Thank you for all your great climate reporting. It'll make 2026 better for me and all.
My take on:
2025:
The year the climate change movement and ESG got stymied by Trump and far right politicians globally.
2026:
Newton's opposite and equal force to the suppression of the climate change movement. There will be a revival in activism, journalism, and governance for mitigating climate change.
That being said, every year we delay the deeper we sink in the quicksand and the harder it will be to get out of it.
Research showed that a rain forest in Australia turned from carbon sink to carbon source around 2000, and an African rain forest changed from sink to source around 2010. I predict that in 2026 climate scientists will begin to realize that this means that it was impossible for IPCC models to accurately predict the recent "unexpected" warming events. Because the models have been treating carbon sources as carbon sinks for a generation now, they must necessarily be underestimating the speed and severity of warming, now and in the future.
The most comprehensive class of climate models do have an interactive carbon cycle in them. So in theory, at least, they should be able to simulate changed like this. However, I agree that our confidence in those processes in the model should be low since we don’t have a lot of data to validate them.
Well, given that the studies confirming the change in rain forest emissions status were basically just published, it wouldn't be possible for the models have adjusted yet, would it? We also have a just published study finding that models have consistently underestimated the factors driving drought in the Amazon, that there are positive feedback loops (nonlinear increases in emissions) from the deep fissures in drought stricken land, the difference between our observed energy budget and the energy budget predicted by models, the loss of CO2 absorption by the stoma in the leaves of drought/heat stricken trees. All of these studies say in their abstracts that either current models don't account for their data, or the things they are measuring are increasing in a nonlinear fashion whereas the models treat them as being linear increases.
Do you expect an adjustment by models to show faster warming then they currently predict? I asked GPT5.1 to look at the difference between the forces driving warming described in the recent research and the assumptions current models are predicting. GPT5 predict 3 degrees C warming by 2050, based in current middle path models predictions, and the amount of extra warming the new research suggests.
Thanks for your comment, Mr. Mankoff. I'm inclined to give it provisional credence, but I'd appreciate links to the specific rainforest studies you cite. TIA.
Also: interesting GPT results. I've had some LLM results that were lucid, concise, and correct as far as my own prolonged formal education, subsequent self-education, and the links provided could confirm. Often its sources are Wikipedia articles. Try asking Google's Gemini GPT "How does cladistics differ from previous systematics paradigms?" I literally couldn't say it better than Gemini myself!
I've also seen ludicrously incorrect responses, presented with seeming smug overconfidence, and sources that say no such thing. Last month, I asked ChatGPT's free page "What federal agency is RFK Jr. employed by?", and was told he wasn't employed by any federal agency, and the AI agent insisted quite confidently that any information I had to the contrary was fake! It turned out ChatGPT wasn't allowed to search the Internet for my queries because I wasn't a paid subscriber, and it had only a year-old cached copy of HHS.gov to go on.
IOW: out of date, incorrect info is free from OpenAI, but correct information costs extra 8^(! As I already subscribe to a number of Google services, I may as well stick with Gemini, I guess. At least until they ask me to pay more for correct answers. And I'll always follow up at least some of its sources.
The research, published October 15 in the journal Nature, analyzed data from around 11,000 trees in wet tropical rainforests in Australia’s northeast region, which scientists had tracked for nearly 50 years. By examining woody biomass from the rainforest, which typically holds a large amount of carbon, researchers found that the forest is emitting more carbon than it absorbs—and this switch happened about 25 years ago.
"Carbon Plunging". Seems like a suitable phrase for unplugging the carbon sinks that are now sources. My mitigation recipe: Stop emissions, plunge clogged carbon sinks, and remove carbon.😙
It would take a small book to explain all the considerations, but my view is that if everyone does their best, and trillions of dollars are invested in mitigation, and trillions more in carbon capture, we can realistically hope to reach an equilibrium somewhere between 3 and 4 degrees C warming by 2100. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe everyone in the world will decide to stop eating beef and dairy in the next few years. But just in case those sorts of things don't happen, a rational people would start planning for 3-4 degrees of warming.
The example that comes to mind is a series of events in the 1930s. Our Navy ran a War Games scenario of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. In the scenario, the whole US Pacific fleet was sunk at anchor. No one paid any attention, so they ran the War Game again with the same result. After the 3rd run, the Admirals went to testify before Congress, asking for money to fortify the base. Our Senator's response was that they didn't believe that the Japanese had either the capacity or the will to attack Pearl Harbor. No money was appropriated for it's defense. It's just really hard to get people to recognize future danger, no matter how clear the evidence is.
It's like the description of stock market or property bubbles: The investment industry doesn't acknowledge problems until they are blindingly obvious. (For them, it's only blindingly obvious in hindsight.)
When Miami's property market finally collapses, I expect there'll be a domino effect across major coastal cities.
That, I think, is when people will begin to take warming seriously. When Miami and Boston have to evacuate significant portions of their population because neighborhoods are flooding everyday at high tide, and corn won't grow in Nebraska because it's too hot and dry, then we will begin to see mitigation and adaption become popular issues.
My gut feeling is 2C sets off the failsafe alarm. Seems almost impossible to avoid with the status quo climate attitude. I absolutely that marker triggers non-lame action. Am for reflecting now on the surface where we can but sadly that will delay the inevitable 2C trigger and the encumbered damage of additional heated years will just make the failsafe actions so much harder. The treadmill runs faster and we get nowhere.
January 2025 crossed 1.7 degrees C warming. I predict we'll have months at least, probably whole years, above 2.0 degrees C warming in the early 2030s. So, we'll see pretty soon.
One of my goals for my new Substack site, https://justdean.substack.com, is to track the on-going progress of New Mexico as a leading state in wind and solar. In my latest post, I make what I think is an interesting comparison to South Australia.
Unfortunately, our grid and utility ownership makes it such that we don't always use the electricity generated closest to us. For instance, the SunZia wind project in NM will export electricity to Arizona and California and at the same time my utility, PNM imports power to NM from the Palo Verde nuclear power plant west of Phoenix.
That might not be physically true. It might just be the billing that's remote.
In pipelines, contracted gas might flow into a valve in Louisiana and magically come out of a valve in Illinois. Likewise, electricity is fungible. (Actually, electricity is innately more interchangeable than natural gas, which varies in a number of qualities.)
1. The new SunZia wind project will be connected to Arizona via a dedicated HVDC transmission line.
2. PNM (Public Service of New Mexico) owns a part of Palo Verde in Arizona and promotes the fact that they have been supplying clean energy from there to their NM customers, for over 30 years.
3. The Four Corners coal plant in NM is majority owned by Arizona Public Service. They have chosen to extend the retirement of that plant from 2031 to 2038 because of their power requirement needs in Arizona.
I suppose Arizona, which like NM has insane amounts of solar, wants the complementary timing of wind power that it can only get from the wind belt (in NM), making their energy supply have more of a duck curve than a tortoise.
My vote for the biggest story is that China—just based on its own self-interest—has become as close to a climate safety net for the planet as we could have hoped. Few Americans have any idea how fast Chinese technology in so many areas has advanced: Western industry analysts and international balance of power assessments have grossly underestimated their accomplishments via control of supply chains, advanced technology, hyper-automated manufacturing, the original Belt and Road and their digital Belt and Road initiatives. They've been strategically grooming countries of the Global South for both resources and markets, and it is paying off big time.
Chinese companies now lead the world in cost-effective manufacturing of RE, batteries, high speed rail and EV tech, and are rapidly advancing in remote sensing (via satellites and drones) and cost-effective *usable* AI. They're building ports, railways and factories (EV, solar panels, batteries) around the world. They provide the technology to make countries more energy independent, such that those countries no long have to spend so much of their money on fossil fuel.
The US model relies on corporate thinking that has switched from innovation and productivity to rent-seeking behavior and share price hyping (aka "shareholder value").
Exhibit A: Boeing
Exhibit B: Every company mentioned in Doctorow's "Enshittification" (Facebook/Meta, Google, Amazon)
If you ever watch business shows (e.g., on CNBC), just remember that the "smart money" can be extremely stupid. It pretty much means "financial mob consensus" (unthinking sheep).
With regard to your observation, "The only discussion of the science was befuddled recognition that something was wrong with the models, which did not reproduce the rapid warming of the past several years.[21]," in early January I commented on an article that in 2025 a study was published showing that Australian rain forests changed from carbon sinks to carbon sources around 2004, and another study found that an African rain forest chanced from sink to source around 2010. My position was that if models have been treating sources as sinks for a generation, it's difficult to see how they could have accurately predicted the recent "unexpected" temperature increases. Andrew Dessler replied, "The most comprehensive class of climate models do have an interactive carbon cycle in them. So in theory, at least, they should be able to simulate changed like this. However, I agree that our confidence in those processes in the model should be low since we don’t have a lot of data to validate them."
Happy New Year! I have started my own Substack this year and have just posted an article entitled, "Why I believe climate change is real, serious and caused by humans - We are conducting an unprecedented experiment - and Earth is the laboratory" . Here is the link, https://justdean.substack.com/p/why-i-believe-climate-change-is-real . I would really appreciate it if you would take a quick look - maybe glance at the figures - and let me know what you think. Obviously, some of the observations and points are a direct result of following both of you. Thanks, Dean
Thank you for all of your work, Zeke and Andrew! Like others, I also want to wish you a Happy New Year!
I also have a question. I enjoy reading other people's predictions, including the ones you and James Hansen published recently. As I was making my way through various 2026 prediction threads, I encountered a seemingly very confident suggestion of 1.57-1.67°C (central estimates) for 2026, depending on how strong the coming El Nino ends up being.
Plausible? Sure. However, I think that the uncertainty range is a bit small, so I'd be doubtful. Zeke's prediction is for closer to 1.4C (a bit cooler than 2025), which seems more reasonable given the state of ENSO.
A shutdown of the AMOC would not lead to an ice age. This has happened before (about 12K years ago) and it cooled the climate a bit, but did not drive us into an ice age. The main impact would be cooling of Western Europe.
Last year Stefan Rahmstorf gave a technical talk about the evidence related to the slowing of the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation). The last 8 minutes he switched to talking about what we could expect as a result of the AMOC collapsing. This video is cued up to that part of the talk:
Happy New Year Zeke and Andrew!
Thank you for all your great climate reporting. It'll make 2026 better for me and all.
My take on:
2025:
The year the climate change movement and ESG got stymied by Trump and far right politicians globally.
2026:
Newton's opposite and equal force to the suppression of the climate change movement. There will be a revival in activism, journalism, and governance for mitigating climate change.
That being said, every year we delay the deeper we sink in the quicksand and the harder it will be to get out of it.
Research showed that a rain forest in Australia turned from carbon sink to carbon source around 2000, and an African rain forest changed from sink to source around 2010. I predict that in 2026 climate scientists will begin to realize that this means that it was impossible for IPCC models to accurately predict the recent "unexpected" warming events. Because the models have been treating carbon sources as carbon sinks for a generation now, they must necessarily be underestimating the speed and severity of warming, now and in the future.
The most comprehensive class of climate models do have an interactive carbon cycle in them. So in theory, at least, they should be able to simulate changed like this. However, I agree that our confidence in those processes in the model should be low since we don’t have a lot of data to validate them.
Well, given that the studies confirming the change in rain forest emissions status were basically just published, it wouldn't be possible for the models have adjusted yet, would it? We also have a just published study finding that models have consistently underestimated the factors driving drought in the Amazon, that there are positive feedback loops (nonlinear increases in emissions) from the deep fissures in drought stricken land, the difference between our observed energy budget and the energy budget predicted by models, the loss of CO2 absorption by the stoma in the leaves of drought/heat stricken trees. All of these studies say in their abstracts that either current models don't account for their data, or the things they are measuring are increasing in a nonlinear fashion whereas the models treat them as being linear increases.
Do you expect an adjustment by models to show faster warming then they currently predict? I asked GPT5.1 to look at the difference between the forces driving warming described in the recent research and the assumptions current models are predicting. GPT5 predict 3 degrees C warming by 2050, based in current middle path models predictions, and the amount of extra warming the new research suggests.
Thanks for your comment, Mr. Mankoff. I'm inclined to give it provisional credence, but I'd appreciate links to the specific rainforest studies you cite. TIA.
Also: interesting GPT results. I've had some LLM results that were lucid, concise, and correct as far as my own prolonged formal education, subsequent self-education, and the links provided could confirm. Often its sources are Wikipedia articles. Try asking Google's Gemini GPT "How does cladistics differ from previous systematics paradigms?" I literally couldn't say it better than Gemini myself!
I've also seen ludicrously incorrect responses, presented with seeming smug overconfidence, and sources that say no such thing. Last month, I asked ChatGPT's free page "What federal agency is RFK Jr. employed by?", and was told he wasn't employed by any federal agency, and the AI agent insisted quite confidently that any information I had to the contrary was fake! It turned out ChatGPT wasn't allowed to search the Internet for my queries because I wasn't a paid subscriber, and it had only a year-old cached copy of HHS.gov to go on.
IOW: out of date, incorrect info is free from OpenAI, but correct information costs extra 8^(! As I already subscribe to a number of Google services, I may as well stick with Gemini, I guess. At least until they ask me to pay more for correct answers. And I'll always follow up at least some of its sources.
The research, published October 15 in the journal Nature, analyzed data from around 11,000 trees in wet tropical rainforests in Australia’s northeast region, which scientists had tracked for nearly 50 years. By examining woody biomass from the rainforest, which typically holds a large amount of carbon, researchers found that the forest is emitting more carbon than it absorbs—and this switch happened about 25 years ago.
OMG! I apologize for calling you by someone else's name 8^(. Senior moment!
"Carbon Plunging". Seems like a suitable phrase for unplugging the carbon sinks that are now sources. My mitigation recipe: Stop emissions, plunge clogged carbon sinks, and remove carbon.😙
It would take a small book to explain all the considerations, but my view is that if everyone does their best, and trillions of dollars are invested in mitigation, and trillions more in carbon capture, we can realistically hope to reach an equilibrium somewhere between 3 and 4 degrees C warming by 2100. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe everyone in the world will decide to stop eating beef and dairy in the next few years. But just in case those sorts of things don't happen, a rational people would start planning for 3-4 degrees of warming.
"a rational people would start planning..."
----
We ain't that. Not even close.
The example that comes to mind is a series of events in the 1930s. Our Navy ran a War Games scenario of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. In the scenario, the whole US Pacific fleet was sunk at anchor. No one paid any attention, so they ran the War Game again with the same result. After the 3rd run, the Admirals went to testify before Congress, asking for money to fortify the base. Our Senator's response was that they didn't believe that the Japanese had either the capacity or the will to attack Pearl Harbor. No money was appropriated for it's defense. It's just really hard to get people to recognize future danger, no matter how clear the evidence is.
It's like the description of stock market or property bubbles: The investment industry doesn't acknowledge problems until they are blindingly obvious. (For them, it's only blindingly obvious in hindsight.)
When Miami's property market finally collapses, I expect there'll be a domino effect across major coastal cities.
That, I think, is when people will begin to take warming seriously. When Miami and Boston have to evacuate significant portions of their population because neighborhoods are flooding everyday at high tide, and corn won't grow in Nebraska because it's too hot and dry, then we will begin to see mitigation and adaption become popular issues.
My gut feeling is 2C sets off the failsafe alarm. Seems almost impossible to avoid with the status quo climate attitude. I absolutely that marker triggers non-lame action. Am for reflecting now on the surface where we can but sadly that will delay the inevitable 2C trigger and the encumbered damage of additional heated years will just make the failsafe actions so much harder. The treadmill runs faster and we get nowhere.
January 2025 crossed 1.7 degrees C warming. I predict we'll have months at least, probably whole years, above 2.0 degrees C warming in the early 2030s. So, we'll see pretty soon.
2C I see coming like looking where my ride is at on the Uber map. It's close.. Just don't know how many traffic lights might delay it
Who rage hates on Climate Brink? Give them a boop on their noses is what I'll do.
Indeed, happy Solstice and subsequent New Year! Somewhat belatedly, as it's now 1/1/2026. As much as I might wish to deny it 8^)!
May all your positive predictions come true!!
One of my goals for my new Substack site, https://justdean.substack.com, is to track the on-going progress of New Mexico as a leading state in wind and solar. In my latest post, I make what I think is an interesting comparison to South Australia.
I see Santa Fe is located in the US wind belt. It helps if such resources are near population centers to reduce transmission costs.
Unfortunately, our grid and utility ownership makes it such that we don't always use the electricity generated closest to us. For instance, the SunZia wind project in NM will export electricity to Arizona and California and at the same time my utility, PNM imports power to NM from the Palo Verde nuclear power plant west of Phoenix.
That might not be physically true. It might just be the billing that's remote.
In pipelines, contracted gas might flow into a valve in Louisiana and magically come out of a valve in Illinois. Likewise, electricity is fungible. (Actually, electricity is innately more interchangeable than natural gas, which varies in a number of qualities.)
NS,
Here is what I know:
1. The new SunZia wind project will be connected to Arizona via a dedicated HVDC transmission line.
2. PNM (Public Service of New Mexico) owns a part of Palo Verde in Arizona and promotes the fact that they have been supplying clean energy from there to their NM customers, for over 30 years.
3. The Four Corners coal plant in NM is majority owned by Arizona Public Service. They have chosen to extend the retirement of that plant from 2031 to 2038 because of their power requirement needs in Arizona.
-Dean
I suppose Arizona, which like NM has insane amounts of solar, wants the complementary timing of wind power that it can only get from the wind belt (in NM), making their energy supply have more of a duck curve than a tortoise.
My vote for the biggest story is that China—just based on its own self-interest—has become as close to a climate safety net for the planet as we could have hoped. Few Americans have any idea how fast Chinese technology in so many areas has advanced: Western industry analysts and international balance of power assessments have grossly underestimated their accomplishments via control of supply chains, advanced technology, hyper-automated manufacturing, the original Belt and Road and their digital Belt and Road initiatives. They've been strategically grooming countries of the Global South for both resources and markets, and it is paying off big time.
Chinese companies now lead the world in cost-effective manufacturing of RE, batteries, high speed rail and EV tech, and are rapidly advancing in remote sensing (via satellites and drones) and cost-effective *usable* AI. They're building ports, railways and factories (EV, solar panels, batteries) around the world. They provide the technology to make countries more energy independent, such that those countries no long have to spend so much of their money on fossil fuel.
Which begs the question, "Why the hell can't America do better than them?". We are sadly devolving as we are 🔥
The US model relies on corporate thinking that has switched from innovation and productivity to rent-seeking behavior and share price hyping (aka "shareholder value").
Exhibit A: Boeing
Exhibit B: Every company mentioned in Doctorow's "Enshittification" (Facebook/Meta, Google, Amazon)
If you ever watch business shows (e.g., on CNBC), just remember that the "smart money" can be extremely stupid. It pretty much means "financial mob consensus" (unthinking sheep).
Good point! When does Deep Unthink go public?🤑
Kevin Walmsley, of the Inside China Business YouTube channel, is frustrated by all of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0a6IDHRq1o
We must change our polluting habits. Conscient Of the consequences of our actions. Consuming just for consuming must stop.
With regard to your observation, "The only discussion of the science was befuddled recognition that something was wrong with the models, which did not reproduce the rapid warming of the past several years.[21]," in early January I commented on an article that in 2025 a study was published showing that Australian rain forests changed from carbon sinks to carbon sources around 2004, and another study found that an African rain forest chanced from sink to source around 2010. My position was that if models have been treating sources as sinks for a generation, it's difficult to see how they could have accurately predicted the recent "unexpected" temperature increases. Andrew Dessler replied, "The most comprehensive class of climate models do have an interactive carbon cycle in them. So in theory, at least, they should be able to simulate changed like this. However, I agree that our confidence in those processes in the model should be low since we don’t have a lot of data to validate them."
Zeke and Andrew,
Happy New Year! I have started my own Substack this year and have just posted an article entitled, "Why I believe climate change is real, serious and caused by humans - We are conducting an unprecedented experiment - and Earth is the laboratory" . Here is the link, https://justdean.substack.com/p/why-i-believe-climate-change-is-real . I would really appreciate it if you would take a quick look - maybe glance at the figures - and let me know what you think. Obviously, some of the observations and points are a direct result of following both of you. Thanks, Dean
Just wanted to share that I've started a substack that might be of interest to readers of this one: https://open.substack.com/pub/thesaraphreport/p/an-endangerment-finding-story?r=ywmw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thank you for all of your work, Zeke and Andrew! Like others, I also want to wish you a Happy New Year!
I also have a question. I enjoy reading other people's predictions, including the ones you and James Hansen published recently. As I was making my way through various 2026 prediction threads, I encountered a seemingly very confident suggestion of 1.57-1.67°C (central estimates) for 2026, depending on how strong the coming El Nino ends up being.
Do you think this is plausible at all?
Plausible? Sure. However, I think that the uncertainty range is a bit small, so I'd be doubtful. Zeke's prediction is for closer to 1.4C (a bit cooler than 2025), which seems more reasonable given the state of ENSO.
Is a return to an Ice Age possible in the Northern Hemisphere when the Gulf Stream shuts down, in the near future (in my opinion...☘️??
A shutdown of the AMOC would not lead to an ice age. This has happened before (about 12K years ago) and it cooled the climate a bit, but did not drive us into an ice age. The main impact would be cooling of Western Europe.
And the name changed to WHATMOC
Last year Stefan Rahmstorf gave a technical talk about the evidence related to the slowing of the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation). The last 8 minutes he switched to talking about what we could expect as a result of the AMOC collapsing. This video is cued up to that part of the talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX7wAsdSE60#t=41m50s