Weirdly, while they cite Foster & Rahmstorf (2026) and Beaulieu et al. (2024), on a quick skim they don't appear to have any discussion of why results vary or what makes them believe their method is better. Doing a few simulations (as you did, and Foster frequently does on his blog) ought to be a mandatory check on statistical soundness.
"But as I’ve noted, there is a consilience of evidence that leads us to conclude that this time acceleration is likely real, even if it remains just short of statistically significant in surface temperature records. "
Thanks for this, Zeke. I'm not a statistician, but it's my understanding that Bayesian analysis, taking your informed prior into account, might be more powerful over the data. Is that accurate?
Great stuff Zeke - I learned something. And I was surprised to see a paper with a not-even-consistent-across-the-breakpoint fit make it through peer-review. At least we should fit models that could happen in real life. Their model is literally impossible. And Kevin is quite right - the end points get a lot of weight in the fit for the slope of a line; the point in the middle literally gets 0 weight (when there is an odd number of points). It's reassuring to see that when you did the analysis correctly, the outliers occurred 5% of the time exactly as they should have.
The most important and overlooked trend is the almost perfect correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population as first noted by Newell & Marcus in 1987 in a short paper entitled Carbon Dioxide and People. It clearly demonstrates that global warming since 1960 is entirely the result of the increase in the number of people on the planet using fossil fuel energy ro improve their lives and standards of living...especially in the transportation sector. So it doesn't matter if the warming is accelerating or not. Eight billion stakeholders need to eat and electric transportation is doing almost none of the growth and delivery of food and other materials needed to complete the transition to renewables and EVs.
Matthew.. If you had bothered to read the paper you would know that one of the authors was a statistician and he understood that statement and discussed it. Are you also denying that us humans are the source of CO2 and water vapor to the atmosphere?
We reduced our aerosol masking effect? Yeah, in 2011/2012 in the eastern US of course they had SO2 down probably 90% from 1989 levels. Then in 2013 they allowed SO2 to come back up a few ppb. The 2010 law is configured such that this was possible. The corn did not start sweating again in 2013 no more than it took the summer off from sweating in SE Iowa in ‘87. Of course in ‘88 the corn all across the Midwest quit sweating. These statistical anomalies when compared to 2013-2026 give it away. That and earthnullschool showing SO2 levels that contradict the EPA in recent years. Whatever cuts China made did not affect their aerosol masking effect. It only takes a few ppb, beyond that it doesn’t matter.
Why is USCRN data never even mentioned in these analysis? It's understandable USCRN data cannot be connected to global temperatures, but due to the alleged "pristine" nature of the dataset (no adjustments or homogenizing) it should at least be referenced. USCRN data seems to be strangely kept out of the news. Why?
Well, for one thing, USCRN only goes back to 2005. And you acknowledge it's limited to the US.
The other reason Zeke may not have mentioned it is that actual, long-term global data has to be adjusted to be commensurable. "Climate datasets are adjusted to show warming" is an iteratively slain, zombie denialist meme (https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-raw-temperature-deal).
You're asking a loaded question based on a false assumption in order to fallaciously move the goalposts from the article's topic. Hausfather often discusses USCRN, including the fact that it shows statistically significant warming. USCRN's average trend exceeds the global warming trend. That's unsurprising since, on average, air above land warms more than air was oceans, with USCRN focusing on the USA's land while the global trend is dominated by oceans. So, try addressing the article's topic instead of using USCRN to deflect.
Weirdly, while they cite Foster & Rahmstorf (2026) and Beaulieu et al. (2024), on a quick skim they don't appear to have any discussion of why results vary or what makes them believe their method is better. Doing a few simulations (as you did, and Foster frequently does on his blog) ought to be a mandatory check on statistical soundness.
The main point that still remains is global warming is critically and unacceptably bad, no matter who disputes who.
As Earth burns... 🔥
Wow, some analysis. Keepr the minds sharp. Btw my favourite fitting method is as many point above as below the line you draw after a few drinks
"But as I’ve noted, there is a consilience of evidence that leads us to conclude that this time acceleration is likely real, even if it remains just short of statistically significant in surface temperature records. "
Thanks for this, Zeke. I'm not a statistician, but it's my understanding that Bayesian analysis, taking your informed prior into account, might be more powerful over the data. Is that accurate?
Great stuff Zeke - I learned something. And I was surprised to see a paper with a not-even-consistent-across-the-breakpoint fit make it through peer-review. At least we should fit models that could happen in real life. Their model is literally impossible. And Kevin is quite right - the end points get a lot of weight in the fit for the slope of a line; the point in the middle literally gets 0 weight (when there is an odd number of points). It's reassuring to see that when you did the analysis correctly, the outliers occurred 5% of the time exactly as they should have.
The most important and overlooked trend is the almost perfect correlation between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population as first noted by Newell & Marcus in 1987 in a short paper entitled Carbon Dioxide and People. It clearly demonstrates that global warming since 1960 is entirely the result of the increase in the number of people on the planet using fossil fuel energy ro improve their lives and standards of living...especially in the transportation sector. So it doesn't matter if the warming is accelerating or not. Eight billion stakeholders need to eat and electric transportation is doing almost none of the growth and delivery of food and other materials needed to complete the transition to renewables and EVs.
All together now, TCB readers: "correlation is not causation!"
Matthew.. If you had bothered to read the paper you would know that one of the authors was a statistician and he understood that statement and discussed it. Are you also denying that us humans are the source of CO2 and water vapor to the atmosphere?
Isn't it high time to consider Trump as the Novel Entity outlier (liar too) :)
It always seems faster for the last ice cube melting in the glass too.
Chain that man to a rock, like Prometheus.
A welcome analysis of a hot new paper and the overall body of work. Particularly helpful to explain this in the context of the much-ballyhooed warming “hiatus” ~16 years ago. I covered that as news in 2009 in the NYT (a previous period of intense politicization of climate science) https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?unlocked_article_code=1.J1E.4RA9.lRb_1LKDUwCK&smid=url-share
The New York Times also covered Hansen's record temperatures in 1988 and again in 1995. They were well above 59°F (15°C.
Not statistically significant, but likely true anyway? Consilience is a new word for me. Is this the concept that gets you to the preferred result?
With less albedo and more CO2 tell me how the rate of heating would not increase …
Global warming is accelerating. But its still important to get the statistics right!
L'aveuglement volontaire est un crime moral puni par le Karma inévitable.
We reduced our aerosol masking effect? Yeah, in 2011/2012 in the eastern US of course they had SO2 down probably 90% from 1989 levels. Then in 2013 they allowed SO2 to come back up a few ppb. The 2010 law is configured such that this was possible. The corn did not start sweating again in 2013 no more than it took the summer off from sweating in SE Iowa in ‘87. Of course in ‘88 the corn all across the Midwest quit sweating. These statistical anomalies when compared to 2013-2026 give it away. That and earthnullschool showing SO2 levels that contradict the EPA in recent years. Whatever cuts China made did not affect their aerosol masking effect. It only takes a few ppb, beyond that it doesn’t matter.
Why is USCRN data never even mentioned in these analysis? It's understandable USCRN data cannot be connected to global temperatures, but due to the alleged "pristine" nature of the dataset (no adjustments or homogenizing) it should at least be referenced. USCRN data seems to be strangely kept out of the news. Why?
You answered your own question: "USHCRN data cannot be connected to global temperatures".
Because this is an analysis of global temperatures. But we've covered USCRN in quite a bit of depth before here!
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-most-accurate-record-of-us-temperatures
Well, for one thing, USCRN only goes back to 2005. And you acknowledge it's limited to the US.
The other reason Zeke may not have mentioned it is that actual, long-term global data has to be adjusted to be commensurable. "Climate datasets are adjusted to show warming" is an iteratively slain, zombie denialist meme (https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-raw-temperature-deal).
You're asking a loaded question based on a false assumption in order to fallaciously move the goalposts from the article's topic. Hausfather often discusses USCRN, including the fact that it shows statistically significant warming. USCRN's average trend exceeds the global warming trend. That's unsurprising since, on average, air above land warms more than air was oceans, with USCRN focusing on the USA's land while the global trend is dominated by oceans. So, try addressing the article's topic instead of using USCRN to deflect.
https://x.com/hausfath/status/2075348510288019515
https://x.com/hausfath/status/1899239239499288616
https://x.com/hausfath/status/1813955482769662352
https://x.com/hausfath/status/1655755493816532993
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-most-accurate-record-of-us-temperatures