Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for co2

Comments matching the search co2 :

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14

One Planet Only Forever at 08:54 AM on 8 April, 2026

Recent SkS posted items raise important awareness and understanding related to the historic challenge of dealing with the damage done by people who choose to fail to responsibly learn to self-regulate their actions. Thank you to Doug and Marc for curating and sharing the Weekly New Research, and to Baerbel, John, and Doug (again) for curating and sharing the Weekly News Roundups.

A related item in this week’s Climate Policy and Politics list is, Vermont Hits Back at Trump’s Effort to Block ‘Climate Superfund’ Law. It is about responsible leaders struggling to use the powers they have, State powers in Vermont, to penalize and limit the climate change harm done by the global team of undeserving economic winners.

Responsible leadership struggles to effectively discourage and disappoint people who want to benefit from being: less accepting of diversity, more harmful, and less helpful. Humanity, especially its leaders, has a history of struggling regionally and globally to collectively correct and recover from results of harmful pursuits of benefit and get the beneficiaries of the harm done to make equitable and adequate reparations. It is more challenging when members of a regional or global club of harmful unhelpful people Win positions of power that enable them to make-up inequitable rules and harmfully enforce rules to avoid being penalized and to threaten, penalize and punish everyone they believe is a potential threat to their undeserved perceptions of superiority.

People passionately pursuing being perceived to be “The Winners” are most likely “The Problem”.

Restricting a person’s freedom to continue to benefit from understandably unsustainable harmful actions - does not harm them.

Penalizing a person for benefiting from understandably harmful actions and making their penalty help those who have been harmed - does not harm them.

An earlier related item is the study The political economy of leaving fossil fuels underground: The case of producing countries, listed in Open Access Notables in Skeptical Science New Research for Week #13 2026.

The study discusses the challenging temptation to pursue ‘Private Profits and Rents’ while creating ‘Public Problems’ by extracting and exporting non-renewable resources, especially challenging for developing nations.
The developed economic system is fatally flawed in many ways. One of the major flaws is that it values the removal and use of non-renewable resources, and ignores the harm done (it also encourages more harm to be done because it is easier and more profitable to be more harmful). Non-renewable resources have no value when they are left in the ground.

And the challenge is made worse by unjust made-up rules like the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty (Wikipedia link) (ECT). The EU formally withdrew from the ECT in June 2024. But the ECT rules were include ‘protection’ of Fossil Fuel investment rewards for 20 years after withdrawal (to 2044).

Another recent related item is Quantifying climate loss and damage consistent with a social cost of carbon, the first item listed in Open Access Notables in Skeptical Science New Research for Week #14 2026, (which was the basis of news item, Past CO2 emissions may drive far bigger future economic losses, in 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #13). The study explains that calculating the penalty owed today for fossil fuel harms of emissions-to-date should begin as early as 1980 and extend far into the future.

The following quote is regarding the earliest date it would be reasonable to say leaders would struggle to deny understanding the harmfulness of fossil fuel use:

To estimate when to begin counting emissions, we set our baseline ‘year of knowledge’ as 1990, or a year after the establishment of the IPCC. This is perhaps conservative: using text-based analysis of United Nations documents, other analyses set the date a decade earlier, and internal company documents reveal that some major emitters were aware of climate risks beginning around 1980.

Any pursuer of profit from fossil fuel use since 1990, and potentially since 1980, would struggle to credibly claim that they were unaware of the harm done by fossil fuel use. This reinforces the understanding that the Energy Charter Treaty was an unjust rule made-up by undeserving wealthy people.

Both studies also relate to Don Gillmore’s 2025 book, On Oil that I recently commented about (here @ comment 25 on the SkS post, After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?). In addition to presenting the general understanding that Alberta and other regional populations are easily tempted to pursue benefit from harmful fossil fuel use, and things really took off in about 1980, the chapter titled The Battle Begins opens with the following reinforcement of 1980 as a legitimate start date for evaluating penalties to apply to beneficiaries of harmful fossil fuel use:

In 1980, Ronald Reagan became president of the United States and appointed James Watt, a determined anti-environmentalist, as secretary of the Department of the Interior. Watt described environmentalists as “a leftwing cult dedicated to bringing down the type of government I believe in,” and refused to meet with them. Watt was a devout Christian who believed the End Times were near. “I do not know,” he said to Congress in 1981, “how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns.” In the meantime there wasn’t much point in preserving the environment. Reagan concurred, telling television evangelist Jim Bakker, “We may be the generation that sees Armageddon.”

Anne Gorsuch, a lawyer who was scornful of climate science (and whose son Neil sits on the Supreme Court), was given the role of Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and cut the EPA budget by 22 percent and staff by almost 30 percent. Enforcement declined by 79 percent during her first year. She hired people from the industries the EPA was supposed to be regulating, tried to weaken pollution standards, and facilitated the use of restricted-use pesticides. She resigned in 1983 amid scandal, ... Her most lasting legacy may have been to solidify political battle lines around oil and the environment: If you were a Republican, you were pro-development and, if not anti-environment, at least anti-environmentalist. It began as a corporate issue, then became a political issue and to some extent a generational issue, and finally, like so much these days, it became a tribal issue.

The formation of the ECT in 1994, 14 years after 1980, should be understood to be a misleading attempt to unjustifiably obtain benefit and protect against the loss of undeserved perceptions of superiority. And since 1980 it has continually become clearer that investments in new fossil fuel pursuits should be considered to be bets in the marketplace that deserve whatever ‘penalties or losses of opportunity for benefit’ happen. The people who benefited from the delay of transition away from fossil fuel use since 1980, particularly business leaders and investors, could and should be penalized rather than be protected and rewarded. ‘Legal creations’ like the ECT should not be able to be used to evade penalty for past ‘bad bets made on benefiting from fossil fuel use’.

There is a long diverse history of harmful pursers of personal benefit seriously damaging and delaying the development of sustainable improvements for the future of humanity. The, now officially discredited, Doctrine of Discovery developed as Papal Bulls in the 1400s (Link to Canadian Museum for Human Rights) and was formally brought into American Law by US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in 1823 (Link to Wikipedia). It was misleading marketing to excuse undeniably harmful colonialism, racism, and slavery. The incorrect beliefs about the ‘fundamental superiority of a sub-set of humanity’ persist in the supposedly most advanced societies today, and contaminate the thoughts and actions in many developing societies, allowing neocolonialism (link to Wikipedia) to flourish.

People passionately pursuing being perceived to be “The Winners” are most likely “The Problem”.

I have also been re-reading Thomas Piketty’s 2021 book, A Brief History of Equality (first english translation 2022). The following are selected related quotes:

From Chapter 9, Exiting Neocolonialism, which includes a sub-section with the heading, The Pretenses of International Aid and Climate Policies.

The battle for equality is not over. It must be continued by pushing to its logical conclusion the movement toward the welfare state, progressive taxation, real equality, and the struggle against all kinds of discrimination. The battle also, and especially, involves a structural transformation of the global economic system [including reparations (penalties) for harms done by past emissions, and no compensation for people claiming to be harmed by restrictions of their harmfulness and penalties for being harmful] .
…
Our current economic organization, which is founded on the uncontrolled circulation of capital lacking either a social or environmental objective, often resembles a form of neocolonialism that benefits the wealthiest persons. This model of development is politically and ecologically untenable. Moving beyond it requires the transformation of the national welfare state into a federal [multi-national] welfare state open to the global South, along with a profound revision of the rules and treaties that currently govern globalization.
...
We must also emphasize the extreme hypocrisy that surrounds the very notion of international aid. First, public aid for development is much more limited than is often imagined: in all, it represents less than 0.2 percent of the global GDP (and scarcely 0.03 percent of the global GDP for emergency humanitarian aid). In comparison, the cost of climatic damage inflicted on poor countries by past and current emissions from rich countries amounts by itself to several points of the global GDP. The second problem, which is not a detail [not a minor technicality], is that in most of the countries supposedly “aided” in Africa, South Asia, and elsewhere, the amount of outflow in the form of multinationals’ profits and capital flights [evading taxation] is in reality several times greater than the incoming flows from public assistance, …

Chapter 10 sub-section with the heading, Climate Change and the Battle Between Ideologies.

All the transformations [sustainable improvements reducing harmful inequality] discussed in this book, whether the development of the welfare state, progressive taxation, participatory socialism, electoral and educational equality, or the exit from neocolonialism, will occur only if they are accompanied by strong mobilizations and power relationships. There is nothing surprising about that: in the past, it has always been struggles and collective movements that have made it possible to replace old [harmful unsustainable] structures with new institutions.
…
Environmental catastrophes are, of course, among the factors that may help accelerate the pace of change. In theory, we could hope that the mere prospect of these catastrophes, whose future occurrence scientific research has increasingly confirmed, might suffice to provoke adequate mobilization. Unfortunately, it is possible that only tangible concrete damage greater than we have already seen will manage to break down conservative attitudes and radically challenge the current economic system.
…
In the darkest scenario, the signals will come too late to avoid conflicts between nations over resources, and it will take decades to realize possible, as yet hypothetical reconstructions [sustainable developments like Diversity, Equity and Inclusion pursuits to mitigate and correct high levels of inequality] [we are potentially already experiencing that Darkest Scenario].
…
We can also foresee hostile reactions towards countries and social groups whose ways of life have contributed most to the disaster, starting with the richest classes in the United States, but also in Europe and the rest of the world.
…
the global North, despite a limited population (about 15% of world population for the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia, and Japan), has produced nearly 80% of the carbon emissions that have accumulated since the beginning of the Industrial Age.
…
However, we have to qualify the idea that a green Enlightenment will be likely to save the planet. In reality, people have suspected for a long time – indeed almost since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution – that this accelerated burning of fossil fuels might have harmful effects. If reactions have been slow and remain so limited even today, that is also and especially because the economic interests at stake are considerable, between countries as well as within them. For the countries most affected (in particular in the global South), the attenuation of the effects of a warming climate and financing for measures to adapt to it will require a transformation of the distribution of wealth and the economic system as a whole, and this in turn will involve the development of new political and social coalitions on a global scale. The idea that there might be only winners is a dangerous and anesthetizing illusion that must be abandoned immediately.

It all closes back to the SkS items that this comment started with.

People passionately pursuing being perceived to be “The Winners” are most likely “The Problem”.

Why Science Communication Fails: How to Break Down Misleading Arguments and Inoculate Against Misinformation

Eric (skeptic) at 08:00 AM on 17 March, 2026

Geography has long been recognized as the primary control knob for the earth's climate: www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1635493.pdf CO2 is an important but sporadically exogenous factor, but mostly an amplifier of geographic or solar or other forcing.

Why Science Communication Fails: How to Break Down Misleading Arguments and Inoculate Against Misinformation

Eric (skeptic) at 07:34 AM on 17 March, 2026

Just Dean, at the risk of beating the dead horse a bit more, may I ask if you agree that radiative physics plus projected manmade CO2 produces the red dashed line in the diagram? If your answer is yes, then how do we reach the black dashed line, even if that requires millenia? My answer is yes dashed red line exrended linearly is where we end up, and reaching the black dashed line requires Pangea. Others will probably disagree with that, and note that other models show the dashed red line bending upwards in the long run.

I disagree with the control knob characterization. Sometimes exogenous CO2 is the cause of warming, like Siberian traps, PETM, and manmade today. Occasionally exogenous CO2 drawdown is the cause of cooling. An example is enhanced silicate weathering from tectonic uplift.

The rest of the time, CO2 is "merely" an amplifier of temperature changes by causes other than CO2 in both directions as the fast and slow feedbacks kick in.

Why Science Communication Fails: How to Break Down Misleading Arguments and Inoculate Against Misinformation

Eric (skeptic) at 09:23 AM on 16 March, 2026

Just Dean, thanks for the explanation and updated version of your essay. I signed up for a Science account and read through Judd 2024. They explain geography thusly:

the change in the proportion of land to ocean area relative to today (29, 84). The impact of these paleogeographic changes on planetary energy balance can be treated as a forcing (ΔFgeog) (29, 81). In the Ordovician, subaerially exposed continents constituted only ~15% of the total surface area of the planet (compared to ~30% today), with the value increasing quasi-linearly across the Paleozoic (fig. S12). This results in an overall lower surface albedo for the Paleozoic and thus a positive forcing.

My question to you is are they claiming that geography, which they simplify to a forcing, is solely a temperature effect in the context of equilibrium? We agree that geography drives the CO2 and temperature to different sections of the curve, but the key question is how. I may be mistaken but I believe your main claim is that ocean circulation and temperarture changes affecting CO2 are a key determinant of equilibrium, minus current manmade CO2 which you would consider similar to examples in Judd such as Siberian traps and PETM.

Do you believe that current ocean circulation is unimportant (or perhaps I should say non-consequential) for long term equilibrium given present day geography? Or perhaps as some suggest, deepwater formation will slow with global warming? If so then we can perhaps reach a point close to the Judd curve as the long term feedbacks add more sequestered CO2 to atmosphere overwhelming the slowing uptake.

However I believe we are currently in a cold geography evidenced by the million year ice age, reaching CO2 starvation levels during full glaciation. The primary measurement of cold geography is ocean temperature sustained by cold deepwater formation but warmed from above by manmade warming. AI tells me the ocean's warming rate is 2.2 mC per year or 0.22C per century. This affects sea level of course but also CO2 absorption modulated by vertical ocean temperature profile.

In short, it appears that Judd's simplified (perhaps oversimplified) view of geographic forcing treats that forcing as negative with present day geography. Do you believe that would preclude reaching the corresponding temperature on the Judd curve?

Why Science Communication Fails: How to Break Down Misleading Arguments and Inoculate Against Misinformation

Eric (skeptic) at 09:19 AM on 15 March, 2026

Just Dean, the dashed black line in the diagram in justdean.substack.com/p/how-one-diagram-reveals-the-climate comes from geographic changes that drive both temperatuire and CO2. CO2 is an amplifier of temperature and temperature is an amplifier of CO2, but geography dictates global temperature. Prominent examples are Antarctica cooling with opening of Drake Passage www.researchgate.net/publication/256822123_Influence_of_the_opening_of_the_Drake_Passage_on_the_Cenozoic_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet_A_modeling_approach Arctic glaciation with closing of Isthmus of Panama: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X05004048 There are others.

The steepness of the purple dots is due to the combination of CO2 and temperature mutual feedback added to albedo feedback from the forming and retreat of the continental ice sheets.

So we are left with the green and red lines. In the text they assert that CO2 stays high centuries after net zero (" even 700 years after emissions cease, roughly 85–99 percent of peak warming persists. Atmospheric CO₂ remains at more than half its peak value") I beat up the AI to get current numbers:

"Thus, the ocean absorbs ~9.2 Gt of CO₂ per year from the ~1,191 Gt excess currently in the atmosphere." or 0.77% per year. That 0.77% per year will drop as the excess atmospheric CO2 drops and the ocean saturates, but it suggests less than a century to drop to half, not multiple centuries. All hypothetical of course, but it also suggests we can start to see a drop before net zero.

Why Science Communication Fails: How to Break Down Misleading Arguments and Inoculate Against Misinformation

Just Dean at 01:17 AM on 12 March, 2026

Bob,

I appreciate you engaging.

However, I would really value specific reviews and comments of my efforts to tell the climate change story with one diagram. My diagram overlays the deep-time equilibrium relationship with glacial–interglacial data from the past 800,000 years and instrumental observations from the industrial era, along with a representative future scenario. Viewed together, these datasets place contemporary climate change within a broader Earth-system context. Skeptics and contrarians often cherrypick individual plots of CO2 or temperature or individual lines of evidence. It is harder when they are all plotted together on a common axes.

I have not seen this combination of datasets anywhere before and so I would really value reviews and feedback from the skeptical science community.

Here's the link again to my Substack post: [Link]

Why Science Communication Fails: How to Break Down Misleading Arguments and Inoculate Against Misinformation

Bob Loblaw at 00:09 AM on 12 March, 2026

Dean:

One of the tremendous strengths of the contrarian position is the ability to engage in compartmentalization. The ability to almost completely isolate individual lines of evidence allows one to believe several conflicting and incompatible ideas. My favourite is global temperatures: completely unreliable and incapable of telling us anything - until a contrarian thinks the record shows cooling that "disproves global warming".

From the wisdom of Alice in Wonderland:

“Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'

I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!”

As you state, in science the stronger explanations are the ones that combine multiple lines of evidence and provide a small number of factors that explain a large number of observations. That requires looking at and combining multiple observations.

One example of reviewing many factors related to climate change is an old post here by Tom Curtis - Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2. By approaching the question like a murder mystery (the game Cluedo, or Clue), Tom brings together a series of lines of evidence ("clues") that tell us who the killer is.

Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.

One Planet Only Forever at 07:52 AM on 2 March, 2026

Responding first to Bob Loblaw @27, adding to Bob and Nigel’s discussion, and adding to Other comments like prove we are smart:

My perspective can definitely be considered to be “...one where nobody has the right to force harm on others….a call to Freedom - each person needs to be free from others causing them harm.” It is aligned with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and related understandings like the Sustainable Development Goals (Goal 13 is Climate Action), the Planetary Boundaries, and key related understandings based on climate science like the Paris Agreement.

Note that the UDHR ‘tells people, especially leaders, that there are justified limits and expectations regarding how they act’ – they need to be governed by learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. If they won’t responsibly self-govern that way they should expect to be limited by responsible leadership. That is what self-governing professional bodies, like professional engineers and medical professions, do. As a Professional Engineer one of my responsibilities was to be willing to ‘Say No, and explain way’ in response to a client’s unacceptable desire or demand.

I often sense that people want the freedom to believe and do as they please. And they want ‘a better present for themselves’ rather than ‘caring to develop the gift of a better future for others’. They are not interested in Inter-generational Equity (see the Wikipedia page). They discount the future (see Why environmental policy struggles to value the future earth.com, Eric Ralls, Jan 25, 2026. part of the listing of the 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #05). They try to argue that they are harmed if others govern them in ways that limit the harm they can do, often arguing that they do not accept the understanding that what they want the freedom to do is harmful.

Telling people that ‘future generations will have to live without using fossil fuels because burning non-renewable resources cannot be continued indefinitely and that, in addition to fossil fuel use being unsustainable, it is harmful’ seems to really enrage some people. They often try to claim that the marketplace of business and politics should govern who gets to be harmful. I agree with them as long as the marketplaces are effectively governed by learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others rather than being compromised by harmful misleading competition for perceptions of superiority. That seems to make them angrier.

As a result I agree with the need for comprehensive consideration of all ‘stakeholders’ on an issue. I would add that ‘all future people’ need to be considered. And I would clarify that the evaluation of everyone’s potential for harm does not mean compromising harm reduction because of some stakeholders wanting to benefit from the harm.
____________
Related to prove we are smart’s comments,

it is becoming undeniable that the US is a failing state. It is failing to make its leaders face consequences for deliberately misleadingly pursuing benefit from causing more harm to Others, especially future generations.

The likes of Trump seem to act based on a world-view of negative-sum competition, harm is the major motivation for everyone. They believe everyone pursues personal benefit any way they can get away with. Their game-perspective is to benefit more from harming Others than Others harm them.

That is fundamentally contrary to being governed by the UDHR which is a positive-sum game world-view with the understanding that collective action based on learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others will result in sustainable improvements for everyone … except for those people who benefited from harmful behaviour in the past who may lose some developed perceptions of higher status (and deserve that loss of status).
_____________
Regarding Inter-generational Equity.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and Diversity Equity Inclusion (see this Oxford Review item on Inter-generational Equity) are parts of the diversity of continuing to improve evidence-based understandings.

The SDGs are based on understanding that ‘future humans need to have equality of Rights and Freedom from harm’.

That exposes the harmful limitation of developed legal thinking, especially thoughts that ‘threat of legal consequences is all that is needed to ensure better, less harmful and more helpful, behaviour’. Legal remedy often requires ‘proof of actual harm done prior to (as the basis for) making the legal claim’. The threat of ‘Harms discovered later’ resulting in negative consequences for the people who benefited from the harm done in the past, or from actions that had higher risk of future harm, is a tragically weak deterrent.

The legal validity of Inter-generational Equity, especially regarding CO2 emissions pollution, is increasing, much to the chagrin of people who want the freedom to maximize their benefit from actions that harm Others. Legal implications of Inter-generational Equity are that leaders would be subject to consequences if they fail to act to equitably protect future generations from human caused climate change harms.
_______________
Summary

The US has developed the ability to have the most helpful or most harmful leadership on this planet. Tragically, the voting population of the US has repeatedly proven that it likes its leadership to be Harmful To Others, including future generations of global humanity.

Clearly, the ‘Fix’ will require systemic changes to significantly increase the evidence-based justified Freedom of future generations of humanity from harm done by the unsustainable pursuits of benefit by current generations and their predecessors. The most harmful in the current generation need to most rapidly change their ways of living and profiting, even if it reduces their status relative to Others. And the biggest current day beneficiaries of the history of CO2 pollution harm owe the most towards repairing the damage done and helping Others adapt to the harmful changes that have already been caused.

One helpful action would be effective penalties for elected representatives and appointed representatives who are discovered to be misleading.

Read the comments regarding new Welsh government rules to penalize misleading representatives made on SKS item “New Book - Climate Obstruction: A global Assessment”

Refer to CBC article “He was hired to fight for Wales's future generations. Does Canada need a job like that?’

It is no surprise that people wanting to benefit from being harmful dislike increased awareness and understanding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Inter-generational Equity; Diversity, Equity and Inclusion; Sustainable Development Goals; Planetary Boundaries; and Climate Science and so much more. All that pesky Wokeness is likely to result in ‘Less Freedom for them to do what they want to do … from their perspective … the End Times are Coming.

After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?

Bob Loblaw at 02:47 AM on 27 February, 2026

Eric @ 15:

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I think the last sentence in the OP is a little vague. It could mean "Oh, Gawd. The states and Congress will muck this up and never do anything." Or it could mean "We have an opening for the states and Congress to take action."

The downside of action at the individual state level is patchwork of regulations that makes interstate commerce difficult and/or expensive. And it makes for "that's not my problem" decisions if Ohio decides they love coal and hate New York. Canada was also a recipient of acidic winds from places in the US. Canada and the US did agree to bilateral action on the issue (both reduction and monitoring).

And interstate patchworks are even more difficult at the international level. Too many times I've heard the argument "Canada only produces 2% of the world's CO2. It won't make any difference if we cut it all." My response is "Yes, and the rest of the world consists of 49 other regions that also only contribute 2% of the total. They can make the same excuse, and then nothing happens." It's the poster child for tragedy of the commons.

Controlling emissions also can't be done pragmatically on a patchwork basis. Everyone has an excuse why their industry should not be limited, or should get extra credits. Carbon taxes (or "fee and dividend"), carbon credits and cap-and-trade systems. All will fail when only applied locally. Taxes are avoided by relocating production to low- or no-tax jurisdictions. Cap-and-trade requires a market large enough to provide sufficient flexibility.

Going slowly is better than not going at all, but going too slowly won't get us where we need to go. (When I was a grad student, we were at the pub one Friday evening. My office-mate was supposed to meet his girlfriend at 7pm, but as 7pm approached he decided to stay for another beer or two. He said "I'm late already; it won't matter if I'm even later." On Monday morning, when I arrived at the office, his first words were "Remember when I said Friday night it didn't matter if I was even later? I was wrong.")

After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?

Eric (skeptic) at 21:59 PM on 26 February, 2026

Bob @8, when I first read the last sentence of the article I thought they were lamenting the need for states and Congress to do something. Upon rereading perhaps they are considering that as a good option as I do. As you saw, Roberts bascially says that issues like global climate stability are not juisticiable. He says Mass has no standing as they cannot show a justiciable (physically consequential) connection from lack of EPA vehicle regulation to their coastline.

Your conclusion "That seems to represent an opinion that the tragedy of the commons is fine with him [Roberts]" is correct. That was basically the reason for the Clean Air Act: pollution in Ohio causing acid rain in New York. Thus the remedy for tragedy of the commons is legislation, not a pretense of justiciability. Keeping 2007 as precedent? That means more special solicitude for environmental cases with courts wading even further into scientific questions.

My wording was inexact, I should have said: "numeric standards for CO2 emissions". Texas (e.g.) will point out the current economic benefits of their higher emissions. Massachusetts will argue for future global benefits of their ongoing energy transition. Since both of those numbers are rather small, they will probably settle on a 2050 numeric standard approach and put some more money into transition. Maybe 2040 since 2030 is too close at hand. I would propose R&D money and let the emissions standards decrease more gradually.

I realize the consensus here is against gradual approaches. We'll never agree on that.

Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.

nigelj at 07:20 AM on 25 February, 2026

OPOF @26 talks about how structural design codes are formulated. In New Zealand we have a building code which deals with structure, waterproofing, plumbing etc,etc. Its focused on issues of safety and durability only not aesthetics etc,etc. Its essentially a set of regulations on what you can, and cant do.

The building code is prepared by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) . The building code sets objectives and performance criteria. The code allows for acceptable solutions to these criteria and objectives. These can be provided in different ways. One way is for an engineer or other expert to do a design from first principles and submit this to a local government council for approval by their technical people.

Another way is to base the design on prescriptive rules contained in the NZ Standards. Standards New Zealand are part of MBIE. Standards are written by technical committees of engineers, industry experts, councils, and other stakeholders. So there is industry input which is a little bit worrying but theres also something to be said by getting all stakeholders involved and this is a consultation issue. MBIE don't have to do what industry want.

The final building code is signed off by the Governments Cabinet. Which is essentially an executive body. It is not signed off by Parliament. We have a Building ACT which is quite general in nature, and voted on in parliament. The ACT ultimately requires a detailed building code.

If people hate what the government is doing with the building code they can of course elect another government.

Not wanting to restart my comments on the regulations related to the CO2 issue, but its just the huge implications of this issue that made me wonder if some sort of sign off of regulations should be done by parliament / congress. The Republicans talk about the major questions doctrine. But I can certainly see the arguments against all this and I dont have a firm view either way on the issue. One thing I think we all agree on and have firm views on is the details have to be left to the experts.

Given the endangerment finding is in considerable danger, fortunately with the climate change issue there are other ways to regulations of mitigating the problem such as carbon taxes, cap and trade and subsidies. I've always thought the regulatory approach to mitigate the climate problem, would become a complicated nightmare, and bogged down in arguments about who gets to sign off the regulations.

After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?

Bob Loblaw at 01:18 AM on 25 February, 2026

Eric @ 6:

I'm not sure exactly which "conclusion is basically backwards". I'm not even sure if you're responding to someone else's comment, or the OP itself. Can you be more specific?

You link to the 2007 decision. I've had a quick look. It is rather long. Is there a specific part that you think is particularly important?

One thing that Roberts says in his dissent is that CO2 is basically a global issue. In the early part of that decision, it says "Roberts pointed out that much of the impetus behind global warming comes from foreign nations that have no environmental regulations." That seems to represent an opinion that the tragedy of the commons is fine with him.

How would your proposed "numeric standards for CO2" work? Local CO2 values can vary quite a bit depending on local emissions, local sinks, weather, season, etc. Away from local effects (e.g. Mauna Loa), levels are broadly global, and individual states can't do much. Putting a limit on raw CO2 level seems impractical.

If you are thinking of regulating emission quantities, how do allowable limits get set across states, industries, etc?

The Roberts dissent (from only a quick glance) seems to hinge on "courts don't belong here", with a healthy dose of "doubt is our product". I think you're correct that they don't want to put "doubt is our product" in writing too obviously.

I think the current court has made it pretty clear in decisions over the past few years that precedent is not a strong legal position in any case.

After a major blow to U.S. climate regulations, what comes next?

Eric (skeptic) at 18:59 PM on 24 February, 2026

The conclusion is basically backwards. The best case is for states to experiment with solutions and have Congress write laws to set numeric standards for CO2 just like they did for CO. The worse case is to go to the Supreme Court and watch them rule 6-3 against the same thing they ruled 5-4 for in 2007. It's pretty simple: decisions based on policy, or even worse, science, do not create strong legal precedent. Please read the Roberts 2007 dissent that I will again link here: Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

If the USSC decides a similar case, a 6-3 decision will hinge on Roberts 2007 logic both in deference to the legal issues and to Roberts himself. The three liberal justices will maintain the Stevens argument and argue it's even more crucial today. The other six may secretly harbor Scalia's merchandizing of doubt, but won't put that in writing.

How will Congress pass those laws? Good question, a simple majority in the House is inevitable thanks to my state of Virginia gerrymandering and anti-Trump sentiment. 60 votes can be purchased in the Senate by sending enough money to farmers regardless of party control.

Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.

nigelj at 11:42 AM on 23 February, 2026

Bob Loblow @20

BL: "You qualify that in your third paragraph by saying that the politicians should make the major decisions - but how do you decide what are the major decisions, and what decisions are not?........So, the law really needs to allow the executive branch to have some flexibility to look into "unknowns"."

I'm suggesting that if a regulatory proposal is found to have a huge potential impact on society like regulating CO2, the final determination of whether its a pollutant and needs regulations, and the final approval of such regulations should rest with the legislative branch by way of vote. Maybe the EPA should be required to apply a test, and it can do so at any stage the regulatory issue in the chain of assessment. Perhaps its possible to look at the likely impact of the regulation on the economy and say if its above level xyz it needs to go to the legislature. You could look at imapct on gdp or wages or whatever. It doesnt have to be something perfect , just enough to ensure the legislature gets the big issues to vote on, and not too many small issues to deal with.

Perhaps look at the history of regulations going back a few decades and on the economic impacts and identify the costs of the 10% or 5% of regulations with the greatest economic impacts and then this cost becomes the threshold where any new regulations have to go to the legislature for final approval. That means the legislature aren't overburdened with too many to consider.

Even if things are left to the executive branch to figure out whether something is a pollutant, and they have the flexibility to look into unknowns, they can still be required to do the test I suggested, at some point in time when its appropriate.

Sorry about my use of the term elected politicians. It was confusing.

Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.

nigelj at 16:08 PM on 22 February, 2026

Bob Loblow: "You can argue whether the Clean Air Act and other legislation gave too much discretion (or not enough) to the EPA, but the EPA is expected to act according to the directions it was given by legislation..."

Yes thats precisely what I'm doing. I'm arguing the clean air act gives too much discretion to the EPA. For me the decisions on whether a chemical is an air pollutant and should thus be regulated should rest with elected politicians. At least in respect of substances where the implications would be huge like CO2. I accept you cant have politicians decide on every single chemical substance, as you say things would grind to a halt.

As I already said we elect politicians to make the major decisions, and surely what we do about CO2 is a major decision. The details of how regulations might be structured can of course be left to something like the EPA. Of course its really just my opinion so I wont labour the point further.

And this looks like its part of the rationale that has overtuned the endangerment finding, along with some sort of argument about the costs of the endangerment finding and regulating CO2 allegedly exceeding the benefits (Im not sure the EPA have proven that by a long way.)

Now I hope this overturning of the endangerment finding is challenged in court. The endangerment finding was the law, and even although I dont believe its the ideal sort of law to fight climate change, and was always at risk of coming unstuck, it was the law and it seemed to have reasonably wide public support. And it was helping promote EV's. On that basis its ok law in a democratic sense. And its better than nothing. Hope that doesn't sound contradictory.

The scientific community and lawyers did well undermining the CWG / DOE junk science report, on both the science and the lack of proper transparency of process. That had to be done for all sorts of reasons.

Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.

Bob Loblaw at 11:50 AM on 22 February, 2026

nigel: you say "... then defer major decisions on what becomes law..."

...but as I explained earlier at least in the Canadian sense, is that the technocrats (I don't really like that term, but "executive branch" or "administrative branch" doesn't really cover it, either) don't make law writ large. They just apply the law to create rules and regulations in a manner clearly delegated by the elected legislative branch.

It's not a case of "well, we're not going to deal with that; let's let the bureaucracy deal with it". It's more a case of "we've thought about it, and we've established the way we want it dealt with, but we will leave the details to the technocrats". The legislature is still responsible for what happens (you can't delegate responsibility), but the subordinate administration is given the authority (which you can delegate) to act.

In the case of the endangerment finding, the earlier legislation (Clean Air Act) determined that the EPA was responsible for regulating air pollution that had detrimental effects on people or the environment. AFAIK, the original legislation did not list every chemical that was considered a pollutant - it left that as a determination for the EPA. Then came the question of whether CO2 needed to be included on that list, and after several levels of court cases, the USSC said "yes, the science says CO2 is an air pollutant, and the EPA must take steps to review it and regulate it if necessary". The recent EPA position is that it is not a pollutant that is causing any harm. (I'm sure that lawyers will make more money out of this.)

So, it is not a case that the EPA decided that regulating air pollutants was something it needed to do - that decision was made in the legislative branch when the Clean Air Act was passed. The legislative branch delegated the authority to the EPA to determine what (or what not) is an air pollutant (with a little help from the courts).

What I am sure will be the legal process moving forward is questions as to whether the current EPA decision actually followed all the legal obligations set out in various legislation. The EPA was not told via the Clean Air Act to "do whatever you want". The EPA was told "you can make some decisions, but this is the process you need to go through to make your decisions".

In the case of last year's Climate Working Group (the gang of five that produced the hugely biased report), there were legal challenges in the works that took the EPA to task for ignoring the various aspects of the process that the various laws required. The EPA decided to withdraw the report and pretend it never happened - undoubtedly to try to avoid having their new decision challenged in court as a violation of process.

You can argue whether the Clean Air Act and other legislation gave too much discretion (or not enough) to the EPA, but the EPA is expected to act according to the directions it was given by legislation. The cabinet member at the top of the executive branch (Minister in Canada, or the Secretary in the US) can guide how the bureaucracy works, but he or she does need to work within the framework specified in legislation.

If you needed to get new legislation passed to decide if every new pollutant was indeed a pollutant, you'd never get anything done. (That's the current goal in the US, I think.) That's where delegating the decision to some form of expert review process provides flexibility.

Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.

nigelj at 17:38 PM on 18 February, 2026

Why not leave it to congress to decide whether the most important pollution regulations should become law, and obviously that would include CO2, and leave it to the EPA to have authority to decide on whether the smaller pollution ssues become law. Surely criteria can be agreed on what issues fit in what category. That way congress dont get overwhelmed with dealing with minor issues that are quite technical

Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.

Eric (skeptic) at 06:01 AM on 18 February, 2026

Bob, I agree with you but have more sympathy for the USSC which was asked to decide a scientific / regulatory question with a 5-4 vote in 2007 but would vote 6-3 the other way today. That's not their fault, it's Congress shirking its responsibility to act. The can do it, and have with Diesel Emissions Reduction Act which also lowers CO2 and is bipartisan and continues to be reauthorized. Also the HFC act in 2020. DERA is incentive based, like the bipartisan infrastructure act which some republicans, especially in the Senate, signed onto. Spending more money on whatever is an easy way to buy those votes.

The 2007 case at the USSC is not very general or valuable as precedent. As the Roberts dissent points out it is "special solicitude". Massachusetts cannot enumerate how the loss of vehicle standards will affect their loss of coastal property. Nor can they link how the proposed vehicle standards will save their coastal property, because there are too many other factors not under our control. He states 'The good news is that the Court’s “special solicitude” for Massachusetts limits the future applicability of the diluted standing requirements applied in this case'.

Bottom line Congress needs to create specific numeric targets like CAA did with carbon monoxide. Let industries and/or states decide how to meet them. Or just spend a lot more borrowed money (I do not endorse that approach).

2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #04

michael sweet at 05:46 AM on 30 January, 2026

CNN has a nice article about Dr Ramanathan who was instrumental in determining the effect of trace gasses on global warming. In rhe 1980's he showed that global warming would cause warming to proceed much faster. Before that scientists thought only CO2 would cause significant warming. Search the title on CNN

"The accidental climate scientist who uncovered an unexpected force of global warming"

Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?

Bob Loblaw at 06:53 AM on 15 January, 2026

For readers that are not as dug in to a position as David-acct, there are several posts here at SkS that cover changing levels of CO2 and O2. It's a well-covered aspect of climate science. In general, one of the pieces of evidence in support of the argument that burning fossil carbon is the primary source of increasing atmospheric CO2 is the correlated decrease in atmospheric O2.

Here are posts that discuss this:

What-is-causing-the-increase-in-atmospheric-CO2

How-we-know-human-CO2-emissions-have-disrupted-carbon-cycle

Carbon-Isotopes-Part-1

Carbon-Isotopes-Part-2

10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change

Several of those posts contain graphs of observed atmospheric O2 levels. Here is one, from the second link:

Atmospheric CO2 and O2

Note that a drop of 70ppm in O2 levels is not particularly worrisome from a human health standpoint. We're at 21%, and OHS warnings don't kick in until O2 drops to about 18%.

...but if David-acct is really worried that we're going to run out of oxygen because science is hiding something, he might want to get on to a path that helps stop burning fossil fuels.

Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?

Bob Loblaw at 05:42 AM on 15 January, 2026

You're losing it, David-acct.

Let's quote the full context, since you're big into context:

In the U.S., replacing equivalent natural gas power with one acre of solar prevents about 175 to 198 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year.

In contrast, an average acre of forest sequesters less than 1 metric ton of CO2 per year. An acre of solar cuts roughly 200 times more CO2 than an acre of trees.

Now, since you want to emphasize O2, please do the full calculations to compare the O2 involved in all the fluxes mentioned in that quote from the OP.

Why do you truncate the discussion to just the O2 involved in the forest uptake (which wlil no longer happen)? Is it because looking at the O2 involved in the CO2 reductions from the solar panel installation becomes inconvenient to your advocacy?

The CO2 reduction from the solar panels results in less atmospheric O2 being consumed as carbon is burned. In far greater quantities than the "lost" O2 production from the forest you think is so important.

Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?

David-acct at 05:27 AM on 15 January, 2026

CO2 is the bad guy

O2 is the Good guy

Again - Why does the OP truncate - Skip over - important facts ? is it because it becomes inconvenient to present full and complete facts that reflect poorly on the advocacy?

Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?

Bob Loblaw at 05:18 AM on 15 January, 2026

David-acct @ 8:

Take your own advice.

The CO2 that is not absorbed involves the same O2 that is not created. I have already quoted the section of the OP that quantifies this: "an average acre of forest sequesters less than 1 metric ton of CO2 per year." That tells us how much O2 will not be produced if the forest is removed.

Unless, as I have asked, you know of some other magical source of O2 released by the forest that is not involved in the forest growth (CO2 uptake).

Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?

Bob Loblaw at 04:56 AM on 15 January, 2026

David-acct@5:

You posted while I was preparing #6.

Same question for you: the O in CO2 is O2. What other O2 flux are you going on about?

Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?

Bob Loblaw at 04:53 AM on 15 January, 2026

David-acct @ 1:

What on earth are you talking about? The OP specifically mentions "Cutting forest does release stored carbon, but even if all 304 metric tons of CO2 in a forested acre were emitted during construction..."

Are you saying thet there is some unaccounted O2 flux into the forest that is distinct from the O2 that is consumed in turning forest carbon into CO2 (which is included in the above statement)?

Normally, a growing forest (defined by accumulations of carbon, be it trees, other vegetation, soils, or detritus) is releasing O2, as it splits CO2 into C and O2. What exactly is being "not replenished" in your scenario? Are you talking about replenishing atmospheric O2?

Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?

David-acct at 04:39 AM on 15 January, 2026

Nigelj - It remains a legitimate question. The article specifically compared.

"Clearing trees to build solar farms does not negate their climate change benefits, because one acre of solar panels prevents far more CO2 emissions than an acre of forest absorbs."

Comparing apples to apples remains a valid question, even if one doesnt like the applicable comparison.

Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?

Philippe Chantreau at 03:31 AM on 15 January, 2026

Indeed, let's not forget the part concerning oxygen that is accomplished by every gas, coal and oil power plant, and every single internal combustion engine:

CH+O2 --> CO2+H2O

It seems obvious that if we are concerned about oxygen, this process is also a concern, a rather gigantic one, in fact.

Fact brief - Does clearing trees for solar panels release more CO2 than the solar panels would prevent?

One Planet Only Forever at 01:43 AM on 15 January, 2026

David-acct,

Any reason your question seems to be missing the understanding that a more comprehensive evaluation would include that O2 is removed and locked into CO2 and H2O by the oxidation of fossil fuels?

The evaluation of the impacts of solar farms would be to fully compare them with the impacts of the alternative energy systems, which would be more than the O2 impacts.

I look forward to a more comprehensive evaluation done by you reported back here.

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

nick51 at 00:21 AM on 5 January, 2026

Venus main statistics of the planet.
Size 12,104km
Gravity 8.87 m/s2
Atmosphere co2 96.5%
Clouds circle the planet sulfuric acid
Lapse rate 10.47 K/km
Rotational speed 6.52 km/h
Axis inclination 3 degrees
Energy received from the sun 2,613 W/m2
Super rotational winds (SRW) 100 m/s
Height of sulphuric acid clouds 40 km to 75 km
Direction of rotation of the planet Clock wise
Direction of SRW ACW

Sulphuric acid clouds
clouds are made of 75–96% sulfuric acid.
These are formed by photochemical reactions in the upper atmosphere, involving solar light acting on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and water vapor, create the sulfuric acid.

These sulphuric acid clouds drive the climate on Venus.
Properties of sulphuric clouds
Albedo effect is between 0.75 to 0.80, which means they reflect 75-80% of the suns energy
Suns energy is 2,613 W/m2, approximately 2,000 W/m2 reflected back into space.
This leaves 613 W/m2 do drive Venus climate.
Sulphuric acid clouds absorb energy in the ultra violet (UV) which is about 10% of the suns energy and the remaining 20% of visible light left which enters the sulphuric acid cloud, 10% of this is absorbed

UV 450 nm, with a sharp edge around 400 nm. The iron-bearing mineral phases, such as rhomboclase and acid ferric sulfate, dissolved within the sulfuric acid droplets are the likely candidates for this absorption

No IR is absorbed by these clouds.
So the final figures are:-
Suns energy = 2613 W/m2
Reflected by the albedo effect = 2000 W/m2
Absorbed by the UV = 11% = 287 W/m2
Absorbed by the Visible Light = 11% = total = 577 W/m2.
This leaves 2,613 - 2,577 = 36 W/ms arriving at the surface (12 W/m2. Average) This means there can be no greenhouse effect. It is enough to get a faint haze glow on the surface.

So this 577 W/m2 drives the super rotational wind in the Venetian atmosphere.
This heats the clouds, rising the cloud tops to 75km in height.
The clouds are heated on the sunny side most, due to the slow rotation, the super heated clouds move to the cooler atmosphere, 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is in an anti clockwise direction. This causes this super rotational winds of 100 m/s to circle the planet, in a narrow band around the equator, where they lose some energy as the wind circle the planet and spread out towards the poles.
This doesn’t change during Venus year as its axis is only 3 degrees, so there is little or no change as it orbits the sun.
As these SRW approach the dark side the winds increase again as the dark side clouds are lower, and colder, this causes extra turbulence as the hot winds encounter the cooler atmosphere. This also causes more of the winds to migrate towards the poles, combined with the downwelling of the winds. This is shown by the pictures taken by the Japanese orbiter Akatsuki.
The SRW then approach the day side again where they receive extra energy from the sun and continue its journey to where the sun is directly overhead, receiving the 577 W/m2, where the cycle starts all over again.

What happens to the atmosphere as it down wells towards the planets surface.
The atmosphere has its driving force for this rotation now (the super rotation winds down welling):
Adiabatic lapse rate 10.47 c/km (Gravity rating on the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere)
We have the heights that this happens at. (Sulphuric acid clouds between 40-75km) and the temperatures. Two key points are 43km temperature is most earth like 14c, and planets surface temperature 465c.
We also have the adiabatic charts for Venus to check the results
The temperature profile of Venus is shown below:-
Height (km) Temperature (C) Pressure (1 atm)
0 465 93
10. 360 71
20 255 50
30 151 18
40. 49 7
43 14 1
50 -59 -15
60 -164 -37
70 -269 -58

As can bee seen, it explains the pressure on Venus - its driven by the temperature.

Emergence vs Detection & Attribution

prove we are smart at 00:47 AM on 16 December, 2025

As much as I enjoy reading Zekes or Andrew's call out of bad actors like the US DoE www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-error I really feel an increased sense of apathy from people towards changing our behaviours to reduce co2 emissions.

You know when the US had that really terrible weather disaster year in 2020 www.climate.gov/disasters2020 .Heres a poll taken then and now, the importance of the climate has really taken a back seat www.statista.com/chart/32304/key-issues-in-the-us-according-to-respondents/

Australia too in 2020 had a catastophic fire season en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bushfire_season and the important issues poll produced this www.ipsos.com/en-au/issuesmonitor As in the US poll, interest in the enviroment is currently still declining.

Are we just desensitised to it all now, misinformed or staying wilfully ignorant? Is this the last gasp of the good ole days before the shit really doesn't miss the fan anymore? We are destroying our life support and maybe we can get some control back like this www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQMZR64G_eM or stay in our consumer role like this www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dFa829W1Rk I feel like I know too much now and just say the positive stuff to any younger folk.

Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim

MA Rodger at 02:32 AM on 13 December, 2025

michael sweet @31,

A few thoughts about this +8°C ESS finding (actually it's AESS, taking the increasing solar energy into account).

(1) Hansen has indeed proposed a lower value, famously the graphic below from Hansen & Sato (2012) which even pre-dates the term ESS.
H&S12 Fig7

(2) Judd et al (2025) does say its constant ESS=+8°C finding is at odds with other work, but doesn't properly set all this out. For instance, they don't [ro[er;y review CenCO2PIP (2024) who find ESS "generally within the range of 5° to 8°C—patterns consistent with most prior work." I think all would agree that we haven't found a difinitive value for ESS although it will be higher than ECS.

(3) The Earth System equilibrium is very slow to arrive so the opportunity to keep AGW below +1.5°C in the long terms is surely far less of an issue than the shorter-term century-scale AGW.
That is, if CO2 will be three-quarters sucked from the atmosphere over a millenium, the CO2 forcing from modern CO2 emissions (with Af = ~50%) will be halved during the next 1,000 years, the sort of timescale that ESS arrives in. So if ESS ≤ 2 x ECS, it is the shorter timescales we need to worry about regarding temperature. SLR would likely be a good reason for giving natural CO2 draw-down a healthy hepling hand. And the technology to effortlessly do that will not be that long in coming.

(4) But on that point of a future 'effortless' techno-fix for excess CO2, I am always surprised that the post-2100 parts of the IPCC scenatios are not better known. The graphic below is Fig 2 from Meinshausen et al (2020) 'The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to AD2500'. The thumbnail bottom left-hand graph shows net CO2 emissions for scenario-various and if you scale SSP1-1.9 (a scenario which we should be trying to follow), the negative net emissions post-2050 equal all the FF & LUC emissions 2007-2050. That is something I find scary.
Meinshausen et al (2020) Fig2

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

scaddenp at 05:39 AM on 8 December, 2025

For direct measurement of greenhouse effect, try here:
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

and here for the Nature paper.

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

TonyW at 08:37 AM on 7 December, 2025

There is also direct measurement of the effect. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26638729_First_direct_observation_of_the_atmospheric_CO2_year-to-year_increase_from_space_Atmos_Chem_Phys_74249-4256

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

Bob Loblaw at 01:47 AM on 3 December, 2025

sychodefender @ 39:

I am afraid that you start off with an incomplete statistic (% of total CO2 emissions that are man made), which leads you into incorrect conclusions about the role of CO2 emissions in the rise of CO2.

Atmospheric changes in CO2 are the result of net CO2 fluxes - both additions (emissions) and removals. Without human emissions, the natural system was in balance and atmospheric CO2 levels did not change much year to year. (There is a clear annual cycle, though.)

If your 5% argument was correct, then if human emissions stopped we'd continue to see CO2 rise at 95% of the current rate. If this were true, why was CO2 not rising at 95% of the current rate before humans started emitting CO2? Because nature was absorbing that CO2 - that's why. Humans are 100% responsible for the imbalance.

You can read a better explanation of this mass balance issue on this post that discusses other typcial (bad) arguments about CO2 rise. You can also find another discussion of the various clues that lead to the conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the increase in this post titled Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2.

Let's make a simple analogy:

You start with $1,000 in the bank.

Your regular income is $5,000 per month.

Your regular expenses are $5,000 per month.

After 5 years, you still have only $1,000 in the bank.

You win the lottery, and the prize is doled out at the rate of $250/month for 5 years.

You still get $5,000/month in income, and still spend $5,000/month.

After another five years, you now have $16,000 in the bank - an extra $15,000.

By your math, the lottery winnings are only 5% of your income, so only 5% ($750) of the extra money in the bank is from the lottery winnings. But clearly your regular income and expenses have not changed, and never led to any increase in your bank account (net zero). The extra $15,000 is 100% due to the extra lottery winnings, not 5%.

Let's say you decide to spend half your lottery winnings. You still have $5,000/month income and $250/month lottery winnings going into the bank, but now your spending is $5,125/month. After five years, you will have $8,500 in the bank - added savings compared to your pre-lottery days. (This is a closer analogy to atmospheric CO2, where half the human emissions are absorbed by natural processes.) That extra $7,500 is still 100% due to the lottery winnings.

The rest of your post follows from an incorrect initial assumption. It is wrong.

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

sychodefender at 22:35 PM on 2 December, 2025

Only 5% of global annual co2 emissions are man made. Thus 5% of the yearly rise in atmospheric co2 (2.4 ppm) is from human activities.
(2.4 ppm X 5% = 0.12 ppm pa)
Scientists argue about the existence and quantity of various positive feedbacks from the tiny amount of warming that 0.12 ppm produces, but generally they estimate that feedbacks add 300% to forcing.
(0.12 ppm X 300% = 0.36 ppm pa)
So the maximum reduction that we can achieve with net zero is 0.36 ppm pa and this is extremely unlikely to happen this century.
Some other process is occurring to make up the remaining 2.04 ppm pa that is being added to the atmosphere, does this suggest that feedback from the small temperature rise is much more powerful than previously thought?
Or is our belief that this coincidental co2 rise is the driver of significant warming erroneous?
Methane is calculated to be responsible for 30% of warming, 60% of global methane emissions are anthropological, hence theoretically by completely eliminating our methane emissions we could prevent 18% of its influence on temperature increase.
This would necessitate dramatic changes which in all honesty are massively unlikely, perhaps a 10% reduction might be possible this century.
It seems that the ability of these anthropological gases (and their associated feedbacks) to have any significant warming effect is very small indeed.
If we are certain that the measurements revealing an untypical rapid temperature rise are accurate we must search elsewhere for an explanation and hopefully a method of control that is potent, plausible and genuinely achievable on a global basis and timescale.

Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim

MA Rodger at 05:03 AM on 29 November, 2025

RegalNose@26,
In the context of Judd et al (2024)'s graph below (Fig4a in the OP above), Judd et al Fig2

you ask - Isn't the NASA graph (below)

NASA carbon graph

just pure scaremongring?

You ask "What am I missing? Why the panic and crisis mode?"

The OP above does not really answer your question of why CO2 should put us humans into a panic mode.
❶ The OP is firstly addressing the misuse of the Judd et al findings, being converted into total nonsense. It is, of course, difficult to nail down 'total nonsense'. ❷ Secondly, the OP chats about the threat of our CO2 to natural life on Earth rathert than the treat to humanity. ❸ That is not to say we humans should not be panicking.

❶ That first point, the OP presents an exemplar piece of 'total nonsense' which says "There's always this rise and fall." The context here implies it is the global temperatures they are saying "always ... rise and fall."
They continue:-

"This idea that the whole thing is based on carbon emissions from human beings is total bullshit. It's not true. Right. We might be having an effect, but we're having a small effect, a very small effect.”

This quote is 'total nonsense' as the findings of Judd et al, the evidence they are presumably presenting, says the exact opposite. Judd et al say it is CO2 on which the "whole thing is based". From their abstract:-

"There is a strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations and GMST, identifying CO2 as the dominant control on variations in Phanerozoic global climate and suggesting an apparent Earth system sensitivity of ~8°C." [My bold]

And the present-day big actor driving the 'whole thing', the startling rise in CO2 NASA graph above, that is the 'human beings'. This 'whole thing' is not "very small".
Additionally, Judd et al finding "an apparent Earth system sensitivity of ~8°C" suggests the effect is far from "very small" in terms of global temperature.

❷ The threat to nature from to the CO2-rise being so rapid is a major part of the above OP. Perhaps to add a little colour, 56 million years ago the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was caused by CO2 rising from ~800ppm to ~2,000ppm. The climatic forcing would be the same if we today allow CO2 to rise to 690ppm (and no other GHG increases - accounting for other GHGs, the equivalent would be perhaps 520ppm).
The PETM was not a massive event in historical climate or ecology but it did have pretty big impacts. Consider horses - they shrank to the size of large dogs to cope with the heat. The PETM is often held up as the nearest example of what we are stoking with our man-made climate change. But there is one stark difference. The PETM warming took something like 25,000 years. Our warming is happening 100-times quicker. The sixth mass extinction event which humanity is already threatening with other activities will be a certainty if our warming gets anywhere close to rivalling the PETM's +6ºC.

❸ But we humans are an adaptable species. However the problems are this.
(1) We a very numerous species that relies on a lot of real-estate. Loss of big portions of that real-estate (or even just the projected loss of it) will have big big geo-political consequences. If we could all pull together and address the problems, that may not be so disastrous. But we won't. And I'd imagine climate-change-mitigation measures will not be such a high priority when the world economy collapses and wars of national survival break out.
(2) The climatology cannot tell us how long we can keep melting Greenland to prevent 20ft of sea level rise becoming inevitable, or when the AMOC will disappear plumging Europe into the deep freeze, or when the cloud feedbacks over the Pacific will add another +3ºC to the warming, etc. The +2ºC limit to the warming was dropped in favour of +1.5ºC because tipping-points such as these could potentially be triggered below +2ºC.

I hope that goes some way to explaining "the panic and crisis mode."

Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim

Philippe Chantreau at 04:06 AM on 28 November, 2025

The planet was lush and green very shortly after the end of the last ice age, when CO2 was less than 300ppm. In every region where the avilability of water made their existence possible, forests grew. They covered an immense area of the globe before humans started cutting them down and slashing/burning. Megafauna existed also and was in fact richer than now, even during the ice age: Mammoths, whooly rhinos, dire wolves, cave lions, megacerops, smilodon, cave bears, etc, etc.

Humans are an enormously powerful factor constraining the existence, abundance and diversity of life. Humans precipitated the disappearance of the megafauna of the late quaternary. Currently, life is subjected to all the "normal" natural stressors and all the human made ones as well. Without humans, it is very likely that after a few tens of thousands of years, life would be green and lush, rife with megafauna, under the future climatic conditions afforded by 500ppm of CO2. There is absolutely no chance of that happening with 8 to 10 billions of humans inhabiting the planet. None whatsoever.

Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim

RegalNose at 22:46 PM on 27 November, 2025

Hi all,

I am absolute green when it comes to topic of Climate research (which is obviously not my field) and trying to make sense of some information presented to general public. I am writing here as I'd like your help with navigating this as it seems to me a bit contradictive with presented "news of the day".

If you navigate to the https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/, there are two data points that are interesting to me:

1. current CO2 ppm = 430

2. increase of GMST of 1.5 degree C since pre-industry era.

What puzzles me, why is this so important to call for crisis mode?

When I look at the Judd's graph no. 2 I am reading that the planet was operating during The Mesozoic Era, which we know was lush, green and supported living of megafauna, on levels of CO2 between 500-2000ppm and with temperature s significantly higher comparing to current time. I am reading the graph as a path from local minimum and not as a path to glabal maximum, when it comes to GMST. I do understand the problem of how rapid is the incremental temperature increase, but don't see the issue of the increase itself.

In the context of Judd's graph, isn't the graphe used at https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/ just pure scaremongring?

If you take 800,000 years, the CO2 ppm looks like massive spike, in the graph. But when you take the context of millions of years as Judd does, this increase is well.. insignificant.

What am I missing? Why the panic and crisis mode?

Thanks!

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Eclectic at 21:58 PM on 7 November, 2025

Nick Palmer :

A lengthy PART TWO of the religious component of Lindzen's climate science denialism.

While we see where the typical Denialist (e.g. to be found in the street or @WUWT website) harbors anger / selfishness / deficiency in empathy . . . . there is IMO an additional fundamentalist religious component in the Motivated Reasonings of some prominent Denialists. You yourself could name a few of those luminaries, I am sure.

IIRC, there was an interview with a very relaxed, laid-back Lindzen sitting in a chair in his garden, while being interviewed by a "sympathetic" interviewer. My perhaps-faulty memory was that the occasion was 2006 ~ but perhaps that date is wrong. My googling this week turned up youtube: "Interview with Professor Richard Lindzen" on the "Rathnakumar S" channel. I am unclear on its date ~ maybe 2014 or 2015. Hard to be sure, since youtubers tend to recycle and re-post stuff from years earlier from other sources. But the exact date is a trivial matter. And please do not bother to view the video, unless you are in a masochistic mood.

# The "Rathnakumar S" channel is new to me, and I have not viewed any of the rest of the playlist. But the playlist does include interviews (originals or re-posts?) of people such as :- W.Soon; W.Happer; H.Svensmark; M.Salby; P.Michaels; S.Baliunas; Bob Carter; et alia. And including that paragon of ethical public education, Marc Morano. Plus there appears to be a flirtation with anti-vax. Of course.

Video with approximate time-stamps :

Lindzen seems to favor a degree of Intelligent Design ~ the World is well-designed. 3:05 "Oh I think the case is pretty strong that it is in fact better designed, and there are strong negative feedbacks that will instead of amplifying, diminish the effect of man's emissions."

Lindzen keeps minimizing the Global Warming: "Only half a degree in a century ... [and] the temperature is always flopping around."

Lindzen opines that CO2 can have a warming effect, but most of it is not due to humans . . . though yes, water vapor and clouds "worsen what we do with CO2." [Note that Lindzen's "Iris Hypothesis" has been a dud.]

22:20 "We still don't know why we had these ice age cycles. We don't know why 50 million years ago we could have alligators in Spitzbergen."

27:00 "Ever since we invented the umbrella, we've known how to deal with climate, up to a point."

37:20 "Nothing in this [climate] field is terribly compelling. The data is weak. ..."CO2 will contribute some warming : not much. ..."It is then claimed that recent changes are due to man : I don't think that's true."

46:13 He returns to Intelligent Design : "A well-engineered device tries to compensate for anything that perturbs it."

So ~ not much particularly explicit denialisty statements . . . but a great deal of implicit statements. Including, throughout the video, a great deal of "Cornwall" wording.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

One Planet Only Forever at 07:20 AM on 7 November, 2025

Nick Palmer @7,

Regarding Lindzen's 'alternative understanding of the impact of cloud changes as warming occurs due to increased CO2 levels'.

I may be mistaken. But nearly 1.5 C warming has happened with CO2 increasing from 280 ppm to 420 ppm (only a 50% increase of CO2). I appreciate that correlation does not prove causation. But that information would appear to fairly solidly establish that Lindzen's past belief, that he appears to powerfully resist changing his mind about in spite of updated information, has 'very little merit'.

CO2 is just a trace gas

Cedders at 09:53 AM on 5 November, 2025

I'm surprised that this argument is so low on the popularity list, 77 out of 200. Possibly it’s more common offline: meeting some contrarians at real-life events (stalls etc), it’s practically what opens the conversation when you are pegged as one of the climate-concerned. ‘I bet you can’t tell me the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.’

If you express an answer in parts per million, or perhaps as two million million tonnes, then they will want it converted to a percentage (even though most of the atmosphere is transparent to infra-red, and it’s the amount rather than proportion of greenhouse gases that determines the greenhouse effect). 0.043% sounds negligible somehow, perhaps because of common uses of percentages in polling or economics or pay rises. Without empirical knowledge of effects of a substance in a small proportion, people can fall back on what seems like a reasonable guess.

An underlying assumption by people stressing concentrations seems to be that if people knew CO₂ was ‘a trace gas’, they wouldn’t be concerned about climate change, and so the way most people can’t answer in percentage terms means that they are ignorant about the subject matter, or have been manipulated. (The conversation may then proceed to ‘life flourished in the Jurassic because of higher CO₂’ myth, about as accurate as One Million Years BC with Raquel Welch, or combine several misunderstandings into one sentence or question.)

So, supporting the large effects of trace substances argument, and as some people reject the ‘poison’ or ‘alcohol’ analogy as too indirect, I’d like to post this table. If comparisons across the electromagnetic spectrum are somehow valid, then 0.043% turns out to be a lot.

CO2 is just a trace gas

Cedders at 05:36 AM on 5 November, 2025

Bob Loblaw @60: "As for JJones idea that CO2 in trace amounts can't absorb enough radiation, there are commercial CO2 gas analyzers that are designed to measure CO2 by measuring the amount of IR radiation it absorbs, and they can do this on very small quantities of air."

Indeed I've bought an air quality meter for about $10 online, which uses non-dispersive infra-red (filters) to detect carbon dioxide, formaldehyde and other volatile organic compounds. It takes a minute to literally warm up, and is of course nowhere near as accurate as the infra-red equipment scientists use to measure CO₂, but it will at least detect breath, poor ventilation and includes a hygrometer.

Whether actual hands-on experience of such things will help someone accept radiative physics is one question. And whether finding that kind of evidence against the most convenient rationalisation available changes wider world-view about who is responsible for climate change is a different one.

Scaddenp @61 : "I am interested in how people build up their mental models, and how we update these mental models as new information is presented."

(digression) So am I, although I often find it hard to persuade people to share their reasoning, particularly if they are quickly on the defensive. I think humans in general do some 'hill-climbing' in their professed beliefs, aiming at local maxima of practical, satisfactory narrative. New information may change the landscape, but people only move their position slightly, rather than doing the tiring cognitive work of re-evaluating the bigger picture. Hence why goalposts are moved and people rapidly move on to the next myth.

One thing I do find is quite common among contrarians in real life (besides an understandable but exaggerated distrust of authority that is a mirror image of acceptance of consensus) is a simplistic version of Popper's falsificationism. Here's apparent evidence why climate science is wrong, and that is enough to disprove it. (Some do then accrete other supporting arguments.) This mischaracterised epistemology is something to apply to any scientific 'hypothesis' that may have been painted as inconvenient or costing money or jeopardising worldview, but from my experience they use a more common-sense Bayesianism for everyday life.

To JJones @48, one could add that 'a significant amount of heat' is radiated from Sun to Earth and Earth to space. If the latter is mostly in the form of long-wave infra-red, and carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infra-red, where does the 'heat energy' go? And then maybe explain emission layer displacement in simple terms.

It's the sun

kootzie at 04:32 AM on 4 November, 2025

I am semi-active on Research Gate and elsewhere and doing my bit to [snip]

swat and bitch-slap denialists as they emit their oral-methane emissions to contaminate the discussions and spread anti-science drivel

I notice that the likes of
D*n P*rn
H. D*s L*oot
J*k Br*n
and others regularly engage in denialist mis-information
I notice that none of them appear to be significant enough to
merit (or dis-merit) inclusion in your rogues gallery

Their latest drivel stream purports that not only does increased atmospheric CO2 concentration not contribute ANY increase in global average temperatures, that CO2 does not have any effect on GAT at all.

They claim that WV aka Water Vapour, is a far more potent GHG
(which is arguably a defensible proposition) but that WV is the ONLY
GHG which has ANY effect on temperature, and ipso-facto ergo QED
anthropogenic Global Warming does not exist - its all on the natch.

They regularly mis-interpret mis-comprehend mis-represent physics.
They fundamentally deny that CO2, a non-condensible GHG with a long lifespan drives global temps and insist that WV, a condensible GHG with a short lifespan is not merely a feedback / feedforward mechanism but the fundamental / ONLY driver.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/analyze-and-critique-vol-20-20-wis.z78fQn.WeNzqnj5Kkg#0
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/analyze-and-critique-the-error-7ZbX2nqyRgGc19k2y45u_Q#0
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/analyze-and-critique-paraphras-Lrr7UYOjQAitC93qUR10EA#1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_environmental_protection_and_biodiversity_be_improved_by_using_current_ecological_technologies#view=6908dd880ea281189c0a137f/312/313/312

Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report?

Bob Loblaw at 04:35 AM on 17 October, 2025

History suggests that the authors of the DOE report are largely incapable of being embarrassed. Their determination to spread their message, in spite of numerous criticisms and corrections, is quite remarkable.

Charlie Brown @ 4:

That is an interest take: that they argue 3 W/m² is small compared to the total radiative flux. It seems that they are using the "it's a trace/small amount compared to [X]" template that has been used in a variety of poor contrarian arguments; vis a vis:

CO2 is a trace gas

Anthropogenic emissions are small compared to natural cycles

Are there any other arguments that fit this same template?

DenialDepot had a fun post (15 years ago!) on how to cook a graph by playing with the Y-axis. Of course, in its standard mocking of the contrarians, DenialDepot accuses Skeptical Science of cooking the graphs by not expanding the Y-axis to make the change look minuscule. (DD looked at sea ice.) DD shows the "proper" method should be to compare the lost sea ice area to the total area of the earth. In DD's words, "That's far more clear. Immediately I am having trouble seeing the sea ice. This is good. If you can't see it, it's not a problem."

It's like a defendant in court arguing "how can it be grand larceny? I only took $100,000. He has billions."

Koonin providing clarity on climate?

Evan at 06:31 AM on 28 September, 2025

Charlie Brown@3. Yes, I understand the Milankovitch cycles well. Yes, warming starts a very complicated feedback cycle, but CO2 is a magnifier. CO2 is a primary cause of the temperature fluctuations through complex feedback cycles.

But my point is that we live in an ecosystem that is very delicately balanced, and just 100 ppm of CO2 is enough to cause huge swings in sea level and temperature. This time around, regardless of the cause, we are pushing the system way beyond anything experienced during the ice age cycles.

Koonin providing clarity on climate?

Charlie_Brown at 05:09 AM on 28 September, 2025

Ken Rice is lenient with the authors of the DOE Climate Impacts report and with Secretary Chris Wright. Chris Wright states in the Foreword: “I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I believe it faithfully represents the state of climate science today.” I care more about substance than credentials. My public comments included: “The Foreword highlights that the purpose of the Critical Review is to challenge and counter mainstream science. It certainly does not represent the state of climate science today. Rather, it provides a rationalization for weakening current policies for combatting climate change. The authors are neither representative of the scientific community nor diverse.”

The science is not that complex. The report is full of misrepresentation, distraction, and obfuscation. It is not worthy of an undergraduate term paper let alone a critical review of science by PhDs. Many points have been thoroughly discussed and debunked here on the SkS website. My comments included:
1) “Section 2.1 is oversimplistic. CO2 is rarely the limiting nutrient. It discusses photosynthesis as a benefit but ignores adverse effects resulting from CO2 as the primary cause of climate change including drought, extreme temperatures, excess rain, and cropland relocation.”
2) “CO2 below 180 ppm is an irrelevant distraction to the discussion of modern global warming.”
3) “Changing ‘ocean acidification’ to ‘ocean neutralization’ is semantic posturing that does not change the effects. To say that pH reduction is not acidification until the pH drops below 7.0 it is not meaningful.”
4) “Implying that the IPCC uses data manipulation to satisfy preferences is baseless accusatory language. The change in radiative forcing due to the Earth’s orbit around the sun is negligible within the period of modern global warming. The change due to sunspot activity is measured and found to be negligible.”
5) “Comparing 3 W/m2 to 240 W/m2 is misleading and diminishes the significance of 3 W/m2. It is an example of science denialism by distraction, obfuscation, and omission. Straightforward, fundamental physics including conservation of energy and radiant energy calculations combined with atmospheric properties allow the effects of anthropogenic forcing to be isolated by calculation. The calculated spectra of energy loss to space is verified by satellite measurements (Hanel, et al.,1972) (Brindley & Bantges, 2015). 3 W/m2 is sufficient to cause and continue observed global warming. The anthropogenic forcing is not determined by difference of two large, measured numbers and does not rely on just satellite estimates of radiative energy flows. There is very little uncertainty about the effects of increasing gas concentrations.
The effect of clouds is the largest uncertainty in climate models. However, average cloud cover does not change without a driving force. Therefore, the effect of increasing GHG can be isolated by holding clouds constant. Specific humidity will rise with increasing surface temperature, resulting in positive water vapor feedback. This can affect clouds."

Others have submitted many more excellent comments, but I have made my point. The science can be explained and understood by most scientific-minded people who are interested in learning. One does not need a PhD in climate science to understand the flaws in the DOE report.

Disbanding the CWG may not be a sign of progress. It may be a way to avoid the lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists that would restrict the use of the report.

Koonin providing clarity on climate?

Charlie_Brown at 01:43 AM on 28 September, 2025

Evan @ 1 100,000 year cycles are caused by the Milankovitch cycles of the Earth’s orbit around the sun. CO2 fluctuations were the result of ocean temperature changes. It is hypothesized that at the beginning of ice ages increased dissolution of CO2 in cold water, the result of the temprature dependence on Henry's Law, slows cooling by reducing CO2. Evolving CO2 from warm water at the end of an ice age enhances the rate of warming.

This time is different. This is the first time in the history of the planet that CO2 and other GHG concentrations are increasing rapidly due to emissions from human activities.

Everyone dies. That is natural. When someone causes someone else to die, that is immoral.

Climate change is accelerating, scientists find in ‘grim’ report

michael sweet at 03:25 AM on 23 September, 2025

Radman365:

You say "It does at least appear to me that there is an excessive degree of certainty with regards to "the truth" on both sides." There are two truths here to determine.

1) Is sea level rise accelerating? On one side we have a paper published in an obscure journal by authors who have produced erroneous analysis before on this topic and did not review their work with anyone with expertise in the subject. On the other we see hundreds of scientists who have discussed the data extensively with each other and reached a consensus that sea level rise is accelerating. The hundreds of scientists have identified multiple large errors in the obscure authors work.

In this case it is relatively simple to do the analysis and the results are very strongly indicating acceleration. I note that in addition to the tide guage data the hundreds of scientists have independant satalite data that reaches the same conclusion. The obscure scientists simply do not know what they are doing and have screwed up. Why did they ignore the satalite data that showed their analysis was incorrect?

The data is clear, sea level rise has accelerated over the past 50 years. Ignoring half of the data and assuming that sea level rise is independant at different locations in the world is simply an ignorant way to look at the data.

2) The important question is: will sea level continue to accelerate in the future? Data from the future is difficult to obtain. Scientists are debating what we should expect in the future. A few thnk it will not be too bad while others think it will be catastrophic. The fact that sea level rise is accelerating makes many of us very worried. The last time CO2 was over 400 ppm sea level was over 20 meters higher than today. I note that every time an IPCC report is released the projections of sea level rise increase.

You are welcome to think that sea level rise will not be too bad. That might be the case. Since sea level rise is accelerating, most of the readers here thinik we should be concerned about it. 20 meters of sea level rise would submerge most of the major cities in the entire world, although it will take a long time. Since the answwer to sea level rise is installing cheap renewable energy everywhere, why not try supporting renewable energy in your community?

Koonin providing clarity on climate?

Evan at 19:49 PM on 22 September, 2025

CO2 fluctuating 100 ppm over 100,000-year cycles is sufficient to cause sea-level to flluctuate 400 ft. This indicates just how delicate our ecosystem is to CO2 forcings.

CO2 is now increasing at a rate of 100 ppm every 40 years. Can we expect anything but difficulties from such a strong, upward, persistent push?

Climate change is accelerating, scientists find in ‘grim’ report

Evan at 19:58 PM on 19 September, 2025

MA Rodger@11, thank you very much for your detailed answer and for the explanation about AF.

Katharine Hayhoe has an analogy about driving on a dead-straight road in Texas and saying that "relying on past climate patterns is no longer a reliable guide for the future because of the speed of climate change." (this is the Google AI version of her quote). It is reassuring in a sense that AF has been steady for so long, but ...

Despite the data you showed, because we are pushing the climate so hard (CO2 rising on average 2.5 ppm/yr), I remain skeptical that we can really be sure that AF will remain constant into the future. But for the sake of harmony, can we figure out wording that we all agree on.

Do you agree that climate scientists use 2C warming as a guesstimate of the point at which we begin to lock in warming in the pipeline? In other words, even if we achieved Net-0 after crossing the 2C warming threshold, do climate scientist agree that at that point we would have locked in additional future warming?

A lot of this is semantics, because the socio-political inertia does not give me much hope that we will put on the brakes before we cross the 2C barrier, but I would like to arrive at a common understanding so that my posts here don't seem to be at odds with professional climate science.

Climate change is accelerating, scientists find in ‘grim’ report

MA Rodger at 09:08 AM on 19 September, 2025

Evan @8,
(Hopefully my reply here, your third to #7, isn't piling too much at you.)

Quantifying CO2 global emissions is reliant on the data reported and that data does suggest that emissions are still edging up. And these annoying still-rising emissions will result in accelerating increases in atmospheric CO2 levels and leaving net zero further away than ever.
The question of whether "the carbon cycle is not doing what we thought" revolves around Af, the Airborne Fraction which does wobble quite a bit year-to-year. Studies do show that there is no sign of an increasing Airborne Fraction (eg Bennett et al (2024) 'Quantification of the Airborne Fraction of Atmospheric CO2 Reveals Stability in Global Carbon Sinks Over the Past Six Decades', their Fig4 below). Of course, if there were an increasing Airborne Fraction, it would be a game-changer. But the major long-term sink we rely on is the ocean absorbtion which is a case of reasonably straightforward chemistry. Over a millennium the oceans will take up about 75% of our emissions.
A simplistic reassurance can be gleaned from the work of the Global Carbon Project whose annual data shows annual emissions and the annual atmospheric increase (both in GtCarbon) with no perceptible sign of increases in the Airborne Fraction. Bennett et al 2024 fig4

Climate change is accelerating, scientists find in ‘grim’ report

nigelj at 07:57 AM on 19 September, 2025

Evan @3 said: "My point is that as we warm the planet, it is likely that the natural emissions will increase, and it is equally likely that the sinks that have removed the natural emissions, will decrease. Hence, the imbalance caused by our 4% emissions will likely be added to by the combination of increased natural emissions and decreased natural sinks. We don't have to perturb the 96% too much to completely swamp our efforts to reduce GHG emissions."

My understanding is your scenario would only happen if we let warming get so high that we crossed certain tipping points, so that even if we froze emissions at that point in time, CO2 and methane release would continue at very substantial levels thus offsetting or swamping our efforts to then drastically cut emissions. We haven't reached that point, and my understanding is we wont provided we keep warming under 2 degrees. Bear in mind theres a fine line between a positive feedback which stops when the primary forcing stops, and crossing a tipping point where emissions become self sustaining. And Im not sure how self sustaining they would really be.

Climate change is accelerating, scientists find in ‘grim’ report

MA Rodger at 14:45 PM on 18 September, 2025

Evan @3,

You set out your "point" that, in your opinion, "the warming would likely continue due to how we have already affected the balance of natural GHG sources and sinks" even after every humanity has effectively disappeared.

The carbon cycle is understood enough (and has been understood for some time) to allow studies to conclude that the carbon sinks will continue to outweigh any natural sources and the resulting reduction in GHG will roughly balance the remaining unfulfilled warming from our emissions. Thus warming effectively stops once our emissions stop.

There has been work looking at the potential for large new sources of natural emissions or the stifling of sinks. These include the likes of methane emissions from melting permafrost or warming Arctic seas, the cascading collapse of econsystems like the Amazon rainforest or the capacity of oceans to absorb CO2 in a warmer world. (Your mention of "feedbacks" @5 - you may have specific examples in mind.) Some of this past work has sounded pretty worrying but such worrying findings have not survived full analysis.

Beyond 'net zero', there are also calls for 'net-negative emissions' that don't get discussed as much as they should. These are seen as globally necessary if our emissions are not cut quickly enough, a situation which seems pretty certain to happen. 'Net-negative' does not address future warming but works to reduce the time over which peak warming continues.

Climate Sensitivity

Leitwolf at 11:20 AM on 10 September, 2025

I would like to go back to an older post here on the tropospheric hot spot. I know the discussion, especially like Santer et al 2005. I do not really care if the hot spot is there or not. The interesting fact is that it should be there, and what jumps into my eyes when I see this graph..

trop. hot spot

Roughly speaking the graph suggests a 1.5K increase in Ts in the tropics, and about a 3K increase ot Tz, if you assume the average emission altitude to be in 450-400mb range in the tropics. I know, some emissions will occur from below, some from above, but the higher the more warming, so it should largely cancel out anyway.

This graph indirectly implies a very low climate sensitivity. If you assume Tz ~261K in the tropics and a Planck Feedback of 3.6W/m2 there, you can do some math. For Tz +3K, going from 261 to 264, we can calculate..

(264^4-261^4)*5.67e-8 = 12.3W/m2 delta OLR

Planck Feedback would only amount to 1.5 * 3.6 = 5.4W

So you would get a negative lapse rate feedback of 12.3 -5.4 = 6.9W/m2

Or normalized per K of warming of 6.9/1.5 = 4.6W/m2.

This figure is insanely large, way larger than all positive feedbacks combined. Eventhough I only used ballpark estimates, the fundamental problem is simply the huge increase in Tz. Of course one could say it is mainly a thing of the tropics, but the "hot spot" expands well beyond 30° latitude, and the tropics between 30° S and N account for 1/2 of the planet. Even if you just halve it, you are still left with 4.6/2 = 2.3W/m2 of negative lapse rate feedback.

Although the "hot spot" does not seem to materialize, the fact that it should in theory, and the logical consequences to it, is kind of a non-negligible detail when considering climate sensitivity.

Climate Sensitivity

Paul Pukite at 10:34 AM on 5 September, 2025

Bob: "It's amazing how contrarians often focus on one tail of the distribution and argue in favour of it, while pretending the other taill does not exist."

Indeed. Judith Curry'smuncertainty monster is a two-tailed beast. For every potential outsized gain in the left tail, there is a mirror-image risk of an outsized loss in the right tail. The contrarian pretends this right tail doesn't exist or is negligible. That's also related to the gambler's fallacy, where a blind eye is attached to losing.

Yet, we're screwed when it comes to removing the CO2 already in the atmosphere. It's 100% certain that it will go up in the future. No way it will go down, physically impossible due to the properties of CO2 and the fat right tail of time to sequestration.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 03:46 AM on 6 August, 2025

Responding to David-acct's off topic comment here:

Your claim that the data from your linked site does not support my statement that French nuclear power plants do not shut down is false on its face.

This data showed that reactors were shut down on the weekend:

date time Power MW
8/10 2:45 31645 Thursday 2023
8/10 13:45 30424
8/5 4:15 28489 Saturday 2023
8/5 16:15 25548

On Saturday at 16::15 6,097 MW less power was generated than on Thursday at 2:45. On 8/14/2023 I posed these questions to you:

"Several question about this raw data occured to me.

1) You state clearly that the data shows no nuclear power stations were shut down. Please explain why the power generated on the weekend is so much less than the power generated on Thursday. How does this show that no power stations were shut down over the weekend? It appears to me that about 6 of 31 power stations (20%) were turned off.

2) On both days they are generating more power at night when power is generated at a loss than they are generating during the day when the price of electricity is much higher. Can you explain why the "always on" nuclear plants generate less power during the most expensive part of the day than they do when electricity is cheapest?

This example proves beyond doubt that examining cherry picked factoids without any analysis is a complete waste of time. Please do not cite raw data any more. You need to cite analysis of data that filter out gross errors."

You refused to answer and stopped posting at SkS for several months. Please answer those questions now.

Looking at the French power link again I found this data for the weekend of August 2 (Saturday) and August 4 2025 (Monday).

date time Power MW

8/2 05:00 39717

8/2 14:15 25091

8/4 04:00 39722

8/4 13:45 24128

On this weekend reactors were shut off during the day. On 8/4 15 MW less power was being generated at 13:45 than at 04:00. Please explain why so many reactors were turned off. Other posters have suggested that they might shut down the reactors because there is not enough cooling water or because they cannot compete with cheaper solar power. In any case, the reactors are turned off since no one wants to purchase their power.

I note that since France has 63 GW of nuclear power the highest capacity factor last weekend was 63% and the lowest was 38%.

If they wasted the nuclear power by turning down the power output that counts as shut down. We cannot tell from the data if 15 reactors were shut off or if 30 reactors were run at half power.

I note that you said here "It would seem the cost of doing so would be prohibitive given the costs of restarts,"

I found this on Bloomburg French power slumps as surging renewables push out atomic plants which suggests that nuclear plants cannot compete with renewables even when they are owned by the government.

I do not care if you are not skilled enough to find resources that state France does not shut down reactors on the weekends. I linked a site that specifically stated that plants close on weekends and provided data (from your link) that showed without doubt that several reactors were closed on the weekend.

Apparently now they are shut down on sunny and/or windy days, in addition to weekends, because they cannot compete with cheaper renewables.

Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition

David-acct at 08:54 AM on 5 August, 2025

MIchael Sweet - My apologies, though my question on France's nuclear power is in response to your initial comment #4 in response to TDeR.

Thanks for the reminder on the french Eco2mix, my apologies for not responding earlier. However, real time data from the eco2mix doesnt support the contention that france shuts down their reactors on the weekends. the vast majority of weekends show little or no change in electric generation from nuclear. There are declines in production every 7-8 weeks, though those dont appear to be connected to any shut downs. There is a wikipedia mention of shut downs, though the footnote is from an article from 2009, which doesnt appear to be valid after 2009. I could not find any support via a google search of the topic

Update on Texas flooding

RedRoseAndy at 20:21 PM on 16 July, 2025

Offsetting CO2 Emissions with Fish

Professor Oswald Schmitz is quoted in ‘New Scientist’ as saying: “Fish have a “tremendous” impact on carbon storage. “Part of it is in just the sheer biomass of these animals,” he says. But bony fish also fix carbon into insoluble minerals in their intestines as part of their way of dealing with constantly ingesting seawater. “It’s a sort of rock-like substance that they poop out and that sinks to the ocean bottom really quickly.” Collectively, marine fish account for the storage of a whopping 5.5 gigatonnes of carbon each year.” (Man produces 37.41 gigatonnes of CO2 a year.) Scientists say that we used to have nine times as many fish as we do now, so there is plenty of room for a man-made increase in fish numbers by offsetting companies, if we got fish stocks up to historic levels our fish would store 49.5 gigatonnes a year, which is more than man produces in a year at the moment.

Using my method of preventing fish extinction can also, then, be a method for offsetting CO2 emissions, and even reversing global heating.

A Practical Solution To Fish Stock Depletion

Fish in the wild are being over exploited, and whole fish species face extinction. But there is an easy way of preventing these extinctions. An international law should be passed which ensures that the gonads of all fish caught are liquidized and put into water containers, the fish are usually gutted anyway so this would not be a great hardship for the fishermen. Once liquidized, artificial fertilization takes place, and after twenty four hours the fertilized fish eggs can be released into the sea. The bucket of young fish needs it’s temperature equal to the sea they are released into to prevent fry death, so standing for a length of time with the fry bucket in the sea needs a wet suit before release. When this is scaled up by offsetting organisations a less painful method will be used. Ensure that the water in your bucket is the temperature of the sea to avoid fish deaths. It does not matter where the eggs are put back because the fry of each species find their way back to the environment they originally come from.

In this way, the sea can be repopulated, and fishing can even become sustainable.

The Japanese were the first country to fish in this way, and had their Navy protect the massive shoal until the fish matured. I have only heard of it being done the once, though.

Perhaps using sonar in fishing can be banned in order to give our fish more of a chance in life.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

One Planet Only Forever at 03:46 AM on 2 July, 2025

My response to tder2012’s list of potential nuclear facility development is ‘revisit my comment @428’.

I will add the following regarding tder2012’s apparent interest in knowing what regions will have renewable energy developed to the current target of 100g CO2e per kW-hr. That is a known goal all regions will have to pass on their way to the ultimate requirement of ending human impacts that increase global warming.

Also, in the future, any energy system that is unsustainable will be unable to be continued. Unsustainable activities either use up non-renewable resources or produce accumulating harm. Nuclear power systems consume non-renewable resources and produce accumulating harm.

Therefore, no future energy system will include nuclear power generation. And since it is also a very costly way of generating electricity it should be unpopular.

However, humans have a tragic history of regionally developing popular support for harmful costly misunderstandings, as I implied in my comment @428.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 01:09 AM on 1 July, 2025

tder2012

You have simply not looked for renewable grids that have low CO2 emissions. You require me to do all of your homework. Your claim that no grids that are more than 30% wind and solar have low CO2 emissions can be easily checked at the website you linked.

I find that while Lithuania has too few people to meet your cherry picked standards (after you moved the goalposts twice), the regional grid of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia generate all of their electricity using wind and solar and have less than 100 g CO2/kWh. North-east Brazil generates about 80% wind and solar, 20% hydro. Uruguay generates about 50% of electricity with wind and solar, the remainder hydro. Central Brazil generates primarily with wind and solar, no hydro or nuclear, at 107 gCO2/kWh.

Searching your previous posts on SkS here (offtopic) you previously claimed the five grids of France, Ontario (not a country), Switzerland, Finland and Sweden as "nuclear sucesses". According to your website in 2024:

country	nuclear	renewable
France	67	29
Ontario	51	33
Switzerland	32	65
Finland	37	56
Sweden	31	69

I note that three of the five "nuclear successes" generate way more electricity using renewable power than nuclear and one is not a country. Canada as a whole generates only 14% nuclear and 61% renewable. Both Switzerland and Sweden generated less than 30% nuclear in May, 2025 and are disqualified by your 30% standard. I would count Finland, Sweden and Switzerland as renewable successes and not nuclear successes. None would meet the standard without renewables.

Meanwhile, I have named two grids that meet your standards using only wind and solar just 5-10 years after they became economic to install. In 20 years essentially the entire grid will be renewable since they are the cheapest electricity.

Since you keep changing the goal posts I will set them at over 75% of the successful generating strategy. By that standard my two grids using only wind and solar without hydro are successful and no grid worldwide is successful using nuclear. Adding hydro makes about 25 grids worldwide successful using only renewable sources of electricity. About 20 renewable grids are close to 100g/CO2-kWh and no nuclear grids.

After 70 years building out nuclear only one country in the entire world, France, generates enough nuclear power to claim success (unachievable without renewables) and they lose money on nuclear power.

Your claims about "nuclear success" while wind and solar fail are simply ignorant ranting.

All pro nuclear arguments are based on false claims and fall apart when they are carefully exmained.

I have already told you that it is a waste of my time lobbying against nuclear, these are all paper schemes that will fall apart on their own. I note that there has never been a nuclear plant built worldwide without enormous government subsidies.

You have still not provided any any data or references to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid. As you demanded, I provided several peer reviewed papers to support my position. When you demand data you must provide data to back up your position.

Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear power.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 20:49 PM on 30 June, 2025

Of course QC is hydro, as is BC. I find it puzzling when people promote wind, solar and batteries and state they can decarbonize, give examples of how it can be done, but hydro is used as the example. Going forward, which region will hit the Paris climate target that has not hit that target yet using mostly hydro? Which region has meet the Paris climate target with most of their electricity generated by wind, solar and batteries (reminder: that is less than 100 grams of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis). Which region has hit the Paris climate target with the majority of their electricity generated by wind, solar and batteries?

Quebec flooded land the size of the Canadian province of PEI for hydro. Is the methane emitted from that rotted vegetation accounted for in GHG emissions of QC hydro?

Over 95% of Manitoba's electricity is geneated by hydro. The dams are about 1000kms from where most of the electricity is consumed. Manitobans paid $5.3 billion for a new long distance HVDC transmission line, completed 7 years ago, big money for 1.5 million people. Here is a list of the top seven HVDC transmission line distances in the world, from 1400 to 2500 kms, all hydro. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305820/longest-power-transmission-lines-worldwide/ I do wonder if, for long distance HVDC transmission lines, the amount of concrete, steel, aluminium, etc and the amount of land that needs to be cleared are factored into lifecycle CO2 emissions, raw material requirements and cost estimates of hydro dams.

Also, since you dislike nuclear so much, shouldn't you spend time lobbying all those regions and companies I identified making commitments to nuclear? How much money is being committed to nuclear, don't you consider this a waste of money? One example Nuclear Dawn: Africa’s $105 Billion Energy Revolution

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet at 07:02 AM on 30 June, 2025

tder2012:

You are simply repeating the posts you previously made at SkS here. It is against the comments policy to regurgitate arguments that others have previously showed have no merit.

I note that after 70 years on your web site only France has over 50% nuclear and less than 100 g CO2 per kwh. And France generates 34% of power with renewables. Hardly a shining example of nuclear successs after 70 years.

I have already provided at least 10 countries that meet your requirements. Stop changing the goal posts every time I show that your claims are false. You have not given a single country that generates over 70% of power using nuclear.

It is a waste of my time to lobby against nuclear power. All I have to do is wait and nuclear will collapse under its own wieght again. For the past 50 years every 5-10 years nuclear supporters claim another renaissance is starting. They all fail. In 2006 modular reactor supporters and developers said they would have running reactors by 2020. They are about 20 years late and have not delevered any reactors to date.

Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear power.

moderator: it is very time consuming for me to have to repeat answers to tder2012 when the answers have previously been posted to them on SkS. tder2012 has not added any new information or given a new argument in support of nuclear recently.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Philippe Chantreau at 00:42 AM on 30 June, 2025

I always get a little suspicious of the sincerity of contributors asking others to provide them with information that they could easily find themselves. Quebec's population was counted at 8.5 million in the 2021 census.

This is from the Canada Energy Regulator site: "The greenhouse gas intensity of Quebec’s electricity grid, measured as the GHGs emitted in the generation of the province’s electric power, was 1.2 grams of CO2e per kilowatt-hour (g CO2e/kWh) in 2022. This is a 68% reduction from the province’s 2005 level of 3.8 g CO2e/kWh. The national average in 2022 was 100 g CO2e/kWh."

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 06:33 AM on 29 June, 2025

Michael Sweet, could you please list a grid that serves at least 5 million people that will meet the Paris target of less than 100grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, that will be this target by having most of their electricity generated by hydro?

Have you considered lobbying all these regions and companies that I have listed to stop with their nuclear plans? Obviously they have not heard from you, otherwise I'm sure they would not be announcing these plans or would cancel them immediately.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 03:59 AM on 29 June, 2025

Micheal Sweet,

"Apples and oranges: Comparing nuclear construction costs across nations, time periods, and technologies"

Could you please provide a link for a renewables grid that achieve a Paris climate target of less 100 grams of CO2 released per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis. I don't see any at the global electricitymaps site

It's too hard

tder2012 at 22:28 PM on 27 June, 2025

Since this article was written in 2010, we see minimal change in fossil fuel production, slight growth and minimal percentage change. This chart shows shows the years 2010 to 2023 on the horizontal axis and TWh of energy on the vertical axis, from ~153,000TWh in 2010 to ~183,000TWh in 2023.

This map from Our World in Data is "Energy Use per person, 2023". For example, Chad's 2021 number is 361kwh/person, India is 7,586, UK is 28,501, Canada is 100,000, Bolivia in 2021 was 7,062, Bangladesh 2,940, Germany 38,052. There are many people who use too much energy, but there are so many more that need additional energy. If all 8.2 billion of us lived a lifestyle of a typical European, we would need 4x as much energy as we consume today.

This chart "Remaining carbon budget" has on the vertical axis CO2 emissions per year in gigatons and the horizontal axis has years from 2000 to 2100. It shows our emission need to be at zero by 2036 to keep global warming to 1.5C, at zero by 2052 to keep global warming to 1.7C and at zero by 2077 to keep global warming to 2C. We can see that 1.5C is essentially impossible, 1.7C will be very difficult and 2C is doable if we all get on the same page and agree it must be done.

The reality is "it's too hard" is likely true, but we have no choice, we must do it. We no longer have the luxury of picking and choosing energy sources, we have to throw everything we got at it as fast as we can.

You can read two X threads by Ebba Busch (Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Minister for Energy and the Minister for Business and Industry) about nuclear energy announcements on May 9 and June 13 . What is not included is "Nuclear Dawn: Africa’s $105 Billion Energy Revolution" and "Philippines Senate Passes Nuclear Bill"

Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?

nigelj at 06:29 AM on 17 June, 2025

tder2012

"As Gilboy pointed out, “Operating an F-150 Lightning may generate less than a third of the CO2 emissions of a gas F-150, but each one hoards 98 kWh of battery, most of which will be used only on the rare, prolonged drive. Meanwhile, an F-150 Powerboost hybrid battery is just 1.5 kWh. It doesn’t achieve nearly the emissions reduction the Lightning does, but Ford could make 65 of them with the batteries that go into a single Lightning.”

This is weak argument. Firstly having substantial energy capacity that is not often fully used is part of all technology with energy storage, for example EV cars, ICE cars, Hybrid cars (the big petrol tank) and battery operated appliances using recharble batteries. The spare capacity issue isnt really a big problem, and is better than having to constantly replenish a small storage system.

Secondly your preferred hybrid option just shifts the large capacity issue from a big battery to a large fuel tank and a small battery. You haven't SOLVED the capacity issue in any significant way.

"Gilboy noted, “That adds up, because if Ford sells one Lightning and 64 ICE F-150s, it’s cutting the on-road CO2 emissions of those trucks as a group by 370 g/mi. If it sold 65 hybrids—spreading the one Lightning’s battery supply across them all—it’d reduce aggregate emissions by 4,550 g/mi. Remember, this uses the same amount of batteries; the distribution is different.”"

This is a weak argument because it would be lower emissions overall to just build EVs and no ICE or Hybrid automobiles. Therefore its better to build EVs, and try to convince the public to buy them. The argument also takes no account of the fact hybrids still have very significant emissions, and are inefficient, because they have two complete motor systems and energy storage systems, with all the extra materials and servicing costs and complexities. They are at best a form of bridge technology.

Sabin 33 #32 - Is range restriction a problem for EVs?

tder2012 at 05:36 AM on 17 June, 2025

Should we be promoting hybrids, at least for the short term, as today's BEVs seem to use battery materials inefficiently?

Gilboy noted, “That adds up, because if Ford sells one Lightning and 64 ICE F-150s, it’s cutting the on-road CO2 emissions of those trucks as a group by 370 g/mi. If it sold 65 hybrids—spreading the one Lightning’s battery supply across them all—it’d reduce aggregate emissions by 4,550 g/mi. Remember, this uses the same amount of batteries; the distribution is different.”"

https://energymusings.substack.com/p/energy-musings-june-5-2025

Fact brief - Was 'global warming' changed to 'climate change' because Earth stopped warming?

Bob Loblaw at 01:36 AM on 5 June, 2025

Greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change do indeed have different technical meanings, but common simplified usage does tend to add obfuscation - er, sorry, make things more confusing.

The Greenhouse Effect, as lynnvinc mentions, exists as a natural phenomenon. It relates to the atmospheric influence, as discussed by Charlie Brown, that leads to warmer surface temperatures than we would observe if there was no atmosphere.

It is a somewhat unfortunate term, as "the label "greenhouse" implies a similarity with actual greenhouses - and that was based on a misunderstanding of what keeps greenhouses warm. (Trapping air is more important than trapping IR radiation.)

At times, people have suggested using "the atmospheric effect" instead, but that has never caught on. At times, the human-cause changes in greenhouse gases have been referred to as "the enhanced greenhouse effect", but that is rather cumbersome and the "enhanced" part gets dropped.

As for "global warming" - that is the key easily-observed result of an enhanced greenhouse effect, but also can be caused by other factors. (CO2 dominates the current trends). On a global mean basis, surface temperatures will rise. It is not the only effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect, though. Precipitation changes are also critical. And many other weather phenomena. Seasonal changes and timing. Extreme weather events. Etc. Hence "climate change" is a much broader, more encompassing term. In the Venn diagram of climate, "Global warming " is a subset of "climate change", and "global warming" overlaps both the greenhouse effect and other causes of climate change.

On the myth of "they changed the name...", I took undergraduate climate science in the 1970s. The textbook we used was Sellers, W.D., 1965, Physical Climatology, U Chicago Press. Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are discussed in that book, along with other factors, under the chapter titled "Paleoclimatology and Theories of Climatic Change". My copy of the book is the one that I bought in 1978, so if "they changed the name..." then someone must have taken my copy off my bookshelf, altered the printing, and replaced it without me noticing.

Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change

MA Rodger at 09:10 AM on 1 June, 2025

tder2012 @5 & Bob Loblaw @6,

Ah ha!!. That button "on the left side at the bottom" does allow you to see annual values. The 'All Years' option displays the seven annual values 2017-24 (and this 'All Years' option can be pre-set in the URL) with the 2024 value showing as 175g(CO2eq)/kWh. (And being a lucky smarty pants, I see 175 is what I reckoned it being @4.)

Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change

MA Rodger at 05:47 AM on 31 May, 2025

tder2012 @3,

First point to make is my use of g(C)/kWh which is a lot different to g(CO2)/kWh. To convert the former to the latter you need add the weight of the O2 by multiplying by 3.664. (My working in C rather than CO2 is a climatology thing.)

At that ElectricityMaps webpage, the 226 g(CO2eq)/kWh figure you quote I read as being the carbon intensity for Jan 2025 alone. I read the webpage data showing the individual months of 2024 running Jan-to-Dec 227, 180, 172, 135, 172, 145, 164, 124, 169, 189, 227, 176. I was thinking you shouldn't really average these as the electric use (they average 173) with the summer-use being a lot different from the chilly winter months, but GridWatch graphs UK electric use through 2024 and a back-of-fag-packet adjustment doesn't make that much difference (average 175g(CO2eq)/kWh = 48g(C)/kWh).

My number was taken from a CarbonBrief article which sports this graphic which shows the same as the article says 2024 =124g(CO2)/kWh = 34g(C)/kWh. UK electric carbon intensity

The NESO does a monthly analysis of GB monthly electric stats (Apr25 & links) and there does seem to be a discrepancy between the numbers from NESO and that ElectricityMaps webpage with NESO giving Apr25 at 133g(CO2)/kWh and ElectricityMaps 174g(CO2eq)/kWh.
Why the difference?
Speculating, perhaps the imported electric is seen as zero carbon due to it being emitted abroad. Perhaps something else.

Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change

tder2012 at 01:53 AM on 31 May, 2025

MA Rodger, I am curious what your source is for "In UK the carbon-intensity of electricity has dropped by 75% since 2010 (136g(C)/KWh to 32g(C)/kWh in 2024)". In the 12 month period January 2024 to January 2025, the UK emitted 226 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, according to app.electricitymaps.com. In 2012, according to this link, the lowest CO2 grams emitted per kilowatt-hour was about 440. Good reductions for UK, for sure. However, Paris climate targets call for electricity grids to emit less than 100 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis.

Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change

MA Rodger at 02:25 AM on 30 May, 2025

Charlie_Brown @1,

The brave new world of net zero brings with it many transformations which people appear to find difficult to normalise and set out rationally.
Be warned!! This is a subject I can drone-on about for hours. But picking up on a couple of things you address....

Ⅰ Back in the day when I was still a car owner, I was rather vocal with the message on EVs - 'As the electric grid decarbonised, the emissions from an EV will diminish. For a petrol-engined vehicle it will be fixed until the day it is scrapped.'

And back then I was also vocal about the fuel-efficiency of petrol-engined vehicles which were (and are) continuing to spew that darned CO2 into the atmosphere. I reckoned efficiency (mpg) should be increasing far more quickly than was/is the case** yet nobody seemed to care. My last car (20 years ago - I'm now car-free) did 70mpg. Back then I was asking 'Where are the 100mpg cars? The 150mpg cars?" Such efficiencies are not beyond the wit of man***.

And the graphic comparison in the above OP (that seems to address your objections, "seems" because the links to sources cited by the OPs Ref4 are not working for me): the OPs graphic would be transformed by improving mpg. Given the numbers presented in the OPs graphic, the point where an efficient petrol-engined vehicle becomes less carbon-intensive than the compared EV is 85mpg. But importantly, and petrol-heads be warned, that assumes the carbon-intensity of the grid doesn't reduce, an assumption which is not the case. In UK the carbon-intensity of electricity has dropped by 75% since 2010 (136g(C)/KWh to 32g(C)/kWh in 2024).

(**Latest govt number (for 2020) show the UK's average new petrol car with 52.4mpg & diesel 56.1mpg. That was rising on average by a paltry 0.8mpg/yr back during in the 2000s. That annual increasing efficiency doubled 2010-15 but since then the growth of the SUV sees the average efficiency getting worse, hopefully a temperary phenomenon.)

(*** Apparently petrol or diesel car still doesn't do much more than 70mpg. A lot of the lost mpg is because many are aren't so small and today small cars require reinforcing so they don't get flattened by the bigly SUVs & 4x4s swarming around them.)

Ⅱ Your comment also reminds me of an enquiry I made about an EV a little more recently. I was trying to get the CO2/mile numbers (along with a lot more) from Nissan who were presenting their much-advertised & wondrous EV - the Leaf. It was evident they had no idea what I was on about. They could tell me how cheap it was to run (£/mile) but stuff like carbon intensity or energy intensity didn't register as something they understood.

Evidently, they just wanted to sell cars and for them the USP was the wonderful £/mile.

Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change

Charlie_Brown at 02:36 AM on 29 May, 2025

Unfortunately, a key phrase was dropped from the source reference footnote [4] which makes the sentence in the green box for “What the Science Says” misleading. The reference says “EVs convert over 77% of the electrical energy from the grid (underline added) to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12%–30% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.” The source of power for EVs is not included in Eisenson, et al. “Electric vehicles have lower lifecycle emissions than traditional gasoline-powered cars because they are between 2.5 to 5.8 times more efficient.” Larson, et al., Final Report, p. 40, also compares units of electricity to units of gasoline. Furthermore, the articles do not define efficiency, whether it is g CO2/mile, g CO2(eq)/mile, or BTU/mi. Where coal is the power source for the grid, CO2 g/mi is about the same for EV and ICE. Where natural gas is the source, CO2(eq)/mi is close to the same after accounting for methane leakage from production and transport. Most simplified analyses use the source power mix from the regional grid. When the incremental power source to meet added demand for EVs (and other demands such as AI and growth), the situation is much more complex.

I am a strong supporter of EVs and I love my new car. To meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, transition to EVs is needed. The electric power grid also needs to reduce fossil fuel generation.

Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?

tder2012 at 11:03 AM on 17 May, 2025

I don't care how grids get decarbonized, just get it done NOW. France did it 40 years ago by accident, only because they wanted energy security and independence, no fossil fuels to extract in France. Australia wants to do it with wind, solar, batteries, synchronous condensors, etc. I say go for it, get 'er done! Here are a few sites you can watch AUS grid generation mix, import, export between states, prices, etc (you can find sites like this for many other countries, states, etc but I like electricitymaps best as I am very concerned about CO2 and ghg emissions and I find its the best for showing that data. Also, it is a "one stop shop"). https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem & https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/nem/?range=7d&interval=30m&view=discrete-time&group=Detailed & https://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/RenewEconomy/

Clean energy hits many roadblocks, often people ideologically opposed to them, we see this with solar, wind and also with nuclear. The No Nukes in the USA in the 70's were successful at blocking the build of nuclear power plants, but look at this article from US Energy Information Administration and see how much coal was built after 1980, fortunately they haven't build much since 2013. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50658

We are only really talking about electricity here, which is 20-25 % of global energy production. Oil is barely a blip in global electricity production (mostly diesel generators in small remote communities and islands). New England in USA uses oil occasionally, they seem to encounter natural gas supply issues more than typical, this is an article on the New England Independent System Operator (NEISO) website. "Nuclear, oil, and coal generators are critical on the coldest winter days when natural gas supply is constrained (as shown below). Coal- and oil-fired resources also make valuable contributions on the hottest days of summer when demand is very high or major resources are unavailable".

Anyway, the point I want to make is that oil is barely a blip in global electricity generation, yet it is the number one source of energy generation in the world, as you can see on this Our World in Data website https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution?time=1970..latest Much decarbonization all over the world needs to be done in very short order.

Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?

One Planet Only Forever at 07:05 AM on 17 May, 2025

tder2012,

Reading this item and the comments I have learned and understand the following:

There is no reason to doubt the ability to have reliable electricity grid operation with totally sustainable renewable energy generation that includes a significant amount of wind generation.

There is reason to be concerned about the lack of progress by the supposedly most advanced nations towards reducing their electric system harmfulness to 100 grams of CO2 per kWh. Zero ghg emissions is the end objective for every nation. But getting down to 100 g per kWh is an important measure of advancement. Note: rich nations failing to reduce their harmfulness are incorrectly perceived to be more advanced/superior.

People should be very concerned about the likely magnitude of harmful climate change consequences due to continuing failure of the most harmful to reduce how harmful they are (impeding the building of wind generation). The poorest who are negatively affected by the increased climate change harm, and people who try to sustainably improve living conditions for the poorest, should be angry about misunderstandings that impede the building of wind generation even if their anger is perceived as unnecessary panicking.

Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?

tder2012 at 12:28 PM on 16 May, 2025

"Don't panic" good to know, I wasn't aware of anyone panicing, but spendid advice nonetheless. So also no need to panic about the Paris target for electricity grids to emit less than 100 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, correct? See all electricity grids here https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE/12mo/monthly this link specifically highlights Germany at 344, China is at 489, India varies from 560 to 750, Indonesia is at 640.

Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?

tder2012 at 21:25 PM on 15 May, 2025

I watch to see how electricity grids are meeting the Paris target of less than 100 grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis. I don't care how this target is met, South Australia is close (160), but you see BESS is barely a blip there and the rest of Australia is so far away from this target. So hopefully Australia can deploy much clean energy extremely quickly. They'll need copious quantities of synchronous condensers, flywheels, grid forming inertia, synchronous converter application, etc in very short order. See SA grid, along with the other grids in Australia, showing grams CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis and the sources of electricity generation here https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/AU-SA/12mo/monthly

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 03:52 AM on 13 May, 2025

"The Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant prevents up to 22.4 million tons of carbon emissions every year, equivalent to removing 4.8 million cars from the roads". "Construction Program"

"In December 2023 at COP28 in Dubai, 22 countries and more than 120 companies pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050".

I'm not familiar with any study in involving nuclear energy that is similar to Jacobson's The Solutions Project in which everyone will use much less energy by 2050, including those that live in extreme poverty today and have almost no access to energy.

The solar panels being installed in Bangladesh, how much CO2 emissions will it prevent every year? Will Bangladesh people now have access to stove, washer, dryer, microwave, air conditioning, computers, internet, running water, industry, manufacturing, careers and women will now have access to education?

At a glance - What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?

StanRH at 02:27 AM on 13 May, 2025

all this fuss about co 2 is comic farce;

every educated person knows co 2 can't affect climate

the reason is as follows;

"greenhouse" gases don't trap heat as they can't impede the circulation of warm air rising to subzero temps at altitude

if co 2 prevents radiant heat from leaving the atmosphere ,then it must also prevent the radiant heat from entering, by the same magical heat blocking process

it is the magnetosphere ,not co 2 that prevents the atmosphere from evaporating into the void of space

heat rises by convection regardless of mixture

by the time gases rise by convection to 25,000 ft the temp is down to - 40

besides which;

as a heat sink co 2 has nothing to do with atmospheric temperature regulation

only con artists still pretend co 2 can affect climate

Weight of atmospheric gases by volume at standard pressure and temperature

co 2 = 1.96 kg per stere x .04 percent =.000784 kg

o 2 =1.43 kg per stere x 21 percent = .303 kg

n =1.25 kg per stere x 78 percent= .975 kg

argon = 1.78 kg per stere x 1 percent = .0178 kg

Climate alarmists claim that the mass of .000784 kg of co2 governs the temp of the mass of 1.2958 kg of the other atmospheric gases

1652.806 times it's weight [mass]

visualize co 2 as 1 cup of water compared to other atmospheric gases as a 100 gallon [1600 cups] tank

that 1 cup at any temp u wish to chose dumped in the tank has negligible affect on the 100 gallons in the tank

couldn't be more evident ,could it?

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

tder2012 at 21:36 PM on 9 May, 2025

At least nuclear has proven it can be a major contributor to meeting the Paris target of <100 grams of CO2 emitted / kWh on an annual basis. See France, Ontario, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden check here . Wind, solar and BESS (at least 30%) have never shown this. I don't include hydro because the planet is pretty much tapped out on convention hydro, besides it floods too much land and then think about all the concrete, steel, aluminium, etc and the forests that need to be hacked down for HVDC transmission lines. As for pumped hydro, it is at 142 GW of capacity globally and provides over 95% of global electricity generation from storage, but it is obviously geography dependent and when compared to global electricity production overall, pumped hydro is such a tiny contributor, it is hardly a blip. I could only find it in "global installed renewable energy capacity by technology" at Our World in Data.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

tder2012 at 12:19 PM on 9 May, 2025

Eclectic, put your sarcasm aside and tell us what you would really like to see. How about any grid <100grams of CO2 emitted/kWh, averaged on an annual basis and say what the top sources of electricity generation are. Michael Sweet and Philippe mentioned Luthuania, I responded. I say averaged on an annual basis because some like to point out when a grid hit a high % of a generation type for a few hours or days and don't mention other times when they don't. So keep it simple and include every hour of a 12 month period. So Eclectic, what would you like to see? Which do you prefer %RE or GHG emissions? I have made it clear I focus on GHG emissions as I have pointed out the Paris target of an electricity grid needing to be <100grams emitted of CO2/kWh, averaged on an annual basis. This site is excellent for grams CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour. (Although it is unavailble at this specific time I'm writing this) https://app.electricitymaps.com/map

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

Eclectic at 11:50 AM on 9 May, 2025

Tder2012 @32 and prior :- You paint with too broad a brush.

Please put Lithuania aside, because a population of less than 3 million has no significance in any scenario whatsoever. Also, the Lithuanians speak a language so strange that even their neighboring countries can understand none of it.

Instead, we should keep it extremely simple, and consider only those national grids which generate >90 but <100 grams of CO2 emitted/kWh averaged on an annual or biennial basis. The grids should not include any nuclear or biomass-burning, nor hydro or geothermal or even tidal sources. Preferably also be 50-80% renewable.

If that does not advance the discussion in the right direction ~ then we should move the goalposts once again, into narrower territory.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

tder2012 at 09:47 AM on 9 May, 2025

You are correct, I didn't include Lithuania because I made a spelling mistake, apologies "Lithunania has a population of under three million and their CO2 emission are still above 100, averaged on an annual basis, so they shouldn't be on your list". How about we keep it extremely simple. Focus on any grid that meets the Paris climate target of <100grams of CO2 emitted/kWh, averaged on an annual basis that does not include any nuclear, at least 50% of electricity is generated by wind, solar, batteries on an annual basis and high emitting, high polluting, stinky biomass (IPCC says its lifecycle emissions range from 230 to 740 grams of CO2 emitted/kWh) and population is at least 2 million. I notice you don't discuss at all CO2 or GHG emissions, why?

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

tder2012 at 04:51 AM on 9 May, 2025

I stated "Name one country that has 50-80% RE, other than hydro, averaged on an annual basis and has achieved the Paris target of <100gramsCO2emitted/kwh, averaved on an annual basis". Sorry I should have stated "other than hydro AND nuclear" and services at least 5 million people. Norway is mostly hydro, so they shouldn't be on your list. Sweden gets electricity from hydro and way too much nuclear for you liking, so they shouldn't be on your list. Finland is way too much nuclear, so they shouldn't be on your list. Denmark's CO2 emission are too high, so they shouldn't be on your list. England's emissions are way too high and they get too much from nuclear, so they shouldn't be on your list. Germany's emissions are way too high (345, instead of 100, grams of CO2 emitted / kwh), so they shouldn't be on your list. Spain gets way too much from nuclear and is still over 100, so they shouldn't be on your list. Lithunania has a population of under three million and their CO2 emission are still above 100, averaged on an annual basis, so they shouldn't be on your list. Maybe pay far less attention to %renewables (ideally none) and instead of focusing on GHG emissions. So all the countries you listed actually don't qualify, but you did say "I could go on and on but it's becoming clear that the numbers from Michael Sweet were not fantasy." So you should go on and on, that is, unless you care more about %RE than GHG emissions. And use a proper source. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/LT/12mo/monthly

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

tder2012 at 07:28 AM on 8 May, 2025

"I was shocked when I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix." Name the countries that are 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix, averaged on an annual basis. The quote you used is out of context, it is only for the specific time period for a few days last week. Name one country that has 50-80% RE, other than hydro, averaged on an annual basis and has achieved the Paris target of <100gramsCO2emitted/kwh, averaved on an annual basis, point it out here.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

michael sweet at 05:02 AM on 8 May, 2025

I have been in this game for about 20 years. Over that time nuclear supporters like you have generated many false claims. For example when a paper was published with a single 1 MW wind turbine connected to a gas generator. It was then argued that more CO2 was emitted from the wind turbine. No-one has a grid with a single wind turbine. Experience in using wind turbines has shown that that analysis was completely false.

Your citation calculates the cost of a solar and battery system without using any hydro or wind. And they only use a very small grid (Texas and Germany). These are gross mistakes. The literature shows that it is much cheaper to have a larger grid than a smaller one. Most realistic analysis use all of North America as a grid.

Why analyze Germany alone when they currently are in a grid with the rest of Europe? Because you know in advance that it will be more expensive.

The analysis you linked is ignored for a reason. It is obviously junk science. A grossly too small grid and no existing hydro or wind. Texas will have to connect with the rest of the USA if they want cheap electricity. (Texans already pay a premium because of their small grid).

Just look at Europe: most of the countries have 50-80% renewables and they save money on their electric bills!

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 03:38 AM on 8 May, 2025

Like I stated previously, I don't read Jacobson and haven't for years, no point. He gets debunked and stops with the scientific debate and then takes it to court and loses that as well. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/ Bryer works closely with Jacobson, so I don't bother with him either.

UNIPCC states nuclear is 14 grams CO2 emitted lifetime, UNECE states 6 and Jacobson states 171 because of emissions from burning caused by nuclear war. These differences are indeed significant, considering the Paris climate targets are for electricity grids to be <100grams CO2 emitted/kwh, averaged on an annual basis.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

tder2012 at 01:50 AM on 8 May, 2025

Are we short of uranium? "Nuclear fuel will last us for 4 billion years". Fast breeder reactors are in production in China, India, Japan and Russia. One of the ones in Russia came on line in 1980. Lifecycle CO2 emissions, according to the UNIPCC are 14 grams CO2 per kilowatt-hour. UNECE states they are about 6. Jacobson states they are 171, he includes "the emissions from the burning of cities resulting from nuclear weapons explosions” and some say Nate Hagens is a pessimist.

Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?

tder2012 at 01:41 AM on 8 May, 2025

I don't read Jacobson. He gets debunked and stops with the scientific debate and then takes it to court and loses that as well. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/ Bryer works closely with Jacobson, so I don't bother with him either. I have read their material over the years, for example, here is one on my blog from 2016 that my friend wrote https://tditpinawa.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/tim-maloneys-analysis-and-critique-of-100-wws-for-usa/. I believe science debates should stick to science debates. There are nine grids today that have achieved <100 grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt hour, averaged on an annual basis that service at least 5 million people. They are Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and then there is Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France and Brazil. They have achieved this with either mostly hydro, mostly nuclear or mostly a combination of the two. "Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda. It has been known for years that the last 10-20% of renewable energy will be the most expensive." You can state your opinions about propaganda all you like, how about showing the evidence in the real world, not just in Jacobson's spreadsheets, about the last 10-20% being the most expensive. Lazard didn't make changes, instead they are open about their limitations, as I quoted in a previous comment. Will Lazard scrap their limitations and instead do a complete study, as opposed to just points in time. I don't care so much about % of renewable energy, I care about CO2 emissions. Once Texas and Spain have achieved <100grams/CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, then we'll talk. Texas is 292 and Spain is close at 112, but they are planning to shut down nuclear so their emissions are likely to rise, just like everywhere else that shuts down nuclear. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE/12mo/monthly Jacobson is a big proponent of Germany, but 345 for the last 12 months, their energy system is really struggling and due to high prices, their industrial and manufacturing are slowing down. "Let’s dive into one of the most ambitious (and chaotic) energy transitions in the world" Amory Lovins was awarded the German Order of Merit in 2016 for his influence on the German "Energiewende", maybe they jumped the gun a bit with this award.

2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16

One Planet Only Forever at 05:45 AM on 24 April, 2025

RedRoseAndy,

Your proposal would help achieve the required corrections of developed unsustainable fishing activity. It would be a little more work and would reduce the profitability of the currently developed fishing. But, as you correctly implied, the easier and more profitable fishing methods that have developed have no real future (and benefiting from burning non-renewable fossil fuels also has no future, even if it wasn’t causing harmful climate change impacts).

The assisted fertilization of eggs from ‘caught fish’ would be part of the actions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, specifically SDG 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.

You should investigate the potential for your suggestion to be part of the SDG 14 related UN Event - Ocean Action Panel 10 : Enhancing the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in the UNCLOS

However, I would like to know more about ‘how’ (considering all of the aspects in a holistic evaluation) an increased amount of fish will produce a reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere (more going on than carbon in fish poop falling into the depths). It seems intuitive that, like trees, more fish would result in reduced CO2 levels. If increasing the amount of fish in the seas will sustainably reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then any actions that sustainably increase fish populations would help.

Regardless of the question about increased fish stocks reducing CO2, it would be helpful to increase fish stocks.

Hopefully all reasonable helpful actions will be pursued by leaders, in business and politics, to limit the harm done by human activities. Unfortunately, the focus will likely be on the easier, more profitable, and more easily popular actions rather than pursuing actually possible actions (not ‘hoped to be developed’ technological solutions) that are more helpful but are harder, more expensive, or less likely to be popular.

2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16

RedRoseAndy at 18:04 PM on 22 April, 2025

Offsetting CO2 Emissions with Fish

Professor Oswald Schmitz is quoted in ‘New Scientist’ as saying: “Fish have a “tremendous” impact on carbon storage. “Part of it is in just the sheer biomass of these animals,” he says. But bony fish also fix carbon into insoluble minerals in their intestines as part of their way of dealing with constantly ingesting seawater. “It’s a sort of rock-like substance that they poop out and that sinks to the ocean bottom really quickly.” Collectively, marine fish account for the storage of a whopping 5.5 gigatonnes of carbon each year.” (Man produces 37.41 gigatonnes of CO2 a year.)
Using my method of preventing fish extinction can also, then, be a method for offsetting CO2 emissions.

A Practical Solution To Fish Stock Depletion

Fish in the wild are being over exploited, and whole fish species face extinction. But there is an easy way of preventing these extinctions. An international law should be passed which ensures that the gonads of all fish caught are liquidized and put into water containers, the fish are usually gutted anyway so this would not be a great hardship for the fishermen. Once liquidized, artificial fertilization takes place, and after twenty four hours the fertilized fish eggs can be released into the sea. Ensure that the water in your bucket is the temperature of the sea to avoid fish deaths. It does not matter where the eggs are put back because the fry of each species find their way back to the environment they originally come from.
In this way, the sea can be repopulated, and fishing can even become sustainable.
The Japanese were the first country to fish in this way, and had their Navy protect the massive shoal until the fish matured. I have only heard of it being done the once, though.

Greenhouse effect has been falsified

One Planet Only Forever at 02:46 AM on 8 April, 2025

Reed Coray,

In your response @213 to my ‘new questions’ @211 you state

My thermos bottle experiment didn't compare the cavity's being filled with 'CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)' because when discussing global warming those gases are seldom mentioned.

Are you seriously trying to 'use such a lame claim' to argue that in the context of the effect of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere it is more valid to compare CO2 to a vacuum than to compare ‘a greenhouse gas’ to ‘non-greenhouse gases’ (or to compare different amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere)?

You established the context for all the discussion that has followed your comment @180 where you made the following questionable declaration:

...(“the Earth's surface is warmed by-heat-trapping greenhouse gases”) is invalid because heat cannot be trapped—i.e., an adiabatic wall does not exist in nature. If heat can’t be trapped, any and all claims that rely on the existence of heat-trapping material or trapped heat constitute misinformation.

I believe the phrases "trapped heat" and "heat trapping" are used to incorrectly explain a physical process in a way that will resonate with the general public.

The discussion that has developed is in the context of whether it is ‘misleading’ to say ‘greenhouse gases trap heat’ in a public ‘plain language’ presentation of the scientific understanding of greenhouse gases.

In your response to my question @181 you conclude with the following:

If your theoretical estimate of Earth surface warming requires the existence of 'trapped heat' (i.e., your theoretical argument is that Earth surface warming will occur because some gases 'trap heat' within the lower troposphere), then your theoretical argument is nonsense because heat can't be trapped.

As I said, I'm not sure an 'easily understood term' exists for Earth surface temperature change.

In spite of being provided with a diversity of reasoned justifications for the validity of saying that “the Earth's surface is warmed by heat-trapping greenhouse gases” you persist in the belief that “...the phrases "trapped heat" and "heat trapping" are used to incorrectly explain a physical process...”

Responding to my new questions @211 the way you did @213 is just another tragic result of ‘desperately trying to maintain an invalid belief’ about the validity of saying that “the Earth's surface is warmed by heat-trapping greenhouse gases”.

In closing I will note that by comparing CO2 to a vacuum in the thermos bottle experiment you are implying that the global average surface temperature of the Earth would be warmer (more of the incoming energy would be trapped at the surface) without an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases. Claiming that a vacuum would keep more energy at the surface would appear to be a clear case of ‘incorrectly explaining an understood physical process’ (in the context that you established for this discussion).

Greenhouse effect has been falsified

Reed Coray at 06:51 AM on 7 April, 2025

Question: "Why doesn’t your thermos experiment compare the cavities being filled with CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)?"

Answer: My thermos bottle experiment didn't compare the cavity's being filled with 'CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)' because when discussing global warming those gases are seldom mentioned. I picked the gas (CO2) that most people argue is the primary cause of harmful global warming.

Question: "Do you agree that those comparisons would be more valid than CO2 vs vacuum?"

Answer: More valid for what— Earth surface warming, the behavior of thermos bottles, etc? I was responding to Dikran Marsupial's statement: "I am open to rational argument, such as a good answer to my question about blankets and thermos flasks "trapping heat", and willing to change my mind." He mentioned blankets and thermos flasks. I chose thermos flasks.

Greenhouse effect has been falsified

scaddenp at 06:44 AM on 7 April, 2025

I am struggling to see what it is gained by these sematic arguments. The real language of the GHE is the hard cold language of physics and maths, especially the Radiative Transfer Equations. No matter how these are interpretated in layman's language, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere warms the earth surface. The equations predict things like the amount of radiation received at the surface or at the top of the atmosphere and the spectrum of that radiation with exquisite accuracy. Also, see this paper for direct observation of CO2 increasing the greenhouse effect at the earth surface. Suggesting this is not real based on misunderstanding greenhouse theory is futile. You are fooling only yourself.

Greenhouse effect has been falsified

One Planet Only Forever at 03:00 AM on 7 April, 2025

Reed Coray @208,

New questions:

Why doesn’t your thermos experiment compare the cavities being filled with CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)?

Do you agree that those comparisons would be more valid than CO2 vs vacuum?

Greenhouse effect has been falsified

Dikran Marsupial at 02:14 AM on 7 April, 2025

Reed Coray, you have not addressed my question, just evaded it with a thought experiment of your own. My question was whether it was reasonable in a discussion with a lay-person to say that a blanket keeps you warm by "trapping heat" or whether a thermos flask keeps tea warm by "trapping heat". How about a greenhouse (is the Cambridge dictionary that uses it as an example usage of "trap" incorrect?).

I have seen this time and time again in discussions with "contrarians", which is that I am happy to give very straight answers to direct questions, but they are not. The reason is that they know that their argument collapses if they give a straight answer.

So are you going to give a straight answer to my question, or are you going to continue with the evasion.

"In the vacuum thermos bottle, a vacuum surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber. In the CO2 thermos bottle, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas (CO2) surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber."

You appear not to understand the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect if that thought experiment was intended to be relevant to that question.

Greenhouse effect has been falsified

Eclectic at 17:22 PM on 6 April, 2025

Reed Corey @208 :

You have use multiple paragraphs of words to point to an "experiment" where a vacuum (plus silvered surfaces) does a better job of trapping heat than does silvered surfaces plus CO2 gas.

Which really does nothing to support your argument (such as it is).

Your argument being: that words are important and realities are not.

Greenhouse effect has been falsified

Reed Coray at 15:15 PM on 6 April, 2025

Dikran Marsupial at 19:53 PM on 3 April 2025 wrote: "I am open to rational argument, such as a good answer to my question about blankets and thermos flasks 'trapping heat', and willing to change my mind."

Okay try this. Take two vacuum thermos bottles as nearly identical as possible. The vacuum region of each thermos bottle surrounds its chamber. Punch a small hole in one of the thermos bottles (letting gas into the vacuum region of that thermos bottle), and choose for that gas CO2 (a heat-trapping, greenhouse gas). Reseal the hole so that the CO2 gas can't leave the insulation region." Call the thermos bottle without CO2 gas the vacuum thermos bottle. Call the thermos bottle with CO2 gas the CO2 thermos bottle.

In the vacuum thermos bottle, a vacuum surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber. In the CO2 thermos bottle, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas (CO2) surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber.

Place equal amounts of coffee heated to the same temperature in each thermos bottle chamber. Place both thermos bottles side-by-side in an external envirornment whose temperature is lower than the temperature of the heated coffee. Eventually the temperature of the coffee in both thermos will reach and stablize at the temperature of the external environment; but the CO2 thermos bottle will reach that temperature much more rapidly than the vacuum thermos bottle. If CO2 gas traps heat, how is this possible?

When describing to a lay person what is happening, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "a greenhouse gas (CO2) is freeing heat" to say "a greenhouse gas (CO2) is trapping heat?"

The above experiment is a comparison of "rates of heat loss," not a comparison of temperatures. But the experiment can easily to modified to be a comparison of temperatures. Simply place equal or nearly equal constant-rate heat sources in the chambers along with the coffee. As long as the heat source is outputing heat at a constant rate, the temperatures of the coffee in both thermos bottles will reach a stable temperature higher than the environment's temperature, but the stable temperature of the vacuum thermos bottle will be higher than the stable temperature of the CO2 thermos bottle. As with the "rate of heat loss" comparison, for the temperature comparison it is more correct to say the CO2 gas "frees heat" than it is to say the CO2 gas "traps heat."

hus, in thermos bottles CO2 gas doesn't "trap heat" it "frees heat."

Greenhouse effect has been falsified

One Planet Only Forever at 03:59 AM on 4 April, 2025

Reed Coray,

Indeed, some people will try to argue that this matter of increased levels of ghgs causing an increase of the surface temperature is just a matter of opinion ... meaning there are no reasons why anyone would ‘have to’ change their belief.

That is an unscientific way to think about this matter which has a well-developed evidence-based understanding that is open to well-reasoned evidence-based improvements.

In addition to the comments by Others, especially Charlie Brown @201, I will specifically address your use of: may and unsure. I will also comment regarding 'permanent trapping' of heat energy.

Increased levels of ghgs ‘will’ (not may) increase the surface temperature. The current understanding is a range of potential magnitude of warming for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. But the low end of that ‘range’ is a significant increase. The only thing that is ‘unsure’ is how much worse than the very bad ‘best case’ the warming due to increasing CO2 levels ‘will’ be.

Note that the understood low end of the range of warming due to a doubling of CO2 levels is increasing, being (has been) updated ‘up’, because the current 50% increase of CO2, to 420 ppm from 280 ppm, has produced significantly more than a 1.0 C increase of surface temperature.

Building on the point of my comment @186, the increased ‘amount of trapped energy’ due to increased amounts of ghgs and the resulting increased average surface temperature is ‘essentially permanent’. It will last as long as the increased level of ghgs occurs. And increased CO2 levels will last a very long time, unless humans implement actions to effectively ‘essentially permanently remove’ CO2 from the atmosphere.

Hopefully, you were being hyperbolic when you declared that your mind was ‘permanently made-up regarding this matter’. The ability to learn is a critical thinking ability that enables humans to sustainably, permanently, improve things.

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results