Tag: Tipping Point

Should Guardian Authors be Paid in Hugs to Reduce Climate Damage?

If money and growth cause emissions (through spending, production, travel, etc.), then paying writers in non- monetary hugs would eliminate that “cascade of greenhouse gas emissions” from cash circulation. Promotions could mean extra daily hugs instead of raises; senior staff could retire rich in affection while their salaries stay locked away. It’s clearly tongue- in- cheek ridicule, implying anti- growth advocates should practice what they preach and of course, no serious publication (Guardian or otherwise) would adopt it.

A cartoon depicting diverse characters promoting climate action, with a sign reading 'Guardian Authors paid in hugs' and stacks of money symbolizing 'affection wealth'. Characters are gathered around a planet with a thermometer and a speech bubble saying 'Hug me for climate action!'

If money and growth cause emissions (through spending, production, travel, etc.), then paying writers in non- monetary hugs would eliminate that “cascade of greenhouse gas emissions” from cash circulation.

Promotions could mean extra daily hugs instead of raises; senior staff could retire rich in affection while their salaries stay locked away. It’s clearly tongue- in- cheek ridicule, implying anti- growth advocates should practice what they preach and of course, no serious publication (Guardian or otherwise) would adopt it.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Graph showing projections for resources, food per capita, industrial output, population, and pollution over time, highlighting a predicted decline by 2020 according to the Club of Rome's 'Limits to Growth'.

Guardian author Alex Clark wants the world to “move beyond” GDP as a measure of wellbeing. The experiment should start with The Guardian.

Economic growth is still heating the planet. Is there any way out?

Rising GDP continues to mean more carbon emissions and wider damage to the planet. Can the two be decoupled?

Alex Clark
Mon 9 Feb 2026 19.00 AEDT

During Cop30 negotiations in Brazil last year, delegates heard a familiar argument: rising emissions are unavoidable for countries pursuing growth.

That pattern seems to be holding. In 2024, global GDP per capita reached a new high as did annual carbon emissions. But as climate targets slip and warnings mount that tipping points may already have been crossed, faith in growth for growth’s sake is starting to fracture.

This week, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, called for economies to “move beyond GDP” as a measure of progress, warning that the world’s “existing accounting systems” were driving the planet towards disaster.

The standard run of the Limits to Growth model predicted a tipping point beginning in the 2020s.

Now we are in the 2020s and it is unclear if we are facing the scenario Limits to Growth described.

Why we have avoided this – and whether we ultimately will – are key questions in post-growth economics.

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2026/feb/09/economic-growth-carbon-emissions-impact-global-heating

The Limits to Growth. Wow.

The fact we are still happy and prosperous in the 2020s, a deadline which Limits to Growth implicitly sets as a tipping point, should be a hint that Limits to Growth calculations were a pile of junk (see the graph at the top of this article).

But let’s be fair and give the authors a chance to speak. What did Limits say about the timing of events in their graph?

The exact timing of these events is not meaningful, given the great aggregation and many uncertainties in the model. It is significant, however, that growth is stopped well before the year 2100. 

We have tried in every doubtful case to make the most optimistic estimate of unknown quantities, and we have also ignored discontinuous events such as wars or epidemics, which might act to bring an end to growth even sooner than our model would indicate. In other words, the model is biased to allow growth to continue longer than it probably can continue in the real world. 

We can thus say with some confidence that, under the assumption of no major change in the present system, population and industrial growth will certainly stop within the next century, at the latest.

Read more: Page 126, https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/

So, they’re not taking responsibility if they are wrong about the “exact timing”, but they think their graph is optimistic.

One of my favourite responses to The Limits to Growth was published by The New York Times in 1972, shortly after the publication of Limits. NYT points out inevitable doom was baked into the Limits to Growth calculations, by attaching exponential growth in needs and consequences to an arbitrary estimate of limits – completely ignoring that we’ve never encountered a limit we cannot overcome.

… “The Limits to Growth,” in our view, is an empty and misleading work. Its imposing apparatus of computer technology and systems jargon conceals a kind of intellectual Rube Goldberg device—one which takes arbitrary assumptions, shakes them up and comes out with arbitrary conclusions that have the ring of science. “Limits” pretends to a degree of certainty so exaggerated as to obscure the few modest (and unoriginal) insights that it genuinely contains. Less than pseudoscience and little more than polemical fiction, “The Limits to Growth” is best summarized not as a rediscovery of the laws of nature but as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

As a first approximation of the future, the authors assume that the world is utterly incapable of adjusting to problems of scarcity. Technology stagnates and pollution is ignored, even as it chokes millions to death. A shortage of raw materials prevents industry and agriculture from keeping up with population growth. World reserves of vital materials (silver, tungsten, mercury, etc.) are exhausted within 40 years. Around 2020 the pinch becomes tight enough to cause a fall in per capita income. A few decades later, malnutrition and lagging health services abruptly reverse the climbing population trend. By the year 2100 the resource base has shrunk so badly that the world economy is unable to sustain even 19th‐century living standards.

It is no coincidence that all the simulations based on the Meadows world model invariably end in collapse. As in any simulation, the results depend on the information initially fed to the computer. And the “Limits” team fixes the wheel; no matter how ‘many times you play there is only one possible outcome. Critical to their model is the notion that growth produces stresses (pollution, resource demands, food requirements) which multiply geometrically. Like compound interest on a savings account, these stresses accumulate at a pace that constantly accelerates: Every child born is not only another mouth to feed but another potential parent. Every new factory not only drains away exhaustible resources but increases our capacity to build more factories. Geometric (or as mathematicians prefer to call it, exponential) growth must eventually produce spectacular results. If the Indians who sold Manhattan 300 years ago for $24 could have left their money untouched in a bank paying 7 per cent (a number chosen no more arbitrarily than many in “Limits”) they would have more than $25‐ billion today.

…Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/02/archives/the-limits-to-growth-a-report-for-the-club-of-romes-project-on-the.html

As for post growth economics, why not lead by example? The Guardian could make a start right in the offices of The Guardian.

Borrowing from one of my favourite authors PJ O’Rourke‘s writing on post growth economics, let’s replace Guardian salary income with hugs.

If every Guardian reporter were to voluntarily take a £100 / week pay cut and instead receive a hug every day from the senior manager of their choice, that would be a powerful statement of commitment to disavowing money and economic growth as the sole measure of human wellbeing.

After all, a hug is a way of improving your happiness which doesn’t involve damaging economic activity. Receiving a hug instead of money eliminates an entire cascade of greenhouse gas emissions which spending that £100 and circulating that £100 through the economy could have caused.

For the truly climate ambitious Guardian staff, when they receive a promotion, they could demand two hugs per day instead of an increase in salary.

As for senior management, look how many hugs they would receive under this system. This would be an opportunity for senior management to equalise the monetary component of their salaries with their workers, while receiving lots of human kindness and hugs in place of all the money they would otherwise have earned. The village, which is The Guardian could become truly equal, with love replacing monetary reward for those who have the toughest jobs.

Of course, the damage would still occur if a selfish senior manager trousered the missing £100 salary sacrifices and spent the money, so that money must never be spent. Destroying money is illegal in the UK, so throw it into a vault with no door, just a slot for shoving in money.

Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath waiting for that post growth economic experiment to be implemented.

A group of concerned individuals stands in front of a globe with a rising graph, expressing shock and demand for compensation, surrounded by stacks of Guardian articles and a locked box labeled 'Paywall' and 'Senior Staff Retirement Package.'

CLAIM: Increasing heat is super-charging Arctic climate and weather extremes

From North Carolina State University and the “because our models say-so” department comes this press release that is far more predictable than the climate change it claims to predict – Anthony.

A frozen elderly man with icy facial features, wearing a white coat, stands in a snowy landscape.

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

From North Carolina State University and the “because our models say-so” department comes this press release that is far more predictable than the climate change it claims to predict – Anthony.

By evaluating historical climate records, observational and projection data, an international team of researchers found a “pushing and triggering” mechanism that has driven the Arctic climate system to a new state, which will likely see consistently increased frequency and intensity of extreme events across all system components – the atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere – this century.

“We know that mean temperatures are rising, and the Arctic is commonly considered an indicator of global changes due to its higher sensitivity to any perturbation of external and internal forcings,” says Xiangdong Zhang, research professor at North Carolina State University and senior scientist at the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies.

“The annual mean warming rate of the Arctic is more than three times the global average – this is known as Arctic amplification,” Zhang says. “But no systematic review has been done about the interplay of warmer temperatures with the dynamics of atmosphere, ocean and sea ice in weather and climate extremes around the Arctic.” Zhang is the lead author of the study.

The team looked at historic temperature data and the records of extreme events in the Arctic system components, as well as CMIP6 model projections that covered a period from the present-day to the end of the century. Overall, they saw that extreme events – atmosphere and ocean heatwaves, heavy precipitation, sea ice loss and ice sheet melt – have consistently occurred across the Arctic climate system with an increased frequency and intensity since the year 2000. The CMIP6, or Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6, is an international project consisting of modeling centers and groups worldwide.

“We usually think about warming as a gradual, quasi-linear change of temperature over time – it slowly gets warmer everywhere,” Zhang says. “But nonlinear changes occur across the entire system. The interplay between warming and the changes in atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice dynamics creates ‘pushing and triggering’ mechanisms that result in a tipping point for the climate system.”

According to the researchers, since the year 2000 these pushing and triggering mechanisms have forced a step change, or sudden shift, in the baseline of the Arctic climate system.

The mechanisms in question include changes in large-scale atmosphere and ocean circulation that enhance poleward atmospheric heat and moisture transport and ocean heat transport into the Arctic. Intense cyclones and blocking high-pressure systems that obstruct the movement of other systems through the upper atmosphere further enhance warming, increasing sea ice and ice sheet temperatures and pushing the Arctic climate system to a tipping point, triggering more extremes.

“Once there is a baseline state change in climate, we also see a change in extreme events,” Zhang says.

According to the researchers’ analysis, since the year 2000 the probability of atmospheric heatwaves has increased by 20%; Atlantic Ocean layer warm events have increased by 76%; sea ice loss events have increased by 83%; and Greenland Ice Sheet melt extent has increased by 68%.

“Prior to the 21st century, these events were rare,” Zhang says. “But with continued warming they will become the new norm, and we could see ice-free summers in the Arctic by mid-century. More work must be done to understanding the interplay of multiscale climate drivers in the Arctic, so that we can predict and plan for the future.”

The study appears in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. Zhang is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The work was done by leading and early-career scientists from the U.S., Australia, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Australia’s ABC News Claim: ‘We’ve Hit a Climate Change Tipping Point’

Purported climate change tipping points are much in the news around the world. From ABC News in Australia, as the guest post below explores, to here in the United States with CNN’s story, “The planet has entered a ‘new reality’ as it hits its first climate tipping point, landmark report finds.” The new spate of stories stems from a report pronouncing the climate change induced death of coral reefs.

Vibrant coral reef with a diverse array of fish swimming among colorful corals in a clear underwater environment.

From ClimateRealism

Editor’s Note: Purported climate change tipping points are much in the news around the world. From ABC News in Australia, as the guest post below explores, to here in the United States with CNN’s story, “The planet has entered a ‘new reality’ as it hits its first climate tipping point, landmark report finds.” The new spate of stories stems from a report pronouncing the climate change induced death of coral reefs. Climate Realism has debunked claims that such tipping points exist and have been identified in multiple posts previously, here, here, and here, for example.

Concerning the specific “tipping point,” identified in the recent mainstream media barrage of articles, the death of coral reefs, for both coral reefs globally and the Great Barrier Reef, in particular, across the course of more than 70 posts Climate Realism has also repeatedly shown that despite assertions coral reefs are declining due to climate change, they are in fact doing well and in many locations expanding. Data from surveys of coral reefs around the world indicate, to paraphrase Mark Twain, “The rumors or coral reefs death are greatly exaggerated.” 

Underwater view of coral reefs affected by global warming, with sunlight filtering through the water.

Guest Essay by Eric Worrall

From ABC News Australia:

‘Tipping point’ threshold reached for world’s coral reefs, report suggests

By environment reporter Peter de Kruijff

In short: The latest Global Tipping Points Report suggests the world’s coral reefs are at risk of mass dieback. Some highlights:

…The first “tipping point” for the Earth has been reached, according to an international report from 160 scientists in 23 countries

…The world’s warm water coral reefs are the first of 25 vulnerable Earth systems to have reached a tipping point, according to the Global Tipping Points Report.

…Tim Lenton, a University of Exeter professor and climate modeller who led the report, said tipping points could no longer be talked about as a “future risk”.

…Dr Obura stressed we had not yet gone past the upper limit of the tipping point threshold for coral reefs, which is 1.5C.“Unless the right actions are taken globally, urgently, on climate drivers … the increasing climate pressure means that all reef regions will approach their tipping points, and some may cross them.”

…About 84 per cent of the world’s reefs have bleached in the fourth global bleaching event since January, 2023

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-10-13/tipping-point-reached-for-coral-reefs-globally-study/105874456

The tipping points report is available here.

Back in 2023 the Great Barrier Reef experienced record coral cover;

Record Great Barrier Reef Coral Cover – Time to Pull the Climate Crisis Funding?

Of course this was still touted as a crisis;

Claim: Record Coral Reef Cover Hides “Cryptic” Diversity Loss

Now there have been a few bleaching events, coral scientists are claiming that unlike previous bleaching events, the coral won’t grow back – though maybe we need the full 1.5C global warming to experience the failure of coral to grow back.

Watch out folks. The asteroid which killed the dinosaurs failed to destroy the coral reefs, as did the 5-8C of rapid warming the Earth experienced during the PETM – but a few tenths of a degree of additional anthropogenic global warming will achieve what the greatest mass extinction event in the last hundred million years failed to accomplish.

We don’t even need to look to the extremes for examples of coral thriving in warm conditions. Most of the Cretaceous, which ended 66 million years ago with the death of the dinosaurs, had far higher CO2 levels than today.

Study: Ancient Fish Thrived During PETM Extreme Global Warming

Obviously anthropomorphic warming is more evil than natural climate change because it is man made. Natural climate excursions which failed to kill off the coral just didn’t carry the same punch – even when that punch was delivered by a six mile wide asteroid.

I guess it would be rude to point out that reefs like the Great Barrier Reef span a substantial range of climates, from high tropical heat to subtropical, that the juvenile form of coral is highly mobile, that even over the last 10,000 years reefs relocated significant distances in response to changing sea level and conditions, and that there is thousands of miles of cold water shoreline for juvenile coral spawn to colonise if the equatorial hot end of the Great Barrier Reef ever became too warm.

Popular Mechanics Unhinged: “Scientists Are Mapping the End of the World”

But we can save the world by reducing meat consumption.

An artistic depiction of Earth engulfed in flames, representing climate change and environmental crisis, with a cracked ground surface in the background.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

A digitally created image of a young person with a stern expression, seated at a table with a bowl of insects and a drink, conveying a message about improving weather through dietary changes.

But we can save the world by reducing meat consumption.

Scientists Are Mapping the End of the World. And Maybe, Just Maybe, a Way Out.

Positive climate action can have cascading effects.

BY DARREN ORF PUBLISHED: AUG 08, 2025 9:30 AM EDT

Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:

  • Scientists are aware of planetary boundaries—a series of climate change thresholds that, once crossed, could cause a cascade of negative environmental effects.
  • Now, scientists are developing a methodology to discover “positive tipping points”— a series of actionable green energy goals that could similarly compound in benefit once crossed. 
  • While we’re already well on the way to reaching some of these tipping points—i.e. lowering the cost of wind and solar energy—there’s still lots of work to be done to stay within the two degrees Celsius range stipulate by the 2015 Paris Climate Accords.

To live in an era of anthropogenic climate change is to be constantly reminded of the warming threat to our planet. One way scientists illustrate this threat is by using climate tipping points, also known as planetary boundaries, which showcase around nine critical ecological thresholds that could have devastating effects for life on Earth once crossed. These include things like biosphere integrity, ozone depletion, ocean acidification, and a relative newcomer known as “aquatic deoxygenation.”

Although these thresholds are discussed with deadly seriousness, scientists wonder if the reverse of these doom-and-gloom thresholds—positive tipping points, if you will—could help encourage people, communities, and countries to adopt more aggressive green policies. In a new study, published in the journal Sustainability Science, experts from the University of Exeter in the U.K. explain these positive tipping points would be moments in society’s adoption of green technologies or behaviors that could perpetuate a cascade of positive outcomes.

…

“Other transformations—such as a major shift away from meat consumption—might also be more likely than they appear,” Steve Smith from the University of Exeter said in a press statement. “In other sectors there is little sign of approaching tipping points and in a few, such as nuclear power and concrete production, we should not expect there to be tipping points at all.”

…Read more: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a65616655/positive-tipping-points/

No mention of the 1.5C target. I guess it’s a bit embarrassing to talk about 1.5C these days, given we hit 1.5C and nothing bad happened.

As for the rest of the claims, there is zero risk global warming will have a major negative impact on oceans, even if several degrees of global warming were to occur, because last time the world experienced 5-8c of global warming, the biosphere and the oceans were fine.

Study: Ancient Fish Thrived During PETM Extreme Global Warming

Monkeys also did well during the PETM – which implies humans would also prosper in such conditions.

Stories like this make me seriously question the sanity of the people who write them. I mean, 5 minutes research could have turned up the fact that fish thrived during distant past extreme warm periods, that the entire biosphere thrived. Visiting hot climates to catch big fish is a major tourist industry in places like Florida and Australia’s far North.

Temperatures drop substantially as you move further from the equator. Any species which felt uncomfortable in a warmer climate would just relocate. All species are continuously adjusting their range, seeking out the best possible habitat, probing the edges of their habitable range.

So why write such nonsense? Why would anyone believe such outlandish claims? I wish I knew.

A person expressing a passionate opinion about carbon dioxide and its role in global warming, with text overlay stating that CO2 is the problem.

Rebuttal to: ‘2023 Marine Heatwaves Unprecedented and Potentially Signal a Climate Tipping Point’

Another day, another groaner of a climate alarmist press release—this time from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), touting a new study that claims the 2023 marine heatwaves were “unprecedented” and may “signal a climate tipping point” posted at EurekAlert, July 24th, 2025.

A tranquil ocean scene with colorful reflections on the water at sunset, featuring a gradient of warm hues in the sky.

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

Another day, another groaner of a climate alarmist press release—this time from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), touting a new study that claims the 2023 marine heatwaves were “unprecedented” and may “signal a climate tipping point” posted at EurekAlert, July 24th, 2025.

The press release: 2023 marine heatwaves unprecedented and potentially signal a climate tipping point

The breathless tone is familiar, and the underlying logic is seriously flawed. But hey, if we scare people into action, we just might save the planet.

Let’s unpack this claim using a simple but often overlooked principle: context matters. Particularly in climate, which has cycles that span millennia, not just decades.

The foundational flaw in this study is its timescale. The research relies on satellite data beginning in 1982. That gives us about 40 years of observational history, which is virtually nothing in terms of Earth’s climate system. Prior to satellite coverage, comprehensive, high-resolution global measurements of sea surface temperatures simply didn’t exist. Claims of “unprecedented” events must be framed within that very limited context. As I’ve said before, declaring a “record” based on such a short window is like calling a coin flip streak a “trend” after four tosses.

Ocean temperatures fluctuate naturally over decadal, centennial, and even millennial scales. Our current observational capacity doesn’t cover even half of one oceanic oscillation cycle, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which paleoclimatology suggests runs as long as 50-70 years. To suggest a climate “tipping point” based on this short dataset is not just premature—it’s scientifically irresponsible.

The study makes much of the marine heatwaves’ “extreme” scale and persistence, yet it also quietly admits the 2023 heat spikes were linked to a strong El Niño. This is a naturally recurring phenomenon, not a man-made one. El Niño has been driving global climate variability for thousands of years, influencing ocean currents, sea surface temperatures, and atmospheric patterns.

The Tropical Eastern Pacific, one of the hottest zones in the 2023 event, is historically the epicenter of El Niño conditions. It should surprise no one that temperatures peaked there. What’s odd is the leap from observing a known, cyclical pattern to proclaiming it a new climate threshold.

The modeling mirage is strong with this one. Dong et al. used ECCO2 (Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean – Phase II), a high-resolution ocean model that ingests satellite data to reconstruct conditions like mixed-layer heat budgets. While ECCO2 is a valuable scientific tool, let’s not forget: models are not measurements. They are educated guesses constrained by initial assumptions and historical tuning.

All models are simplifications, and when dealing with something as complex as ocean-atmosphere interactions, even a small error can yield a wildly different output. Yet here, model outputs are used not just to analyze the past but to hint at an ominous future—a future where every warm patch of seawater is a harbinger of ecological doom.

The press release tries to go for the jugular by suggesting that these marine heatwaves might “portend an emerging climate tipping point”. That’s a phrase straight from the climate playbook of fear, designed to bypass critical thinking and stampede policymakers into hasty action. Even the photo supplied with the press release was chosen to look “hot” and drive fear. Nowhere in the abstract or methods is there clear empirical evidence linking this event to irreversible climate shifts. It’s pure conjecture, wrapped in technical jargon and served up with a greasy side of urgency.

According to the press release, the authors cite “region-specific drivers” for each major marine heatwave. In the North Atlantic, enhanced shortwave radiation and a shallower mixed layer were culprits. In the Southwest Pacific, the heat was attributed to reduced cloud cover and increased advection. The Tropical Eastern Pacific was influenced by oceanic advection.

Notice anything? These aren’t unified, global changes due to increased CO2. They are local, meteorological, and oceanographic phenomena—exactly the kinds of natural variability we should expect in a dynamic system. The fact that these local causes are acknowledged undercuts the paper’s own argument for a singular, global cause rooted in greenhouse gas emissions.

Bad science and an unjustified extrapolation is the gist of this study and press release. Perhaps the most egregious leap comes in the suggestion that the 2023 marine heatwaves might represent a “tipping point” in the Earth’s climate system. The term “tipping point” implies a sudden, irreversible shift—a planetary point of no return. But what evidence is there for this? The authors provide none beyond the temperature anomalies themselves and vague references to mixed-layer dynamics.

No historical precedent is given. No paleoclimatic comparisons are offered. No quantitative thresholds are defined. It’s all speculation dressed up in technical language.

Predictably, the press release connects the marine heatwaves to coral bleaching, fishery losses, and ecological disaster. While it is true that marine heatwaves can affect ecosystems, the narrative ignores the fact that marine species have adapted to variability over millions of years.

Corals, for instance, have survived past periods of much higher global temperatures. Many fish species migrate or dive to avoid surface heat. And let’s not forget: ecosystems are resilient. The doom-and-gloom language betrays a bias that prioritizes alarm over understanding.

My conclusion: another tale of confirmation bias

The 2023 marine heatwaves were notable, yes. But were they a sign of a planetary tipping point? Unlikely. The evidence is thin, the dataset is short, and the logic is stretched.

Here’s what we actually know:

  • Our observational record of global ocean temperatures is limited to a few decades.
  • Natural variability, including El Niño and decadal oscillations, can easily account for short-term spikes.
  • The study’s own data points to region-specific, localized drivers.
  • The models used, while complex, are not infallible representations of reality.
  • No historical context or thresholds are provided to justify claims of a tipping point.

Science should seek to inform, not frighten. The AAAS release on this study opts for drama over depth, projection over precision. In doing so, it exemplifies what’s wrong with climate discourse today: a preference for narrative over nuance.

Let’s not mistake a one year snapshot for a trend—or worse, for a crisis.

The paper: Record-breaking 2023 marine heatwaves

Dong et al., Science 24 Jul 2025 Vol 389, Issue 6758 pp. 369-374

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adr0910

Abstract

The year 2023 witnessed an extraordinary surge in marine heatwaves (MHWs) across Earth’s oceans, setting new records in duration, extent, and intensity, with MHW activity totaling 53.6 billion °C days square kilometer—more than three standard deviations above the historical norm since 1982. Notable events include the North Atlantic MHW (276-year return period) and the Southwest Pacific (141 years). Using ECCO2 (Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean-Phase II) high-resolution daily data, we conducted a mixed-layer heat budget analysis and identified region-specific drivers: enhanced shortwave flux and a shallower mixed layer in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, reduced cloud cover and increased advection in the Southwest Pacific, and oceanic advections in the Tropical Eastern Pacific. The 2023 MHWs highlight the intensifying impacts of a warm climate and the challenges in understanding extreme events.

The Real Climate Science Crisis: CAGW Hypothesis Lacks Scientific Evidence

For a hypothesis to reach the status of being a legit theory, it requires withstanding the onslaught of observed empirical evidence. The CAGW hypothesis is no such animal.

Known by its more contemporary aliases, such as” climate crisis,” “climate emergency,” “climate collapse,” or “existential threat,” the CAGW has zero empirical evidence to support it.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

From C3 headlines The Real Climate Science Crisis: The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) Hypothesis Is Without Scientific Evidence.  Excerpts in italics with my added images.

For a hypothesis to reach the status of being a legit theory, it requires withstanding the onslaught of observed empirical evidence. The CAGW hypothesis is no such animal.

Known by its more contemporary aliases, such as” climate crisis,” “climate emergency,” “climate collapse,” or “existential threat,” the CAGW has zero empirical evidence to support it.

Unlike the related hypothesis regarding greenhouse gases (GHG) and global warming, at least the GHG hypothesis has warming global temperature data that somewhat coincides with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, putting aside the growing possibility that the purported cause-and-effect direction is probably the reverse.

In order to reach a CAGW climate disaster, global warming
temperatures must change rapidly in an accelerating manner
that will initiate a ‘tipping point’ for the climate.

The rapid acceleration would present its occurrence in a continuous increasing of the slope, i.e., trend, of temperatures, such as monthly temperatures. Each subsequent month would represent a greater temperature magnitude increase than the month before, hypothetically.

But those tipping point precursors are not occurring in the real-world climate.

For example, it is agreed by all climate scientists that oceans play a very major role in the world’s climate and its global temperatures due to their being both the world’s largest carbon sink and its largest heat content storage.

However, despite these characteristics, in totality, the global oceans HAVE NOT warmed since the year 2014. And certainly, there is no empirical evidence that oceans exhibit constant temperature increases of magnitude.

Quite the contrary, combined oceans exhibit a regular pattern of temperature decreases and increases, as the adjacent plot of NOAA’s monthly ocean data indicates.

Specifically, this is a plot (dark blue) of moving 5-year temperature changes ending each month of the 60-year period from March 1963 through March 2023.

[Explanation: the first data point is the temperature change for the 60 months ending on March 30, 1963; and the chart’s last temperature change data point is for the five 5 years (i.e. 60 months) ending on March 2023.]

The chart also includes a plot (green) of the moving 60-month CO2 level changes over the same sixty year period, plus a linear trend for both CO2 changes and ocean temperature changes.

The trend of the 60-month CO2 changes significantly exceeds the slight positive trend of ocean temperature changes by a factor of 117x. This huge differential undercuts the belief that global warming is primarily the result of GHGs. Which is confirmed by the paltry R^2 of +0.06 – an almost non-existent relationship between 5-year atmospheric CO2 changes and 5-year changes in ocean temperature.

Not only are the large increases in CO2 levels not causing a concerning uptick of temperature change magnitude, it also has not lead to any type of acceleration, per the linear trend since 1963.

Specifically, with a trend of a tiny +0.0001°C, that would project out 20 years to be an increase of 5-year temperature changes to an insignificant amount of +0.024°C – definitely not an existential threat of ‘runaway warming’ or a CAGW ‘climate crisis’ as portrayed by bureaucrats, politicians and Hollywood celebrities.

So, if 5 years of increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere barely influence 5-year changes in temperature over a 60-year span, either in magnitude or acceleration rate, then it is highly unlikely that this trace gas would cause a catastrophic climate disaster or an extinction event.

Thus, it is fair to state that for all those scientists pushing a narrative of an imminent climate change catastrophe from CO2 without the requisite empirical evidence, this has become the real climate science crisis facing society.

Fearmongering by Numbers: The Greenland Ice Sheet “Tipping Point” That Wasn’t

The recently published paper A Topographically Controlled Tipping Point for Complete Greenland Ice Sheet Melt by Petrini et al. is a textbook example of how climate modeling has transformed from a scientific tool into a mechanism for manufacturing hysteria. Rather than producing objective assessments of future possibilities, this paper constructs a doomsday scenario with all the precision of a weather forecast 10,000 years into the future—making sure to terrify the public just enough to ensure continued research funding and political influence.

Icebergs near Ilulissat, Greenland. Climate change is having a profound effect in Greenland with glaciers and the Greenland ice cap retreating. (Photo by Ulrik Pedersen/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/19/63/2025/

The recently published paper A Topographically Controlled Tipping Point for Complete Greenland Ice Sheet Melt by Petrini et al. is a textbook example of how climate modeling has transformed from a scientific tool into a mechanism for manufacturing hysteria. Rather than producing objective assessments of future possibilities, this paper constructs a doomsday scenario with all the precision of a weather forecast 10,000 years into the future—making sure to terrify the public just enough to ensure continued research funding and political influence.

Abstract

A major impact of anthropogenic climate change is the crossing of tipping points, which may have severe consequences such as the complete mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS). At present, the GrIS is losing mass at an accelerated rate, largely due to a steep decrease in its surface mass balance (SMB; the balance between snow accumulation and surface ablation from melt and associated runoff). Previous work on the magnitude and nature of a threshold for GrIS complete melt remains controversial. Here, we explore a potential SMB threshold for complete melt of the GrIS; the impact and interplay of surface melt and glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) in determining this threshold; and whether the GrIS exhibits characteristics commonly associated with tipping points, such as sensitivity to external forcing. To this end, we force the Community Ice Sheet Model v.2 (CISM2) by cycling different SMB climatologies previously calculated at multiple elevation classes with the Community Earth System Model v.2 (CESM2) in a two-way coupled CESM2–CISM2 transient simulation of the global climate and GrIS under high CO2 forcing. The SMB calculation in CESM2 has been evaluated with contemporary observations and high-resolution modelling and includes an advanced representation of surface melt and snow–firn processes.

We find a positive SMB threshold for complete GrIS melt of 230 ± 84 Gt yr−1, corresponding to a 60 % decrease in SMB and to a global mean warming of +3.4 K compared to pre-industrial CESM2–CISM2 simulated values. In our simulations, a small change in the initial SMB forcing (from 255 to 230 Gt yr−1) and global mean warming above pre-industrial levels (from +3.2 to +3.4 K) causes an abrupt change in the GrIS final volume (from 50 % mass to nearly complete deglaciation). This nonlinear behaviour is caused by the SMB–elevation feedback, which responds to changes in surface topography due to surface melt and GIA. The GrIS tips from ∼ 50 % mass towards nearly complete melt when the impact of melt-induced surface lowering outweighs that of GIA-induced bedrock uplift and the (initially positive) SMB becomes and remains negative for at least a few thousand years. We also find that the GrIS tips towards nearly complete melt when the ice margin in the central west unpins from a coastal region with high topography and SMB. We show that if we keep the SMB fixed (i.e. no SMB–elevation feedback) in this relatively confined region, the ice sheet retreat is halted and nearly complete GrIS melt is prevented even though the initial SMB forcing is past the threshold. Based on the minimum GrIS configuration in previous paleo-ice-sheet modelling studies, we suggest that the surface topography in the central west might have played a role in preventing larger GrIS loss during the last interglacial period ∼ 130–115 kyr BP.

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/19/63/2025/

At its core, the study uses computer models—specifically, the Community Ice Sheet Model (CISM2) coupled with the Community Earth System Model (CESM2)—to simulate the potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) under “high CO₂ forcing” conditions. The authors claim that a small shift in surface mass balance (SMB) can trigger “nearly complete deglaciation” of Greenland, a scenario that supposedly kicks in at a global mean warming of just +3.4°C above pre-industrial levels. They argue that the ice sheet is precariously balanced and susceptible to a so-called “tipping point,” where melt-induced surface lowering and glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) would ensure its near-total collapse.

But here’s the problem: This scenario is entirely model-driven, with little to no real-world validation. And, more importantly, it hinges on assumptions that stretch the limits of scientific credibility.

Let’s first address the elephant in the room: The models. Climate models have long been notorious for over-predicting warming and ice loss. The CESM2 model used in this study is based on a set of emissions scenarios that often bear little resemblance to reality. Many climate fearmongers rely on Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) or its newer equivalent, which assumes an implausible, nearly exponential rise in CO₂ emissions. The authors use the phrase “high CO₂ forcing” without specifying exactly which emissions scenario they are relying on, which is a red flag. If they are using a worst-case emissions scenario (which is common in these kinds of papers), then the entire study is essentially a speculative thought experiment rather than serious scientific inquiry.

Additionally, their model hinges on precise thresholds for ice sheet collapse, where a shift in SMB from 255 to 230 Gt/yr supposedly tips the entire Greenland Ice Sheet into a death spiral. This type of binary “all-or-nothing” thinking is a hallmark of alarmist climate science—where gradual, complex processes are reduced to dramatic tipping points that conveniently align with political talking points.

The timing of this paper is particularly interesting. With growing skepticism toward extreme climate policies, alarmist scientists and policymakers need fresh headlines to keep the public anxious. The message embedded in this study is clear: Act now or face an ice sheet apocalypse.

The funding mechanisms behind this research must also be scrutinized. Scientists who predict moderate, manageable climate outcomes rarely get their work amplified by the media or rewarded with large grants. But those who conjure up worst-case scenarios? They’re invited to speak at global summits, write op-eds in major newspapers, and shape government policy.

It’s a well-known trick: Use models to create a frightening future scenario, generate media buzz, and pressure policymakers into adopting economically disastrous “green” policies, all while ensuring the continued flow of research funding.

While Greenland has experienced ice loss in recent decades, its ice sheet is nowhere near a “tipping point.” Studies based on real-world observations—not just computer simulations—show that Greenland’s ice mass fluctuates naturally, with periods of melt and growth. During the Holocene Thermal Maximum (roughly 8,000 to 5,000 years ago), temperatures in Greenland were significantly warmer than today, yet the ice sheet remained intact.

Moreover, the study acknowledges that certain geographical features have historically prevented large-scale ice loss, such as the high topography in Greenland’s central west region. This means that even under extreme warming scenarios, a total collapse of the ice sheet is unlikely.

This paper is yet another example of how climate science has been hijacked by a political agenda. Instead of providing a balanced analysis of Greenland’s future, it cherry-picks an extreme scenario and markets it as inevitable. Worse still, it provides policymakers and activists with ammunition to justify economically crippling regulations based on speculative, unverifiable computer models.

The bottom line? The Greenland Ice Sheet is not on the brink of collapse, and no amount of fearmongering can change that. But as long as there’s funding and media attention to be gained from doomsday predictions, expect more of the same.

HT/Chris Martz

Hype Uncovered: ‘Nature’ Study Shows That Permafrost Is Not a Climate Tipping Point

Germany’s Klimanachrichten here presents peer-reviewed climate science that shows permafrost is not really a tipping point we need to worry about. 

From NoTrickZone

By P Gosselin

Germany’s Klimanachrichten here presents peer-reviewed climate science that shows permafrost is not really a tipping point we need to worry about. 

Here’s the text of what is reported on the video: 

“Permafrost soils store a lot of CO2s and are often described as a critical tipping element in the Earth system, which suddenly and globally collapses above a certain level of global warming. Yet, the view of a ticking time bomb that initially behaves rather calmly and only ignites at a certain warming threshold is controversial among researchers. According to scientific data, this claim is not correct, as an international study team led by the Alfred Wegener Institute has now been able to show.

According to the study, there is not one specific global climate tipping point, but many local and regional tipping elements that “ignite” at different times, accumulate over time and cause the permafrost to thaw in step with climate change.

Permafrost soils cover around a quarter of the land area in the northern hemisphere and store vast amounts of organic carbon in the form of dead plant remains. These are not decomposed when frozen. Only when the permafrost thaws do microorganisms become active and release a lot of carbon into the atmosphere as CO2 and methane. Rising global temperatures could therefore activate these gigantic reservoirs and massively increase climate change through additional emissions. In the public debate, there is therefore repeated talk of a “ticking carbon time bomb”. This is based on the assumption that permafrost, like the Greenland ice sheet, is one of several tipping elements in the Earth system. According to this, the permafrost initially disappears only slowly in the course of global warming. Only when a critical threshold value is exceeded do the thawing processes suddenly intensify themselves and a rapid, irreversible global permafrost collapse sets in. Although such a thawing scenario is often suspected, it has not yet been possible to clarify whether such a threshold value really exists and at what temperature it could be exceeded.

An international research team led by Jan Nitzbon from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) has now gotten to the bottom of this question. The AWI researcher explains, quote: “In fact, the depiction of permafrost as a global tipping element is controversial in research. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also points out this ambiguity in its latest assessment report. We wanted to close this knowledge gap. For our study, we compiled the available scientific literature on the processes that can influence and accelerate the thawing of permafrost. Underpinned by our own data analysis, we evaluated all current findings on thawing processes to determine whether and on what spatial scale – local, regional, global – they can lead to self-sustaining thawing and thus to a ‘tipping point’ at a certain warming threshold.” End quote.

The results of the study clearly show that there is self-reinforcing, partly irreversible geological, hydrological and physical processes, but these only have a local or regional effect. One example is the formation of so-called thermokarst lakes. This involves ice melting in permafrost soils, which then sink. The meltwater collects on the surface and forms a dark lake that absorbs a lot of solar energy. This further increases the warming of the permafrost beneath the lake and creates a self-perpetuating dew process in the area around the lake. Similar amplifying feedbacks were also found in other processes relevant to permafrost, such as the loss of boreal coniferous forests due to fires – but here too only on a local to regional scale. There is no evidence for self-reinforcing internal processes that would simultaneously affect the entire permafrost above a certain degree of global warming and accelerate thawing globally. Even the estimated release of greenhouse gases would not lead to a global leap in global warming at least until the end of the century. The depiction of permafrost as a global tipping element is therefore misleading.

The study was published in Nature Climate Change in June 2024.”

AMOC Collapse Depends Entirely On Models…Will Occur Sometime Between Now And Infinity

So whenever you read about any “tipping point” times: In truth, they cannot be determined at all because we do not (yet) have enough reliable information on the system.

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin 

AMOC Uncertainties

By Frank Bosse at Klimanachrichten

A “collapse” of the AMOC (Atlantic overturning circulation) cannot be “calculated” at all. We have reported on several projections of the AMOC here, most recently here and here.

There is now an interesting twist to the once very “celebrated” study (DD23 below), which predicted a collapse of the AMOC between 2025 and 2095 with 95% certainty!

It actually already existed in September 2023 when the preprint appeared, i.e. only around 3 months after the publication of DD23. Now the official publication in the journal “Science Advances” (BY24 below). The title speaks volumes:

The uncertainties are too large to determine ‘tipping point times’ of major Earth system components from historical data.”

Longer sections of the current paper are dedicated to DD23. She had drawn (far too) far-reaching conclusions from the SST (sea surface temperatures) of the “Atlantic Subpolar Gyre” with the help of variance and autocorrelation determinations, using the HadiSST1 data set alone. This was not permissible, BY24 finds, because the SSTs there are NOT simply observations when these are not available in the required spatial and temporal resolution. Something is added, in principle it is a model.

In BY 24 it is now calculated that when using different data products (e.g. also NASA’s ERSSTv5 with other “infill methods”) very different “collapse times of the AMOC” are determined: “between 2000 and infinity”!

Since the real observations are included in all SST data products, in the end it only depends on how the observations are “supplemented” using a model in order to determine a collapse time. This is obviously nonsense, the results are sensitive to the data used.

So whenever you read about any “tipping point” times: In truth, they cannot be determined at all because we do not (yet) have enough reliable information on the system.

Will this also be the case with “The last generation…before the tipping points” – as the movement is called in full? Its name is inherently unscientific. Bad news for “science followers”!

Author Of New Paper: No AMOC Collapse…”Should Dissuade People From Climate Doomism”

We hear it over and again: the melting ice in Greenland due to warming will soon lead to a collapse of the AMOC, making it difficult for it to “restart”.

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

AMOC. Source: Woods Hole

By Frank Bosse

We hear it over and again: the melting ice in Greenland due to warming will soon lead to a collapse of the AMOC, making it difficult for it to “restart”.

The salt content in the north is critical because the salt-rich tropical water cools down and sinks due to the higher salt content, which is the “pump” that makes circulation possible in the first place. It also transports very large amounts of heat into the North Atlantic.

Scenarios  have been published that calculate a drastic cooling of the greater area (especially Europe) around it if the AMOC is “switched off”. The “Day after Tomorrow” scenario.

A more recent summary of these “tipping point” assumptions comes from Prof. Rahmstorf. It refers to reconstructed phases of such collapses, especially during “Heinrich Events” in the last ice age. At that time, large quantities of icebergs advanced far to the south, where they melted and thus probably brought the AMOC to a standstill through sweetening.

New paper finds no alarm

A completely new paper sheds light on these events in detail and reconstructs the freshwater inputs very precisely. A very detailed discussion can be found here.

It finds a decisive difference in the situation during the last ice age and the present: whereas at that time the ice entered the Atlantic primarily in the form of icebergs from the large continental ice sheets, in the present it is Greenland – the island supplies the lion’s share of the freshwater. This has consequences: as the glaciers continue to melt and retreat further inland, fewer and fewer icebergs are released and more and more liquid water is released. This has a major impact on the AMOC. Icebergs are much more “effective”. They briefly freeze the surrounding surface seawater, which leads to warming of the water below, as ice insulates against temperature loss to the (cold) atmosphere. Due to the large mass of the icebergs, they also travel much further south before they melt and finally disappear, leading to much larger-scale sweetening.

The paper concludes that the iceberg discharges from Greenland will not last long enough to drive the AMOC into collapse. Another reason for this is that it was much weaker in ice ages than at present anyway. The lead author of the study is quoted as saying:

This is good climate news that will hopefully dissuade people from climate doomism.”

So whoever reads something about the “soon to dry up North Atlantic Current” and the catastrophic effects in the future: The current piece in “Science” files this under doomsday fantasies (“doomism”).