Friday, February 14, 2025

Anderson re Hansen

Has Global Warming Accelerated – a short response to Hansen et al. Kevin Anderson. February 13, 2025.

I was asked by Bob Berwyn of Inside Climate News for my thoughts on James Hansen and colleagues’ recent paper Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed? Bob’s article is available at: New research led by James Hansen …

For those interested, a slightly modified version of my full quote is copied below:
Even with robust data, scientists can—and regularly do—arrive at slightly different conclusions. The differences often stem from the assumptions they choose to make, both explicitly and implicitly, as well as how they interpret incomplete or competing datasets. This is the essence of scientific inquiry: through open discussion and debate our understanding improves. For those who critically engage with science, additional factors such as risks and consequences come into play, especially on complex issues like climate change.

In this context, the policy process has abdicated its responsibilities, opting instead for short-term acquiescence with business as usual, rather than offering strong, transparent and cogent leadership. After decades of half-truths, delusion, and outright lies from those in positions of power—and often from their advisors as well—we now find ourselves facing severe risks of disastrous outcomes. Whether we align with the more conservative forecasts of the IPCC or the more challenging warnings of Jim Hansen, the policy implications are strikingly similar. We are rapidly blasting through the 1.5°C commitment, and even staying “well below 2°C” now demands global emission cuts of around 7% annually,☨ starting this year—a rate nearly 2 percentage points higher than we saw during the most stringent COVID lockdowns, and that was for just one year

From a policy perspective, and certainly from the viewpoint of anyone concerned about their family, community, or the future of humanity, the science in 2025 is unambiguous. Without abandoning failed incremental green policies in favour of swift, deep, and transformative emission reductions, we face a future fraught with dire consequences if the IPCC is correct, or catastrophic outcomes if Jim Hansen’s analysis proves accurate. His latest findings only underscore the shameful failure of many to engage honestly with physical reality and call for the radical, if not revolutionary, shifts now required if we’re to deliver on even a weak interpretation of Paris. We are not sleepwalking into the apocalypse—we’re charging toward it with full awareness of what’s at stake. Even more damning, we can already see the devastating effects of our actions tearing apart the livelihoods—and even the lives—of vulnerable, often poor, low-emitting communities, far from the high-emitting areas where we live, and frequently comprised of people of colour. These communities, along with our own children in the near future, are the canaries in the coal mine—and yet, we appear willing to sacrifice them without ever learning from their suffering.

Thursday, February 13, 2025

Hansen: Global Warming Has Accelerated. Why? What Are The Consequences?

Global Warming Has Accelerated. Why? What Are the Consequences? James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha. Feb. 12, 2025.

Once upon a time, Earth Sciences was blessed to have brilliant, articulate, scientific leaders, such as Jule Charney and Francis Bretherton, whose knowledge and overview of climate science commanded respect. And there were many other scientists with deep understanding of the scientific method, who helped spur progress in the field and assure that progress was recognized. Top science writers, such as Walter Sullivan, could rely on such scientific researchers for perceptive descriptions of the major issues and progress in addressing them. We recall fondly learning from Charney’s colleague at MIT, Peter Stone, who served as the principal adviser for climate research at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, back in the days when Charney was trying to decide whether global equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 was more like 2°C or 4°C. The correct answer would have enormous practical implications.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in 1988, and endorsed by the United Nations that year, produces comprehensive climate assessments about every six or seven years. The reports contain a large amount of useful information; the most recent report on the physical science basis of climate change, the Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC AR6), was published in August 2021. IPCC’s approach to climate analysis came to be dominated by use of global climate models (GCMs) for climate simulations of the past 1-2 centuries. We have taken a complementary approach, placing comparable emphasis on paleoclimate data, GCM modeling, and modern observations of climate processes, as described in our three main papers published in the past decade: (1) “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms,” (2) “Global warming in the pipeline,” and (3) “Global warming has accelerated.” The third of these, published last week, was long, as it tied all three together, especially via its Supplementary Material (SM), which usually houses only secondary material. Here is a link to the Abstract + Paper + SM as a single document. Below, we first provide a plain language summary of the three principal conclusions of this paper and then address questions raised in the media by kibitzers.

1. The leap of global temperature in 2023-2024 is explained; no new physics is required.
The 0.4°C increase of global temperature in 2023-24 was caused equally by increase of absorbed solar radiation and a weak El Nino. Increase of absorbed sunlight was mainly spurred by reduction of aerosols (tiny particles), especially those emitted by ships, as the International Maritime Organization imposed a strict limit on the sulfur content of ship fuels beginning in 2020. Aerosols serve as cloud formation nuclei; the induced clouds reflect sunlight and cause global cooling that offsets part of the global warming caused by increasing greenhouse gases. This cooling offset has long been described as a “Faustian bargain” because aerosols constitute particulate air pollution that kills millions of people every year. Our Faustian payments – an increase of global warming – come due when we reduce health-damaging air pollution and thus reduce aerosol cooling.

2. Climate sensitivity is 50 percent larger than the best estimate of IPCC.
We show that the climate sensitivity required to yield best agreement with observed global warming in the past century is 4.5°C for doubled CO2, which is 50% larger than IPCC’s best estimate of 3°C. Together, conclusions 1 and 2 imply that near-term global temperature will decrease very little: thus, averaged over the El Nino/La Nina cycle, the 1.5°C limit has been reached. IPCC’s estimate of climate sensitivity depended on the assumption that aerosol climate forcing was unchanging during the period 1970-2005, but we show that aerosol forcing increased (became more negative) during that period as aerosols spread more globally, including over pristine ocean areas where their effect is greater. If aerosols were fixed, greenhouse gases are the only forcing and the climate sensitivity required to match observed warming would be about 3°C for doubled CO2. But the net forcing was actually smaller during that period because the negative aerosol forcing was growing, so a larger climate sensitivity is required to match observed warming of the past century. Our estimated climate sensitivity coincides with the sensitivity derived from glacial-to-interglacial climate change, the portion of the paleoclimate record for which precise knowledge of greenhouse gases is available.

3. Accelerated warming increases ice melt and upper ocean warming, threatening to shut down North Atlantic overturning circulation by mid-century and cause large sea level rise.
We show that observed ice melt over the past 20 years was similar to assumed ice melt in climate simulations of “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, and Superstorms.” The rate of ice melt did not increase in the past decade, but, given the leap of global temperature to +1.5°C above preindustrial, we expect ice melt to accelerate, especially in regions such as southeast Greenland where ice melt is injected directly into the Irminger Sea, a region where deepwater forms. The North Atlantic is warming at depths beneath the surface wind-mixed ocean layer, with warmer water penetrating beneath the sea ice and ice shelves. Paleoclimate data suggest that such sub-ice warming can lead to sudden loss of regional sea ice and thus increased warming and summer rainfall on lower reaches of the Greenland ice sheet and increased freshwater injection into the ocean. Our climate simulations suggest that such increased ice melt and rapid surface warming can shut down the overturning ocean circulation by mid-century, which would be the “Point of No Return” because shutdown is irreversible in less than centuries. Large sea level rise would become inevitable, as heat normally transported into the North Atlantic would remain in the Southern Hemisphere and speed melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Global warming acceleration increases this danger because the increased heating both reduces the density of the upper layer of the ocean and increases the rate of ice melt.

Reactions. How would Charney, Bretherton and other scientific leaders of yore have responded to these papers and assertions, and how would the media have responded? It’s a pretty safe bet they would conclude that the papers are a serious analysis. They would think about what observations are needed to confirm and illuminate the issues that are raised. Instead, much reaction in the media seems closer to the continual squealing of farm animals. It is hard to fault the science writers; their stories reflect what they are told by the scientists who are willing or even eager to respond to their inquiries. We find many responses to be unscientific and surprising, given the intergenerational issues that are raised. An illuminating example is the response to Seth Borenstein, the climate science writer for the largest news organization in the world (Associated Press), who was told by 5 of his 6 go-to climate experts that he should not even write about our paper “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, and Superstorms;” thus he did not. The paper was also blackballed by the IPCC AR6 report; not a single mention in the several-thousand-page report. Below we speculate about reasons for this treatment, but first let’s respond to current reactions to our “Acceleration” paper.

Reaction 1. Feedbacks. It is claimed that we neglect climate feedbacks, which cause most of the warming and cause the largest warming to be in the Southern Hemisphere, not the Northern Hemisphere, where the ship aerosol effect is largest. In fact (see our Fig. 10), the largest sea surface warming is at latitudes 30-50N in the Northern Hemisphere, where ship aerosol forcing is largest. The total ocean heat content gain may be larger in the more massive Southern Hemisphere ocean, but that supports our interpretation. Most increased energy flux into the planet is from climate feedbacks. We evaluated the contributions of forcings and feedbacks that affect Earth’s albedo (Fig. SM15, in the Supplementary Material of our current paper) and energy imbalance. Over the period (since 2000) of precise satellite measurements of Earth’s albedo (reflectivity), Earth has darkened by 1.7 W/m2. Based on the geographical and temporal distribution of the darkening, we infer that about 0.5 W/m2 of this darkening is the ship aerosol forcing. About 0.15 W/m2 is ice/snow albedo feedback, due to reduced sea ice area, which is well-defined. Thus, by subtraction, most of Earth’s darkening must be the cloud feedback that is expected with global warming. It is a huge feedback for the 20-year period with satellite data. If we over-estimated the aerosol forcing, the cloud feedback is even larger.

This simple bar graph (Fig. SM15) has another story to tell, which Charney and Bretherton would have recognized instantly: the large cloud feedback in a brief period implies that climate sensitivity is much higher than 3°C for doubled CO2. Charney’s comparison of climate models with 2°C and 4°C sensitivity revealed that a 2°C response is provided by doubled CO2 forcing plus water vapor feedback and small sea ice feedback. Addition of only modest cloud feedback raises the sensitivity to 3°C, as an amplifying feedback enhances all other amplifying feedbacks. Thus, the large cloud feedback in the past two decades provides independent confirmation of high climate sensitivity.

Reaction 2. IPCC AR6 models yield realistic global warming acceleration without a ship aerosol effect. The person making this claim – and asserting that it contradicts our conclusions – apparently does not realize that there is a big difference between IPCC’s best estimate for aerosol forcing history and the aerosol forcing in GCMs participating in CMIP6 and IPCC AR6 climate simulations. The IPCC best estimate aerosol forcing is shown in our paper in Fig. 3 and in Figs. 13 and SM1 as updated by Forster et al. (2024). This IPCC aerosol forcing includes the direct aerosol forcing and the larger indirect effect on clouds. This IPCC aerosol forcing is used in the literature for various purposes, e.g., in derivation of an “emergent constraint” on climate sensitivity; these authors assume, consistent with the IPCC aerosol forcing estimate, that aerosol forcing is nearly unchanging over the period 1970-2005. Then, based on observed global warming and assuming that greenhouse gases are the only significant changing forcing in that period, they infer an “emergent constraint” on climate sensitivity: specifically, sensitivity must be close to 3°C for doubled CO2.

However, if they allowed the aerosol forcing to change during that period, they would have found quite different results. We showed that there is a one-to-one relation between the climate sensitivity that gives best fit to observed warming and the trend of aerosol forcing in the period 1970-2005: if the aerosol forcing is constant, the sensitivity is ~3°C; if the aerosol forcing increases as in Bauer’s Matrix aerosol model (almost 0.5 W/m2), the sensitivity is ~4.5°C; if the aerosol forcing increases as in Bauer’s OMA aerosol model, the sensitivity is ~6°C (see Figs. 17 and 18). Given this one-to-one relation between climate sensitivity and the aerosol forcing change during 1970-2005, the “emergent constraint” that climate sensitivity is near 3°C amounts to the following: “if we assume that climate sensitivity is near 3°C, we find that climate sensitivity is near 3°C.”

For the sake of estimating climate sensitivity, we made climate simulations for 1850-2024 with two free parameters (climate sensitivity and the change of aerosol forcing during 1970-2005) and two constraints (1.6°C global warming between 1850 and 2024, and 0.18°C/decade warming during 1970-2005). The best fit was obtained with sensitivity ~4.5°C for doubled CO2 and an increase of aerosol forcing during 1970-2005 similar to that in Bauer’s Matrix model.

After all this explanation, what is wrong with the assertion that CMIP/IPCC models already yield recent acceleration of global warming? Answer: many of the models in the CMIP/IPCC ensemble are not using the IPCC aerosol forcing history. The ensemble includes models that use the Bauer aerosol forcings, e.g., which were steeply increasing during 1970-2005 before stopping growth entirely or even switching to change of the opposite sign. Thus, the average of IPCC models yields global warming acceleration, but it cannot match observed acceleration and the results certainly do not support IPCC’s best estimate for aerosol forcing.

Reaction 3. Range of model fog. Another reaction is that observed rapid warming falls in the range of all CMIP/IPCC climate simulations, so there is no basis to question IPCC assumptions. CMIP/IPCC models include the good, the bad, and the ugly. Yet IPCC takes the distribution of model results as a probability distribution for the real world, using this distribution for mathematical analyses that separate IPCC from the possibility of widespread public understanding, much like the Wizard of Oz tried to overpower Dorothy and her friends. For their purpose, a “merit” of the huge range of this model fog is that IPCC will always be “right,” the real world will fall somewhere within that huge fog. Oops! Maybe not. In a paper that perhaps provided the “rationale” for IPCC to blackball our “Ice Melt” paper, 15 authors, representing leading GCM groups, used 21 climate projections from eight “…state-of-the-science, IPCC class…” GCMs to conclude that “…the probability of an AMOC collapse is negligible. This is contrary to a recent modeling study [Hansen et al., 2016] that used a much larger, and in our assessment unrealistic, Northern Hemisphere freshwater forcing… According to our probabilistic assessment, the likelihood of an AMOC collapse remains very small (<1% probability) if global warming is below ~5K… ”. Here, even the range of model results does not seem to encompass all realistic possibilities: few climate experts would assert that 5°C global warming, sufficient to melt most of the ice on the planet, would be unlikely to shut down AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation). Their models likely obtain AMOC stability only because injection of cold freshwater into the polar oceans in the models is underestimated or based on too-lethargic ice sheet models.

Models are essential for understanding ongoing climate change and projections for the future, but by themselves they are inadequate and unable to provide an adequate assessment. The models will be a much more powerful tool, if they are used along with an equally heavy emphasis on paleoclimate data and observations of ongoing climate processes, and the information from all of these combined with mindfulness of climate physics.

Reaction 4. We overlooked the role of decreased aerosols from China. The direct radiative effect of aerosol change is shown in clear-sky measurements of the global increase of absorbed solar radiation (Fig. SM8). The global effect of aerosol change in 2020-2023 relative to 2000-2010 is less than 0.1 W/m2, after the effect of changes in sea ice is removed. China may provide a large fraction of that flux change, but even in total this is a small effect. Change of all-sky absorbed solar radiation (Fig.9) is an order of magnitude larger and the temporal and spatial footprint coincides with the ship aerosol change, and clearly not with change of emissions from China, where the largest decrease was in 2005-2015. The spatial and temporal pattern of SST change (Figure 10) further support the dominance of ship aerosols. It is not surprising that the ship aerosols are much more effective; they are emitted into the lower part of the atmosphere in unpolluted ocean skies, where they have the most effect on clouds.

Bretherton and Charney would not have been confused about the role of Chinese aerosols, which they would recognize has no effect on our three main conclusions above. (1) most aerosol change in China occurred prior to 2020-2023 (Fig. 13), with negligible effect on the sudden global warming in 2023. (2) Our inference of an increasing global aerosol forcing during 1970-2005 and derivation of 4.5°C climate sensitivity are independent of the source of increased aerosol forcing. (3) Our conclusion that the danger of passing the “point of no return” (AMOC shutdown and large sea level rise) is increased by the accelerated North Atlantic warming is straightforward: the increased heating reduces the density of the upper layer of the ocean and increases the rate of ice melt – conclusions that do not depend on uncertainties about aerosols from China.

Reaction 5. Our results are an outlier. When we have answered all the questions, the critics always resort to “they are an outlier,” with results outside those of the “mainstream” climate research community. This is stated in a way that makes it seem that we are unlikely to be right, even when the real world offers ample evidence in support of our conclusions. The media is then forced to go along with the critics because they outnumber us (there are exceptions, e.g., the comprehensive article by Carrington in the Guardian). However, that’s not the way science works. Science does advance as data become available. Eventually this leads to corrections of the mainstream view – some minor, some major. The difficulty in the case of climate change is that slowness to recognize reality is particularly harmful to young people and future generations because of climate’s delayed response and the danger of passing the point of no return, as we emphasized in the video introduction to our paper.

One clarification is needed: our statement that “2°C is dead” was qualified with the phrase “unless a miracle occurs.” It is true that we do not expect a miracle, but the qualification should be included. It is also true that 2°C could be avoided via temporary purposeful cooling to reduce the massive geoengineering (geotransformation, if you prefer) that humanity is presently inflicting upon our home planet – but we do not have the knowledge to recommend such action and the public is nowhere near a point of endorsing such action. The closest thing to a miracle that is conceivable soon would be adoption of cost-free carbon fee-and-dividend policy that we have advocated for almost two decades, as required to underlie and unleash the millions of changes needed to move the world as rapidly as practical to carbon-free energy and a declining level of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Presidents Obama and Biden each had the opportunity to initiate such a revenue-neutral action as part of economic actions required to address economic crises early in their administrations. Instead, Obama did little for climate and Biden borrowed massive amounts of money from future generations (via deficit funding) to subsidize already mature (solar and wind) technologies, an approach that spurred inflation and invited a whiplash energy policy response from the competing political party.

Summary. How is it that we can be cast as “outliers,” if the real world supports our interpretation of ongoing climate change? In part, we suspect, it is because of the “cottage” industry (quotation marks because it is not a small industry) that has built up in support of IPCC. It’s easy to understand how IPCC went down the track of low climate sensitivity, as early climate models had simple cloud treatments that produced only modest climate feedback. For those low-sensitivity climate models to match observed global warming during the several decades of steady warming since 1970, they required that (unmeasured) aerosol forcing remain almost unchanging in that period. We now have evidence that aerosol forcing was actually increasing (becoming more negative) during that period, which is consistent with paleoclimate evidence that climate sensitivity is high. It is difficult for such a huge industry to change its position, but in the end physics will rule.


On a programmatic note: We have long realized that our conclusion that modern nuclear power needs to play an important role in decarbonizing global energy systems limits our ability to obtain public and philanthropic support for CSAS. Now, it seems, this situation is much aggravated by any open discussion that purposeful global cooling may eventually be needed. It’s reminiscent of an analysis once made by JEH’s oldest grandson at age 10: “If we keep doing what we are doing now then the environment will be ruined when the people who are kids now are grownups. And unless we can figure out how to make a time machine that actually works, there will be no way to go back in time to fix it. It’s not fair that the grownups now are ruining the atmosphere for the grownup in the future. Grownups now are scared of nuclear power but they should be scared of what will happen if they keep doing what they’re doing now because we know the ways to use nuclear power safe and we know that using fossil fuels is not safe. It’s very dangerous.” It seems that “grownups,” have now decided that, after tying one arm behind the back of young people (by setting back nuclear R&D several decades; nuclear power has the potential to be our least expensive 24/7 power source, as well as having the smallest environmental footprint), they should also tie their other arm behind their back by prohibiting research on purposeful cooling, in case the grownups screwed up again and did not leave a time machine.

The tactics of the kibitzers seem to work on most of the media and some of our prior supporters. Apparently, the kibitzers have learned from politicians that it doesn’t matter if what you say is true or not, and even ad hominem attacks are allowed – if enough people repeat the arguments often enough, they are accepted. Our attitude has usually been that we don’t have time to deal with all the disinformation and also focus on our scientific research – because eventually the truth will come out. The problem with this assumption is that continuation of the United Nations approach is dangerous. The current policy approach, and belief that it can lead to climate stabilization and cooling by mid-century, is inexorably putting young people into an untenable position. We believe that it is important, despite the advice the UN gets from their massive scientific support group, to clarify where the approach of the United Nations Conferences of the Parties is taking young people.


We are very grateful to those people who continue to support Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions.



Hansen has made his 2010 book Storms of My Grandchildren available here.

Saturday, February 8, 2025

Prologue: The Biospheric Reckoning

Prologue: The Biospheric Reckoning

I. Gaia’s Unruly Children: Hubris of Man

The Earth, in her ancient and indifferent wisdom, had always known how to heal herself. She had endured ice ages carving continents into jagged sculptures, volcanic eruptions wiping out the sky, and celestial bombardments scorching her skin into craters. But never before had she borne a parasite quite like humanity—a species so adept at consumption, so skilled in the art of forgetting its place.

Earth patiently tolerated the antics of this novel species: the atom-splitting, the deep-sea trawling, the ceaseless hunger to bend organic matter into profit. Despite the warnings of shrinking ice caps, coral reefs bleached white, and heatwaves in the dead of winter, corporate boardrooms still buzzed about “market corrections” and “energy transitions,” as if the laws of thermodynamics could be lobbied. Humans, mere tenants on a planet whose existence spanned billions of years before their unruly ascent, were oblivious to the existential threats mounting against them. They were about to be evicted…

II. The Fever: Antibodies of the Anthropocene

It began not with a scream, but with the silence of ice surrendering to the Age of Fire unleashed by Homo sapiens—a crack in the world’s oldest vault, exhaling a breath that had been held for millennia.

The virus did not emerge. It uncoiled.

Locked in the permafrost of Siberia, a sarcophagus of ice had preserved it like a forbidden psalm, a hymn from an epoch when the Earth was young and humanity did not yet exist to defile it. This was no ordinary pathogen. It was an archaeon of annihilation, a sleeper agent from the Pleistocene, its genetic code etched in the language of extinction. When the frost finally relinquished its grip, the virus rose—not from the steaming jungles humanity had plundered, nor the gristle-packed markets where species were stacked in cages—but from the pristine, white throat of the Arctic. Scientists dubbed it Morbus glacies, a clinical epithet for what survivors would later scream as The Thawed God.

Its method was poetry written in frost. Microscopic spores, delicate as diamond dust, rode the jet stream like nomadic assassins. They infiltrated lungs not with the violence of a blade, but the kiss of a snowflake—soft, inevitable. Within weeks, humanity choked with the sound of coughing—a grim chorus echoing through streets and skyscrapers. Cities transformed into galleries of the damned. The infected didn’t scream or bleed. They burned.

It began with a low-grade fever—99°F, then 100°, dismissed as seasonal flu. But by day three, temperatures spiked to 107°, defying ice baths and antipyretics. Skin flushed not with rosy heat, but a mottled crimson, as if capillaries were bursting beneath the surface. Autopsies would later reveal the truth: the virus hijacked the hypothalamus, overriding thermal regulation, turning the human body into a runaway furnace.

Muscles melted into lactic acid. Organs cooked in their own fluids. Brains, sweltering in their skulls, left victims in a permanent hallucinogenic state. Death came when the fever burned through cellular proteins, collapsing the body like a gutted star.

Scientists named it hyperpyretic encephalitis. Survivors called it The Ember Plague. But the most chilling detail wasn’t the heat—it was the vector. The virus thrived in mosquitoes that now bred year-round in Europe’s sweltering cities, in ticks creeping north as winters warmed. Humanity had engineered the perfect incubator: a planet feverish with heat, sweating out pathogens evolved to feast on overheated flesh.

But the Thawed God was no solitary deity. It was a prophet, a herald of the microbial pantheon awakening beneath humanity’s boot.

Its emergence triggered a cascade. Diseases once confined to the tropics flourished in a climate run amok. Mosquitoes carrying dengue and malaria infested European cities, thriving in summers that now steamed like saunas. In America’s heartland, farmers collapsed in their fields, lungs riddled with fungal spores that sprouted grotesque tendrils through their flesh. Labs scrambled to engineer vaccines, but the viruses mutated faster than science could chase them. By the time a cure was bottled, the target had already evolved.

Humanity’s response was defiance, not wisdom.

They continued torching forests to clear land for hamburger meat and palm oil. They continued draining ancient aquifers to cool the power plants fueling their industrial agriculture and industry. Their mantra of “green growth” masked a refusal to abandon exponential consumption. They clung to buzzwords like “resilience” and “innovation,” treating the Earth as a malfunctioning machine to be debugged rather than a living system they’d broken. Every solution was a stopgap, every strategy a gamble. And still, they refused to admit the truth: they were not fighting a disaster.

They were facing an immune response.

III. The Storm: Sky’s Retribution

Then came the hurricanes—not the familiar, seasonal tempests, but leviathans baptized in the feverish waters of a boiling ocean. They began as statistical outliers, then evolved into a pattern no model could dismiss.

The first to rewrite the rules was Hurricane Lachesis, initially classified as Category 6, a designation created for storms that laughed at old scales. It drifted toward the Gulf Coast with the patience of a predator, its winds peeling roofs from hospitals and shifting foundations in Houston’s industrial corridors. Storm surges, supercharged by thermal expansion, seeped into Miami’s aquifers, contaminating freshwater reserves with a saline rot that would linger for decades. Lachesis was not an exception; it was a recalibration. Cyclones began stalling—over Dubai, over Shanghai—their paths warped by weakened jet streams. The one that parked itself over the Emirates for nine days did not shatter towers but drowned them from within, overloading drainage systems never designed for desert monsoons. In the South China Sea, a typhoon veered north, dumping rain on the Gobi until temporary lakes swallowed mining towns and their fossil fuel machinery whole.

The weather grew spiteful in its precision. Lightning storms, turbocharged by atmospheric instability, ignited tinder-dry boreal forests from Alberta to Siberia. Tornadoes materialized in clusters, chewing through midwestern wind farms and trailer parks with impartial efficiency. The rain, warmer and heavier now, fell in relentless waves, leaching heavy metals from soil into reservoirs, creating a toxic brew.

Still, the architects of resilience doubled down. They raised seawalls lined with osmotic membranes, built AI-piloted drone fleets to inject cooling aerosols into the stratosphere, and sunk billions into carbon capture vaults buried beneath the tundra. Each solution bred new consequences. Expensive seawalls accelerated erosion in the neighboring coastlines; aerosol injections changed global rainfall patterns, diverting rains from agricultural zones and sparking famines; the tundra projects triggered methane leaks from thawing permafrost. Engineers spoke of “managed decline” and “adaptive thresholds,” sterile phrases that masked the truth: every intervention tugged at a thread in what remained of the ecosystem’s fabric.

By the time the North Atlantic Current faltered, stalling nutrient cycles and collapsing fisheries from Newfoundland to Norway, it was too late to parse cause from effect. The climate had become a hall of mirrors, humanity’s reflection warped by every desperate correction. The storms, though, remained crystalline in their intent—not wrath, but equilibrium, attempting to restore balance through a language of floods and fire whose lesson we had refused to learn.

The message was clear: nature’s ledger always collects.

IV. The Burn: Earth’s Purification

Megafires raced across continents, a billion amber teeth devouring vineyards, suburbs, and entire ecosystems. They weren’t just fires—they were Earth’s fever burning through the kindling of human denial.

The Amazon, its canopy stripped and soil desiccated, ceased to breathe. Conflagrations gnawed through the “lungs of the planet”, reducing it to a blackened trachea. The Australian outback became a crematorium for a billion creatures, their screams lost in the roar of a red horizon.

In every country, infernos towered like skyscrapers, devouring entire towns in minutes. Highways choked with fleeing cars became graveyards of melted steel. Embers were lofted miles ahead of the main blaze, seeding destruction in neighborhoods still clinging to the illusion of safety. Survivors wore gas masks to filter ash that fell like gray snow, their eyes fixed on horizons where the sun glowed an apocalyptic orange through a perpetual toxic haze. What the flames didn’t claim, the aftermath did: charred hillsides shed into mudslides, rivers ran black with debris, and once-lush landscapes became smoldering patchworks of new deserts.

In the thawing Arctic and Siberia, ancient methane reserves escaped into the atmosphere to create a vicious feedback loop of wildfires raging with a ferocity beyond containment. Their acrid smoke blotted out the sun and cloaked the northern hemisphere in an eternal twilight. The once-frozen tundra had become a cracked, smoldering wasteland, where flames devoured skeletal forests.

Every flame laid bare the delusions of control, the hubris of containment algorithms, the rot of economies built to monetize extinction. The economy, now a doomsday cult, demanded infinite growth from a finite system. The wealthy fled to sealed arks of concrete and filtered air, sipping champagne as they watched the world burning on their flat screens. The poor burned quietly, their ashes blending with the soil they’d once tilled.

V. The Final Paroxysm: Oppenheimer’s Legacy

The biosphere had already unsheathed its claws: pestilence had decimated human populations, storms had scoured the coasts and erased cities, and wildfires had reduced entire nations to charcoal sketches. But it was not enough. The architects of the Anthropocene, those apes who had tamed fire and selfishly reshaped the entire planet in their image, would not go quietly in the night. No—they would burn the house down with them.

In the end, humanity’s epitaph was written in fission and fallout. Nations were fractured by dwindling resources and their military’s chain of command had been frayed by famine and flight. Leaders, cloistered in bunkers lit by the glow of missile consoles, gnawed on paranoia. Screens flickered with maps flashing red—cities quarantined, farmlands desiccated, reservoirs empty and crumbling. A button pressed in desperation, a missile launched in error—the pretext mattered little. ICBMs arced through the stratosphere, their contrails like the talons of some vengeful raptor.

New York’s skyline melted into a silhouette of shadow, its millions vaporized mid-breath. Beijing’s Forbidden City became a glass plain. Paris, the City of Light, ignited into a funeral pyre that rivaled the dawn. The bombs did not discriminate. Despot and democrat, saint and sinner, the elderly and the newly born—all were reduced to isotopes.

Others, too impoverished for ICBMs, resorted to cruder blasphemies; dirty bombs salted the earth with radioactivity. In Karachi, a jihadist cell detonated a cobalt-60 “dirty bomb” in a sewage canal. The radiation clung to the water, turning the Indus into a serpent of gamma rays. In Nashville, a doomsday cult wired a reactor core to propane tanks, their leader screaming about “the Rapture’s glow.” It scarcely mattered who had “won”; nuclear winter descended like a shroud, a twilight that stretched for years. The lucky died instantly. The rest perished from famine, cannibalism, and disease…until only one walked the Earth.

Hansen: Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?

Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed? Hansen et al. Feb. 3, 2025.


Abstract


Global temperature leaped more than 0.4°C (0.7°F) during the past two years, the 12-month average peaking in August 2024 at +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). This temperature jump was spurred by one of the periodic tropical El Niño warming events, but many Earth scientists were baffled by the magnitude of the global warming, which was twice as large as expected for the weak 2023-2024 El Niño. We find that most of the other half of the warming was caused by a restriction on aerosol emissions by ships, which was imposed in 2020 by the International Maritime Organization to combat the effect of aerosol pollutants on human health. Aerosols are small particles that serve as cloud formation nuclei. Their most important effect is to increase the extent and brightness of clouds, which reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect on Earth. When aerosols – and thus clouds – are reduced, Earth is darker and absorbs more sunlight, thus enhancing global warming. Ships are the main aerosol source in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans. We quantify the aerosol effect from the geographical distribution of sunlight reflected by Earth as measured by satellites, with the largest expected and observed effects in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans. We find that aerosol cooling, and thus climate sensitivity, are understated in the best estimate of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Global warming caused by reduced ship aerosols will not go away as tropical climate moves into its cool La Niña phase. Therefore, we expect that global temperature will not fall much below +1.5°C level, instead oscillating near or above that level for the next few years, which will help confirm our interpretation of the sudden global warming. High sea surface temperatures and increasing ocean hotspots will continue, with harmful effects on coral reefs and other ocean life. The largest practical effect on humans today is increase of the frequency and severity of climate extremes. More powerful tropical storms, tornadoes, and thunderstorms, and thus more extreme floods, are driven by high sea surface temperature and a warmer atmosphere that holds more water vapor. Higher global temperature also increases the intensity of heat waves and – at the times and places of dry weather – high temperature increases drought intensity, including “flash droughts” that develop rapidly, even in regions with adequate average rainfall.

Polar climate change has the greatest long-term effect on humanity, with impacts accelerated by the jump in global temperature. We find that polar ice melt and freshwater injection onto the North Atlantic Ocean exceed prior estimates and, because of accelerated global warming, the melt will increase. As a result, shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is likely within the next 20-30 years, unless actions are taken to reduce global warming – in contradiction to conclusions of IPCC. If AMOC is allowed to shut down, it will lock in major problems including sea level rise of several meters – thus, we describe AMOC shutdown as the “point of no return.”

We suggest that an alternative perspective – a complement to the IPCC approach – is needed to assess these issues and actions that are needed to avoid handing young people a dire situation that is out of their control. This alternative approach will make more use of ongoing observations to drive modeling and more use of paleoclimate to test modeling and test our understanding. As of today, the threats of AMOC shutdown and sea level rise are poorly understood, but better observations of polar ocean and ice changes in response to the present accelerated global warming have the potential to greatly improve our understanding.