Excluded Factors: Experts like Stefan Rahmstorf point out that many current models still do not fully account for meltwater from the Greenland ice cap, meaning the actual risk of shutdown could be even higher than these new projections suggest.

coud be worse even

CM,
Adding to your very informative deep-dive, the references you cite are:-
Olson et al (2018) ‘North Atlantic observations sharpen meridional overturning projections’
Weijer et al (2019) ‘Stability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: A Review and Synthesis’
Bonan et al (2025) ‘Observational constraints imply limited future Atlantic meridional overturning circulation weakening’
Schmittner (2025) ‘Impact of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation Collapse on Carbon-13 Components in the Ocean’
And for comparison of the results of these studies you quote, the AMOC is usually measured coming out the tropics at ~20Sv.

Jean-Pierre Demol,
Given I speak French like a Spanish cow, I should point out that it would be common courtesy for you to pass your comment through an on-line translator rather than expect the many here, like me, having to do so. The days of French being a ‘lingua franca’ passed with the medieval.
As for your latest comment:-
(1) You are just repeating yourself here.
And be clear on one point; unless quoting you, I’ve never said the effect of increasing CO2 is ”marginal” or ”increasingly marginal.” That would be silly. So I would be obliged if you do not put your words in my mouth.
To suggest CO2 is ”becoming increasingly marginal“ because it of its increasing atmospheric concentration misrepresents the meaning of the word (noun) ‘marginal’ as well as the word (verb) ‘becoming’.
(I note that in your conclusion you use the word ‘marginal’ as an adjective which then comes to have a different meaning, and thus referring to a measure of GHE-per-extra-CO2-concentration. This measure has always declined with increasing CO2, and vice versa.)
As for saturation, the meaning of the word is quite plain. You defend the indefensible and if you could be bothered to read up on the matter, you would find CO2 as a GHG in the Earth’s atmosphere would never becomes saturated from its abundance!!
(2) Again you just repeat your grand assertion. Yes, the troposphere is a complex thing and that complexity extending well beyond radiative effects. Maybe in that complexity those non-radiative things could be said to ”dominate” the radiative ones. But the GH-effect is a radiative thing so it would be no surprise that for CO2 the primary GH-effect is likewise entirely radiative (unless you want to invoke the lapse rate feedback).
(3) You miss the point. You don’t need the correlation, either theory or practice, to demonstrate CO2 as a powerful GHG. And if you don’t need the correlation, the establishment of causation in that correlation is not required.
(4 & 5) It is symptomatic of your woolly thinking that you repeat yourself here. And in both, you play the ‘It’s all too complicated!!’ card. Small increases in the water cycle and suddenly the entire climate system is thrown into a turmoil which needs unravelling before anyone can make sense of it. Really? Perhaps every beat of that apocryphal butterflies wing would do likewise. Given you here are responding to my comment up-thread correcting Mark Ramsay, resorting now to this ‘It’s all too complicated!!’ argument is out-&-out deflection. Maybe you haven’t noticed.
(6) On the scientific method, it is not usual to say it is ”researchers” who ”need to be corrected” as it is their work that ”needs to be corrected.” The difficulty with Soon, Clauser & Happer on matters-climatological is their continued refusal to accept the errors they present. It is this refusal, this unscientific approach which requires correction and which appends to them rather than the work. Perhaps you would benefit with specific examples of this ridiculous denialistic behaviour by even scientists, even climatologists and their allegedly scientific work on AGW.

Cutler said he is not using models.

“there are no models. “

Yes he is, as assuming cycles is a model. What makes it worse is that he has no physics to back it up.

Then he says:
“Everything is fully transparent and open.”

Not true. He moved his code off of GitHub so he won’t get comments like this:

https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aclosed

Ron R.,

My sympathies, I get how that works. It’s not just AI.

Back in the day, I was accepted for a job by a department in a large organization. The hitch was that I had to run my application through HR.

I filled out my form, and the department’s head assistant checked it out and promptly said, “NO!” She then patiently sat down with me and showed me the exact stock words and phrases I had to use — nothing more, nothing less.

Apparently the people in HR handled job applications like Lucy and Ethel wrapping candy at the chocolate factory. They weren’t keen on spending any more time on each one than they absolutely had to.

Matt, I often complain that people use too many words in their comments but in this case I have to request some further clarification.

This

https://climatechangetracker.org/global-warming/monthly-earths-energy-imbalance

shows the imbalance (and how it seems to be increasing).

The imbalance (whether or not it is increasing) results in increased system energy, which leads to increased temperature as one effect. And an imbalance is what is predicted from the physics of CO2 absorption of outgoing radiation.

So can you explain what is “going in the wrong direction”?
And what “ratio of shortwave v longwave” radiation is supposed to be “prima facie evidence”
of?

I reply here to Cutlers last reply (beneath here) because one can’t reply directly to it (the structure of this site does’t allow it).

Cutler: “The ice core data doesn’t have the temporal resolution or accuracy to make a 50-year prediction.”

KVJ (me): What!?! In the last at least around 50 kyrs you can discern even the seasons each year down through the layers. Further down the layers are of course more compressed, but you are still able to discern individual years down to at least the last interglacial (the Eem, isotope stage 5e) What more temporal resolution do you need?

It seems very probable that Cutler’s “cycle” is just a coincidence, as so many others. How very convenient then, that he finds it impossible to test the hypothesis, let’s say just 25 kyrs back in time…

NASA photography. Couldn’t resist adding this.

Artemis II Crew Brought a Human Eye to Photos
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/opinion-artemis-ii-crew-brought-a-human-eye-to-photos/

“Human-created photos are rooted in direct observation, intent and lived experience, while AI images—or choices made by AI-driven tools—are not. While both can produce compelling and believable visuals, the human photographs carry emotional power because the photographer is drawing from their experiences and perspective in that moment to tell an authentic story.

“Artemis II photographs resonate, not only because they are historic, but because they reflect the deliberate choices and intent of a human being in that specific moment and context. The exposure, camera setting, lens choice and composition are all dictated by the astronaut’s vision, skill, perspective and experience. Each image is unique in comparison with the others. These choices give the images narrative power, anchoring them in human perspective.”

…

RIT alumni train Artemis II astronauts in photography
https://www.rit.edu/news/rit-alumni-train-artemis-ii-astronauts-photography

“To make sure the astronauts were fully prepared, Willoughby and Reichert worked with the crew members for roughly two years. The pair designed a series of classes and training modules that allowed the crew to get hands-on experiences with the complex photography equipment that emulate conditions in space.”

Ray, you and I both know this isn’t about publishing. In fact, your “For God’s sake” comment may have backfired, as many people now appear to be reading the paper. Thank you for helping generate interest.

I claim that climate repeats, and I demonstrate this simply by shifting and comparing data from peer-reviewed papers. That data is freely available, and I’ve even made a Python script available so anyone can easily download the data and reproduce the results. No new data is involved, and there are no models. Everything is fully transparent and open.

You’ve argued that cyclic forcings are easy to hallucinate and difficult to prove. To that, I would say that such a broad statement is unhelpful because it ignores both the characteristics of the signal and the specific conditions under which it is observed. The same applies to your comment about “dozens of cycles” — it also overlooks the fact that I can only observe two 3560-year cycles per reconstruction over the Holocene.

After looking at Figure 3, is anyone willing to argue that the climate in Greenland doesn’t repeat? Is anyone brave enough to admit that the result is interesting? That’s a pretty low bar. If you haven’t read the paper, focus on the 2,800-year region between the right edge of A2 and the center of A3.

Figure 3:
https://localartist.org/media/NGRIPCores3560shift2.png

Paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/401277427_A_3560-Year_Jovian_Solar_and_Climate_Cycle

Python script:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/401300980_Simple_python_script_to_download_and_plot_climate_and_sunspot_data_with_3560-_and_7120-year_offsets

CM,
This is precisely the kind of analysis I’m often missing when it comes to climate science in general. While I do have some basic scientific and mathematic literacy to discern what’s true and what’s false, understanding nuances between different methodologies used is way above my paygrade. I had a hunch they were doing something non-standard the moment I saw Ridge Regression, but I’m neither a ML specialist nor statistician, so I couldn’t exactly say what or why.

Thanks for your insights.