Appreciate this very much. I saw the NYT article, then saw a famous climate scientist holding forth on Bluesky about his dim view of acceleration. Naturally, I went to Forster's website and read his take. But, I really needed a comprehensive view.
That famous scientist also stuck religiously to the slowdown or hiatus view (and even co-authored a paper to that effect, IIRC) but eventually was forced (by overwhelming evidence) to admit that there really was no slowdown. I don't think he ever acknowledged that he changed his mind.
Fitting linear trends is always a very bad thing to do because it emphasizes the end points. Besides, given the changing climate there is no reason at all for anything to be linear. It is reasonable before about 1970 to fit a linear trend, as has been shown many places, but then acceleration upwards is mandatory. The question should be has it stopped? Indeed, once again water vapor feedback is ignored. It can only kick in as temperatures rise and an assessment indicates the net forcing matches or even exceeds that of CO2 increases since 1970. But it is a feedback, one of many. Ice-albedo feedback is another obvious one. That will cease when all the ice is gone!
There are indeed issues with EEI. The last points are very ordinary, highlighting variability. And the first 3 years are too low as that was when there was only one satellite. So the trend is slightly inflated. In any case it is caused mostly by changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation as the tropics (down branch Hadley) get wider and storm tracks and the jet streams over the oceans move polewards.
Given that emissions keep rising, natural carbon sinks are becoming less efficient, and cooling aerosols are decreasing, it would be surprising if warning wasn't accelerating.
There are plenty of good estimates of emissions impacts, but it won't really show up noticeably in global temperatures in the near-term given the magnitudes of emissions involved.
Is Trump much different from Democrats? Has Trump actually cut back on renewable expansion or is it like other threats?
Would it make any difference anyway? Renewables are just an energy addition- Biden was still backing new fossil fuels, producing LNG and doing nothing to cut back on animal ag.
I gather you're not in the USA, Jo. You may not realize that our political system was carefully crafted to forestall tyranny, not to ensure social progress or even good government. The founders explicitly distrusted anyone who sought power (mostly because they themselves each did). Consequently, US voters can only ever choose between greater and lesser evils. Biden was AFAICT the lesser evil in 2020, and Harris in 2024. The US Republican Party leadership is wholly owned by carbon capital, while cowed by Trump's "populist" (here's irony) appeal. The Democratic Party at least acknowledges the need to decarbonize the US economy collectively, as in the "Inflation Reduction" Act of 2022. The IRA was enacted by bare Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Not a single Republican in either house voted Yea. VP Harris cast the tie-breaking Senate vote, and Biden signed it. Our first national climate-change policy, enacted 34 years after Jim Hansen's testimony before Congress! Better than no policy, at least.
Pragmatic climate realists recognize that decarbonization will happen incrementally, and that "perfect" is the enemy of "better than it would otherwise be" at every step. That applies to carbon-neutral energy development: after installation, every kWh of solar, wind or nuclear power generated is one less kWh of fossil carbon that would otherwise be burned, with more and more of the energy to produce carbon-neutral generators itself carbon-neutral as supply ramps up. When fossil carbon emissions finally cease, all humanity's other impacts on the biosphere will continue as before, but at least it will be in a stable climate! IMHO, that's better than it would be without collective decarbonization.
In any case, US Presidential elections are often decided by the slimmest of majorities, which can flip unpredictably. While cleverly contrived checks and balances are written into our Constitution, we've seen that it's nonetheless capable of empowering a kakistocracy. All its members have to do is persuade a bare majority of voters to distrust them less than their opponents, or else a few million not to vote at all. IOW, we get the government only slightly more than half of us deserve. Again, I apologize for my country's free ride on the decarbonization efforts of other nations. The IRA, now under attack by gloating Republicans, was our country's first collective contribution to the "green vortex" driving global carbon-neutral buildout, that is our only realistic hope for capping otherwise open-ended global warming. The Democrats are currently the de facto US party of collective action for common good. You'd all better hope they start winning again!
'Pragmatic climate realists recognize that decarbonization will happen incrementally, and that "perfect" is the enemy of "better than it would otherwise be" at every step. That applies to carbon-neutral energy development: after installation, every kWh of solar, wind or nuclear power generated is one less kWh of fossil carbon that would otherwise be burned, '
Are you mad?
Every kWh of solar, wind or nuclear generated is one extra kWh added to those of fossil carbon that's still being burned.
In China electricity is 50% non-fossil fuel capacity but capacity has increased 6 fold overall ie there's 3 times as much fossil fuel usage over the period 2005 to 2023. I'm not saying that to smear China, but to make the point, even about the leader in renewable energy.
Climate 'realist' you sound like bipartisan Project 25 (fossil fuel, animal ag, arms, tech and media's think tank) who run Washington and who malign 'climate alarmists' who are going to destroy the economy.
There is not time for an incremental transition- we haven't even started one! Climate crisis is with us. The economy will not be the problem when people aren't able to grow food to live.
We could all go plant based which would free up 37% of habitable land for reforestation which would actually start to cool the Earth while we figure out how to develop a degrowth model.
But i see no political nor public will for this (everyone is too brainwashed).
Jo, one thing I've learned by my 8th decade: the world is as it is, not as I wish it. Everyone else has agency too, for marginally better or disastrously worse. They may be far too easily fooled, but ultimately they spend their own money and cast their own votes. It's mad - solipsistic - to think otherwise. You said it yourself, you see no political will for decarbonization. Explicitly rejecting mood-congruent nihilism, I see a slim hope, not none. I won't enumerate my reasons, because you wouldn't see them as I do. I'm mostly glad I (knocks on head in lieu of wood) won't be around past 2050. The living will then judge, each for yourselves, whether or not a hot, violent, species-depauperate globe is better than an even hotter, more violent and impoverished one.
Considering the fatal consequences of global warming, I find nitpicking over whether there has been an uptick in the last 15 years nearly pointless. We are allowing an existential threat to run away. Let's just assume the worst, and act accordingly. These academic debates delay action. It's time for climate scientists to recognize their rigor is contributing to the problem. Get off your academic pedestals and start screaming at the top of your lungs.
Geoffrey Deihl, I, for one, agree with your third sentence. But "nitpicking" is what scientists do when nailing down detailed understanding of phenomena. It's not pointless for the scientists! Nor do I think their rigor is contributing to the problem. Yes, "we" (Americans, especially) are shamefully dragging our feet on decarbonizing our national economy, free-riding on the collective efforts of other nations. "We" (a bare majority of US voters) are willfully denying the long-settled scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming. AFAICT, however, academic debates aren't what's delaying action. That sure looks to me like the pernicious hand of carbon capital on our levers of power for decades, manifested in the current kakistocracy (i.e. "government by the worst"). Fossil fuel producers and investors have long known it takes money to make money. The Koch club has invested heavily in flooding the public sphere with disinformation, since long before the tobacco trials of the '90s. With so much profit at stake, they're willing to spend lavishly on professional political saboteurs, to hold off collective intervention in their revenues as long as possible.
Professional and volunteer denialists may scoff at the above, calling it a conspiracy theory. Yet the immense long-term influence of fossil-fuel billionaires and their "charitable" foundations on our government is a matter of public record, at the very least in books like 1998's "The Heat is On", 2013's "Dark Money", and "Kochland" in 2019. As a conspiracy, it's pretty brazen! And it's all been adjudicated legal, by a picked SCOTUS. "Dark Money" author Jane Mayer said, in a "New Yorker" book review of business reporter Christopher Leonard's "Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America":
'If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of "Kochland"...'
You make many great points, and are obviously well-informed. Thank you for the New Yorker link, unfortunately it's paywalled, but in any case I am sadly aware of the Koch brothers toxic legacy.
To be clear, I believe in scientific rigor. Jumping to conclusions is best left to the ignorant and the majority of our political class. I'm sure we both agree climate change and overshoot have been proven scientifically. If anything, they have been underestimated as computer models have failed to keep up. To me, continuing to argue about the details is a fool's game at a time that nothing short of radical action will do. Peter Kalmus embodies what I would like to see, Michael Mann can go rot. Thank you for your comment.
Considering the number of positive feedbacks, both in terms of natural emission sources (and sinks) and reduction in albedo, isn't acceleration the null hypothesis?
Even considering carbon sinks and feedbacks, we'd expect a pretty linear relationship between cumulative emissions and warming. What has changed notably in recent years is aerosol forcings.
Do you mind elaborating on the EEI point? The rise in EEI is shockingly high, as you noted. If we nail down that value with certainty, does that conclusively prove that ECS is high (more in the range of what Hansen would predict)?
However, there is only a loose correlation between model ECS and EEI over the past decade or two, so while it suggests an ECS >2.5C its hard to use it for a precise constraint.
Thanks that makes sense. If the EEI keeps growing at this rapid rate (say, another decade), am I right to assume that the correlation between ECS and EEI will be stronger? I guess I am wondering why we wouldn’t see the EEI accelerate further if the drivers of that acceleration (either aerosol reductions of reduced cloud cover) continue to follow recent trends. Recent papers tracking reduced cloud reflectivity are especially alarming.
Even if the natural variability is difficult to quantify not including them will distort results unless we want a couple of decades of waiting to see to assess the progression of global warming - delay which we cannot afford. Well, not unless we are already fully committed to emissions reductions and whether to act is not a question - where it tells us how well we are progressing. Not that I think that, taking eg the IPCC and other climate reports at face value, we don't already know the problem is real and world-changing and extremely serious, nor that we don't know that decarbonising is an urgent necessity.
I have wondered how far Foster and Rahmstorf's approach can be taken - beyond ENSO, volcanic aerosols and Solar variation - that by quantifying and subtracting enough of all kinds of natural variability that the warming signal is fully exposed.
For 60 years ,HydroeIectric Machinery Throughout The subarctic/ Arctic Continues to Damage
IittIe if any efforts have been made by most scientists to dig into this issue. Most remain in their siIos, rareIy exchanging ideas ,information, and grant monies often come with strings attached. It is a no wonder that there's great acceIeration of CIimate heating. Scientists battIe out differences whiIe "Rome Burns".
But here's the scoop that few are foIIowing the so caIIed CIimate EIephant in the room being dismissed but needs to be deaIt with before we get out from under crushing cIimate.
Of course aII egos aside do we want to take into consideration something right under our noses? Here are two items worth more time and research:
Memorandum
From: Stephen M. Kasprzak
Cc: Climate Staff Date: June 30, 2025
Subject: Arctic water emissions (AWE) from subarctic and Arctic mega hydroelectric power stations(AMPS) are the paramount greenhouse gas driving global warming
The USA EPA’s hypothesis, that human activities - particularly emissions of fossil fuel-heat-trapping greenhouse gases - are most responsible for making our planet warmer is unsound because it fails to recognize the rapid increase in manufactured (AWE).
The annual average temperature in Key West, Florida, has increased by 1.4° F and by more than 6° F since 1952 at some Arctic weather stations. The six month (Jan Apr,Nov,Dec) winter average temperatures have increased as much as 10 degress driven by step increases in precipitation (See attached table, maps and graphs).
The Canadian Arctic and Siberian Arctic are two of the fastest warming regions on Earth. If carbon and methane emissions are the major drivers, and given the minimal solar radiation available to be trapped during the sun starved winters by these fossil fuel greenhouse gases, then Arctic summers (May-Oct), with up to 24 hours of sunlight, should be warming faster or at least equal to the winters. Just the opposite is happening and the winters are warming many times faster according to the weather data in Abbreviated AWE by Stephen Kasprzak, June 24, 2025. This change is driven by extreme and abrupt increases in Arctic water vapor emissions(AWE) and churned Atlantic warmth (CAW) pumped up into estuaries propelled by huge increases of winter river discharges from the warmed, regulated, fIows introduced by Arctic mega power stations (AMPSs). This has been going on for over 55 years.
Water vapor is the most plentiful and powerful greenhouse gas and is vital for maintaining a climate habitable for life on Earth. However, AMPS and their manufactured AWE and CAW have wrecked the natural hydraulic, thermal and salinity equilibrium between the Labrador Current and Gulf Stream. AMPS have also altered the delicate estuarine balance between seasonal freshwater inflows of subarctic and Arctic rivers. The churning AMPS create is acting as a pump, drawing in relatively warmer deep saltwater from the sea in winter through deep gorges and pulling it up to the surface of the estuaries to mix with the regulated discharged waters from these AMPS furthering the heat pollution of the Arctic seas. AWE and CAW must be included in future climate change studies and model.
Second, the trends are different depending on ENSO status, with El Niño being notably faster. Graph included in the article. There is a graph here with data through May 2025: https://briefedbydata.substack.com/p/qtrs-june-26-2025
Auto-fisking by LLM may be the solution to Brandolini's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law). OTOH, what happens if two LLMs face off (so to speak) in the comment section? Heck, AFAIK "Henry Miller" could be a simple script, drawing from a standard database of denialist memes. What's an earnest wetware advocate for collective decarbonization to do?
Tedious, repetitive tasks eventually get automated. Here's the reply to "Henry Miller" generated by ChatGPT's "Post Comment Reply Generator":
"Perfect — here’s a savage mic-drop comeback for that:
"Nah, the sky’s not falling — it’s just getting hotter, stormier, and more expensive for people pretending it’s business as usual. Denial won’t stop reality from cashing the check."
I don't know about "savage", but sarcasm is certainly justified in responses to the relentless onslaught of undead, anti-collectivist, science-denialist memes seeking brains.
If decreasing aerosol emissions are the primary culprit for an acceleration in warning, then does that suggest there may eventually be a deceleration as aerosol emissions reduce to zero? Or are we still far enough away from that point that it's premature to look for that?
We are pushing closer to tipping points every day. As we hit them, and we no doubt will given that human driven forcing is increasing not slowing, all those linear charts will go exponential real fast. Civilization will collapse in short order.
Thank you for this great review. Considering the warming acceleration is already modelled in SSPs, do we already know if the rate of acceleration was correct? (Are we accelerating faster than expected ?)
Appreciate this very much. I saw the NYT article, then saw a famous climate scientist holding forth on Bluesky about his dim view of acceleration. Naturally, I went to Forster's website and read his take. But, I really needed a comprehensive view.
That famous scientist also stuck religiously to the slowdown or hiatus view (and even co-authored a paper to that effect, IIRC) but eventually was forced (by overwhelming evidence) to admit that there really was no slowdown. I don't think he ever acknowledged that he changed his mind.
Fitting linear trends is always a very bad thing to do because it emphasizes the end points. Besides, given the changing climate there is no reason at all for anything to be linear. It is reasonable before about 1970 to fit a linear trend, as has been shown many places, but then acceleration upwards is mandatory. The question should be has it stopped? Indeed, once again water vapor feedback is ignored. It can only kick in as temperatures rise and an assessment indicates the net forcing matches or even exceeds that of CO2 increases since 1970. But it is a feedback, one of many. Ice-albedo feedback is another obvious one. That will cease when all the ice is gone!
There are indeed issues with EEI. The last points are very ordinary, highlighting variability. And the first 3 years are too low as that was when there was only one satellite. So the trend is slightly inflated. In any case it is caused mostly by changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation as the tropics (down branch Hadley) get wider and storm tracks and the jet streams over the oceans move polewards.
Given that emissions keep rising, natural carbon sinks are becoming less efficient, and cooling aerosols are decreasing, it would be surprising if warning wasn't accelerating.
Not only are atmospheric carbon levels glutting natural carbon sinks, we're actively removing some others.
SETI needs to update their Drake equation.
Been thinking the same thing. Is this another "Great Filter?"
No, just more proof of the fragility of a civilization that can't scale beyond its evolutionary history.
Good observations
Is there enough data to estimate the climate impact of Trump administration policies to halt all US efforts to mitigate climate change?
There are plenty of good estimates of emissions impacts, but it won't really show up noticeably in global temperatures in the near-term given the magnitudes of emissions involved.
Is Trump much different from Democrats? Has Trump actually cut back on renewable expansion or is it like other threats?
Would it make any difference anyway? Renewables are just an energy addition- Biden was still backing new fossil fuels, producing LNG and doing nothing to cut back on animal ag.
I gather you're not in the USA, Jo. You may not realize that our political system was carefully crafted to forestall tyranny, not to ensure social progress or even good government. The founders explicitly distrusted anyone who sought power (mostly because they themselves each did). Consequently, US voters can only ever choose between greater and lesser evils. Biden was AFAICT the lesser evil in 2020, and Harris in 2024. The US Republican Party leadership is wholly owned by carbon capital, while cowed by Trump's "populist" (here's irony) appeal. The Democratic Party at least acknowledges the need to decarbonize the US economy collectively, as in the "Inflation Reduction" Act of 2022. The IRA was enacted by bare Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Not a single Republican in either house voted Yea. VP Harris cast the tie-breaking Senate vote, and Biden signed it. Our first national climate-change policy, enacted 34 years after Jim Hansen's testimony before Congress! Better than no policy, at least.
Pragmatic climate realists recognize that decarbonization will happen incrementally, and that "perfect" is the enemy of "better than it would otherwise be" at every step. That applies to carbon-neutral energy development: after installation, every kWh of solar, wind or nuclear power generated is one less kWh of fossil carbon that would otherwise be burned, with more and more of the energy to produce carbon-neutral generators itself carbon-neutral as supply ramps up. When fossil carbon emissions finally cease, all humanity's other impacts on the biosphere will continue as before, but at least it will be in a stable climate! IMHO, that's better than it would be without collective decarbonization.
In any case, US Presidential elections are often decided by the slimmest of majorities, which can flip unpredictably. While cleverly contrived checks and balances are written into our Constitution, we've seen that it's nonetheless capable of empowering a kakistocracy. All its members have to do is persuade a bare majority of voters to distrust them less than their opponents, or else a few million not to vote at all. IOW, we get the government only slightly more than half of us deserve. Again, I apologize for my country's free ride on the decarbonization efforts of other nations. The IRA, now under attack by gloating Republicans, was our country's first collective contribution to the "green vortex" driving global carbon-neutral buildout, that is our only realistic hope for capping otherwise open-ended global warming. The Democrats are currently the de facto US party of collective action for common good. You'd all better hope they start winning again!
'Pragmatic climate realists recognize that decarbonization will happen incrementally, and that "perfect" is the enemy of "better than it would otherwise be" at every step. That applies to carbon-neutral energy development: after installation, every kWh of solar, wind or nuclear power generated is one less kWh of fossil carbon that would otherwise be burned, '
Are you mad?
Every kWh of solar, wind or nuclear generated is one extra kWh added to those of fossil carbon that's still being burned.
In China electricity is 50% non-fossil fuel capacity but capacity has increased 6 fold overall ie there's 3 times as much fossil fuel usage over the period 2005 to 2023. I'm not saying that to smear China, but to make the point, even about the leader in renewable energy.
Climate 'realist' you sound like bipartisan Project 25 (fossil fuel, animal ag, arms, tech and media's think tank) who run Washington and who malign 'climate alarmists' who are going to destroy the economy.
There is not time for an incremental transition- we haven't even started one! Climate crisis is with us. The economy will not be the problem when people aren't able to grow food to live.
We could all go plant based which would free up 37% of habitable land for reforestation which would actually start to cool the Earth while we figure out how to develop a degrowth model.
But i see no political nor public will for this (everyone is too brainwashed).
Jo, one thing I've learned by my 8th decade: the world is as it is, not as I wish it. Everyone else has agency too, for marginally better or disastrously worse. They may be far too easily fooled, but ultimately they spend their own money and cast their own votes. It's mad - solipsistic - to think otherwise. You said it yourself, you see no political will for decarbonization. Explicitly rejecting mood-congruent nihilism, I see a slim hope, not none. I won't enumerate my reasons, because you wouldn't see them as I do. I'm mostly glad I (knocks on head in lieu of wood) won't be around past 2050. The living will then judge, each for yourselves, whether or not a hot, violent, species-depauperate globe is better than an even hotter, more violent and impoverished one.
Considering the fatal consequences of global warming, I find nitpicking over whether there has been an uptick in the last 15 years nearly pointless. We are allowing an existential threat to run away. Let's just assume the worst, and act accordingly. These academic debates delay action. It's time for climate scientists to recognize their rigor is contributing to the problem. Get off your academic pedestals and start screaming at the top of your lungs.
Geoffrey Deihl, I, for one, agree with your third sentence. But "nitpicking" is what scientists do when nailing down detailed understanding of phenomena. It's not pointless for the scientists! Nor do I think their rigor is contributing to the problem. Yes, "we" (Americans, especially) are shamefully dragging our feet on decarbonizing our national economy, free-riding on the collective efforts of other nations. "We" (a bare majority of US voters) are willfully denying the long-settled scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming. AFAICT, however, academic debates aren't what's delaying action. That sure looks to me like the pernicious hand of carbon capital on our levers of power for decades, manifested in the current kakistocracy (i.e. "government by the worst"). Fossil fuel producers and investors have long known it takes money to make money. The Koch club has invested heavily in flooding the public sphere with disinformation, since long before the tobacco trials of the '90s. With so much profit at stake, they're willing to spend lavishly on professional political saboteurs, to hold off collective intervention in their revenues as long as possible.
Professional and volunteer denialists may scoff at the above, calling it a conspiracy theory. Yet the immense long-term influence of fossil-fuel billionaires and their "charitable" foundations on our government is a matter of public record, at the very least in books like 1998's "The Heat is On", 2013's "Dark Money", and "Kochland" in 2019. As a conspiracy, it's pretty brazen! And it's all been adjudicated legal, by a picked SCOTUS. "Dark Money" author Jane Mayer said, in a "New Yorker" book review of business reporter Christopher Leonard's "Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America":
'If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of "Kochland"...'
(https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/kochland-examines-how-the-koch-brothers-made-their-fortune-and-the-influence-it-bought).
Denialist replies may be auto-fisked.
You make many great points, and are obviously well-informed. Thank you for the New Yorker link, unfortunately it's paywalled, but in any case I am sadly aware of the Koch brothers toxic legacy.
To be clear, I believe in scientific rigor. Jumping to conclusions is best left to the ignorant and the majority of our political class. I'm sure we both agree climate change and overshoot have been proven scientifically. If anything, they have been underestimated as computer models have failed to keep up. To me, continuing to argue about the details is a fool's game at a time that nothing short of radical action will do. Peter Kalmus embodies what I would like to see, Michael Mann can go rot. Thank you for your comment.
Insert "Very long sigh."
Considering the number of positive feedbacks, both in terms of natural emission sources (and sinks) and reduction in albedo, isn't acceleration the null hypothesis?
Even considering carbon sinks and feedbacks, we'd expect a pretty linear relationship between cumulative emissions and warming. What has changed notably in recent years is aerosol forcings.
How does that compare to the atmospheric methane increase that suspiciously occurred at the same time as the fracking boom?
Do you mind elaborating on the EEI point? The rise in EEI is shockingly high, as you noted. If we nail down that value with certainty, does that conclusively prove that ECS is high (more in the range of what Hansen would predict)?
EEI is definitely on the high end (or higher than) predictions by climate models, as discussed by Myhre et al in their recent paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt0647
However, there is only a loose correlation between model ECS and EEI over the past decade or two, so while it suggests an ECS >2.5C its hard to use it for a precise constraint.
Thanks that makes sense. If the EEI keeps growing at this rapid rate (say, another decade), am I right to assume that the correlation between ECS and EEI will be stronger? I guess I am wondering why we wouldn’t see the EEI accelerate further if the drivers of that acceleration (either aerosol reductions of reduced cloud cover) continue to follow recent trends. Recent papers tracking reduced cloud reflectivity are especially alarming.
Yes, a continued multidecadal trend in EEI would likely be a stronger constraint on climate sensitivity.
Yes , a discussion of the margins of error of both ocean-heat-content increase-rate and EEI would be greatly appreciated!
Even if the natural variability is difficult to quantify not including them will distort results unless we want a couple of decades of waiting to see to assess the progression of global warming - delay which we cannot afford. Well, not unless we are already fully committed to emissions reductions and whether to act is not a question - where it tells us how well we are progressing. Not that I think that, taking eg the IPCC and other climate reports at face value, we don't already know the problem is real and world-changing and extremely serious, nor that we don't know that decarbonising is an urgent necessity.
I have wondered how far Foster and Rahmstorf's approach can be taken - beyond ENSO, volcanic aerosols and Solar variation - that by quantifying and subtracting enough of all kinds of natural variability that the warming signal is fully exposed.
At this late stage it is probably better that most of humanity is not aware of the consequences of this.
For 60 years ,HydroeIectric Machinery Throughout The subarctic/ Arctic Continues to Damage
IittIe if any efforts have been made by most scientists to dig into this issue. Most remain in their siIos, rareIy exchanging ideas ,information, and grant monies often come with strings attached. It is a no wonder that there's great acceIeration of CIimate heating. Scientists battIe out differences whiIe "Rome Burns".
But here's the scoop that few are foIIowing the so caIIed CIimate EIephant in the room being dismissed but needs to be deaIt with before we get out from under crushing cIimate.
Of course aII egos aside do we want to take into consideration something right under our noses? Here are two items worth more time and research:
Memorandum
From: Stephen M. Kasprzak
Cc: Climate Staff Date: June 30, 2025
Subject: Arctic water emissions (AWE) from subarctic and Arctic mega hydroelectric power stations(AMPS) are the paramount greenhouse gas driving global warming
The USA EPA’s hypothesis, that human activities - particularly emissions of fossil fuel-heat-trapping greenhouse gases - are most responsible for making our planet warmer is unsound because it fails to recognize the rapid increase in manufactured (AWE).
The annual average temperature in Key West, Florida, has increased by 1.4° F and by more than 6° F since 1952 at some Arctic weather stations. The six month (Jan Apr,Nov,Dec) winter average temperatures have increased as much as 10 degress driven by step increases in precipitation (See attached table, maps and graphs).
The Canadian Arctic and Siberian Arctic are two of the fastest warming regions on Earth. If carbon and methane emissions are the major drivers, and given the minimal solar radiation available to be trapped during the sun starved winters by these fossil fuel greenhouse gases, then Arctic summers (May-Oct), with up to 24 hours of sunlight, should be warming faster or at least equal to the winters. Just the opposite is happening and the winters are warming many times faster according to the weather data in Abbreviated AWE by Stephen Kasprzak, June 24, 2025. This change is driven by extreme and abrupt increases in Arctic water vapor emissions(AWE) and churned Atlantic warmth (CAW) pumped up into estuaries propelled by huge increases of winter river discharges from the warmed, regulated, fIows introduced by Arctic mega power stations (AMPSs). This has been going on for over 55 years.
Water vapor is the most plentiful and powerful greenhouse gas and is vital for maintaining a climate habitable for life on Earth. However, AMPS and their manufactured AWE and CAW have wrecked the natural hydraulic, thermal and salinity equilibrium between the Labrador Current and Gulf Stream. AMPS have also altered the delicate estuarine balance between seasonal freshwater inflows of subarctic and Arctic rivers. The churning AMPS create is acting as a pump, drawing in relatively warmer deep saltwater from the sea in winter through deep gorges and pulling it up to the surface of the estuaries to mix with the regulated discharged waters from these AMPS furthering the heat pollution of the Arctic seas. AWE and CAW must be included in future climate change studies and model.
We have data/ maps to go with the above statements,wiII send to your emaiI address
The second Item: A podcast
https://r3genesis.substack.com/p/164-the-earth-sauna-audio-version?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=899805&post_id=162800940&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=play_card_post_title&r=2ddkm6&triedRedirect=true
A simple curve fit to the data has shown for decades that warming is a quadratic trend and not linear (same for CO₂). Hence, warming will increase. I wrote about that and the NYT article two years ago. https://briefedbydata.substack.com/p/a-response-to-a-nyt-climate-article
Second, the trends are different depending on ENSO status, with El Niño being notably faster. Graph included in the article. There is a graph here with data through May 2025: https://briefedbydata.substack.com/p/qtrs-june-26-2025
Yeah, we know, the sky is falling.
Auto-fisking by LLM may be the solution to Brandolini's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law). OTOH, what happens if two LLMs face off (so to speak) in the comment section? Heck, AFAIK "Henry Miller" could be a simple script, drawing from a standard database of denialist memes. What's an earnest wetware advocate for collective decarbonization to do?
Tedious, repetitive tasks eventually get automated. Here's the reply to "Henry Miller" generated by ChatGPT's "Post Comment Reply Generator":
"Perfect — here’s a savage mic-drop comeback for that:
"Nah, the sky’s not falling — it’s just getting hotter, stormier, and more expensive for people pretending it’s business as usual. Denial won’t stop reality from cashing the check."
I don't know about "savage", but sarcasm is certainly justified in responses to the relentless onslaught of undead, anti-collectivist, science-denialist memes seeking brains.
If decreasing aerosol emissions are the primary culprit for an acceleration in warning, then does that suggest there may eventually be a deceleration as aerosol emissions reduce to zero? Or are we still far enough away from that point that it's premature to look for that?
We are pushing closer to tipping points every day. As we hit them, and we no doubt will given that human driven forcing is increasing not slowing, all those linear charts will go exponential real fast. Civilization will collapse in short order.
Thank you for this great review. Considering the warming acceleration is already modelled in SSPs, do we already know if the rate of acceleration was correct? (Are we accelerating faster than expected ?)