negative feedback to slow the overall decline of deep water formation
Basically that's due to more open water in autumn leading to a larger heat loss along with the ability of (projected) fresher Arctic surface water to freeze faster. Bottom line is we are talking millenia of thermal lag. My own professional use of nascent AI leads me to the conclusion that millenia simply do not matter at all anymore. I used to think a century mattered, but even before current AI I recognized the acceleration of technology. As of now, the only thing slowing AI down is slow humans. AI itself will solve that problem for better or worse. I think for the better, but I've always been an optimist.
-
nigelj at 07:42 AM on 19 April 2026Human-caused climate change is unmistakably distinct from Earth’s natural climate variability
Correction of typo: rkcannon essentially claims that the anthropogenic warming theory is wrong because warming was strong early last century, despite yearly CO2 emissions being quite low at that time. ( as were total atmospheric CO2 concentrations)
-
nigelj at 07:28 AM on 19 April 2026Human-caused climate change is unmistakably distinct from Earth’s natural climate variability
Regarding rkcannons comments and the moderators accurate response. I have long suspected a large propotion of the climate science denialists might be getting certain things wrong at least partly due to an innate or deeply seated difficulty they have with multi factorial situations, where an outcome is a result of a combination of multiple factors operating simultaneously. I have now tracked down some science that backs this up and added this at the end.
Some examples of this page. rkcannon essentially claims that the anthropogenic warming theory is wrong because warming was strong early last century despite CO2 emissions. But the reasons for strong warming early last century were a complicated combination of CO2 and multiple other natural cycles and natural factors acting simultaneously, and the limited atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at that time. There are studies on this easly found by an internet search.
rkcannon mentions China is still warming despite its use of coal burning that generates cooling aerosols. But this is due to a complicated combination of factors, many discussed by the moderator.
The denialists have had all this explained to them many times yet persist with their denialism. I suspect some people (particularly a large proportion of the climate denialists) find holding multi factorial issues in their heads difficult, despite often being well educated people. It might be a basic psychological difference between people. Like how some people are good at multi tasking and some aren't. This might partly explain their stubborn denialism. Im not sure if this would apply to rkcannon but it looks like it applies to some people.
I asked an AI about this and the response is as follows and includes specific references to key researchers:
Short answer:
Yes — there is published science showing that some people, even highly intelligent ones, have difficulty understanding situations where multiple interacting factors produce an outcome. This difficulty is not simply about “intelligence” but about specific cognitive skills, cognitive styles, and limits in working memory and reasoning.1. Intelligence ≠ Systems Thinking
General intelligence (often measured as g) predicts problem‑solving in many areas, but systems thinking — the ability to understand interactions, feedback loops, and multi‑cause outcomes — is a separate cognitive skill.Research in cognitive psychology and decision science shows that people can be strong in abstract reasoning yet weak in:
Integrative complexity (ability to hold multiple perspectives at once)
Causal reasoning (understanding how multiple causes interact)
Systems reasoning (thinking in terms of networks, not linear chains)
These are partly independent of IQ.
2. Working Memory Limits
Complex situations require holding several variables in mind simultaneously. Studies in cognitive load theory show that people vary widely in working memory capacity, which strongly affects their ability to reason about multi‑factor problems.Even very intelligent people can have:
Lower working memory span
Difficulty tracking interacting variables
A tendency to oversimplify to reduce cognitive load
This leads to “single‑cause thinking” even when the person is otherwise bright.
3. Cognitive Biases That Block Multi‑Factor Understanding
Humans naturally prefer simple explanations. Several well‑documented biases contribute:Simplicity bias — preference for one clear cause
Attribution error — overemphasis on personal causes vs. situational ones
Confirmation bias — selecting the cause that fits one’s existing beliefs
Narrative bias — preferring tidy stories over messy realities
These biases operate regardless of intelligence.
4. Need for Cognitive Closure
Some people have a stronger psychological need for quick, definite answers. Research on need for closure shows that individuals high in this trait struggle with:Ambiguity
Multi‑factor explanations
Probabilistic reasoning
They prefer a single, decisive cause even when the situation is inherently complex.
5. Published Research Areas Supporting This
There is substantial scientific literature across several fields:Cognitive psychology — working memory, causal reasoning, integrative complexity
Decision science — multi‑attribute decision‑making, heuristics and biases
Systems thinking research — especially in education, engineering, and management
Neuroscience — showing that multi‑factor reasoning activates networks associated with cognitive control and abstraction
Key researchers include:
Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky (cognitive biases)
Philip Tetlock (integrative complexity)
John Sterman (systems thinking)
Keith Stanovich (rationality vs. intelligence distinction)
6. Bottom Line
Some people — even very intelligent ones — genuinely struggle with multi‑factor, complex situations because:Systems thinking is a distinct skill
Working memory varies between individuals
Cognitive biases push toward simple explanations
Some people have a psychological preference for certainty
This difficulty is not a sign of low intelligence, but a reflection of how differently human minds handle complexity.
-------------------
Normally I do not post AI responses but I think it makes sense on this issue and I dont have time to write an essay in my own words, and it includes a list of researchers people can look up.
Moderator Response:[BL] Use of AI-generated text is not explicitly banned by the SkS Comments Policy (yet), but we would request that its use be limited - and clearly identified (as you have). The last thing we want is to turn the comments section here into a battle of the AI generators.
Given that AI is known to hallucinate, have you actually checked to see if the names on the list of "key researchers" it generated actually exist and have written on the topics the AI clams to have found? Links to actual papers would be far more convincing that a few unrecognizable names.
-
Eclectic at 23:49 PM on 18 April 2026Human-caused climate change is unmistakably distinct from Earth’s natural climate variability
Rkcannon @3 ,
You are being very droll.
Other than for your own whimsical humor, do you have a reason for again visiting these points which have been refuted many times before ?
You seem to be fighting old battles, without providing any new insights or valid arguments to support yourself. Why do so?
-
rkcannon at 17:14 PM on 18 April 2026Human-caused climate change is unmistakably distinct from Earth’s natural climate variability
Rebuttal: Systems Analysis vs. Circular Reasoning
Subject: Response to Moderator Comments regarding Bhatta (2024) and Marks-Peterson (2026)
While the ad hominem labels—"amateur" and "naive"—provide a look into the moderator’s temperament, they do not address the physical and statistical discrepancies presented. As a Professional Engineer (PE), I prefer to evaluate the Transfer Functions of a system rather than the consensus of the "grown-ups."
1. On Circular Reasoning and System Gain
The moderator admits that the Nature paper (Marks-Peterson et al., 2026) requires "important contributions" from albedo and ocean circulation to explain a 2.5°C cooling while CO2 remained stable.The Logic: To claim CO2 is the "key" control knob, only to demote it to a "passenger" whenever the data shows the planet cooling without its help, is circular reasoning.
The Math: Since the early 1900s, human CO2 emissions have increased by over 1,700%. If a seventeen-fold increase in the supposed "driver" results in a warming rate statistically similar to 1910, a rational systems analysis concludes the system is insensitive to that input.
2. The Failure of "Aerosol Masking"
The argument that mid-century cooling was "masked" by aerosols fails the spatial and modern test.The Discrepancy: If industrial aerosols were a primary "cooling shield," China—with the world’s highest coal-related aerosol loading—should have been a global cool spot. Instead, China has warmed faster than the global average.
The Conclusion: You cannot invoke a "masking shield" to explain the 1940s cooling while ignoring its failure to stop warming in modern Asia. This is curve-fitting, not physics.
3. The Measured Driver: Albedo and the CERES Data
The moderator’s focus on 21-year surface trends ignores the most robust data set we have: the CERES satellite record.The Data: Since 2000, CERES has measured a 0.8% drop in Earth’s albedo. This change in reflectivity has added roughly 2.7 W/m2 to the Earth's energy budget—effectively 100% of the warming forcing that the IPCC attributes to CO2 over the last 250 years.
4. The Missing "Fingerprint" and UHI Bias
If CO2 were the driver, the laws of physics dictate a "Tropical Hot Spot" in the upper troposphere. Decades of radiosonde and satellite data show this fingerprint is missing. The warming we do see is surface-based and highly correlated with Urban Heat Island (UHI) contamination. When you "homogenize" data by forcing rural stations to match urban trends, you aren't measuring global climate; you're measuring the encroachment of asphalt on thermometers.Conclusion
Rational skepticism demands that models reconcile with empirical history. If the planet cooled 2.5°C with no change in CO2 in the Pliocene, and cooled for 40 years during a CO2 surge in the 20th century, the "Control Knob" theory is functionally dead. It is fascinating to watch the "Immune System" of this forum react; the Killer T-cells are working overtime to neutralize empirical data that looks like a "foreign invader" to the dogma. Nature doesn't care about your PhD or your moderation policy if your math is wrong.Moderator Response:[BL] Now you are bordering on moderation complaints, which are always off-topic. Again, read the Comments Policy.
- All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
You are also confusing moderators comments from other people's comments. You are also are bordering on inflammatory tone.
- No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.
Your post also shows much of the same confusion apparent in the first link you provided: a lack of understanding of the carbon cycle and time scales. It is not emissions that matter - it is CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Emissions only form part of that equation, and human emissions only form part of the overall emissions.. People that understand the carbon cycle understand that the increases in human emissions represent a change from the natural balances, resulting in s slow increase in total atmospheric CO2. That slow rise in atmospheric CO2 is the "driver" involved, not emissions.
As for the regional effect of aerosols: aerosols don't always stay where they are emitted. But they do have a larger effect locally, and the cooling effect - as well as the subsequent warming effect as China has reduced aerosol emissions - are well-documented in the literature.
The CERES data does not mean what you think it means. RealClimate has a recent post on this topic. Of particular interest is the error they point out in recent contrarian presentations of this "controversy". RealClimate also has a slightly older post specifically addressing the CERES forcing.
You are also repeat an old trope about the Tropical Hot Spot. You can read more about it here. Although that post is rather old now, so is the contrarian talking point.
Your argument about Urban Heat Islands is as bogus as your other claims. Homogenization does not force rural temperatures to follow urban ones. You can learn more by reading this post. It has several useful links at the bottom to more detailed discussions of things such as adjustment to temperature records.
Your closing paragraph basically amounts to a "climate has changed before" argument, which is debunked here.
Nature doesn't care how many times you repeat old, tired, debunked contrarian talking points.
Addendum: You seem to feel that the global temperature record is contaminated by urban effects (UHI), but you seem perfectly comfortable in using that temperature record to make claims of model errors, contributions by albedo effects, aerosol masking, etc. This is typical of so many contrarian lists: data are good when you think they show what you want them to show, but data are bad when they go against your preconceived notions. The inconsistency is, well, inconsistent.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:11 AM on 18 April 2026What’s cheaper: Fueling your car with gas or electricity?
Michael:
Where I live (Ontario), it looks like the electrical code was modified a few years ago to require new builds (residential) to have minimum 200A service on the main panel, and a conduit from the panel to the garage/carport to allow future feeding of a cable for EV charging.
A builder can choose to run the cable and install an outlet in the garage, but this exceeds the minimum requirement. My guess would be that if the path from the panel to the garage is long and tortuous, installing conduit that would make for easy future cable pulls would be problematic. At that point, it makes sense to just run the cable.
I don't know if there are any plans to upgrade the minimum code to require the cable and outlet, but at least they want to make future installation easier.
It also looks like they want all EV charger installations done by a professional electrician. Not sure if a home-owner installation is allowed. It is for most other electrical work: choices are home owner or pro. If the home owner can't do it, they need to hire a pro, not a friend. Permits are always required.
-
John Hartz at 05:12 AM on 18 April 2026Skeptical Science New Research for Week #14 2026
Here's the latest breaking news...
‘We are not going back’: Iran war forces global energy shift Nations split over doubling down on fossil fuels or accelerating renewables by Sara Schonhardt & Zack Colman, Politico, Apr 17, 2026
Excerpt:
"This week’s gathering of financial heavyweights in Washington made one thing clear: The Iran war is setting the world on a new energy path.But which one is a source of sharp disagreement among nations.
Many of the countries that are most severely affected by the war say they recognize the benefits of transitioning faster to renewable energy to avoid future shocks related to oil disruptions. Others remain bullish on fossil fuels, including the United States — whose Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, applauded America’s rising oil and gas production, and called for fewer climate policies."
To access the entire article, go to:
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/17/iran-war-global-energy-shift-00877861
-
Evan at 04:47 AM on 18 April 2026What’s cheaper: Fueling your car with gas or electricity?
Michael@14
Yes, I think that NEMA 15-40 outlets in the garage are becoming more common, and most EVs can plug a portable charger into this outlet. There is no need for installing level 2 chargers with new-house construction, because once the circuit breaker and outlet are in, it is a really simple matter to connect it to a dedicated charger rather than to the outlet.
