I’m not sure what’s going on, but hyperlinks are getting scrambled by the website. If you click on a link and get a 404 message, there’s a quote mark that’s been appended on the end.

Text: I couldn’t make that work
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_ln_global.png

Text: integrally related to temperature
https://localartist.org/media/UAHandCO2v2.png

in Re to Piotr, 5 May 2026 at 2:24 PM,

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/03/the-puzzling-pleistocene/#comment-847653

Hallo Piotr,

Thank you for your reply and for detailed explanation of your persisting objections.
I, however, respectfully disagree with your evaluation of my proposal, for at least the following reasons.

1) My review of existing information was quite thorough, and I am now pretty sure that there is no study explicitly addressing the relationship between water availability for evaporation from the land and climate sensitivity to various radiative forcings. I agree that this relationship is implicitly comprised in climate models, however, it remains hidden therein because nobody tried yet to extract therefrom the respective knowledge in a comprehensible and practically useful form. I think that in absence of the knowledge if landscape drying enhances the global warming or attenuates it, an important piece of the puzzle that should inform science-based climate policies is still missing.

2) With respect to your scale-analysis, I would rather say that I failed to convince you that from relatively weak direct effect of changes in land hydrological regime on global mean surface temperature (suggested by the results of Lague et al.), you can hardly draw any reliable conclusion regarding the influence of land hydrological regime on climate sensitivity.

I am aware that my failure to grasp your evidence for the contrary (that I still see illogical) may be well caused by my dullness, however, I would be definitely more willing to accept this explanation for our mutual disagreement if I knew that you have never erred in all your climate science disputes that you entered here on Real Climate during the last three years.

3) As regards the formulation of a testable hypothesis, I supposed that the influence of water availability for evaporation from the land on climate sensitivity could be tested in the modelling setup successfully applied by Lague et al., by comparing the results of a standard experiment (e.g. sudden atmospheric CO2 doubling) for their “desert land” and “swamp land” model Earths. Nevertheless, during preparation of this response to your objections, it came to my mind that a such comparison may not be as straightforward as I thought originally.

As the “desert land Earth” differs from the “swamp land Earth” in the global mean surface temperature (GMST) corresponding to the respective steady state (“radiative equilibrium”), I think that it can be reasonably expected that both steady states will differ e.g. in the extent of ice sheets, of the sea ice and, therefore, in their albedo.

The study comparing climate sensitivities of these extreme cases for CO2 doubling, or any other similar standard test (transient climate response for gradual CO2 increase?) would thus provide the responses that will reflect not only the difference in water availability for evaporation from the land, but also all further differences in albedo, ice thermal capacity etc. necessarily included in both starting states. Although such a comparison might be interesting as well, I am not sure it will help resolve the original question about the role of the land hydrological regime in climate sensitivity.

I must therefore admit that at least in this aspect, your scepticism indeed revealed my limits of a layman trying to speak to scientists. Although I think that it puts in doubts rather my simplicist picture how the perceived problem could be solved than the generic arguments why we need the yet missing information, I would like to thank you that you helped recognize this weakness in my proposal. I still hope that an expert will once find a way how to resolve the yet open problem properly.

Greetings
Tomáš

WW2 killed 70 – 85 million people in total, and there’s also the massive scale of property damage. There was also the deliberate extermination of a race of people purely done for racial purity reasons.

The Black death caused 25 – 50 million deaths. The wars and invasions of colonisation killed roughly 50 million directly and up to another 150 million indirectly, basically all as a means to acquire resources. The depopulation of native American Indians killed about 10 million.

Source of numbers: MS Copilot and cross checked Google Gemini for the colonisation issue, all using Britannica, Wikipedia etc, etc.

Which is darkest period? Depends on how you define darkest. The period of colonisation killed the most people and is very dark, but I think WW2 is particularly dark because of the Jewish issue.

Killian cant conceive that somebody may have become negative and cynical about technology without his guidance. And for the record, being cynical about technology does not mean I support plans of cutting the use of modern technology and total energy use by 80% by 2050. It’s too fast and so would cause a disaster and is unlikely to be adopted. Anyone who cant see why, should shine a torch in one ear and check to see if light comes out through the other ear.

Quarterly UAH TLT for 2025-26 Global, NH & SH (& the same for ERA5 SAT**)
2025 JFM … +0.51ºC … … +0.66ºC … … +0.36ºC … … (+0.69ºC … … +1.36ºC … … +0.62ºC)
2025 AMJ … +0.53ºC … … +0.57ºC … … +0.49ºC … … (+0.54ºC … … +1.04ºC … … +0.56ºC)
2025 JAS … +0.43ºC … … +0.48ºC … … +0.37ºC … … (+0.53ºC … … +1.04ºC … … +0.56ºC)
2025 OND … +0.42ºC … … +0.52ºC … … +0.32ºC … … (+0.61ºC … … +1.31ºC … … +0.62ºC)
2026 JFM … +0.37ºC … … +0.46ºC … … +0.28ºC … … (+0.53ºC … … +1.09ºC … … +0.55ºC)

Monthly UAH TLT for 2026 Global, NH & SH (& the same for ERA5 SAT**)
Jan … +0.35ºC … … +0.51ºC … … +0.19ºC … … (+0.51ºC … … +1.10ºC … … +0.47ºC)
Feb … +0.39ºC … … +0.54ºC … … +0.23ºC … … (+0.54ºC … … +1.10ºC … … +0.56ºC)
Mar … +0.38ºC … … +0.33ºC … … +0.42ºC … … (+0.53ºC … … +1.06ºC … … +0.62ºC)
Apr … +0.39ºC … … +0.43ºC … … +0.34ºC … … (+0.52ºC … … +0.99ºC … … +0.62ºC)
(** ERA SAT – Global anomaly base 1991-2020, NH & SH anomaly base 1979-2000.)

MA Rodger,

If there was any evidence that temperature lagged CO₂ concentrations, then a deeper understanding the carbon cycle might be of some interest to me as I would need to distinguish between solar-driven temperature changes, and those driven by [CO₂]. You asked “does your analysis show any other signal transferred between Temp and CO2?”. Beyond seasonal variations, the answer is a no. The transition from a -90° response to a six-month delay is, I believe, an artifact of measuring global temperature and [CO₂] in the NH. Also, long-period solar forcing cycles will alternate between hemispheres every six months.

Seasonal variations are interesting because the coherence is lower than expected. One possible explanation for this is that seasonal [CO₂] variations are also a function of daylight. With a 0.13yr delay, it’s clearly a different process.

Thanks for clarifying the transient response, but it doesn’t change anything. As I said, it doesn’t matter what the response is, for [CO₂] to drive temperature, the phase response, as I’ve computed it, must have positive values. The competing process is temperature induced variations in [CO₂]. This process has a negative phase response confirming the direction of causality.

I think I’ve explained my analysis well enough here, so I won’t repeat most of that. However, since you appear to understand time-domain analysis, I will expand on one of my graphics.

In this time-domain analysis there are two empirical trend models, a quadratic equation for deseasonalized [CO₂], and a linear equation for global temperature. Keep in mind that [CO₂] is supposed to include significant anthropogenic emissions.

https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_2_1_global202601.png

Take a long, close look at the detrended data in the upper, right plot and answer these questions: Is there any evidence that the blue, detrended [CO₂] ever leads the red, detrended temperature? Can you spot any detrended [CO₂] feature which might be attributable to variations in anthropogenic emissions, e.g. the Covid lockdown? I can’t. In fact, the only odd thing about this result is that it appears the 1984 Mauna Loa eruption and subsequent outgassing biased the MLO data for several years.

You have to admit; the quadratic trend is an excellent fit to the [CO₂] data. Is a quadratic trend predicted by carbon budgets? If so, how does a quadratic rise in [CO₂] relate to a linear rise in temperature? I thought the relationship was supposed to be logarithmic. I couldn’t make that work. Also, why is there such a wide range of sensitivities in your plot? If the response was treated as a forcing function, that would make it hard to estimate parameters!

What I could make work is that [CO₂] is integrally related to temperature. This explains the variations in the trends, much of the variable delay in the residuals, and a quadratic trend in [CO₂] for a linear trend in temperature.

Well, that was actually supposed to be a near-upper bound (for Fredonia KS), ie. hoping that the portions of BOS + installation/site preparation + O&M etc. that are actually electric already or could reduce CED by going electric would be at least enough to offset the fuel as feedstock issue. Ie. it (EPBT) may be between 0.6 and 1.1 yrs.

In Re to Robert Cutler, 5 May 2026 at 2:31 PM,

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/04/a-reflection-on-reflection/#comment-847654

Dear Robert,

Thank you for the references to articles that seem to already deal with my question. I am very curious about an explanation from Dr. Pukite why these works may be incorrect (what he seems to believe). I hope (see my parallel post of 7 May 2026 at 10:09 AM,

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/04/a-reflection-on-reflection/#comment-847771 )

that he will clarify.

By the way, do you appreciate his works seeking the fingerprint of Earth tides in Earth climate wobbles? To me, they appear quite similar in their approach to your efforts (and/or efforts of other scientists like Dr. Scafetta) to find (in Earth climate wobbles) the fingerprints of solar tides.

Greetings
Tomáš

In Re to Paul Pukite, 6 May 2026 at 11:01 AM,

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/04/a-reflection-on-reflection/#comment-847708

Dear Paul,

It sounds very interesting and I will appreciate if you share some reference that allows to learn the ideas proposed by Dr. Marston more specifically. Meanwhile, I would like to return to my question of 4 May 2026 at 6:30 PM,

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2026/04/a-reflection-on-reflection/#comment-847593

To me as a non-physicist, it is not obvious that the weaker tidal forces acting on the Sun from the planets (in comparison with tidal forces acting on the Earth from the Sun and the Moon) could not be (perhaps at least partly) compensated by the higher depth of the “ocean” on the Sun in comparison with Earth oceans having the depth only in the order of one thousandth of Earth diameter.

In absence of a such understanding, I as a layman do not see a substantial difference between your works seeking the fingerprint of complex interferences in tidal forces acting on Earth oceans in available detailed records of tides in various ports across the Earth globe on one hand and seeking a fingerprint of tidal forces acting on the Sun in available records of solar activity on the other hand. In this respect, I would like to make you aware that not only for me but, possibly, also for a bigger part of the Real Climate audience, it can be difficult to distinguish between you work (and/or the ideas or works by people like Dr. Marston) focused on Earth and the attempts by Dr. Scafetta or others who look after a fingerprint of tidal forces in solar activity.

I am pretty sure that if I try to follow your recommendation (“follow the geophysics”), I will not become any smarter than I am now. I am aware of my limitations and of my reliance on explanations provided by experts like you. That is why I would like to repeat my question, with a hope that you will not refuse it as a mere “sea lioning”. Could you at least try to provide an explanation that could be understandable to non-experts as well?

Personally, I would see the possibility that your frequency analysis could be applicable on the tides on both the Earth as well as the Sun (and perhaps also on the variations in Earth precession and nutation that cause Milankovič cycles) as fascinating enough to deserve a satisfactory explanation why it is in fact a delusion (what appears from your dismissing comments). I believe that I am not the only Real Climate reader who would really appreciate if the disputing scientists provided a deeper insight in their arguments to the broader public as well.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and best regards
Tomáš Kalisz

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 7 of this Preprint.
Free pdf book download 423 pgs
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/10865/

P. 310 Carrying capacity of Earth

A.5. Summary

It should now be clear that human well-being hinges on the state of the global climate, which our col-
lective actions are driving via bifurcations away from a human-friendly stable regime. A hardwired
human imperative toward expansion – more people and higher throughput – is amplified by growth-
centric economic doctrines, religious narratives, and techno-optimism that equate growth with good.
The result is overshoot: the Earth system responds with warming, extremes, and threshold cross-
ings that lower carrying capacity and force contractions in consumption and, ultimately, population.
Against such biophysical constraints, political rhetoric of unbounded economic growth collides with
physical reality. Whoever wagers against the Second Law of Thermodynamics – as neoliberal economic
doctrine does – always meets the same end: utter collapse and humiliation.

Rees (2023) argues that

[H]uman brain and associated cognitive processes are functionally obsolete to deal with
the human eco-crisis [caused by overshoot, TWP]. H. sapiens tends to respond to problems
in simplistic, reductionist, mechanical ways. Simplistic diagnoses lead to simplistic reme-
dies. Politically acceptable technical ‘solutions’ to global warming assume fossil fuels are
the problem, require major capital investment and are promoted on the basis of profit po-
tential, thousands of well-paying jobs and bland assurances that climate change can readily
be rectified. If successful, this would merely extend overshoot. Complexity demands a sys-
temic approach; to address overshoot requires unprecedented international cooperation in
the design of coordinated policies to ensure a socially-just economic contraction, mostly in
high-income countries, and significant population reductions everywhere.

Keep this in mind: the reductionist scientist—as most of us are trained to be–is far less free than the
jazz musician who improvises without a script. What is required now to break out of the inherited
reductionist cage of our own making is nothing less than a global explosion of deliberate, collective free
will.

Abstract extracts

We follow with an outline of humanity’s true place in Nature and our genetic and physiological dependence on deep geological time, extending back more than 3.6 billion years. We illustrate how our collective learning as a species has been fundamentally subverted by the rise of modern techno-civilization, which has progressively severed most people from their biological and social roles and immersed them in a technological enframing that distorts perception, erodes meaning, and obscures what it means to be human.

As a result, the book is well-suited for advanced high-school students (e.g., AP level), undergraduates in engineering, science, biomedical disciplines, and the liberal arts, as well as graduate students and professionals across fields. It was written for an international readership, including audiences in France, the UK, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain, Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and beyond. (My earlier collaboration with Joseph Tainter was translated into Italian.)

Finally, this book will be especially valuable to policymakers. It distills an immense and often inaccessible body of knowledge—spread across IPCC assessments, specialized computer science, and other scientific literature—into clear, concise language. Even experts frequently lack the time to decipher what dozens of authors and editors intended. This book solves that problem by making essential climate science comprehensible without oversimplifying it.