Wood Romances

The 2025 Global Carbon Budget was just released. The data included in the report goes from 1750 to 2024, since the report was published before the end of 2025. Below "FFI" stands for fossil fuels and industry and "LUC" stands for land use change. I'm not including uncertainties in my graphs below for the sake of keeping the graphs readable, but the uncertainties are discussed in the report linked at the bottom of this post. 2025 Carbon Budget Atmospheric CO2 (aCO2) Carbon Mass CO2 Equiv. Significance aCO2 (1750) 591 GtC 278 ppm Preindustrial aCO2 in 1750 aCO2 Growth (1750 - 2024) 312 GtC 147 ppm 34.6% of aCO2 in 2024 aCO2 (2024) 903 GtC 424 ppm 52.9% increase in aCO2 above 1750 Human Carbon Emissions (FFI & LUC) 752 GtC 353 ppm 2.41x greater than aCO2 Growth aCO2 (1750) + Carbon Emissions 1343 GtC 631 ppm What aCO2 would be without land/ocean sinks Human Contribution to Land/Ocean Sinks 440 GtC 207 ppm 58.5% of human emissions goes to land/ocean sinks Human ...

The Winery I've found that is the farthest North  63.47°N A common trope from contrarian activists is that the roman warm period ( RWP ) and medieval warm period ( MWP ) were warmer than today. The proxy data we have conclusively show this to be false, but most of these contrarians reject the proxy evidence in reputable studies. Instead, you often hear claims based on a misuse of historical data, one example being that during the RWP and MWP, you could grow wine in England , but you can't now. Therefore, the globe was warmer then than now. One version of this trope is: The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century,” says Avery, “and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages . Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age . It isn’t yet warm enough for wine grapes in today’s Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and se...

The DOE climate assessment report was published a month ago, and already hundreds of scientists have written responses criticizing the handling of the scientific evidence regarding AGW , including 85 scientists who compiled a 400+ page rebuttal  and associated press release . In response, the authors of the DOE report appear to be on a PR campaign for damage control, and so Koonin wrote an op/ed for WSJ and Judith Curry took to her blog . Her blogpost attempts to defend her mistakes about sea level rise and acceleration in the DOE report by highlighting a paper that was published this year. The paper claims to show that 95% of tide gauges do not show any statistically significant acceleration, and the remaining 5% have non-climatic explanations for their observed acceleration: Approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cau...

A couple months ago, I saw that the " Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024 " ( IGCC24 ) was published, which is an annual update on the state of global climate and how it is changing in response to human and natural forcings. The data provides the most up to date information on human emissions and associated changes in radiative forcings as well as an evaluation of the change in temperature. A graphical summary of this is below. From IGCC24 I thought it would be helpful to show how updated values for warming, EEI, and radiative forcings would impact calculations for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS). Here's their accounting of the various natural and anthropogenic forcings. Note that s olar forcing in the diagram above is only for 2024 only and so disagrees with the accounting in the table below. Change in Radiative Forcing Forcer 1750-2024 CO2 2.33 ± 0.28 W/m² CH4 0.57 ± 0.11 W/m² N2O 0.23 ± 0.03 W/m² Halogenated GHGs 0.41 ± 0.08 W/m² Ozone 0.5 ± 0.25 W/m² Strat...

A couple papers were published this year about the recent "pause" in the decrease in September sea ice extent (SIE). One paper, Stern 2025 [1] shows that the trend in Sept. SIE has been indistinguishable from 0 since about 2007.  From Stern 2025 Likewise, England et al 2025 [2] has found that 20-year trends have increased to the point where there is no longer a statistically significant downward trend for 2005-2024. England et al 2025 The publication of these two studies, plus coverage of at least the latter in the Guardian , has caused quite a stir among contrarians on social media, who are claiming this is evidence that AGW isn't really a problem after all, and perhaps natural variability is what's driving recent changes in sea ice extent and temperature. However, that's not the way the authors of these studies are saying. Instead, the authors see the long-term downward trend in sea ice as being very real and caused by human activity, but they are also saying ...

from IPCC AR6 WG1 Chapter 11 With all the misrepresentation of the scientific literature found in the recent DOE report , I thought it might be helpful to show that misrepresenting the scientific literature has a long tradition in contrarian circles, even among those who give the appearance of supporting the overall science presented in the IPCC technical reports. The strategy can serve an important rhetorical goal if you want to show that the science is on your side while taking a counterfactual stance on the science. If your goal is to show that position X (found in the media or in some scientific study) is wrong or not sufficiently supported by evidence, you can cite a series of papers with extremely selective quotations to give the false impression that this series of papers either falsifies Position X or undermines its credibility. This strategy appears to be a go-to strategy in the DOE report.  An interesting twist on this strategy is frequently used by those who want to say ...