Recent paper on tipping points has good discussion on: our climate trajectory, the tipping point concept, how close we are getting to tipping, and the scientific uncertainty. 

https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(25)00391-4

18 hours ago, GaWx said:

Thanks, Charlie. Here’s Mike’s response to your reply:

 

 These people remind me of MAGA, seriously. It's complete fake climate crisis RELIGION.

 CO2 below 1,000 parts per million is a massively beneficial gas. To compare it to when CO2 was numerous times higher that this [sic] is a strawman attack (assigning a position that doesn't exist and attacking that position instead of the REAL one).

 And to keep projected CO2's increase for another 100 years and to keep insisting that the residence time for today's CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds of years lacks critical thinking based just on how we watch it DROP during the Northern Hemisphere's growing season every year.  

 Ignoring the fact that fossils fuels are finite and will be running out well before then and the chances of us ever getting over 900 ppm, the optimal level for life/plants/crops is minuscule.

 So what if CO2 was X thousands of parts per million in the past????

 That is NOT what will be happening from CO2 increasing this time. The highest reasonable projection is still BELOW the optimal level of 900 ppm.

 Regarding all the articles from so called authorities that climate change is already cutting back on food production:

 100% nonsense. It's the exact opposite. With crops, we can't tell how much impact is from CO2, climate/weather, genetics, fertilizers, use of pesticides/herbicides(technology).

 When you change numerous variables at the same time, like we do with crops, it's impossible to separate the impact from each one on the outcome. 

 However, we have 2 ways to address that with OBJECTIVE data which clearly speaks for the impact of photosynthesis by itself and for photosynthesis +climate change.

1. The impact of JUST adding CO2 and not changing anything else:

 Here is irrefutable evidence using empirical data to show that the increase in CO2 is causing a huge increase in crop yields/world food production. 

 We can separate the CO2 effect out from other factors effecting [sic] crops and plants with many thousands of  studies that hold everything else constant, except CO2.

 Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels tell us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants. 

 Here's how to access the empirical evidence/data from the site that has more of it than any other. Please go to this link:

http://www.co2science.org/data/data.php

 2. But other human factors impact soybeans, including climate change that we can't separate out. 

 That's ok because we have something that looks almost exclusively at the increase in CO2 and climate change as the main factors.

 Planet earth has been a huge open air experiment the past XX years. The objective results are striking. The impacts have been mostly from changes in photosynthesis and changes in the climate. 
 

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

In addition:

Earth greening mitigates hot temperature extremes despite the effect being dampened by rising CO₂

_{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223005584}

_{++++++++++++++}

_{Importantly, the indisputable science tells us that increasing CO2 allows plants/crops to be more drought tolerant(not the other way around). The reason is that plants open their stomata to get CO2 and while doing so, they transpire(lose water from their roots that get it from the soil) As CO2 increases, the stomata don't need to open as wide and this REDUCES water loss from their roots. It's rock solid agronomy/plant science.} 

CO2 Enrichment Improves Plant Water-Use Efficiency

https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/co2-increased-water-use-efficiency/

+++++++++++++++=

Despite me just PROVING the points with indisputable science above, this is what the very predictable response will be from people that posted to you previously with the same response they gave the first time:

"Those are denier sources"

   NASA's satellite study showing the greening of the planet obviously can't be put in that category but CO2 Science and Dr. Craig Idso, an elite authority on plants and the impact of CO2/climate change, has been labelled a denier. 

Never mind everything he shows is backed up with empirical data and rock solid scientific principles, which is why I use that source(as an atmospheric scientist for 44 years). If he or anybody else, including me, contradicts the mainstream view on the climate crisis.........they are discredited as deniers no matter us [sic] using 2+2=4  science to prove that 2+2 is not 5. 

Agree with Don's comment.  My problem isn't the facts he is citing, its the things he is leaving out or not aware of. I agree that CO2 is critical for plant growth and that fossil fuel reserves are finite.  However, you need to look at all of the effects of CO2 not just the beneficial ones. Crop yield is one of the most well studied areas of human activity. Its just as easy to perform a controlled experiment on temperature, water, seed variety, fertilizer, etc as CO2. There is also a large amount of real world data on crop yield. To say that we only understand CO2 impacts on agriculture and can't quantify non-CO2 impact indicates a lack of knowledge on his part. The same thing can be said about climate science in general, he doesn't seem aware of the large body of scientific work on CO2 and climate change. The beneficial and harmful impacts of CO2 are well known; as is the balance between harmful and beneficial.

There is also the tone of the response. He has proved his points with "indisputable science" while my response is "predictable" or "fake climate crisis RELIGION".  Doesn't make me look forward to future exchanges.

4 hours ago, GaWx said:

Hey Charlie,

 This is from yesterday from a very experienced pro met., Mike Maguire, who believes in AGW:

Let me point out what is REALLY going to happen with high confidence:

Fossil fuels are finite. There was only X amount of plants that died while life existed on this planet that got sequestered/buried in the ground and decomposed/concentrated into fossil fuels. At the rate that we are burning them, it won't be much longer before they start running out.

BTW, all the CO2 we've been returning back into the atmosphere was there before as a beneficial gas and the building block for all of life. This scary false narrative of "CO2 is the highest its been in X zillion years" is intentionally meant to make people think there's something wrong with that, instead of receiving it as the profound gift that it's been for life on our massively greening  planet.

https://co2coalition.org/facts/140-million-year-trend-of-dangerously-decreasing-co2/
 

 

 Anyways, back to the fact that fossil fuels will be running out with certainty and the horrific disaster that will occur to the planet and human beings when that happens, almost with certainty.

 

 We constantly hear that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100+ years and the carbon pollution that we are spewing into the atmosphere today, will be damaging the planet past 2100. Complete hogwash!!!!!!!!!!

—————

 Does anyone disagree with anything Mike said in this post? If so, what and why? He believes in AGW but feels it is net beneficial for the globe. I don’t agree with him because I have a bigger concern about sea level rise being that I’m not far from the coast and he’s a Midwesterner. But otherwise, what about his points about it continue to lead to increased greening of the planet? Also, he’s shown evidence that cold kills more than heat although I do wonder if that will eventually switch after enough warming.

Per Wikipedia the CO2 Coalition is a climate denial organization funded by fossil fuel interests. The CEO is a former head of the American Petroleum Institute. Sure plant life thrived when CO2 was higher but natural temperatures change occurred  slowly which allowed accommodation through evolution. The idea that CO2 is plant food is climate denial myth. High temperature and intensification of precipitation counteract CO2 benefits on plant growth. The plants that thrived under higher CO2 were not the same plants in the same locations as today. For instance, If warming continues the Amazon rain forest and Boreal forests will transition to grasslands releasing large amounts of CO2. The same with animals, cold-blooded reptiles were favored in warmer times. Mammals were all small to shed heat. The bottom 2 links cover past mass extinction events. Notice how many where caused by episodes of volcanic activity that released CO2 and other greenhouse gases. 

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food-why-are-we-still

https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/10-mass-extinction-events-and-what-caused-them

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/19-mass-extinctions-had-co2-levels-were-now-veering-towards-study-warns

22 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

Bunk.

The world has solved lots of problems, without having solved all of them.   The notion that if you can't solve one problem then you can't solve any problem is ludicrous.

 

Let me rephrase. Of course we will continue to solve problems. The ones that will be difficult to solve will: be complex, need a political solution, have vested interests that hinder a solution, and which are beyond the experience or understanding of most people, i.e., subject to misinformation.

36 minutes ago, bluewave said:

You don’t really have even the most basic understanding of how complex worldwide systems work. We currently have a two-tiered economic system around the world. This means that the areas with sufficient wealth can insulate themselves from environmental issues including issues stemming from the warming climate.

So the worldwide crop yields increasing is more a function of the expansion of living standards for people in the more prosperous societies. So localized crop failures in the Middle East and Central America contributing mass migrations cause issues for people on the lower rung of the economic ladder.

These displaced peoples move to the more prosperous societies to the north with increasing crop yields where they are absorbed. But they directly compete with the lower people in these societies who are already facing economic challenges. This leads to political instability in those societies.

Same story for rising insurance rates in the U.S. from extreme weather disasters. The people with more economic means just shrug off these increases. But an increasing segment of society living paycheck to paycheck are forced to move or sell their house and rent.

This is the situation we find ourselves in today across the planet with what is being described as a K shaped economy. So all the headline numbers we see are a function of a smaller share doing relatively well.

You saying that a few crop failures in an otherwise increasing crop yields world is essentially a big fat nothing burger is a classic let them eat cake response. Just like the people who say that increasing property insurance rates isn’t a big deal are missing an important process.

We live in a very delicately balanced global economic society. If a growing number of people don’t  feel like society isn’t working for them, then the current global structure is on borrowed time since it’s unsustainable.

Climate and environmental degradation are contributing factors to many other instabilities in this economic system. There are also plenty others leading to the current global state. So we can list a whole series of other issues across the board.

But your attitude exemplifies the casual disregard for important underlying issues which will probably come to a head in coming years. I am ultimately very hopeful long term. My guess is that we will eventually achieve a more in balanced global society with others and the natural world.

But the road to that future state will probably be bumpy. But in the end I think local segments of like minded people will build a more bottom up society that works for everyone rather than the current top down model.
 

Yes, climate change is an amplifying factor. Its not a root cause, but makes problematic weather or problems in society worse. Likewise its emblematic of our ability to address complex problems.  If we can't address climate change we won't solve other problems either.

15 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Are you sure?    Why is it that the Wikipedia page on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation

doesn't discuss ENSO?

The chart that's there doesn't seem to follow ENSO cycles:

 

 

Keep in mind we're not talking about radiation *into* the atmosphere here (what I think is most affected by ENSO), we're talking about radiation from all earth elements (including the atmosphere) out into space (outgoing longwave radiation).

Though I haven't attempted any kind of mathematical correlation - I thought ENSO cycles were generally much longer duration than what's in that chart.

 

This chart shows the enso effect more clearly. Big dips in net radiation due to radiation to space occurred in 2010 and 2024 ninos. The correlation isn't perfect because there are other factors as well. Cloud cover for instance impacts the amount of sunlight that gets reflected back to space. Less clouds is contributing to the current increasing rate of heat build-up in the climate system. Reduced cloud cover is a positive feedback to warming temperatures. In-any-case the climate system isn't constant. As I pointed above, averaging over 11 years cancels out  the short term variation.

9 hours ago, GaWx said:

Hey Charlie, I don’t have any links to provide right now. I’m going off of what a pro met. has posted elsewhere a number of times for years. Also, don’t forget that it isn’t just the CO2 Fertilizer Effect that’s beneficial. It’s also the longer growing seasons.

I'd be cautious without a peer reviewed paper. There is a lot of misinformation on climate out there. We see it here all the time. Most of the published studies I've seen show a negative effect. One that will increase in the future. Warmth is a benefit in northern areas, but a negative further south. Here are a couple of links.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00491-0

https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/climate-change-cuts-global-crop-yields-even-when-farmers-adapt

3 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Some of the crop yield increases were likely helped by better technology, but not nearly all of it. GW/AGW have helped significantly with crop sizes, something often intentionally glossed over

Do you have a reference for climate change improving crop yield? Most studies I have seen show that adverse temperature and precipitation effects cancel any benefit from CO2 fertilization. As you note yields have increased by improvements in seed varieties, fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, and better farming practices. The chart below shows how different yields would be in a world without climate change compared to our current one; a “decline” in this case means that in such a world yield growth would have been even higher. Climate effects have been small with more negative than positive effects on major crops.

https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields-climate-impact

13 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

So here's a question.

Given that "the planet" is generally a self-contained system with very little (essentially no) variance in externalities with regards to energy inputs (mainly solar irradiance - generally near-constant) and output (terrestrial radiation - generally near-constant) - shouldn't the warming of the planet just be essentially a straight (or curved) line with an always-upwards slope, such that a new record should be set *every* year?

Or is it the case that it's really just these records are just really just referring to "the places we are measuring" and not "the planet" as a whole?

Yes - question is somewhat rhetorical, but is intended to trigger some thought.   If one presumes that the planet as a whole is warming continually, then what are the "holes" in the data?   Are there significant areas of the ocean for instance that we're just not measuring, and the reason we don't see a new record every year is because of the non-existent data that would offset the data we do have?   Or perhaps is it the case that we are in fact measuring the whole "surface" (including the oceans), but the surface temperature as a whole actually does go up and down based on something - e.g. subterranean effects e.g. "bubbles" in mantle convection, or perhaps solar cycles?

The earth's output is not constant. Instead It is modulated by ENSO. More radiation out during El Nino when the atmosphere is relatively warm and less during La Nina when the atmosphere is cool. Similarly the global surface temperature is modulated by ENSO, the earth's surface is warmer during el nino. Note that the climate system is dominated by the ocean and the rise in ocean temperature is steadier than the global surface temperature.

There is also some variation in solar output over the 11-year solar cycle. If you take an 11-year average of global surface temperatures (below) most of the enso and solar variability is removed. Leaving mainly man-made forcing and a small volcano contribution.

CERES net radiation continues to increase off the El Nino bottom set in late summer 2024. The last net radiation peak occurred in January 2023, as the 3-year nina came to an end. With  growing signs of a shift from nina to nino conditions another peak is probably developing this winter. If so the next net radiation peak will be well below Jan 2023 levels and more in-line with winter of 21/22 and other recent nina peaks since 2008. Indicates that a portion of the unusually high peak in winter2022/2023 was enso-related. In-any-case the current radiation imbalance would support a rise in global temperatures to record levels if moderate/strong nino conditions develop as forecast.

"There was a watershed moment for Australian energy transition this week as the Australian Energy Market Operator released its energy dynamics report for the December quarter of 2025: Renewables comprised more than half of energy supply in the quarter, driving down wholesale electricity prices by nearly half. Coal-fired generation was down 4.6% year on year, falling to an all-time quarterly low. Gas-fired generation plunged 27% to its lowest level for 25 years."

https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2026/01/29/turning-point-renewables-surge-to-50-of-supply-wholesale-power-prices-plunge-grid-resilient-to-heatwaves/

10 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Because as the chart clearly shows they are of course not warming at the same rate....PHL is exceeding as you would expect the warming at what we would expect at a non-UHI site.

You are either ignoring the evidence I posted or don't understand it. Lets make it simple. Here is the Avondale USCRN station, carefully chosen with 3 identical thermometers.  Since its start-up in 2007, Avondale has warmed at .125F per year or 1.25F per decade. Over the same period,  PHL has warmed by .113F per year or 1.13 per decade. The same numbers are in the table I posted. The table shows similar results for the 12 DEOS stations, KMQS, Phoenixville, etc. All warming at a similar rate as PHL. Clear and overwhelming evidence that Chester county is warming at the same rate as the Philadelphia Airport.  The raw data doesn't support the point you are making.

8 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

So my climate pair....one of these things is not warming like the other....wonder why?

Why are the cooling rates in your chart different? Your own faulty analysis. Comparing the raw data at individual Chester County sites to the Philadelphia Airport shows very good agreement in warming rates; i.e, the Philadelphia airport is warming at the same rate as Chester County.   Well known that averaging over a changing network skews the data. If the station network cools with time then a simple average of the changing network will underestimate warming.  That's exactly what is happening in your charts.

21 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

In general China is doubling-up their energy production - new fossil plants *and* new renewable (and nuclear) - because they can afford to.  They can afford to because they pay their workers roughly 1/3 what US workers are paid, and because they generally don't worry about NIMBY or environmental impact like we do here in the US; e.g. their Medog Hydro project in Tibet.   The US hasn't built a significant new dam in 50 years, let alone one close to the size of Medog or Three Gorges.   (by comparison our largest - Grand Coulee - is about 1/8 the size of Medog and 1/3 the size of Three Gorges).

It's not some kind of anti-renewable / pro=fossil policy that's holding back the US - it's a combination of higher regulation and environmental protection, NIMBYism, the fact that China is less prosperous than the US, and also simple geography.

We aren't helping ourselves by adopting anti-renewable/EV policies. These technologies are still coming to the US, but at a slower pace than they would have.

NOAA ocean heat content surged last year. Agrees with other ocean heat datasets for 2025 posted above. Another sign of accelerating warming since the hiatus ended.

9 hours ago, FPizz said:

Like he doesnt lol

China has more coal capacity under construction than the entire existing US coal fleet (~230 GW vs ~175 GW). But yeah, let be like them! Dolts

You aren't looking at the whole energy picture. China's use of existing coal plants is dropping. The next few years will tell the tale. Which will slow first in China, new coal or renewable construction?  In any case China's energy strategy is much more realistic than ours.  They have less fossil fuel and renewable resources than we do, yet their energy is abundant and cheap. We are in energy denial, betting on a horse that is falling further and further behind every day. 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-china-and-india-for-first-time-in-52-years-after-clean-energy-records/

14 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

So I've been working on a new concept I call "climate analog pairs" and basically it looks to pair a location's current climate with a late 20th century climate of another location hundreds of miles south. I actually think it's more intuitive going in the opposite direction. As a millennial, you may want to determine where you can locate the climate of your childhood. Unfortunately, it's no longer going to be in your hometown but rather hundreds of miles north of your hometown. I think this is a better way of looking at climate change - rather than saying its warmed a couple of degrees, one could say instead it's warmed so much that the local climate has been replaced with the late 20th century climate conditions 200 miles south of here. Here's the thread where I explain the concept and then address a couple of anticipated objections.

Any thoughts?

hERE

 

Here's a comparison for the east coast, Philadelphia and Richmond, roughly the same distance  and direction as Detroit/Dayton. Using the regression line, the Philly Airport is as warm today as the Richmond Airport was in the late 1970s, 58F. I like using the regression line because that is the best estimate of the temperature one would expect in any year based on past temperatures. 

11 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

So I've been working on a new concept I call "climate analog pairs" and basically it looks to pair a location's current climate with a late 20th century climate of another location hundreds of miles south. I actually think it's more intuitive going in the opposite direction. As a millennial, you may want to determine where you can locate the climate of your childhood. Unfortunately, it's no longer going to be in your hometown but rather hundreds of miles north of your hometown. I think this is a better way of looking at climate change - rather than saying its warmed a couple of degrees, one could say instead it's warmed so much that the local climate has been replaced with the late 20th century climate conditions 200 miles south of here. Here's the thread where I explain the concept and then address a couple of anticipated objections.

Any thoughts?

 

Here's a study from a few years back with a similar goal. How far will my climate shift in the future?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190212120044.htm

https://www.umces.edu/futureurbanclimates

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

https://phys.org/news/2026-01-ocean-temperatures-high.html

A chart from the technical paper shows that the rate of ocean warming is increasing. Note that data is from a number of sources including satellite net radiation measurements.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-026-5876-0

54 minutes ago, bluewave said:

 

Brian McNoldy

 

‪@bmcnoldy.bsky.social‬

 

Follow

The average water level measured at Virginia Key (near #Miami) set a new monthly record high in October, which is also the new *all-time* record high month. I also feel confident that it was the highest monthly water level there since the last interglacial period... ~120,000 years ago.

 

ALT

 

ALT

8:12 AM · Nov 2, 2025

Everybody can

Sea level rise is accelerating along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Here are Savannah and Cape May for instance. Data available at link below.

https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/395.php

Savannah

Cape May

1 hour ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Request - whenever providing data like this, please provide a link to the source.

http://www.ocean.iap.ac.cn/pages/dataService/dataService.html?languageType=en&navAnchor=dataService

Large increase in 0-2000m ocean heat content last year. NOAA data through mid-year also shows a large increase.

42 minutes ago, bluewave said:

While numerous locations in the U.S. experienced their warmest December on record, spots like Fairbanks had their 8th coldest December. So the magnitudes of the warmth was greater in the the West. But Juneau was able to record their 2nd coldest December which was very impressive. Parts of Canada had their coldest December since 1980 but the coldest winters on record occurred in the colder era before then. But the warmth in recent winters in Canada was of a higher magnitude than the cold this month was.

 

 

Climatologist49

 

‪@climatologist49.bsky.social‬

 

Follow

Fairbanks, AK, finishes December 2025 with a monthly temperature departure of 18.2F below normal. The average high temp was -14.5F and the average low temp was -31.1F. This makes it the 8th coldest December on record (1904-present) and the coldest since 1980. @alaskawx.bsky.social

9:02 PM · Dec 31, 2025

 

 

Yes impressive cold in Alaska and Yukon. Cool here in Philly also. Our coolest December since 2010. 

On 12/31/2025 at 7:49 AM, bluewave said:

Record low sea ice thickness this year near the North Pole due to how much warmer than normal it has been there.

https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

 

 

PIOMASS volume growth has been slow this freezing season, ending 2025 at record low levels.  The second low is 12/31/2016, which is hidden under the 2025 line.

1 hour ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Not yet.

Sorry - could not let that slide.

"Performance" is a multifaceted thing, including speed, driving distance, fueling convenience, costs, build quality, etc. etc.   If the performance of the average EV and the average combustion vehicle in the US (what most of us care about) matched, their sales would be roughly equal, but they very much aren't; even before the recent subsidy removal.

Yes I know what performance is. All the things you mention and more will improve significantly with solid state batteries. The US market doesn't tell you much about EV performance because the best EVs come from China, not the US, and those vehicles are excluded from the US market. However this new announcement may allow other countries to catch-up or even leapfrog China. We will see.