Graham, you’re right that the public isn’t acting. But calling them ‘deluded’ for caring about their pay packet is just blaming the customer. That’s not strategy. That’s burnout wearing a superiority complex.

You need Sarah Wilson. She agrees we can’t offer ‘hope,’ so she offers something better: permission to live fully anyway. Her Substack/TEDx doesn’t just scream about the 2-tonne target; it answers the question you can’t — ‘How do I show up to this fight without burning out or hating my neighbors?’

Search ‘Sarah Wilson TEDx societal collapse’ (Editor’s Pick). It’s 15 minutes of brutal honesty without the ‘activist lecture’ tone. Or go here: https://sarahwilson.substack.com/

Sarah is the voice for those who know the ship is sinking but refuse to spend their last moments yelling at the passengers for being wet.

She also has something difficult but necessary to say to men. Not because men are all stupid, but because the myth that we need to own, trademark, or lead the revolution is actually holding us back. She asks: what if humility was the real work?

“Men, this revolution will not be incentivised. We can’t trademark, podcast, or ‘start up’ our way out of this… shall we try humility?”
https://sarahwilson.substack.com/p/blokes-for-the-love-of-gaia-dont

As Sarah says: catch up.

Although Mauna Loa is a very important resource for the measurement of atmospheric gases, and I think it has the longest record, it’s by no means the only one:
https://community.wmo.int/site/knowledge-hub/programmes-and-initiatives/global-atmosphere-watch-programme-gaw/gaw-stations-network-and-other-measurements

The Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) also archives data from all its contributors’ stations, including Mauna Loa. Even if the US decides not to hold the Mauna Loa data, it could still be held by the GAW, though it’s possible that the US might withdraw permission for them to do that.

I can relate to all that. The way I think about global warming as a lay person, is we have proof from laboratory experiments that canisters of CO2 heat up when exposed to a radiant heat source. Therefore by simple logic and basic physics of heat transfer, if we as humans add CO2 at even just 1pp to the atmosphere it will have a warming effect.

The challenge is to calculate how much warming. Arrhenius created a model in the 1890s based on using moonshine data to calculate the effects of CO2, and the model predicted 1 degree c of waring for the 20th century. So you have causation, correlation and good predictive ability.

In comparison RC’s sunspot model is only verified for a rather short 100 year period, not going back any further, and its prediction of cooling post 2016 isn’t looking too good. He rationalises this by saying his model cant include for things like the Hunga Tonga volcano which he claims caused a spurt of warming. But studies show it had a net cooling effect. So while hes obviously quite smart, I’m not very convinced by his sun spot model.

I wonder if this next (still only possible, but more probable than not) super el Nino might possibly change a few minds?

in Re to Robert Cutler, 20 May 2026 at 2:59 PM,

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/04/a-reflection-on-reflection/#comment-848231

and 19 May 2026 at 2:39 PM,

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/04/a-reflection-on-reflection/#comment-848206

Dear Robert,

I think that the sole reason why you invented the alleged 3560-year periodicity in Earth climate was your effort to find some cycle that could explain the global warming trend observed during the industrial era and thus support your belief that atmospheric CO2 concentration does not play a role in regulation of Earth climate and that all changes in global mean surface temperature (GMST) are caused by variations in solar activity.

Despite numerous requests from your opponents, including me, you failed to show

1) why all the existing evidence that the CO2 concentration rise during industrial era fits well with gradual accumulation of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning is incorrect (because, according to you, the CO2 concentartion rise is in fact caused by the observed temperature rise),

2) why all the existing evidence that the observed CO2 concentration rise must cause an imbalance between solar energy absorbed by Earth and Earth infrared radiation to the space (Earth energy imbalance, EEI) that must cause Earth warming is also wrong,

3) how does your assertion that the warming observed in the last decades is a delayed result of past solar activity (as it suggests your 98.5-year filter) fit with CERES satellite observations showing the EEI during these decades (when solar activity declines) and with observations by Argo buoys showing the commensurate ocean heat content (OHC) rise during the same period.

In view of these circumstances, your continuing fixation to arguments based solely on your assumption of climate periodicity (motivated by your disbelief in a possibility of human role in climate regulation as well as in the science suggesting physically plausible mechanisms therefor) looks rather as a kind of obsession, I am afraid.

Greetings
Tomáš

Uhm, wouldn’t be the only result of this proposed combination of incorrect Greenland ice melt rates in models with implausible high RCP8.5 forcing be that the confidence in the output is lower than necessary?

Is there any expected benefit of that combination of two known sources of high uncertainty?

MS: You refer to 2 separate issues:

RC: Not really. The integral relationship introduces a 90° phase delay which is six months for a 2-year cycle and 250 years for a 1000-year cycle.

MS: No. You cannot compare these directly; there are too many other factors involved. But the long term CO2 increase measured at MLO is leading the long term global average temperature increase.

RC: Of course I can compare measurements of [CO₂] and temperature, and as I’ve shown, at no point in the data does MLO data lead temperature.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/04/a-reflection-on-reflection/#comment-847309

MS: And recall that we know CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared light. We know it because we measure it in the lab; we have been measuring it in the labe since the late 1800s, and the atmosphere in our lab experiments is composed of the same gases as the atmosphere outside.

RC: I’m well aware that CO₂ can, and does absorb LW radiation. The question is, what happens to that energy? A very small amount is radiated down. Most of the energy is transferred via collisions to O₂ and N₂ molecules where convection processes and water vapor become involved.

I’m really not interested in further discussions on CO₂, especially with you. From your responses it’s my observation that you treat the subject as a religion. Even if temperatures stop rising, your faith in the miracle molecule will not be shaken.

MS: IOW, your model has been wrong for 10 years, but you’re gonna give it another 14 years?

RC: You may consider having your eyes checked. The prediction was quite accurate up until 2023. Keep in mind that the prediction is based entirely on filtered sunspot data. Earth will occasionally do what Earth gotta do.

https://localartist.org/media/tempPredictRect99NotchOcean.png

MS: Changes in orbital and tilt parameters continue at their glacial pace (pun intended), but those changes are actually be causing Earth to cool slightly right now, But the planet is not cooling; it is warming, and it is warming well within the range predicted by greenhouse theory, given the measured increase in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

RC: Depending on the proxy, there is some cooling. Here, if you look at the legend, the Vinther reconstruction is shifted 3560 years and -0.5°C. For the Martin et al. reconstructions, the cooling is 1°. Clearly, there are fast variations around that trend. These are the faster cycles many of which are harmonically related to 3560 years.

https://localartist.org/media/NgripVinther_zoom.png
https://localartist.org/media/NGRIPCores3560shift2.png

I have no idea why you went off on a solar tidal forcing tangent.

Given that you’re prone to quoting Google AI, I can’t see that any further dialog with you would be useful to anyone. Have a good day.

The correct framing is that once natural climate change is understood — say ENSO cycles as a principal component — then the man-made variation can be more easily discriminated and thus isolated. It’s becoming more obvious that ENSO is about as trivial as conventional tidal analysis once the fluid dynamics pattern is figured out, so that part will be taken care of. And of course, having an understanding of ENSO has significant implications for preparedness for flooding, droughts, heat-waves, etc.

This entire focus on Jupiter and sun-spots is so aggravating when one realizes it’s just a distraction from the correct approach. Although I did come up with the tidal-based approach well before AI became a useful aid in scientific reasoning I have asked ChatGPT why it hadn’t been adopted. It responded:

“A major reason may be that the necessary ingredients are usually separated across different fields:

– ENSO work typically emphasizes SST, winds, thermocline depth, recharge-discharge, and statistical state-space models.
– LOD and constituent analysis belong more to geodesy, tidal analysis, and Earth-rotation studies.
– Topological and equatorial-wave interpretations are yet another framework.

Very few studies would combine all three:

– begin with a calibrated constituent basis tied to LOD,
– convert that basis into a signed semiannual impulse sequence,
– integrate it into a hidden memory-state manifold,
– and then inspect that manifold for bounded winding structure.

So the novelty may be methodological as much as physical: the coordinate system itself is unusual.

IOW, this is real physics. Trump is firing NASA scientists. Who else is going to do this? Cutler? Ha ha

Graham, most of what you say is correct. But “as a species” is one of those not-so-scientific exaggerations that doesn’t really help. IIRC humans went through a period of very low population (a few thousands or tens of thousands ??) at one early point, but here we are. Clever apes indeed.

Of course it would be better if we drastically “downsized” because women were empowered and made the rational self-interested choice of limiting their offspring. But climate, nuclear war, AI-designed viruses… whatever… are not going to completely eliminate humans.

So, outreach and education need to be very carefully focused, and distanced from the natural inclinations of academic discourse. Not only does it not help; as pointed out here, it is dishonestly used by the opposition.

Of course, I’ve been saying this for a long time, but if RC is any evidence, the psychological need to say more when less works better is very powerful