by Douglas Sheil
Last week an article in Science, by Seo and colleagues, provided compelling evidence that the world’s land surface is getting drier. This global drying averaged a loss across all land surfaces of over two centimeters of water in two decades.
The trends suggest these losses continue. The authors highlighted the role of climate warming in this desiccation and claimed the changes are “permanent”. https://lnkd.in/eUV82jjV
This claim of permanence was repeated uncritically in a shorter commentary piece in the same issue of the journal. https://lnkd.in/e5r2_4mp
Pierre L. Ibisch and I see these trends differently. The changes may indeed be permanent but they needn’t be. It’s up to us. The role of land cover has been overlooked and is key. It wont be easy but with sufficient effort we should be able to fix this.
We submitted our comments to Science and the text is now appended below the online version of the original article (an “eLetter”). It is open access if you click through here: https://lnkd.in/eUV82jjV
The Earth is drying. Seo et al. (1) highlight an alarming shift: while for most of the planet’s history, a warming climate brought a wetter, greener world (2, 3), it now brings desiccation (1, 4). Our biosphere’s water-regulating functions are broken.
“While climate science and policy focus on greenhouse gases, they often neglect vegetation’s role in keeping the planet cool and hydrated. Forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems regulate temperatures and drive the water cycle (5) — but degradation has impaired these services. Feedbacks from droughts, heatwaves, and declining vegetation now amplify local and regional warming (6, 7). Nonlinear responses risk abrupt shifts and catastrophic tipping points (8, 9).
Solutions become clear when we recognise water and vegetation as partners in climate regulation. Protecting and restoring forests and wetlands does more than sequester carbon — it rebuilds the processes that keep landscapes cool, moist, and productive. Managing land to increase infiltration, reduce runoff, and restore soil water storage helps sustain transpiration and cool the land (5, 9-11). We need to revive a “sponge planet” (12) and support place-based innovations like “sponge cities” that enhance water retention where it’s most needed (13).
Policymakers must act boldly to safeguard “green water” (5, 14). Land-use decisions must prioritise ecosystems that regulate moisture and climate. Strong incentives are essential: those who degrade should pay; those who protect and restore must be rewarded. The message is simple and urgent: a cool, moist, green planet is our best defence against a drier, warmer world. It remains possible. The time to act is now.
References
- K.-W. Seo et al., Science 387, 1408-1413 (2025).
- U. Salzmann et al., Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 309, 1-8 (2011).
- M. T. Clementz, J. O. Sewall, Science 332, 455-458 (2011).
- P. De Luca, M. G. Donat, Geophysical Research Letters 50, e2022GL102493 (2023).
- D. Ellison et al., Global Environmental Change 43, 51-61 (2017).
- C. Smith, J. C. A. Baker, D. V. Spracklen, Nature, (2023).
- D. L. Schumacher, J. Keune, P. Dirmeyer, D. G. Miralles, Nature Geoscience 15, 262-268 (2022).
- T. M. Lenton et al., Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences 105, 1786-1793 (2008).
- A. M. Makarieva et al., Global Change Biology 29, 2536–2556 (2023).
- D. Ellison, J. Pokorný, M. Wild, Global Change Biology 30, e17195 (2024).
- D. Sheil, Forest Ecosystems 5, 1-22 (2018).
- K. Yu, E. Gies, W. W. Wood, Nature Water, 1-3 (2025).
- Z. Zheng, X. Zhang, W. Qiao, R. Zhao, Water Resources Management, 1-15 (2025).
- L. Wang-Erlandsson et al., Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 3, 380-392 (2022).
I posted a link to the Science paper by Seo, et al. on this blog on April 4, under the McKitrick paper on the social cost of carbon. I also found their description of the disiccation as “permanent” a little odd. Giving the authors the benefit of the doubt, I think they simply meant it was not part of some short cyclic process but rather linked to the century long warming that we all discuss, and that most associate with the anthropogenic CO2 increase. Perhaps there are indeed ways to reverse it that are easier than “Net Zero”.
A narrow focus on carbon blinds us (many of us?) to the ways we can fix this.
Douglas: how else to solve the problem, which is atmospheric warming from greenhouse gases.
Why are you focusing soley on carbon and ignoring water? Water is a key part of the climate system why neglect it? Restoring land cover …
Is it the same as the greening of the Earth?
It is related. The overall changes include shifts in rainfall patterns that cause local greening in some regions. But as Seo et al. highlight theses are the exceptions. The overall pattern across the world is drying.
Yes, there are people who cherry pick their data.
George, what data are you basing your conclusions on, non-cherry-picked?
Mr. Appel, there are hundreds of studies regarding the practice of cherry picking in papers meant to present conclusions favorable to a certain point of view. I have cherry picked what is perhaps the most famous: “The Misuse of Meta-Analysis: Selective Inclusion and Exclusion”
Ioannidis, John P.A., “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” (PLoS Medicine, 2005). Considering that your fellow consensus member Stefan Lewandowski actually wrote (with a straight face, no less) a paper on cherry picking in climate science, I confess I am surprised at your ignorance of this phenomenon. Unless the word ‘Data?’ is part of your signature…
As I am aware of the substantial evidence of desiccants in chemtrails collected from both California and Arizona skies, this global issue makes sense. Your solution is more of your common sense solutions. Thank you.
peter roloff wrote:
“As I am aware of the substantial evidence of desiccants in chemtrails collected from both California and Arizona skies”
Please, share these data.
The Earth has greened, which is not consistent with soil desiccation. World food production has increased, which is not consistent with soil desiccation. Some regions have floods while other regions have drought, we know they mess with the data to promote the alarm-ism they need.
There is also counter-evidence to the desiccation claim: “Since the early 2000s, researchers have observed a 1.5 percent decrease in the amount of atmospheric dust detected by MODIS sensors in this region each year.”
https://scitechdaily.com/the-dust-awakens-nasa-captures-spring-storm-surge-over-chinas-harshest-desert/
Local exceptions dont refute global trends. Seo et al actually show increased moisture in some regions. They still show declining moisture overall. If I could work out how to share images I would … suggestions welcome. So everyone knows there there are local exceptions. Especially in areas where tree cover is recovering …
Grace has shown increasing water storage on land.
No, GRACE is the source of the decline data. There is variation ( see Seo et al, for maps) but the overall average is extensive drying.
DiN: From the linked article, “This [soil moisture] depletion is supported by two independent observations of global mean sea level rise (~4.4 millimeters) and Earth’s pole shift (~45 centimeters).” A significant amount of water is being released into the oceans from pumping deep ground water. They need to make the case that the new ocean water causing SL rise and pole shift has come from soil rather than from ground water, but I don’t see that in the Editor’s Sumary or Abstract. A change over two years is not a compelling argument for a trend, let alone an irreversible change.
If the desiccation is NOT global and has exceptions, then a thorough and comprehensive sampling program of ALL the Köppen–Geiger climate classes, weighted by area, would be necessary to confidently claim that the net global change is, on balance, desiccation. I don’t see that. Satellites can provide an estimate of soil area, albeit hampered by vegetative cover, but not the depth of the soil, or the percent saturation at depth, which is necessary to calculate the volume/weight of water.
As is typical for climatology, an approximate, nominal estimate is provided for the weight of water, without the rigorous estimate of the 2-sigma uncertainty.
popesclimatetheory wrote:
The Earth has greened, which is not consistent with soil desiccation.
Why not. It is only one effect or the other?
World food production has increased
Data?
One would think that what is common knowledge throughout the literate world would not be questioned in 2025…
“The global production of primary crop commodities reached 9.5 billion tonnes in 2021, increasing by 54 percent since 2000 and 2 percent since
2020.” Or so sayeth the FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/58971ed8-c831-4ee6-ab0a-e47ea66a7e6a/content
David Appell | April 26, 2025 at 6:45 pm | Reply
“World food production has increased
Data?”
Appell – Its commonly known – you could also do an internet search with a minimal amount of effort.
Pope,
Your assertion that “the earth is greening” is indeed conventional wisdom. But a Science article from March 20, 2025 by Bar-On et al. argues that recent gains in global terrestrial carbon stocks are mostly stored in nonliving pools https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk1637. And if you read the Seo article you will see that their method for establishing the desiccation discussed by Shiel is global.
Editor’s summary of Bar-On:
“Approximately 30% of the carbon emitted by human activity has been taken up on land, but exactly how and where that uptake has been achieved has been an open question. Bar-On et al. examined existing observational records of terrestrial carbon pools and found that live biomass has stored only a small fraction of that carbon, the bulk having been incorporated into nonliving organic matter (see the Perspective by Canadell). This work has important implications for understanding how quickly carbon is returned to the atmosphere.” —Jesse Smith
The large increase in SIF and seasonal variation of CO2 do not jibe with the mostly non living stores.
These papers are clearly being designed to produce a specific narrative. Talking point driven publication.
Aaron
No one disputes that large two-way fluxes of CO2 are exchanged between the biosphere and the atmosphere, larger than the one-way anthropogenic flux from burning fossil fuels. These account for the seasonal CO2 variation. But since year-over-year atmospheric carbon levels rise at only about 45% the rate of human emissions, the other 55% must be moving from the atmosphere to terrestial reservoirs or the oceans. The new claim of Bar-On is that growth of carbon sequestered in landfills, wood for construction, etc is bigger than the year-over-year (not seasonal) growth of carbon in the living biosphere. So the “greening” may be less than previously thought, without changing the seasonal pattern..
Proof that Earth is getting drier- Barack Obama’s election to the presidency he claims, stopped the seas from rising. But, he got a Nobel for that!
In our water world there isn’t enough available water to flow into and raise the oceans: 70% of the world’s fresh water is where 90% of the world’s ice is — in Antarctica, with its -49°C average temperature, where it mostly neither rains nor snows. And, the sea ice there has mostly been growing there over the years since the ’80s, not melting, so don’t expect fast changes in an increase in the amount of fresh water flowing into the oceans from Antarctica.
Sea ice extent is not a measure of total ice … in this context much results from glacier loss
The temperature sea ice forms and thaws is a thermostat setting. When polar oceans are frozen, there is not enough evaporation and snowfall and land ice depletes. When polar oceans are thawed, there is ample evaporation and snowfall to replenish sequestered ice in polar regions, and other high altitude cold places. Sea ice is formed when much land ice is pushed into turbulent salt water currents that flow in polar regions, that reduces evaporation and snowfall and allows ice to flow and spread and deplete. When land ice is depleted, ice flow into the ocean currents decrease and the ocean currents thaw the sea ice and turn the evaporation and snowfall and rebuilding of sequestered ice on.
Wait … another global emergency that requires that we all give large amounts of money and power to our “betters”? Aren’t we still watching the death throes of the last one?
Oh! Wait- you are not willing to invest tens of millions of dollars to boost freshwater storage? What about the looming consequences of a freshwater shortage due to shifting climatic zones? Can’t we at least worry about ocean acidification (although, that is an impossibility because it is infinitely buffered).
Meanwhile, California is busy blowing up dams and pumping fresh water into the ocean…
It isn’t a new emergency … it is rather an important manifestation of the climate changes that this blog focuses on. The science seems clear. Hopefully, some will listen and feel motivated to take action.
From the Wall Street Journal 4/12/25
A water fight has erupted between the U.S. and Mexico.
The two countries have shared water from the Rio Grande and the Colorado River since the mid-1940s under an agreement meant to ensure each has an adequate supply of the vital resource.
Now, thanks to drought and other conditions, Mexico owes the U.S. more than 1.2 million acre-feet of water from the Rio Grande. Frustrated Texas farmers, whose crops are dying of thirst, are urging President Trump to pressure the country into providing water it says it doesn’t have.
“I can only plant half of my farm because I don’t have the irrigation water that’s owed to me,” said Brian Jones, a fourth-generation farmer in Weslaco, Texas, who grows cotton, corn and sorghum on his 1,200-acre farm.
Trump is listening.
On Thursday, he threatened Mexico with tariffs if the country doesn’t meet its obligations. In March, for the first time since the 1944 Water Treaty was signed, the State Department refused a request by Tijuana, Mexico, officials to deliver an emergency supply of municipal water from the Colorado River.
AGW catastrophism science has unmasked the corruption of Western academia. Sure, sure, God is dead! But, who would have guessed in the shadow of His passing that Western public school teachers of global warming would become our new masters?
So what should people who discover the world is drying do in your view? Genuinely curious.
The ‘world’ has been drying since New York was buried 1 and 1/2 miles deep in ice and central US was a lake.
Doug …
Your question implies that ‘we’ can do something that will effect this ‘drying’. That could mean just simple actions in our lives; or like those who are obsessed about ‘warming’ it could mean that we must solve ‘drying’ and actually have the means. For example, I live in the Southwest. We all try and conserve water. However, there is no human solution to the dryness in the Southwest. No one pretends that humans can change the climate in the Southwest. Those who believe that CO2 is the sole cause of a warming climate, and that all we have to do is eliminate human actions that produce CO2, seem to be perplexed (and then ignore) that increasing levels of CO2 allow plants to use less water. NASA has shown that arid and semi-arid areas of the planet have ‘greened’ substantially.
So, where am I going with this? After 50 years of predictions that have not come true (any of them), starting with a catastrophic ice age, then catastrophic warming, catastrophic sea level rise, forgive some of us if we just break out the popcorn and enjoy the new catastrophe of dryness or desiccation. If … that’s what you’re implying?
I believe we can do something, though I also understand why there is skepticism–there is plenty of poor science and most claims have uncertainties. So why am I convinced in this case? In my own work I see how forest lost has led to major changes in rainfall (for example 20% decline in rain in Borneo, with the losses greater where the forest loss is greater). Similar patterns are seen in other places and we understand the changes reasonably well (most of the rain that falls on the land originates on the land unless you live on the coast, so not such a surprise that draining land and clearing forests impacts the cycles). There relationships are observed … they are poorly reflected in climate models, but we can summarise the data and the changes are there: clear and real. Yes there is greening in some places and drying in many more, this reflects the changing rainfall patterns. Yes changes are natural too, but in the past when the climate was warmer the globe was overall wetter … now that linkage appears broken (hotter means drier). I think we know what the cause is and can fix it, we just need enough tree cover and wetlands. Space for nature isnt some major conspiracy. This is something many people, whatever their nation or politics, can find desirable in any case.
Douglas in Netherlands wrote:
most of the rain that falls on the land originates on the land unless you live on the coast,
I disagree, watch the weather reports, the moisture that feeds most storms comes from the Pacific, the Gulf, or the Atlantic.
I should have written that in the continental US, most of the moisture for precipitation comes from the Pacific, the Gulf or the Atlantic.
Bill,
You write: “After 50 years of predictions that have not come true (any of them)…” That is total nonsense. Predictions made around 2000 did pretty well in getting current (warmer) temperatures correct. They did not predict “catastrophic” changes for 2025, whatever they are. The oceans ARE rising, and at an accelerating rate. Use your imagination a little and extrapolate to what your grandchildren will have to deal with. You can turn up your AC and watch the ballgame, but as discussed in the WSJ article, some Texas farmers have a climate change problem NOW in 2025. Sure “the climate has always changed”, but current rates of change should make you a little less complacent.
David Andrews: You said, ” The oceans ARE rising, and at an accelerating rate.”
That is frequently claimed. However, I don’t think that a compelling case can be made for acceleration. If you review the long-term behavior, you will see that there have been numerous times when there have been short-term increases, followed by decreases! There are also legitimate concerns about splicing time-series from different satellites.
Most rainfall on land originates from water evaporated from land:
Rainfall on the global land surface is estimated to be around 113,000 km3 (=“cubic kilometers”) per year. Of this around 40,000 km3 is from the oceans and 73,000km3 is from the land. Source: Trenberth et al. 2007 J. Hydromet. 8:758-769. While the estimates are uncertain by + or – a few percent … and a few different values have been published (also varying be a few percent), there is no debate that I have seen that the land is the main source.
Clyde,
It is frequently claimed that sea level rise is accelerating, because that is what the data show! Sure there is noise in the data. But comparing the average rate for the first half of the 20th century with the average rate for the last 50 years is very compelling.
Doug … Thanks for your reply.
> Space for nature isnt some major conspiracy.
No one disagrees. The issue is when some come to a conclusion about causes, which may have some validity, and then refuse to entertain any other presented causes that also may have some validity. The former usually retreat to a closed minded, defensive attitude, which isn’t conducive to open debate and good science. Regrettably, the Climate-gate emails are an example of a conspiracy. And the half century of failed predictions, in and of themselves, wouldn’t be a problem except for the manic doubling-down instead of a rational examination of the basis for the original prediction.
I respect those who work hard to make a scientific case. I respect those even more who when faced with criticism examine it, and if it presents new evidence embrace it even if it is detrimental to their previous position. Fanaticism has no place in science.
David Andrews: You said, “…, because that is what the data show!” That is an assertion for which you provide no evidence. How about looking at the graph for The Battery (NY), 1855-2024 located at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/11/variation-of-50-year-relative-sea-level-trends-northeast-united-states/ and directing the readers attention to the “compelling” acceleration section? The article by Hansen (2024) makes the case for a sinusoidal variation. Thus, the start and stop dates are very important in determining ‘acceleration.’ Perhaps what you have been looking at (or just reading) is over-fitted data. In any event, without data or a citation, it is little better than a personal opinion.
Clyde,
Try the NOAA site
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
or the NASA site, especially the second plot which starts in 1900
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/?intent=121
Douglas: “I see how forest lost has led to major changes in rainfall (for example 20% decline in rain in Borneo, with the losses greater where the forest loss is greater). …we can summarise the data and the changes … there is greening in some places and drying in many more, this reflects the changing rainfall patterns … that linkage appears broken (hotter means drier)
“… we just need enough tree cover and wetlands.”
Factually, there’s 100% more tree cover over the last 100 years, today, in first world nations.
Your argument describes that increasing forests regionally should make said regions wetter. “… 20% decline in rain in Borneo, with the losses greater where the forest loss is greater”. This argument makes no sense using regional facts.
Your argument is that increasing forests within regions makes them wetter.
The first world should be wetter, where trees have doubled over the last 100 years.
Where are you describing a 100 % increase in forest? Simplistically, indeed we might expect an increase in rainfall downwind of this if we are talking about extensive regions in the tropics and mature forests. Unfortunately in many temperate regions we have made many additional changes in the land that speed water off the land as quickly as we can that depletes and degrades the storage needed to buffer against droughts.
“Where are you describing a 100 % increase in forest?”
The literature is pervasive relative to first world ‘tree” greening, therefore I point towards looking up the data, rather than posting tedious gotcha links.
I actually dont know where you mean. Where is you ” first world”. Unless we have locations I don’t know what you are referring to with 100% more forest. Can you please be specific?
Maybe this helps, “first world”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
Thanks. So first world includes Brazil? Netherlands too. Several other countries I know well enough. I had assumed you intended to be more specific. I am unaware of any of these nations having a 100 % increase in forest. Unless you can clarify the specific location your claim on forest and rainfall remains hard to verify. Can you clarify please?
Not sure if this helps, on greening:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
There are two links at the end of the article.
Dave
The problem with the satellite data is that studies have found significant errors, biases and uncertainties in the numbers. Add that to differences between satellite and tidal gauge acceleration and there are reasons to question the validity of acceleration of GMSLR.
“ For accelerations, uncertainties range from 0.057 to 0.12 mm.yr−1, with a mean value of 0.062.”
Given that the range of many tidal gauges is 0.001/yr to 0.02mm/yr, the PRANDI study raises genuine questions about the reliability and accuracy of the IPCC conclusions.
Add to that the failures of previous predictions decades ago such as GMSLR increasing by feet by 2000 when it was actually a couple of inches, one has to wonder if the models are of any value.
This tidal gauge for LA has an acceleration of only 0.001374mm/yr2.
Difficult to reconcile the local data with the supposed global data.
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?co2=0
David Andrews: The link you provided is from NOAA, AS WAS the link I provided you. Do we have to start guessing which NOAA data is reliable? In any event, I asked you to point out the “compelling” section of the NOAA data I sent, and you deflected by providing satellite data that has been conflated from different satellites and didn’t respond to the claim by Hansen (2024) that the data have a periodicity. Your link shows that the NOAA data in Fig. 3.15a is essentially linear since about 1999. However, it is poor practice to splice data from different sensors, especially those of different design where the gain may be different, and then conflating them with a bias adjustment alone. Spliced data can give a sense of that is happening, but the uncertainty is increased with different sensors’ having their output slopes not uncommonly being different.
Your NOAA link states, “Scientists rely on a combination of direct measurements of melt rate and glacier elevation made during field surveys, …” It is not possible to measure all the meltwater from even a single glacier, let alone all of them. Instead, it is an estimate from several samples, which invariably miss the water traveling subsurface through the outwash gravels, and the basal flow that enters the ocean below the surface, and small outlets that are too numerous to identify. When I see statements such as above I lose confidence in the objectivity of the authors.
The link to the Prandi study.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00786-7
Douglas in Netherlands
You ask “So what should people who discover the world is drying do in your view? Genuinely curious”
First, you need to understand WHY the world is warming, and it is NOT because of rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
ALL of our modern warming (since 1980) has been due to decreasing levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution due to “Clean Air” legislation and Net Zero activities.
Decreasing levels of atmospheric pollution increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and warming inevitably occurs.
And, unfortunately, the cleaner the air, the hotter and drier it will become!
So, the obvious answer is to control the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere, which can be done.
See “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Cerescokid and Clyde,
Thanks for the link to the 2021 Prandi paper. It has a detailed discussion of uncertainties but does not contain summary numbers. I did not follow all the details, but it looks thorough. I found a 2023 paper by the same group (Prandi is a coauthor) which did contain summary numbers:
http://os.copernicus.org/articles/19/431/2023/
An excerpt from the more recent paper:
“As shown in Fig. 3, we estimate the GMSL rise over the 29 years of the altimetry record, from January 1993 to December 2021, to 3.3 ± 0.3 m yr−1. We estimate the acceleration of the GMSL rise to 0.12 ± 0.05 m yr−2 which confirms previous analysis in the literature demonstrating that the GMSL record is accelerating “.
The errors quoted on the acceleration are 90% confidence levels, not standard deviations, so this is a robust (compelling?) result. Note that the authors were able to extract a statistically significant acceleration from the limited data range of 1993-2021. The NOAA website’s authors use a much broader baseline, but as you point out splice together data from different sources to reach their conclusion about the acceleration.
I am convinced. Sea level rise IS accelerating.
David Andrews: You quoted from a recent paper,“As shown in Fig. 3, we estimate the GMSL rise over the 29 years of the altimetry record, from January 1993 to December 2021, to 3.3 ± 0.3 m yr−1. We estimate the acceleration of the GMSL rise to 0.12 ± 0.05 m yr−2 which confirms previous analysis in the literature demonstrating that the GMSL record is accelerating“.
It looks like someone left an “m” out of the units!
We have to depend on the researchers and peer reviewers that their calculations are correct. How can we have confidence in their claims when something as sloppy as units being off by three orders of magnitude are presented as their results?
Dave
I am sure as well that there is some acceleration. Of course how much is the point of contention. For the last 30 to 40 years some fraction of acceleration is because of AMO.
The lack of significant acceleration for LA and the endless number of individual tidal gauges around the globe don’t display anything near the GMSLR acceleration obtained through the satellite altimetry system. And that is my dilemma. I can’t reconcile the individual observational data from tidal gauges, in the aggregate, with the satellite data. It seems that those long term records would begin to show evidence that the rate of rise is greater than 100 years ago. I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation for this inconsistency.
Much of the news coverage about local sea level rise is about communities experiencing subsidence, in many cases at rates multiple of GMSLR.
Clyde,
Yes the millimeters to meters error on a key result is embarassing. I didn’t notice until after I had posted, but confirmed it was in the original. However mm’s were correctly called out for the same quantities in peer review discussions of the paper, so I don’t think we can blame either the authors or the reviewers. I suspect some auto-correction was made by software in the final document that humans failed to catch. I don’t think the error disqualifies the paper.
Bill — thanks for the reply. I agree there have been too many shrill claims. The problem is that that alone doesn’t mean that all of them are wrong. I agree a robust debate is justified, but I also suggest that an argument for more attention to protecting and restoring natural habitats is something many people would be happy to support.
David Andrews wrote:
The oceans ARE rising, and at an accelerating rate.
That is clearly not true. Ice loss near the spin axis and sea level rise around the equator would increase the inertia of the crust of the earth and decrease the spin rate of the crust of the earth, that would make days longer and would require more and more leap seconds to be added to the clock, the opposite has happened since 1972 when the atomic clock was put in service measuring time accurately.
Sea level is hard to measure and hard to average, they can make up anything and it is hard to verify or prove wrong. Sea level and ice on land influences inertia and changes Length Of Day, that is measured accurately. No increase in added leap seconds means not accelerated sea level rise!
To David Andrews
David Andrews wrote: The oceans ARE rising, and at an accelerating rate.
Rising sea levels and reduced ice mass near the spin axis of Earth, increases the inertia of the crust of the Earth and causes Length of Day to Increase. The opposite occurred Since 1972 when the Atomic Clocks were put in place to measure time accurately. Less Leap Seconds were added every decade and the last Leap Second was added in 2016, this means sea level lowered from 1972 to 2016 and has been steady since 2016 all the way to 2025. Historic plots of sea level and length of day should correlate, if done correctly they would correlate. The time is measured to a tiny fraction of a second, sea levels, with tides and wind and storms and subsidence and uplift are measured with error bands that are huge with measurement, the worldwide averaging of the measurements have a lot of uncertainty and guesswork. You can use GPS to determine very close to where you are in the world, GPS is accurate because time of day is very accurate. GPS does not rely on Sea Levels in order to determine where you are and huge errors in sea level reporting are tolerated. But if sea level changes are not consistent with the length of day, it is the sea level reports that are wrong. If leap seconds do not suddenly get added, more and more often, the sea levels have not risen. Conservation of momentum is a powerful natural law. The skater or dancer spins slow with arms out and fast with arms in. The earth crust spins slower with less ice near the spin axis and more water in the oceans around the equator and the earth crust spins faster with more ice in polar regions near the spin axis and less water in the oceans around the equator. The Climate People in NASA and NOAA are Political, not Scientific. We all know people in Government and Colleges who lost their jobs because they disagreed with the consensus, and their government and Colleges promoted and published the papers from those who went along with the consensus alarmism. Accelerating sea level rise without a correlation with length of day is best evidence of their deceptions.
To word it more simple. We are told that Sea Level Rise has accelerated since 1972, and that Length of Day has decreased since 1972, clearly one of these is a Lie, both cannot be true, and which one is known to be measured and known most accurately, Length Of Day with Atomic Clocks and precise alignment with the stars.
Pope,
You say “ We are told that Sea Level Rise has accelerated since 1972, and that Length of Day has decreased since 1972 … both cannot be true.”
As it happens there is a nice recent “quick study” in the March 1, 2025 Physics Today that is relevant to your comment: https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article-abstract/78/3/54/3337090/As-the-world-turns-irregularlyThe-length-of-the?redirectedFrom=fulltext. If you can access this or a Nature article by the same author: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07170-0, you will find that it’s a lot more complicated. As you say, the melting of polar ice which is shifting mass from the poles towards equatorial oceans is increasing the earth’s moment of inertia and tends to lengthen the day. Tidal friction works in the same direction and is causing the moon to recede from the earth at a rate of 40mm/yr. But two other effects work in the opposite direction. Apparently the earth’s shape is still rebounding from the melting of the last ice age, and as it becomes more spherical the moment of inertia decreases and days are shorter. Finally there are believed to be changes in the flows within the earth’s fluid core that also tend to shorten days, but you could argue that they were invented to explain the observed shortening day.
The bottom line is that shorter days do not contradict melting ice and sea level rise, and certainly do not have any bearing on whether sea level rise is accelerating.
PopesClimateScience
See my response.
David Andrews:
Re : LOD
Changes to LOD have been taking place depending on the position of the moon; sometimes FM other times NM. Change occurred at those times and may be checked for the past two years. The driver may be none of the things mentioned. The change is abrupt; in very short time.
I am near certain earth shape is not rigid and can change under gravitational change/stresses in a very short time. Variation between Ix, Iy, and Iz is a main factor. [Beware condition Ix>Iz>Iy].
No. The glacials were substantially drier than the recent centuries. My question was about what people should do.
No. The glacial were drier than now. My question was about what people should do. Thanks
Oops. Duplicated. Sorry. It didnt show up so thought it had failed.
Excerpts from an article in the 4/12/25 Wall Street Journal:
“A water fight has erupted between the U.S. and Mexico. The two countries have shared water from the Rio Grande and the Colorado River since the mid-1940s under an agreement meant to ensure each has an adequate supply … Now, thanks to drought …, Mexico owes the U.S. more than 1.2 million acre-feet of water from the Rio Grande. Frustrated Texas farmers, whose crops are dying of thirst, are urging [the US president] to pressure [Mexico] into providing water it says it doesn’t have.”
Meanwhile, “In March, for the first time since the 1944 Water Treaty was signed, the State Department refused a request by Tijuana, Mexico, officials to deliver an emergency supply of municipal water from the Colorado River. Under the treaty, the U.S. is required to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of water annually to Mexico through the Colorado River. That delivery has been lower in the past few years because of drought. But since 2012, an agreement between the two nations takes into account the effects of climate change—such as severe drought—on the Colorado River. A similar agreement between Texas and Mexico regarding the Rio Grande doesn’t factor in the effects of climate change.”
The US President’s response to the shortage of water in the Rio Grande is to threaten Mexico with tariffs.
There is some evidence that as water shortages become more severe violence becomes more frequent. It makes sense. It is also causing hardship, poverty and migration.
It’s obvious desalinization will be the answer. Build more nuke plants. We need electricity for that, AI, other data centers, and electrification of transportation and housing. Lots and lots of electricity!
jimw: Desalinization has issues that are rarely discussed. Chief among them are dealing with the increased salinity of the brine that is discharged back into the ocean.
Clyde – the water produced from desalinization will eventually be returned to the ocean via rivers or rain. It’s a zero sum game.
I haven’t read all comments, but one thing to remember about water use and the conflicts that emerge from it is that there are a lot more people who need water due to population growth.
The bottom line is we need more fresh water and nuclear power can help with that.
jim2, you said, “It’s a zero sum game.” Long-term, that is true of almost everything. The issue is not whether the salinity of the oceans will be changed overall, but what happens locally at the discharge point where the increased-salinity brine is discharged back into the ocean, assuming that not all the water is converted to freshwater. If it is, then there is the problem of disposing of the salt.
I would guess the local effects of salt water discharge will be an adjustment by flora and fauna in the local ecosystem. So pick the means of discharge wisely. Doesn’t sound like show stopper.
“Desalinization has issues that are rarely discussed. Chief among them are dealing with the increased salinity of the brine that is discharged back into the ocean.”
Simple fix, salt to grow more cattle. https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1902348774120346110?s=46
Based on common understandings that escape political influence on current affairs, by most it is considered that the current ‘world’ is an the interglacial period which is another way of saying we are currently in an ongoing larger glacial age of currently unknown duration. The world is in a period warming just as happened before in human history… a fact that we become aware of as glaciers recede and prior civilizations that had been covered with ice are revealed.
The glacial archeology of anthropological artifacts preserved in retreating ice proves to us that there were periods of time over the many thousands of years preceding today that the global climate of the Earth has been warmer than it is today. Nothing humanity has done has made the world warmer since that time and nothing humanity can do will stop it.
This is simply incorrect. We can see that places where people have removed forest and drained wetlands are on average warmer (and fluctuate between greater extremes). We can see that in ground measurements and in satellite observations. If you live in the tropics it is cooler in (or near) the forests than in the city. Please try it.
Wagathon,
“Nothing humanity has done has made the world warmer since that time and nothing humanity can do will stop it.”
Very much agreed !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In previous prehuman periods, the data I am aware of suggests a warmer world becomes wetter. That is not the current trend. We have reasonable observations to suggest that this is because in the past a warmer climate was associated with the spread of wet forests and wetlands allowing greater rainfall cycling. Even today most rain on land originates on land but we are draining and removing much of the vegetation that supports this cycle.
While the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship predicts a potential increase in the absolute humidity of the air when air warms, in most situations, it is limited by by the availability of water vapor from evapotranspiration. That is probably why the soil is experiencing desiccation.
Additionally, the climate models predict warming based on feedback from water vapor. However, if the moisture is not increasing as expected, then it calls into question the assumptions for the models and may explain why they run warm.
I’m skeptical that land is overall drying. GRACE data suggest increasing water storage on land. Increased solar induced fluorescence, increasing seasonal variation in CO2, and exponential growth in CO2 uptake don’t jibe with the hypothesis that most carbon storage is in non-living stores. There are major biases in how we measure and model soil moisture. https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1901282991738876157?s=46
But this also doesn’t mean that we aren’t seeing increasing dry soil, increased storage in plant biomass and increasing photosynthesis can mean less storage in soils, especially during the day. It also doesn’t mean it isn’t important to increase our forest and wetlands management to further improve our environment.
See if you can access a copy of Seo et al. They use the GRACE data as their main evidence, validated with other observations. They map the changes in detail. The 2 cm loss is a summary average.
Talking about observations- the Dust Bowl causing migration out of the Great plains in the US was part of the background of, “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck, and, before the 1930s, both the Aztec and Inca civilizations we’re driven to extinction by periods of drought due to environmental factors outside all human control.
“outside all human control” … why so sure? The evidence I am aware of suggests both natural variation and human impacts played a role in all these.
If you acknowledge that vegetation plays a role in the water cycle on land, which seems hard to dismiss, and that humans have substantially altered vegetation cover over much of the earth’s surface ( indisputable right?)… it seems difficult to argue these drought factors are “outside all human” influence. Why would anyone reasonably well informed argue that?
Blaming humanity for freeway pileups and death because they drive too fast, erratically, are sleepy or drunk is a lot different than blaming humanity for raising the temperature of the globe because of CO2 release into the atmosphere.
The post we are discussing is asking for more attention to the role of natural ecosystems in maintaining a robust water cycle. If you think there is too much attention to CO2 that is a point of agreement … we need more attention to land cover.
Mathematical models that can never be verified, predicting (forecasting or projecting) a Hot World Armageddon will never change the simple reality that global warming alarmism is nothing more than a DC/Eurocommie con job facilitated by a fake news biased sociopolitical mainstream media and a liberal Western academia that is fascist to the core. It’s time to do what works. Peace through energy independence is what works in the real world.
We are not talking about models. We are talking about observations. I would agree that there is plenty to be skeptical about with models (the various models dont show consistent trends in terms of drying or wetting).
In addition to the Aztecs and Incas described above, the Mayans and the Anasazis also were defeated by drought due to natural causes.
“were defeated by drought due to natural causes” … any evidence for that? Please share. It is something I have explored in the past so open for additional insights.
pleasantly
Don’t mean to intrude but here are a couple of papers you might find interesting.
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-earth-060115-012512
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ancient-mesoamerica/article/drought-and-the-maya-collapse/B6B6AE2657A4635D65D520142D402DC1
Thanks. Interesting.
The first study is a good compilation : “Two studies have used atmospheric circulation models with preindustrial climatic boundary conditions to examine the idea that the Lowland Maya caused or enhanced droughts through deforestation (Oglesby et al. 2010, Cook et al. 2012). These studies compared simulated climates in the Maya Lowlands under forested, partially deforested, and fully deforested conditions and inferred that land clearance can lead to a 5–30% reduction in rainfall. Pollen studies from lake sediment cores in locations spanning the Maya Lowlands, however, have indicated that widespread deforestation had occurred by the Late Preclassic Period, some 800 years before the severe droughts of the ninth to eleventh centuries ce (Leyden 2002, Wahl et al. 2006) ( Figure 7f ). Therefore, deforestation was probably not a leading cause of droughts during the ninth to eleventh centuries ce, but it could have contributed to long-term drying and potentially exacerbated the intensity of natural droughts.”
I would interpret the story as open. Certainly natural events played a role, but land cover change may have contributed. The climate models that have been tested lack the strong feedbacks that we know or infer operate over tropical forests leading to convergence, moisture import and tipping points …
Good post, cerescokid.
You beat me to the punch, I was working on this similar Inca post.
Aside from invasion and disease “…environmental factors significantly influenced the causes of the Inca collapse. The civilization was vulnerable to shifts in climate and resource availability, which ultimately challenged their agricultural and economic systems.
Climate change during the Inca Empire led to severe droughts and erratic weather patterns. These changes adversely affected key crops such as maize and potatoes, critical for sustaining the population. Resource depletion, stemming from over-farming and deforestation, further exacerbated these effects.
A combination of prolonged drought periods and diminished resources resulted in food shortages. The inability to support the growing population strained the socio-economic fabric of Inca society. Consequently, these environmental pressures contributed directly to the civilization’s decline and instability.
The impact of these environmental factors on the Inca civilization demonstrates how interconnected ecological health and societal stability can be, highlighting fundamental vulnerabilities that can precipitate collapse.
Climate change and prolonged drought significantly impacted the Inca civilization, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities. Shifts in climate patterns led to reduced rainfall, critically affecting agricultural productivity. The farming methods of the Incas, reliant on a delicate balance of irrigation and seasonal rains, became unsustainable under these changed conditions.
The intermittent droughts disrupted the vital crop cycles of staples, such as maize and potatoes. Such agricultural distress not only triggered food shortages but also stoked discontent among the populace, threatening social cohesion. The resulting famine in some regions intensified internal challenges for the Inca, weakening central authority.”
https://ancientcivs.blog/inca-collapse-causes/
Not mentioned in the before link, a major earthquake took out much of the sophisticated irrigation canal systems that distributed water far and wide, including terraced farming for both the Mayan and Inca cultures.
The prior link also describes a fascinating cultural problem associated with trade imbalance.
Per the Inca’s:
“As regional economies faltered, overall economic coherence began to deteriorate, further aggravating the decline…Trade imbalances and increased taxation efforts to support military campaigns placed additional strain on the common populace. Consequently, dissatisfaction grew among the lower classes, intensifying social unrest, which further compounded the economic challenges faced by the Incas, solidifying the economic decline as one of the primary causes of the Inca collapse.”
The latter sounds eerily familiar; the U.S. has been funding a large military complex to place a defensive umbrella over all Western nations since post WW2. Meanwhile, these nations parlayed the Marshall Plan to craft trade policies to increasingly benefit themselves, to expand social programs funded by the U.S. taxpayer—even our enemies learned from these polices as they were brought into the fold of the Lefts soft socialistic global governance ambitions. Significant trade imbalances have grown between the U.S. and all other nations—the U.S. placed a cozy defensive blanket around the EU and select asian nations, now we’re asking them to buy their own blanket, and they don’t like it. Hopefully Trump is able to rebalance global trade before the piggy bank evaporates into the ether of the Lefts utopian visions. Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
The Sahara desert was green up to 5,000 years ago!!
The continents are still shifting, even to this day.
You are missing one important factor. Earth’s obliquity varied by substantial amounts to cause those abrupt changes. The last Saharan change was abrupt (P DeMenocal from sea sediments) at ~3550 bce; – and several other proxies; measurable: ~20deg to ~14.4deg. A desiccation. And with it disappeared a population (see ‘skeletons of the sahara’ Utube).
Yes, I agree with you. It was.
It could be a lot greener, more pleasant and productive now.
The Sahara that is
I am skeptical, I read varying claims of amount of moisture in atmosphere.
Certainly distribution varies – Amazon vs Sahara for example.
And varies with time, droughts in Mexico-Guatemala and southern US for example. They vary in severity and duration.
It certainly varies and there are certainly good reasons to be skeptical. But there is little doubt that we have (and can have) major impacts on the climate. Take a look at how much moisture is in the atmosphere (equivalent to about 2 cm of liquid water) and compare with how much water evaporates from tropical forest each year (typically 1-2 meters), then consider what happens to the downwind rain as forests are cleared … these effects are much bigger than most people seem to realize.
So … if we have all this “drying”, where does the water go? Does it disappear into sub-surface lakes and caverns? Is our atmosphere large enough and dry enough to soak-up (a technical term) all the water vapor? I guess that the “H” could be incorporated into long-chain hydrocarbons of some types and the “O” could breathe life into an expanding human population.
While there’s been drought over the last few years, the global precipitation record since 1900 indicates there’s nothing unusual going on today. The last three decades have been wetter than the first three decades of the 20th century.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation
The big gray blob in central CA (demonstrated in the link) used to be Tulare Lake. It was once the largest lake west of the Mississippi, surrounded by swamps. The lake dried up in the second half of the 19th century. CA’s issue is poor land management, much of CA’s fresh water goes directly to the Pacific, by direction of the “green” movement.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation
Sorry, click figure 3.
Take a look at this study please https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05690-1
See what you conclude.
pleasantly:
This article is about global land surface getting drier, it’s not about tropical forests.
Global evidence shows that it’s not getting drier; some regions are getting wetter, while some are more arid. The global record suggests episodic wetter/drier periods. The U.S. is wetter in the East/Midwest, more arid on the West coast.
The entire planet is 14% greener than it was 30 years ago. First world developed nations have seen a doubling of trees over the last 100 years.
There are issues, we’re aware of tropical forest decline, hopefully this will be mitigated. Unfortunately, even COP leadership for the upcoming Brazil climate summit directed that tens of thousands of acres of Amazon rainforest be cut down, go figure. But they’ll have solar streetlights along a new 10 mile stretch of highway leading to their fancy new convention facilities, I guess they’re trying to say something, just like you are.
Can you imagine how fast the oxygen levels would be dropping if all that plant life wasn’t metabolizing our CO2?
Maybe a lot of that ‘greening’ is the toxic algae and bacteria that are fueling all the ocean dead zones?
https://enviroliteracy.org/how-many-ocean-dead-zones-are-there/
https://www.climatelevels.org/
Jungketrunks … the essay is about fixing dessication with forest and wetlands. The argument is that losing forest and wetlands has contributed to the dessication.
Seo et al link it to a small, but vobsisten, sea level rise.
sorry … phone. Small but consistent!
Pingback: Reversing soil desiccation: cooler, moister, greener – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: cooler, moister, greener – Watts Up With That? - All about Farming
Pingback: cooler, moister, greener – Watts Up With That? | BBC Record London
After you work a long scientific life measuring and analysing numbers, new numbers when first encountered have a sniff test before more rigour is applied.
The graph that is a key to this discussion was a quick fail for my sniff test for several reasons. Why did a large, sharp change happen at year 2000, as depicted? What was the strong force that is required to push such change? What coordinated it to be at 2000, or was there one dominant place that changed then, to affect the average?
Having spent numerous hours working my geochemistry with prominent geophysicists on methods based on the earth’s natural gravity field, I have knowledge and experience with the difficulties of the method. In the 70s we used aircraft with gravity meters, but they were in passenger seats going to ground locations. The actual measurement at each ground locations was careful because of the tiny change in the field caused by the geology change we sought to be measured. Work was at the limit of signal:noise ratio. In the 2020s, the signal:noise challenge has stayed the same, but the technology for Grace now has the gravitometer working in the aircraft. This causes additional measurement problems, because position in a fast moving aircraft is harder to fix than with point to point ground stations.
Then, one has to invoke assumptions, such as the shape of the geoid earth before the gravity measurement has meaning. The signal at aircraft height depends critically on altitude and its interpretation depends (at least initially) on assumptions about the types of rock, their geometry and their density so that model calculations can proceed. These models can be numerous iterations, each refining the previous, so there is an assumption that so many iterations are enough. Then, typically, some of the geology is deeper than drilling can reach, so assumptions about density and extent cannot be verified directly.
It follows logically that the uncertainty estimates of a Grace result can not be calculated because of missing data. Uncertainty seems to be acceptable if the result looks OK. But is it?
Good enough for government work is not usually good enough for hard science. Geoff S
“Then, one has to invoke assumptions, such as the shape of the geoid earth before the gravity measurement has meaning.”
That is a fundamental problem of any space-borne altimeter. The orbit is not traversed at a constant speed or altitude, and a lot of assumptions are involved in calculating the true position and elevation from which the gravity field is calculated. It is easier over land because the land moves slowly and has been surveyed and commonly verified with GPS. However, over the oceans, wind can move water around, warming can expand surface water, and waves result in a probability distribution of the surface height that can vary with the type of waves (often seasonal). From analyses done by Kip Hansen of the design specifications, I’m skeptical of the claims about the uncertainty of the space-borne altimeters.
Part quote: “- the true position and elevation from which the gravity field is calculated. It is easier over land because the land moves slowly –”
Quoting from NASA ‘Earth tide’ can be as high as 50 centimeters and may span continent size areas.
That earth tide moves across due to earth rotation and with that speed. Conjunction of moon plus Jupiter, or Venus may cause a greater change.
What the effect on the gravimeter is I wish to know (if strong or imperceptible) and if there is experience of such change.
When I investigated the satellites I was surprised that the orbital could vary in terms of feet due to gravity fluctuation. This can cause a large uncertainty.
The other thing that surprised me was that “uncertainty” in measurement was claimed to be reduced by averaging readings over a months time.
Where did the idea ever originate that averaging reduces uncertainty?
jgorman
This study covers only the coastal areas of satellite data but look at the corrections in 2.1 for a list of the corrections made. Studies identifying reasons for uncertainty are endless. This is not to place blame on the scientists for they are doing the best they can with an almost impossible job. But too many in the establishment have tried to gloss over the near impossible task of finding the true value of GMSLR and acceleration of the rate. This is another area where the deeper you dig the more reasons to be skeptical reveal themselves.
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/21/133/2025/
On gravity vector “Measurements of Newton’s gravitational constant and the length of day”
Quote “About a dozen measurements of Newton’s gravitational constant, G, since 1962 have yielded values that differ by far more than their reported random plus systematic errors”
However, in the paper abstract, the P = 5.899 ± 0.062 yr is a half Jupiter cycle.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06604
Jim Gorman; interestingly, autocorrelation reduces drift over short time intervals, but with longer periods storm winds and atmospheric pressure changes can pile up water significantly, increasing the variance and thus the probability of large changes in sea level being recorded. One gets more elevation data points over longer periods of time, but the probability distribution function will get fatter during periods of stormy weather, or even calm weather if the surface experiences significant warming.
“.. various factors impact the quality of altimetry satellite orbits. They include:
type of observations used for orbit determination or their combination (SLR-only, DORIS-only, GPS-only, DORIS+SLR, DORIS+GPS),
observation quality (unmodeled time biases, range biases, frequency biases, frequency drifts, etc.) as well as the distribution of observations in time and space,
proper corrections of measurements (tropospheric refraction, center-of-mass, ionospheric refraction, satellite phase center corrections, etc.),
proper modeling of satellite shape, size, optical properties of its surfaces (macro-model), mass and its orientation in space,
accurate modeling of gravitational and non-gravitational forces acting on a satellite,
accurate terrestrial and celestial reference frame realizations and the transformation between them,
proper modeling of geophysically caused displacements of tracking stations,
a proper parameter adjustment algorithm, observation weighting,
other factors.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-022-09758-5
“ The conventional sea level budget equation does not include elastic ocean bottom deformation, implicitly assuming it is negligible
Recent increases in ocean mass yield global‐mean ocean bottom deformation of similar magnitude to the deep steric sea level contribution”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7687171/
“ In spite of the advancement in the altimetry measurement record for sea state, questions about uncertainty in observations persist. These stem, in part, from a lack of precise, long-term and quality-controlled direct in situ measurements. While a small number of in situ records date back many decades, their long-term stability remains questionable, and further, their sparsity limits our knowledge to a small number of global locations, generally far from the coast and in the northern hemisphere.”
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/16/13/2395
“… we updated the uncertainty budget of the reference altimetry mission measurements and demonstrate that the CNES/AVISO+ GMSL record now achieves stability of performances of ± 0.3 mm yr−1 at the 90 % confidence level (C.L.) for its trend and ±0.05 mm yr−2 (90 % C.L.) for its acceleration over the 29 years of the altimetry record.”
Acceleration at +-0.05 uncertainty is not chump change.
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/19/431/2023/
sherro01: Have you ever considered the gravitational effect of planetary alignment, particularly the inferior conjunctions? Mainly Jupiter and Venus? More so with new or full moon, but the latter is very short time period – a day or so (the Allais effect). Enough to be the cause of even major earthquakes.
Melita,
No. Geoff S
Tides (lunar and solar) have various effects. The role of the other planets will be negligible by comparison. It isnt something I have studied but it shouldn’t be hard to estimate the magnitudes of the different effects.
My findings are that planet plus moon are extremely effective. In the sense that the extra push is very troublesome and disastrous.
I asked if there is any records from gravimeter anomalous readings; ie experience of such.
The gravity vector change may be substantial but appears to be restricted to limited areas when it occurs (ie those in the line of the conjunction). My concept is that it is similar to the effect of metal in a magnetic circuit [the old ‘iron filings’ effect].
This is relevant to subject matter of thread.
https://doi.org/10.1130/G46491.1
“Cold and dry outbreaks in the eastern Mediterranean 3200 years ago”
See https://gsw.silverchair-cdn.com/gsw/Content_public/Journal/geology/47/10/10.1130_G46491.1/2/933f1.png?Expires=1747791613&Signature=WU8BemqBQ-uGSo6QD5FceCIzrnl5cyvqrwtiytYrMtxQfSW6c8n4tIpb4XZk7gRdnhLLweq1qxw1bYx6Ha0w28BhqNbR42grwzqlQ7lw-WqaEeXoj~s2QEN7Ey4kvWwZYXB-G1QQ2vTFv0JbwAtUqOdvYG26-brJDIog2vkee1xz9xEq379uovvo8FsH3axgey-lnIUsaGm~64lvM–VTdtxVa2oTpFVBAEYqJ6~7Yg6uV~04oi8RXBmzVZ3fKHgpy3GdYng0EHcP4FcF2i-VvBz1D0dAgxnzv70dv~9ov4Bj28p-oUF9559wxjS~bzQMLYsyoe~knvzW9Wma9mvpg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA
It starts back in time at 2200bce (but precisely at 2346bce). At 1300 is the next downturn (1 Eddy cycle later). Next downturn is around 300bce. 2346bce was obliquity change. Driver planetary.
Nothing could be more more destructive to the global warming alarmist doomsday prognosticators then the hypocrisy of the purveyors of Doom.
Global warming alarmism is an example and a symptom of the monomaniacal pseudo-scientific sacrifice of reason and logic on the altar of stupidity by political ideologues. Secular, socialist dogmatists’ refusal to admit the failures of communism is the reason the EU is dying; it is the only reason and global warming alarmism is simply a manifestation of the Leftist’s liberal Utopian religion of self-defeatism that is dragging the West down like a stone.
Sorry, but you’ll have to explain this if you think it is relevant to the discussion. You have lost me. Are we still talking about how to interpret the Seo et al study and how to interpret it? thanks.
It’s not wrong to focus only on AGW about this issue but that would result in an incomplete analysis and an oversimplification of all the influences involved. There is no analog for previous warm periods because there weren’t 8 billion humans hanging around doing what 8 billion humans do…affecting the environment and altering the landscape in every aspect imaginable.Since 1700 87% of the global wetlands have been lost (Davidson 2016). During the Holocene 1/3 of global forests have been lost. Impervious surfaces have doubled since 1985 (Zhang 2022). Crop production is responsible for 83% of groundwater depletion (Karandash 25).
All processes of the hydrological cycle have sped up because of wetlands being replaced by parking lots and dredging and channelization have accelerated stream flows.
What might have taken centuries to make a complete cycle in the hydroclimate in previous warm periods, now might be complete in years and decades.
https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests
This is interesting:
“A warming pulse in the Antarctic continent changed the landscape during the Middle Ages”
The Antarctic landscape is one of the most stable environments on the Earth, at least since approximately 14 million years ago when most glaciers in continental Antarctica changed from temperate to cold-based, and previous extensive fluvial activity disappeared. Here, we detected a large landscape change on a coastal glacier in continental Antarctica (Boulder Clay Glacier) that occurred in the Medieval Warm Period.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02259-4
It seems the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t just local, as some have argued in these pages.
Bill,
Indeed the possibility that the Medieval Warm Period included Antarctica is interesting. Thanks for the link. But you do understand that no one anywhere disputes that natural processes have caused the climate to change over the millenia. It is faulty logic to conclude that therefore the current changes must also be “natural”, and that human activities are incapable of causing changes. You know, or should know, that human activities have raised atmospheric CO2 levels. You know, or should know, that models from, say 2000 did a pretty good job of predicting the warming through 2025 based on that CO2 increase. They also predict that more warming is coming.
Dave … The point is that many have justified the current warming as:
1st premise – unprecedented, 2nd premise – higher levels of CO2 caused by humans, Conclusion – ACO2 has caused the current warming.
Recognition of prior periods of warming, equal or greater than present invalidates the first premise. That means the argument no longer holds …
Bill,
“Recognition of prior periods of warming, equal or greater than present invalidates the first premise. That means the argument no longer holds.”
“warming” is a change of state, which has an associated rate of change. I don’t recognize any empirical evidence for prior periods of warming that have even come close to current the warming rates. Be constructive: if you have recognized prior periods with warming rates faster than current, please share them and their physical causality.
Bruce …
The article cited establishes a prior warming period that has been denied. If you wish to alter the narrative by retreating to ‘rate of change’ that’s your right. But be aware, you’ve now lost a simple argument (i.e., the hockey stick) that has been used to affect public policy and you’re now subject to a more complex scenario where the certainty of the simple argument is gone. In short, your row just got harder to hoe.
Bill,
It’s OK if you choose to ignore rates of change and physical causality – difficult subjects.
Bruce … Just as it’s okay to ignore the change in the ‘facts’ once sited as proof.
Bill, Yes, it is OK to ignore ‘facts’ that have been cited as “proof”, once they have been disproven. It is not OK to ignore physical reality.
Bruce …
> Bill, Yes, it is OK to ignore ‘facts’ that have been cited as “proof”, once they have been disproven. It is not OK to ignore physical reality.
Absolutely.
B A Bushaw:
You asked about prior warming rates faster than current:
The last volcanic eruptions before the MWP were Tolbachik (VEI4+) and Bezymianny (4?) in 950? A.D.
Their SO2 aerosols would have settled out within 18-30 months, and temperatures would have rapidly soared because of the lack of any dimming atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution.
The next eruption, Vesuvius (VEI4), did not occur until 8 years later!.
Something similar is now occurring, since it has been more than 3 years since H-T erupted, and temperatures are rising, but now there is also a lot of Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in the air, so temperatures cannot reach those of the MWP.
It’s not wrong to focus only on CO2 when looking at this issue, but the analysis will be incomplete and an oversimplification of what is involved. There is no adequate analog during previous warm periods because there weren’t 8 billion humans hanging around doing what 8 billion humans do. The world has lost 1/3 of its forests during the Holocene. Since 1700 wetlands have decreased by 87%. Impervious surfaces doubled from 1985 to 2020.
The hydrological cycle has accelerated, in part because of these changes. Groundwater depletion, streamflows and the precipitation/evaporation processes have all been impacted from changes instituted by us.
AGW might be part of the equation but it doesn’t explain everything.
Good summary. I agree. There is some willingness to address some of these problems, especially when we talk about protecting and restoring natural habitats, so it is important to indicate how valuable this can be (even if we dont know all the nuances and details in every case).
i.e., modernity is guilty for everything ‘bad’ that happens in the world, even if Western academia’s monomaniacal obsession with humanity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere is a bogus non-starter?
This sort of things happening as being bad has been happening throughout human history. What is new in human history now, however, is that instead of standing on a street corner in NY with a clapboard sign saying, “All is Doomed,” we are paying government witchdoctors to tell us, “All is Doomed.” For the most part, these global warming alarmists are enjoying lifetime employment in the failed public-funded education system, engaged all the while in corrupting the minds and spirits of our young and destroying civilization from within like a cancer.
Wagathon,
The markets seem to be saying that it is something other than academia which is destroying cizilization from within, like a cancer.
If we’ve learned anything it is that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) cultists don’t think much of humanity. Secular, socialist Big Government science authoritarians believe humans are destroying the planet; and, those in Western civilization that actually work for a living are especially guilty of global warming. Those on the Left cannot prove their CAGW hypothesis but they certainly have proven they harbor a lot ill-will for that part of humanity still productively engaged in the business of living.
The message of the piece is actually positive (not doom, nor CO2). Everyone needs access to sufficient reliable water, so that seems a useful thing to aim for given we know how to do that. Do you disagree?
Western academia has sacrificed credibility in a mendacious quest to achieve totally unrelated sociopolitical objectives. The “relatively coarse spatial and temporal resolutions of the models” says Curry, fail to capture, “many important processes that occur on scales that are smaller than the model resolution (such as clouds and rainfall).” But, do we bring everything into sharper focus by using ‘parameterizations’ as substitutes for reality? “Parameterizations of subgrid-scale processes,” says Curry, “are simple formulas based on observations or derivations from more detailed process models,” that must then be, “‘calibrated’ or ‘tuned’ so that the climate models perform adequately when compared with historical observations.”
Do you disagree?
In part. I agree on the general parameterization point–that isnt so contraversial. I dont follow the rest very well so dont know if I agree. The Seo et al article includes Chinese and Korean authors so not so obviously part of western academic values — though not so sure if that is what you mean. Does your point relate to the post? Want to clarify your reasoning and share your evidence?
The only real global warming problem we have now is the army of government-funded academics who have erected a Tower of Babel to make war on capitalism and the free enterprise system. These self-important gurus of climatism seek political and commercial advantage over society by praising one-another, looting our earnings and hooting-down everyone that sees through their science fiction.
“by praising one-another” … not really something I witness (I am not a climate scientist though I dabble). There is plenty to be concerned about … but that isn’t it (at least based on my experience). If you mean too much confirmation bias? I agree. That is true and can lead to destructive thought bubbles … hard to argue otherwise. One value of this blog is to address that.
Douglas in Netherlands, if you kept your argument relative to “localized” concerns of soil desiccation, I would find much to agree with you about. Ironically, local soil desiccation is a distinct problem that’s “helped” by increasing CO2, along with good water management. Good land management practice is important for healthy soil, IMO water conservation is the global problem, not CO2. Density of flora has a distinct effect on regional climates, just as urban heat islands affect local climates.
Where I’ve primarily disagreed with you, the article is about “global” soil desiccation, first paragraph “…compelling evidence that the world’s land surface is getting drier. This global drying averaged a loss across “all” land surfaces of over two centimeters of water in two decades.”
The evidence suggests otherwise to the article that primarily relies on satellite data since 2000. See EPA yearly precipitation since 1900, and cyclic precipitation patterns posted upthread.
I don’t feel strongly about the distinction. We see regional desiccation plus some local greening and improvements. Indeed some of the positive stories are worth highlighting too ( western sahel for example). The larger scale effects remain real and worth drawing attention to, we are seeing shifts in circulation that change where moisture comes from and goes too … also the stability and reliability of these systems ( expect more extreme evens) … so absolutely no surprise that some places green etc etc.
The plot of global soil dryness over time has a very significant sudden decrease over a short period of time. That change must readily identify some likely conjectured and/or associated cause(s). I have not read the sourced article or followed the discussion here completely and thus I must ask what causes are given in the article or in the discussion here. I have read what I assume is cover of the soil having an affect on dryness, but a sudden change in global cover is not likely. I saw references to nonlinear responses and tipping points, but even that appears unlikely to me and not beyond conjecture. Also are data available before 1980 in some form so that the historical variations in global dryness can be observed?
I have become a bit wary of pep talks on the need for immediate policy changes by governments to mitigate a recently discovered and/or publicized problem. Governments have a poor track record on solving problems better left to the private sector to adapt to or change by use of signals and ideas emanating from a sufficiently free market.
“the need for immediate policy changes by governments to mitigate a recently discovered and/or publicized problem”
This isnt a new problem indeed. That is not the message.
The problems of too little or too much water have a long history. There are credible data to suggest 11 million people died from drought and related impacts in the last century while around 7 million died from floods … many more suffered severe hardships. The point here is to point to the fact that the problems of drought are severe and are increasing and to the fact that we DO know how to mitigate them (e.g. protecting land cover, especially natural vegetation). This isn’t news to everyone, but it is to some. It seems to be a message that is worth repeating in any case (the original note in Science claiming the changes were “permanent”). It may even be reassuring and some may find it stimulating, useful, encouraging or supportive.
Douglas, you responded to my second paragraph. I would appreciate a response to my first paragraph.
You would need to explain “I saw references to nonlinear responses and tipping points, but even that appears unlikely to me and not beyond conjecture”. I dont know what you mean (not clear what you mean “even that” ???).
My view: the climate in tropical continents have two reasonably stable states … wet or dry … it can switch when it reaches thresholds and as it approaches such a switch it may “flicker” (switch rapidly back and forth). A switch is something we see every year in the monsoon so is something very real and tangible. To start the rains requires sufficient moisture … if this gets delayed it causes droughts and the forests become vulnerable (death by drought and by fire) … this isnt theoretical to me, it is visible. If the forests are lost there is less moisture back to trigger the next monsoon. People who work on this in models note that their models dont capture the abruptness of the monsoon behaviour so likely the mechanisms determining the nonlinear feedbacks are not well represented. There is certainly room to debate the mechanisms and related magntiudes of the feedbacks but their existence, and thus the non-linear behaviors seems obvious enough (not contested as far as I am aware). Hope that makes sense.
“ We compare the reconstructed hydroclimate anomalies with coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model simulations and find reasonable agreement during pre-industrial times. However, the intensification of the twentieth-century-mean hydroclimate anomalies in the simulations, as compared to previous centuries, is not supported by our new multi-proxy reconstruction. This finding suggests that much work remains before we can model hydroclimate variability accurately, and highlights the importance of using palaeoclimate data to place recent and predicted hydroclimate changes in a millennium-long context”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17418
As noted by ken Fritsch above , “Also are data available before 1980 in some form so that the historical variations in global dryness can be observed?”
As noted in the Nature article linked to by Cereskid, considerable work needs to be done to understand the history.
the observation is this study by K.-W. Seo covers a period far too short to have such a high level of confidence.
“Major drought events have been reconstructed in India during 1870–2016
India experienced seven major drought periods (1876–1882, 1895–1900, 1908–1924, 1937–1945, 1982–1990, 1997–2004, and 2011–2015)
Out of six major famines that occurred during 1870–2016, five are linked to soil moisture drought, and one (1943) was not”
“ India has a long history of famines that led to the starvation of millions of people (Passmore, 1951). During the era of British rule in India (1765–1947), 12 major famines occurred (in 1769–1770, 1783–1784, 1791–1792, 1837–1838, 1860–1861, 1865–1867, 1868–1870, 1873–1874, 1876–1878, 1896–1897, 1899–1900, and 1943–1944) which lead to the deaths of millions people (Maharatna, 1996). Many of these famines were caused by the failure of the summer monsoon, which led to widespread droughts and crop failures (Cook et al., 2010). Although no major famines have occurred since Indian independence in 1947, large-scale droughts in the second half of the 20th and early 21st centuries have continued to have devastating effects on India”
“ A series of famines from 1870 to 1943 killed well over 10 million people in India. All but one of the major famines in this period are linked to soil moisture drought. Out of five major droughts that caused famines in India, three were driven by the positive SST anomalies (El Niño) in the tropical Pacific Ocean. India has experienced soil moisture droughts that were as severe as those that accompanied the deadly pre-1900 famines”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL081477
In North China there were 29 extreme droughts and 28 extreme floods from 1736 to 2000.
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/14/1135/2018/cp-14-1135-2018.pdf
“ The Old World Drought Atlas matches historical accounts of severe drought and wetness with a spatial completeness not previously available. In addition, megadroughts reconstructed over north-central Europe in the 11th and mid-15th centuries reinforce other evidence from North America and Asia that droughts were more severe, extensive, and prolonged over Northern Hemisphere land areas before the 20th century, with an inadequate understanding of their causes. The OWDA provides new data to determine the causes of Old World drought and wetness and attribute past climate variability to forced and/or internal variability.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500561
Douglas, I may not agree with some of what you write here, but I appreciate you posting your comments and concerns.
You got me thinking about a soil and cover situation in Illnois with which I have some familiarity. I have observed the increasing density of corn planting that becomes possible with modern technology and the resulting gains in yields. There is obviously a complex effect on soil moisture between evaporation (decreased by more dense coverage) and transpiration (increased by more dense coverage). While these two effects will change during the growing season my recollection is that transpiration will be the larger effect.
I see from one of your links that decreased precipitation is given as a probable cause in decreasing soil moisture as evidenced by associated ocean level increases. Do you agree and is your proposed fix to increase soil coverage to prevent evaporation?
I remain concerned about that sudden and evidently large decrease in soil moisture going into the current century. Globally I would not expect that sudden large change that lasts over 20 years without some concrete evidence for a regime change or switch as you referred to it. Maybe variations in soil moisture prior to 1980 would change our view of the magnitude of a regime change.
Thanks. I am curious what you disagree with. My arguments are that we can, and should, address and fix the hydrological cycle.
We are damaging the hydrology of the planet … my main work has been in tropical conservation so I dont think that that damage is disputed. It is too obvious.
Your question is about land cover and agriculture. The best solutions will maintain natural and near natural vegetation. We need to protect soil infiltration and storage and also mimic relatively natural evaporation (as one persons moisture loss is another persons rain). There are quite a few different mechanisms at play so it is tricky to summarize. We did a few blogs on different aspects of this in the past if you are curious. Here is one that seems good as an overview: https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/15/forest-climate-and-condensation/
I also put a chapter in this open access book that talks about food security in Africa. I keep it concise and non technical, but have various information if you are interested. file:///C:/Users/sheil001/Downloads/9781040317440.pdf
This one is open access too and is more an exploration of the atmospheric relationships (what we think we know and what we debate): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40663-018-0138-y?fbclid=IwAR07VSVqp34OEJqHrwqMVncrVTfXWNJgrMXZzJxtDSKSQVcObEorAgsDLTw
One the abrupt change, I was convinced because Seo et al look at various data sets and show some cross validation. It could be confirmation bias on my part because we know there have been many more severe droughts in regions like the Amazon, and we know that a tipping point is near (some of us debate the mechanisms but still agree the risk) but the changes seem believable to me. Presumably if they are real other will also be able to validate them.
Western academia – much like the Democrat party that is busy fighting the exposure of corruption in federal government funding – is falling on its sword in not wanting to give up its manufacturing of hot air and now, in addition to that, dry dirt!
As Earth warms, some regions will experience increased drought due to the change in climate that melts glaciers over hundreds of years and will become drier. The continual change in the climate, long before the advent of modernity, results in regional variations in precipitation that oftentimes are too complex to pattern.
Throughout the evolution of humanity, it’s not men that changed the weather and ultimately the climate– it’s the climate that changed man…
My concern is that we are undermining much of the ability of the system to adapt and respond. Fact: much rain is recycled by vegetation. Fact: the vegetation cover is being degraded and replaced. Fact: many people in many parts of the world see the effects of changing rainfall patterns. My opinion: we can fix this. It doesnt need huge amounts of funds, it just requires some recognition that it is worth doing and people willing to try (many are already doing so). I dont see this as a left-right debate … conservation interests are cross-cutting.
Doug …
> Bill — thanks for the reply. I agree there have been too many shrill claims. The problem is that that alone doesn’t mean that all of them are wrong. I agree a robust debate is justified, but I also suggest that an argument for more attention to protecting and restoring natural habitats is something many people would be happy to support.
I do appreciate your piece and your comments. And I agree with your sentiment that protection of our environment is something that ‘people would be happy to support’. Where you tend to lose me is: “Strong incentives are essential: those who degrade should pay; those who protect and restore must be rewarded.” I realize you are in Europe, where such a statement is considered perfectly normal. In the USA, many of us have come to distrust such coercive means, particularly when the debate over the issue isn’t settled. And … such issues rarely are. Rather, those who hold such views, when they come to power, wield it as though the issue is settled. Some say CO2 is a poison. Some say it is the source of life. The danger of a rigid system put into law by one faction will cause more harm than the subject either group espouses.
When I grew up we had a saying: I don’t mind having a conversation with you, but get your hand out of my pocket.
When covid was upon us, many were told that the ‘science said’ certain social actions were needed or many would perish. Just a few years later, we now see many of the mandates were not only ineffective, but harmful.
I believe you are sincere in what you present. And I appreciate that you conduct yourself as a gentleman and a professional. But we live in a time where bureaucratized professionalism has been challenged as to its authority over our daily lives. My (unsolicited) advice is to remove any references to mandates on behavior and concentrate on the debate, where ideas are presented and criticized (positive and negative). A good idea will win out on its own merits, not because it is mandated. If by chance the ‘right’ or ‘good’ idea doesn’t become accepted by a majority, what is to be said of those who use force to coerce compliance?
Thank you for your time.
Bill,
You tell Doug that you want to debate the science rather than politics and mandates. But you don’t tell him how you explicitly duck climate science questions when backed into a corner with an “aw shucks, I’m no scientist…” and, like Wagathon, then divert to politics because you have nowhere else to go.
Let us be clear: the resolution of the COVID pandemic was a triumph of science. It was contained by the global development of multiple vaccines on an accelerated time scale. Calling mandates “not only ineffective but harmful” puts you squarely in the anti-science camp. At least 232,000 preventable COVID deaths among unvaccinated people in the US are attributable to your way of thinking. (Jia KM, et al. Estimated preventable COVID-19-associated deaths due to non-vaccination in the United States. Eur J Epidemiol. 2023 Nov;38(11):1125-1128. doi: 10.1007/s10654-023-01006-3. Epub 2023 Apr 24. PMID: 37093505; PMCID: PMC10123459.)
You are correct but on thin ice when you argue that in our time “professionalism has been challenged as to its authority over our daily lives.” Professionalism has indeed been replaced in the US by incompetence. How are the tariffs working out for you? Did good policy win out after careful debate on its own merits, or was it simply mandated by executive order from a vengeful and confused man? I weep for my country.
Quote DA: ” Professionalism has indeed been replaced in the US by incompetence.” Not only in the US. It is a sort of world-wide back-lash against competence.
It is comforting to sing in a chorus, even if the voice is bad and the song is inane. But in a chorus everyone is equal (though even in there some are more equal than others).
Re medical science, which is absolutely not my field, I am an early survivor tks to a still a pig serum vaccine after being given up for hopelessly gone. I feel I have to say this because ignorance can undo in one hour what took decades of hard work to achieve.
Too funny, too TDS:
“Let us be clear: the resolution of the COVID pandemic was a triumph of science. It was contained by the global development of multiple vaccines on an accelerated time scale.”
Trump spearheaded the effort to develop the COVID vaccine, he stated that a vaccine could be developed in 9 months. Media pundits, and scientists, mocked Trump mercilessly. The common refrain was that at minimum it would take 2 years, and likely much longer to develop an effective vaccine. A vaccine was developed in about 9 months. Say thank you Trump for removing barriers– “Operation Warp Speed”.
BTW, There’s a difference between the science that Trump spearheaded, and political mandates.
“Calling mandates “not only ineffective but harmful” puts you squarely in the anti-science camp.”
Was shutting down schools a good mandate? Prove that this wasn’t harmful, among other things; like how enraged the left became at shutting down overseas travel in COVID’s early years. BTW, estimated deaths for the non-vacinnated is spurious on a various levels, not to mention that in terms of pandemic death metrics for large populations it’s not an impressive guess anyway. Don’t play the card, yes, every life indeed is important.
“Professionalism has indeed been replaced in the US by incompetence”.
Thankfully, Biden is in forced retirement. It appears the likes of AOC carries the torch for the Lefts future intellect. Congratulations.
“How are the tariffs working out for you?”
Conceptually fine. Call back next year.
We understand that your solution to reducing $2 trillion a year from the US deficit is to raise taxes. Let me help your thinking by going draconian: instead of taxing, confiscate the entire wealth of the 801 billionaires in the US; the IRS would bring in under $7 trillion to the US treasury, reducing the US debt from $37 trillion to $30 trillion. Great. In the ensuing 3 years the debt would be back to $37 trillion without spending cuts, but fortunately for the Left all the mean billlionaires would be gone.
The Left is enraged by DOGE, okay fine. But the Left doesn’t need permission to come up with ways to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse from citizen taxes. I’m absolutely positive that the RIght would be engaged with the Lefts ideas for eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse–got any? I can answer that.
Crickets.
You and the entire Democratic party have no interest in reducing the nations debt.
Give us your ideas, David, or just continue to weep.
Dave …
I can always tell when I’ve said something that cuts deep. You start to attack instead of discuss. There’s much science presented here. I’m sorry that you are not the type to tolerate the science with which you disagree. That’s a result of the position you’ve put yourself in. Claiming ACO2 is the main culprit for recent warming, and that this warming is soon to be catastrophic doesn’t leave you much room to honestly assess differing research. Your response to the paper I posted purportedly establishing the MWE as global, and not local as most AGW warmists (must) maintain, is an example of the closed mindedness (or fanaticism) and emotional responses that permeate your position.
But hey, in my world you’re entitled to your opinions and beliefs.
Bill,
I began a discussion of how professionals, not incompetents, got us past COVID. If you thought that was an attack, you must be on the defensive. You never told us what harm you think professionals caused in that case.
I understand your attraction to small government. The bulk of my career was in the private sector. We had the Food and Drug Administration looking over our shoulder, and that was sometimes bothersome. But we were solid, and the FDA’s presence discouraged corner-cutting, fly-by-night competitors. I certainly don’t see an “every man/country for himself” approach as fruitful for addressing climate change for reasons obvious to me, if not to you. (And now the idiot-in-chief you helped elect has his hands in the pocket where I keep my 401K. Of course that cuts deep.)
I thank you for promoting a paper from Nature this time (the one on warming in Antarctica around 1100 AD) rather than from your usual sources. Yes it suggests that the medieval warming period may have been global, not regional as generally believed. Either way I don’t have an explanation. Do you? Could there have been a temporary change in solar luminosity? I think a similar change in the current era would be detectable by satellite monitoring independently from the observed warming, but I am not 100% sure. Still, your assertion that the consensus view of AGW due to atmospheric CO2 is falsified by (possibly global) warming 1000 years ago is poor logic. It assumes that the only way for global warming to happen is by whatever unknown mechanism might have been at work 1000 years ago. There is generally more than one way to get from point A to point B. The physical basis of global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 in the current era is understood. And as Bruce has noted, the time scales in the current case are very short.
Bill – thanks for yours. Indeed it may be a Europe thing. My concern, which I think I share with many others, is that stories of doom and gloom need to be coupled with practical solutions–otherwise people give up. We need to show how to address the problems and show there is hope. The alternative is depressing and demotivating.
An anecdote: When I was a child I remember the nearby city (Dublin) seemed unliveable … the river was a sewer — and the smell from the gas works made us avoid certain neighborhoods and hold our nose. Regulations and controls have turned that around. I see the same in many other cities. That came about because we identified the cause and the solutions. It didnt require a huge amount of funds from the public … just improved standards and a willingness to act. Those who paid were those profiting. All good. We have salmon back in the rivers and pavements cafes where we can breathe and people live in the city again. In Europe that worked anyway.
I dont know the US well enough to see why that will or wont work there … but I do see that you pay a huge amount jointly for things like the military that show you are willing to see things as strategically worthwhile. Keeping a live and functioning planet seems something we might also agree is strategically important. Is that naive? I dont know. Hopefully those protecting and restoring natural areas, and their many supporters, may welcome the suggestion.
Doug … The federal government spends money on a lot of things. ;-) And then there’s the states. Environmental cleanup has been excellent since the 60’s. Sometimes government pays, sometimes industry. For me, the issue isn’t a lack of environmental awareness anymore. It’s become overreach. And I’m not even referring to the unhinged fringe in the environmental movement. Industry is vital to our survival. The emphasis should not be to limit industry, but to work with industry on solutions.
I remember when clear-cutting was banned, and for good reasons. However, it didn’t stop there. Thinning eventually became more difficult. Even brush clearing was reduced. Instead of managing brush fires, which naturally clear undergrowth, all fires were considered harmful. The results were massive fires that could have been avoided with better management. Where are the lawsuits, or mandates, against the environmental bureaucracy for their failures? Where is their accountability?
Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with your call for increasing ground cover and emphasis on water/moisture management. After all, I do live in the high desert. ;-)
Thanks for your time.
Your comment is awaiting moderation, since 4/27.
Doug … The federal government spends money on a lot of things. ;-) And then there’s the states. Environmental cleanup has been excellent since the 60’s. Sometimes government pays, sometimes industry. For me, the issue isn’t a lack of environmental awareness anymore. It’s become overreach. And I’m not even referring to the unhinged fringe in the environmental movement. Industry is vital to our survival. The emphasis should not be to limit industry, but to work with industry on solutions.
I remember when clear-cutting was banned, and for good reasons. However, it didn’t stop there. Thinning eventually became more difficult. Even brush clearing was reduced. Instead of managing brush fires, which naturally clear undergrowth, all fires were considered harmful. The results were massive fires that could have been avoided with better management. Where are the lawsuits, or mandates, against the environmental bureaucracy for their failures? Where is their accountability?
Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with your call for increasing ground cover and emphasis on water/moisture management. After all, I do live in the high desert. ;-)
Thanks for your time.
In the early 1970s a colleague who had worked in Great Lakes programs since the 1950s explained to me the cyclical nature of Great Lakes water levels. In 1986 the legislature inserted $600,000 into our operating budget for the mitigation of “record” high water levels along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. In a few years Great Lakes water levels declined, accompanied by the usual AGW birds chirping about the AGW induced evaporation and proof positive of global warming. Several years later water levels began to rise again, in some cases to such an extent the streams and rivers currents seemingly disappeared close to the Lakes. Most of the Great Lakes water levels peaked in 2020 and are now receding, and predictably, the “Evidence for Global Warming” crowd are out in full force with their fund raising articles to fight the scourge of the most recent global existential threat. Crises are such good fund raisers.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/great-lakes
The illusion of scholarship is a truth anchor in a sea of managed forgetting about Western academia’s demonstrated absence of it since Al Gore ran for president of the US on the back of the Left’s management of the catastrophic global warming AGW hoax.
“Foremost among the institutions that promote the state of fear are American universities. The modern State of Fear could never exist without universities feeding it. There is a peculiar neo -Stalinist mode of thought that is required to support all this, and it can only thrive in a restrictive setting, behind closed doors, without due process. In our society, only universities have created that—so far. The notion that these institutions are liberal is a cruel joke. They are fascist to the core…” ~Crichton
When the global average surface temperature is warming at 0.20-0.25 C/decade, why isn’t a state of fear the optimum response?
“Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.” ~Crichton
…unusual springtime cutoff low hits West Coast, wetting the dirt even in the usually dryer Southern California area… Oh my!
Unusual but not rare– although… Western academics may see this as the beginning of widespread flooding in California due to catastrophic global warming!
These are some reasons why we should look at paleo data with some skepticism. AI has such potential
Paleo-climatological reconstructions face significant uncertainties, biases, and errors due to factors like sparse proxy data, uncertain calibration models, and model structural uncertainties. These issues can lead to misinterpretations of past climate and impact future projections.
Here’s a more detailed look at the challenges:
1. Proxy Data and Calibration:
Sparse data:
Paleoclimate proxies (e.g., ice cores, tree rings) are not uniformly distributed geographically or temporally, making it difficult to capture spatial and temporal variability in past climates.
Uncertainty in calibration:
The relationship between proxy data (e.g., temperature proxies, ice core records) and the actual climate variable (e.g., temperature) is often not fully understood and can be influenced by various factors, leading to uncertainties in the reconstruction.
Unexplained variance:
Calibration models often struggle to account for unexplained variance in proxy data, leading to errors in the reconstruction.
Environmental interpretations:
It’s crucial to distinguish between the raw proxy data and the environmental interpretations made based on them, as different interpretations can lead to different reconstructions.
2. Climate Models and Assimilation:
Structural uncertainties:
Climate models, even with the best data assimilation techniques, can have structural uncertainties related to their physics and parameterizations, impacting the accuracy of paleoclimate reconstructions.
Data assimilation:
Data assimilation methods used to incorporate proxy data into climate models can introduce errors if not properly validated or if the model itself has biases.
Model biases:
Climate models can have biases in simulating past climate, particularly in specific regions or for certain climate variables.
Spatial and temporal covariances:
Uncertainty in how climate variables covary over space and time can lead to errors in interpolation between proxy data points.
3. Other Sources of Error:
Chronological uncertainties:
Accurately dating proxy data is crucial for creating accurate paleo-reconstructions, and dating methods can introduce errors.
Noise in proxy records:
Individual proxy records can contain noise, which can be difficult to filter out and can impact the accuracy of the reconstruction.
Geographical distribution of proxies:
The distribution of proxy data can be uneven, leading to spurious patterns or biases in the reconstruction, particularly in regions where data is scarce.
Replication of paleoanalyses:
Replicating paleoanalyses, where possible, is crucial for assessing the reliability and uncertainty of the reconstructions.
Douglas, I went to KNMI Climate Explorer in attempts to find soil moisture data I could analyze. I found data from CLM/ERAi for 0-10 cm on a global extent and resulting plots of kg/m^2 over 1979-2016. The anomalies are in range +/- 0.4 kg/m^2 while the means are around 17. The monthly series plots showed a lower anomaly in the recent 2 decades but I did not see the abrupt drop seen in your plot.
I have not yet determined the level of autocorrelation in these data but visually it appears that the correlation could be sufficiently high to create trends that could be confused with secular trends if auto correlation is not taken to account. In your work and those of referenced authors is autocorrelation and longer term memory taken into account and if so what would be the expected autocorrelation of soil moisture measurements over time? You have alluded here to theoretical models that would tend by your description towards autocorrelation and longer term memory.
I have also found that the mean of the CMIP 6 modeling for soil moisture did not find a statistical trend in recent times. Do you agree?
Good questions. I dont have all the answers. There are uncertainties around all these measurements and estimates.
Our post is about the decline in soil moisture. The abruptness is remarkable indeed. While the abruptness is consistent with the tipping points many of us invoke (notably in the Amazon) I would agree, that if we are being cautious, we should refrain from reading too much into specific estimate values for specific years. The value of the study for me is the 20+ years of data and the marked trend it reveals.
The overall trends seem robust. Though I could be mistaken. For example, I know the GRACE data are sensitive enough to capture clear annual changes (for example wet versus versus dry season over the Congo Basin) and some verifiable regional and year-to-year variations. As to there being statistical artifacts in the Science et al synthesis I would be open to that. Certainly additional checks are justified if you see a useful way to do that. Sending a comment to Science or to the authors would be an option.
Interesting! I dont know the sources and reliabilities for the CMIP 6 soil moisture trends data (I dont work on these models though sometimes interact with others who do). Do you know more? Can you summarize its reliability please? I admit I have not given much credence to model efforts for capturing global water trends (they are too inconsistent to be helpful). Thanks.
To be clear the autocorrelation I am referencing here is for annual data.
The author wrote:
The changes may indeed be permanent but they needn’t be. It’s up to us. The role of land cover has been overlooked and is key.
What’s the cause of these changes?
Just land use cover, or the thermodynamic expectations from a warmer atmosphere that holds more water vapor?
Why is the atmosphere warmer?
From GHGs+LU changes.
LU changes are only about 10% of the problem.
Ipso facto….
“LU changes are only about 10% of the problem. ”
I consider this claim is mistaken. To simplify, this causal claim can be seen as being like an explanatory regression model with many causal variables. The problem with the current approach is the climate researchers see what can be “explained” by carbon, everything is assessed and tuned around that … then we are left with the various “residuals” to be related to other variables. That leads to builds in the carbon assumption and is not a robust way to infer and compare causation.
If we started by considering land cover and hydrological processes first, and getting those very well described and calibrated in the models we would (I believe) get a different answer. Would be interesting to try!
It is a priori thinking, having pre-determined conclusions that colors the legitimacy of all scientific processes related to findings or even inferences of AGW. For example, I can relate the opening dates of the Tioga Pass to a hypothesis of less snowfall which then by inference would indicate a dryer surrounding countryside but the findings would be irrelevant if the improvement in snow removal equipment and techniques over the years was to be deemed irrelevant at the outset.
I have lost the thread of the argument. What is apriori? Are you commenting on the post? I am trying to keep up …
What’s the gravamen of the claim- a desiccation of the whole earth is occurring and can be explained by natural causes or that the speed and amount of desiccation of the whole earth has never happened before (presumably being caused by acts of humanity that are heating the globe)?
Is my presumption in error that you are suggesting that the whole earth is drying up to a higher degree than would be considered “normal” and even accelerating due to human-caused climate change?
Are you essentially saying that the carrying capacity of the planet has been exceeded- e.g., a population bomb!
Thanks. We are disputing the Seo et al claim that their drying trends are permanent. We think they can be reversed. I agree this assumes the trends are real. I have smelt the smoke from the forests in the Amazon and in Borneo, Sumatra etc so I am easier to convince than some here. Certainly there is natural variation (sometimes severe, e.g. volcanos) but human impacts are also very real and influential … we can see that in rainfall data and in local soil propeties (moisture storage, infilratation and runoff). Also in local temperatures. The main claim we are making here is that land cover plays an important role in ensuring reliable hydrology that shouldnt be ignored. If we want we can fix stuff too (good news is many are already doing this).
Thunderstorms are in the forecast for Texas and Oklahoma on April 27.
https://i.ibb.co/S4dmdWq5/ventusky-cape-20250427t2100-34n101w.jpg
Increasing global temperature, regardless of cause, results in decreased relative humidity and cloud cover over land. QED “baking in the sun”.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/6559/2023/
Still… in the southern California, for instance, 2021-2022 saw significantly less rainfall than average whereas, 2023-2024 was above average. As Joe Friday would say, “Just the facts ma’am.”
Douglas, I analyzed the soil moisture anomaly data extracted from KNMI and found the following:
1. The 38 year (1979-2016) annual series had an ar1 correlation coeficient of 0.51.
2. The OLS regression yielded a residual with an ar1 correlation coefficent of 0.30.
3. An ar1 correlation was the best fit to the data in both cases.
4. The results of the OLS regression passed the normalcy, homoscedasticity, and exogenous tests.
5. The coefficient for the response variable in kg/m^2 was -0.0073 +/- 0.0046 (2 stdev adjusted for auto correlation)
6. The coefficient was statistically significant (prob<0.05) but with a wide confidence interval.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iclm_era_soil01_0-360E_-90-90N_firstyear-lastyear_n_a.txt
If the plot you showed gives a reasonable view of soil moisture over time the year 2016 would have been near the driest
with following 5 years on average less dry. If that were extrapolated to the data I used the response variable coefficent would have been smaller. That change in anomaly over a year is small compared to the soil moisture annual mean of 17 kg/m^2.
At that rate of decrease in soil moisture I can see adaptation over time being a reasonable strategy for avoiding adverse effects that might arise. In addition it would allow time for more research and possibly finding proxies for soil moisture prior to 1979 to narrow the uncertainty bounds.
I asked Google AI the question: "Does the long term CMIP6 modeling of global soil moisture show no significant trend?" And the answer with references was: "While CMIP6 modeling doesn't show a statistically significant long-term trend in global soil moisture, studies indicate a general trend toward drying,
particularly in certain regions and over shorter time periods. Some research suggests that by the end of the 21st century, a global mean decrease in soil moisture is projected, especially under high-emission scenarios."
The AI reference was:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1029/2020GL089991
Quote AI (in selected part) “Some research suggests that by the end of the 21st century, a global mean decrease in soil moisture is projected,”.
By the end of the 21 century the Eddy cycle peak is reached. Past cycles seem to indicate a down-trend to harsher times. Perhaps AI can take a more far sighted look at the matter.
I should have added that discoverering with good evidence causes for soil moisture decreases would be a positive move within the adaption time frame. Currently I am stuck on more dense crop planting as a possible cause, but without any deep thinking on the matter.
Kenneth Fritsch:
There have been many instances throughout our history of soil moisture decreases (droughts), each caused by higher global temperatures, and not occurring uniformly because of geographical differences.
The remedy, as always, is to experience lower temperatures, usually from a volcanic eruption and its La Nina, but now by decreasing. on-going “Clean Air ” and “Net-Zero” efforts.
It is also about runoff. We let water runoff the land before it soaks in. That can be an active choice, or a result of compaction (trampling by hoofed animals tends to reduce infiltration and increase run-off). See the attachments in the links I shared above for more. I hope that they are accessible.
BTW There is good evidence on rainfall declines with forest loss in the tropics (even though the models dont show this the data does). It has been seen in both local studies and global compilations. Generally the patterns of rainfall changes, there can be local increases, but over larger regions the total rainfall declines.
Douglas
Very few watersheds are as unaffected by humans as they were in previous warm periods.
“ Human-kind has been draining, infilling, and converting both coastal and inland wetlands for many centuries. Recent estimates suggest that wetland losses have been as much as 87 % since 1700 AD, 70 % since 1900 AD, and 30 % since 1970 AD. Rates of loss in the twentieth century were almost four times faster than in earlier centuries, and wetland conversion is continuing in the twenty-first century.”
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-6173-5_197-1
Yes, wetlands are crucial in many regions.
Tangentially related, in his 2017 book Destined for War, Graham Allison writes about the stunning economic growth of China in the last 40 years. He states that by 2005 the Chinese were building the square footage equivalent of Rome every 2 weeks and between 2011 and 2013 they were producing and using more cement than the US did during the entire 20th Century. Further, between 1996 and 2016 they had constructed 70,000 miles of highways.
Douglas, thinking about your mentioned regime change in global soil moisture I did a change point analysis of my KNMI data. I got a breakpoint at year 2000 with no significant trends from 1979-2000 nor from 2001-2016. The mean soil mosuture would have dropped from the first to the second regime from 17.085 to 16.883.
Have you read any papers that analyzed regime changes with breakpoint analysis? Regime change in my analysis would take trends out of the discussion and point to looking for explanations of a regime change. I am wondering if models show breakpoints and if they occur in positive and negative jumps.
Regime changes, i.e.–e.g., El Niño, La Niña, NAO, PDO, AMO, solar cycles, extreme weather events…
Breakpoint analysis … I am sure they have been done but cant think of an example. I am more familiar with this as an approach in a change in the gradient than a step in the value … e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49244-7. We also sometimes use similar methods (again focused on gradients) to show that there is an implied maximum (or minimum) within some range of values (the gradient switches from clear positive to negative or visa-versa). A lot of the alternate states literature was developed on aquatic systems so that may be a good place to look.
This seems relevant to “breakpoint analysis” (nonlinear dynamics and self-feedback thresholds?):
“High probability of triggering climate tipping points under current policies modestly amplified by Amazon dieback and permafrost thaw” https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/16/565/2025/#&gid=1&pid=1
The “we can fix it”, may not be true (tho’ I hope it is) if the observed sharp decline is real.
More evidence for less cloud & more sunlight hitting the ground.
Looking at the title, ‘cooler, moister, greener,’ there doesn’t seem to be much humanity can do other than its actions that have demonstrably contributef to a ‘greener’ Earth by the serendipitous liberation of more atmospheric CO2 as a result of humanity’s production of energy,
Well said, Wagathon. Also for your recent post about regime changes: i.e.–e.g., El Niño, La Niña, NAO, PDO, AMO…
A paper that describes internal variability as the dominate factor for extreme Pacific El Niño frequency, since 1875 (the blade of the hockey stick). More from the lukewarmer take:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9873625/
For those more interested in approach to changes in gradients, enjoy. There’s something for everyone, though not for those who are “all in” on anthropomorphic.
Jungletrunks:
Forget the referenced paper. They are wrong about everything!
See: “The definitive cause of La Nina and El Nino Events”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
Burl, I repect and appreciate your convictions, and resolute nature; same with Wagathon. I know that neither of you sign on to the lukewarm position.
I’m not a scientist, but as a critical thinker I’ve weighed many CE essays, including my share of peer reviewed evidence presented by accomplished scientists, including a fair number of decidedly activist papers. One learns the differences.
I land on Dr. Curry’s take, lukewarmer, not because she’s right, but because she still questions all presented evidence and remains skeptical about climate science. I accept lukewarmer for my interim take, not because you, or others are wrong, but because I can’t be an absolutist relative to my skills. I trust Dr. Curry’s integrity, also that she’s a highly accomplished climate scientist who still questions climate science.
I land on the lukewarmer position because it represents a guardrail perspective for a critical thinker, as one who’s able to be persuaded in any direction.
So far I’ve recognized the usefulness of wearing knee high wading boots as it relates to climate science convictions. There’s no other science that compares. Medical science comes close though.
Greener on a global scale is mostly about sustaining sufficient liquid soil water.
Thus this essays conundrum, greener is self-evident based on satellite data.
I see it differently. As noted several times in comments, even Seo et al. (the article stimulating this post) noted some areas with more not less moisture. That doesn’t invalidate the mean trend. Indeed it is expected when circulation patterns change and weaken. Note, much of the greening is also in Arctic environments.
..
While the author of this essay uses satellite data to surmise their take for a dangerously arid planet–satellite data also illustrates a greener planet. My bet is: flora trumps hypothesis in this example.
Jungletrunks,
Can you figure out why the global atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping if there is all this plant growth?
https://judithcurry.com/2025/04/16/reversing-soil-desiccation-cooler-moister-greener/#comment-1016529
Jack, I can’t, nor can you. Playing the modern instrument card against the analog card needs further sorting out.
Jungletrunks,
Over 1/2 of the oxygen in the air came from the ocean’s phytoplankton. I think toxic algae and bacteria are responsible for the growing number of ocean dead zones (hypoxia) that are reducing global oxygen levels along with humans burning stuff.
https://www.americanoceans.org/facts/how-much-oxygen-produced-by-ocean/
This may interest some of you (not that it is convincing on its own, but it is useful to show what patterns are reported. Not sure if you can access (see https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003936 ) it consider changes in moisture in highlands …
they “present global monthly merged data sets of Vapor Pressure Deficit and Aridity Index (AI) from 1960 to 2020, aiming to detect and attribute elevation-dependent patterns of atmospheric and soil aridity in six representative high mountainous areas worldwide.”
In the summary they note that while the “The Rocky Mountains and Ethiopian Highlands are identified as the most vulnerable areas, with both atmospheric and soil aridity increasing by 13% across all elevation gradients. Significant humidification has been observed only in High Asian Regions at 4,000 m above sea level with an approximate decrease of 11% in soil AI. In both temporal and spatial patterns, soil aridity exhibits stronger heterogeneity compared to atmospheric aridity, with certain regions and seasons showing humidification, despite the overall aridification trend. ” … also “Elevation-dependent aridity is observed in two-thirds of the mountains, but whether high altitude alleviates or amplifies aridity depends on the pattern of precipitation changes at different elevations. The rise in air temperature is the primary driving factor for soil and atmospheric aridification, contributing to over 50% of each. In two-thirds of the regions, changes in precipitation exacerbate soil aridity. Simulations show that human activities are closely related to the ongoing prolonged atmospheric aridification.”
Jungletrunks:
I appreciate your reasons for your lukewarmer position, and the possibility that you could be persuaded either way if unassailable evidence were made available.
Let me try.
I have done an analysis of our modern (since 1980) warming, and I find that it was due to the American and European “Clean Air’ legislation of the 1970’s that required decreased levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution of the atmosphere because of Acid rain and health concerns.
The global amount of this pollution is tracked and it peaked at 141 million tons 1n 1979, then began falling in1980, and temperatures began rising because the less polluted air increased the intensity of the solar radiation striking the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, causing warming. By 2022, it had fallen to 73 million tons, a decrease of 68 million tons, and anomalous temperatures had risen to 0.80 deg. C.
This warming is INEVITABLE, but instead of being acknowledged, it is wrongly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I believe that this is irrefutable proof that CO2 has NO global climatic effect!
Also see
“Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming.”
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Burl, I’ve long understood that the 1970’s represented peak air pollution from aerosols, every year since then the atmosphere has gotten cleaner—and warmer. You may not recall, but not too long ago I acknowledged your take: “Burl scores”.
For me lukewarm allows for a wide berth to causality, it represents a lack of conviction. Lukewarm considers that more than one thing can be correct. I must say my framing leans to CO2 being responsible for much less than a 50% of the warming climate, if at all. Actually, I believe we need more CO2 in the atmosphere, and that more focus be placed on water conservation, and better land use. I have no concerns about CO2, it’s a non issue as far as I’m concerned. Technology continues to evolve exponentially, in the future history books will describe “the great CO2 hysteria” during the early 21st century.
Over my years posting on CE, this remains one of my favorite posted essays, it speaks to the power of technology:
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/issue-5/the-return-of-nature
Burl
I applaud your efforts on this matter and can understand your beliefs about the SO2 effects on temperatures.
My concern is the same as that with CO2…it’s too tidy.
My views parallel those of Jungletrunks in many areas. If we are to accept your conclusions then that negates all the possible influences of the AMO, ENSO, NAO, Thermohaline, Thermocline and many other forms of natural variability, some of which play out in multi decadal and longer time frames. As an example, Doos, 2012, estimates ocean turnover at 1736 years.
If this graph is accurate then by 1990, global SO2 levels had dropped only 3.6%. Are we to believe such a small reduction could increase temperatures that much?
This is not to say that SO2 has no effect, but just like CO2, there are other potential factors that could have influenced the rise in temperatures.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes
Burl
Assuming that the graph I provided above is accurate then between 1850 and 1980 the level of SO2 rose ~70,000%. Even though it has dropped since, today it is 35,000% higher than 1850.
While I don’t subscribe to any precise increase in global temperatures because of the very low spatial coverage pre1900, I accept it’s warmer than 1850.
So it seems that a case could be made that increasing SO2 causes warming, if we looked at the long term trends of SO2 and global temperatures.
Or, as in the case of the very high correlation coefficient between the purse of the PGATOUR and global temperatures, there is no causative relationship.
In as much as warmer air holds more water, in the event of global warming, the expectation would be for increased precipitation. Accordingly, if the land is actually becoming drier, it must be presumed rain over the oceans have increased over time.
Wagathon:
It all depends upon WHY global warming is occurring.
If it is because of decreasing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution, there are fewer SO2 moisture nucleating sites, and if is drier over land because of that, it is also drier over the oceans.
Changes worldwide humidity would be difficult to model in so far as neither SO2 nor CO2 directly cause an increase in evaporation, the majority of which worldwide occurs over the oceans.
Cerescokid:
Between 1979 and 1990, global SO2 aerosol levels fell by 9 million tons, and anomalous HadCRUT4 global temperatures rose from 0.09 Deg C. to 0.36 Deg. C an increase of 0.27 Deg. C.
This a significant increase.
In June, 1988, Dr. James Hansen, in his address to Congress, said that “the Earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements , which is about 100 years”. (0.33 Deg. C, then)
Between 1990 and 2022, SO2 aerosol levels fell from 135 million tons to 73 million tons in 2022, a decrease of 62 million tons, and anomalous temperatures rose from 0.36 Deg. C, to 0.80 Deg C., an increase of 0.44 Deg. C,
You say that if warming due to SO2 is real, it negates all the influences of the AMO, ENSO, NAO. Thermohaline, etc., and other forms of natural variability.
NO, those instances of “natural variability” are actually the RESULT of preceding higher temperatures. For example, I find that rising land temperatures precede rising sea surface temperatures, by about 10 months.
Found this by chance and thought it would be of interest as it brings in the ideas of moisture, sulphur effects, and attribution. From a news story in Science … see doi: 10.1126/science.zoa51w4 : “To predict future extremes, climate scientists normally turn to computer models. But those models struggle with the tropics, and West Africa is particularly complex, says Amita Prabhu, a climate scientist at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology. Not only does the nearby Atlantic influence its rains, but so do distant connections with the westerly winds that surround Antarctica, she showed in a paper published earlier this year in Climate Dynamics. That coupling, she says, “means that even small shifts in one element can trigger cascading effects on the entire monsoon system, making precise future projections challenging.”
In other parts of the world, understanding the natural drought cycle might not require looking back centuries. But West Africa is a special case. Much evidence now suggests the Sahel drought was caused, at least in part, by air pollution from the United States and Europe, Biasutti says. As economies boomed following World War II, coal-fired power plants belched sulfur gas, which formed sulfate particles that reflected sunlight and cooled the North Atlantic. The cooling fed the drought by suppressing a natural tendency for the tropical rain bands that form in West Africa’s wet season to shift northward. “We have a lot of reason to believe this was going on,” she says. … “
Cerescokid:
You are using too broad a brush!
Increasing levels of SO2 aerosols (micron sized droplets of Sulfuric Acid) ALWAYS cause cooling, since (per NASA) they reflect away much of the incoming solar radiation.
This is why the SO2 aerosols from VEI4 and larger volcanic eruptions always cause cooling, and why the rise in industrial SO2 aerosol pollution between 1950 and 1980 caused so much cooling that there were fears of a new Ice Age.
Then, after 1980, their levels began falling due to Clean Air legislation, and global temperatures began RISING as their levels decreased.
In summary, increasing levels of SO2 aerosols always cause cooling, and decreasing levels always cause warming.
burlhenry,
“Then, after 1980, their levels began falling due to Clean Air legislation, and global temperatures began RISING as their levels decreased.”
That’s right!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is a more detailed review of the paper under discussion here at CarbonBrief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-soil-moisture-in-permanent-decline-due-to-climate-change/
That crop yields depend on soil moisture and over the past 40 years have increased continuously makes an excellent case for adaption to drier soil if that dryness has become critical for crop yields. Droughts surely can affect crop growth.
I should note here that 2 data sets at KNMI show decreases in global soil moisture over the past 40 years while 1 shows an increase.
Douglas, can you provide the percentage change in soil moisture from a global mean the chart you presented represents?
The data set I analyzed from KNMI shows what I would consider a small change from the global mean over the 38 years from 1979 to 2016.
If there has been soil desiccation since 1979, it apparently was not due to a warming of the climate. An examination of a suite of climate models (GCMs) showed that, “On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface.” ~David H. Douglass DH, et al. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. Int. J. Climatol. (2007)
“Douglas, can you provide the percentage change in soil moisture from a global mean the chart you presented represents?”
The gross estimates of moisture from Trenberth et al. 2007 J. Hydromet. 8: 758-769 (I am sure you can find more up to date values … but these are fine for order of magnitudes). Values in 1000 km3 yr-1: “Soil”=122, “Groundwater”=15300, “Permafrost”=22. … Then we have a ~2 cm change in liquid water over the Earth’s land ~(150 million km2). Not sure if we have to subtract Antarctic (need to double check but probably) but it is only about 10%.
Jungletrunks:
Your favorite essay is a testament to the ability of mankind to innovate and improve many aspects of their lives, such as crop yields, water usage, etc., etc.
However, our climate has been warming, not from rising CO2 levels, as I maintain, but from decreasing industrial SO2 aerosol pollution, which is fortunate in that we have the ability to control the amount of those emissions,, IF it is recognized that they are the actual control knob of our climate.
Consider the American business recession of Oct 1873-March 1879 (The Long Depression). Temperatures always rise during those times, due to fewer SO2 aerosol emissions because of idled foundries, factories, less rail activity , etc. and the resultant El Nino temperatures rose by at least 0.4 deg. C., (which includes the
fallout of the SO2 aerosols from the Mar 1875 VEI5 Askja eruption).
The point of this is that those higher temperatures were DEADLY.
According to the article “Climate and the Global Famine of 1876-1878 “From 1875, concurrent multi-year droughts in Asia, Brazil, and Africa, referred to as Great Drought, caused widespread crop failures, catalyzing the so-called Global Famine which had fatalities exceeding 50 million people and long-lasting societal consequences.
Should temperatures continue to rise because of decreasing SO2 aerosol levels, none of the remedies in your article would have time to provide any mediation.
To avoid a probable disaster, all Clean Air and Net-Zero activities that reduce SO2 aerosol pollution levels need to be halted ASAP!
Wagathon:
No, decreasing SO2 aerosol levels DIRECTLY cause an increase in evaporation.
With fewer moisture nucleation sites, fewer clouds are formed, resulting in clear, cloudless skies, and evaporation intensifies, saturating the atmosphere with moisture.
This moisture is released around world in apparently random torrents of rain, called Atmospheric Rivers, although some areas, such as California, where the incoming moisture-laden air is uplifted, experience them somewhat frequently.
AI Overview
Silver iodide (AgI) and potassium iodide (KI) are both used in cloud seeding, a technique to enhance precipitation, by acting as ice nuclei to promote the formation of ice crystals in supercooled clouds. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) can also be used, although its role and potential impacts ared more complex and raise environmental concerns…
Douglas, did Seo, et al, in their paper provide the mean or baseline for the anomalies presented in the chart? If they based their anomalies on changes in sea levels and changes in other compensating factors, the total soil moisture mean would not need to enter into their calculation.
I assume that the estimated soil moisture as inferred from their measurement method would be the total soil moisture down to the aquifer level that contains the ground water. If this is the case I find that estimate a bit disconcerting since the important moisture for sustaining plant life would be in the 0- 10 cm and 0-1meter depths that the KNMI available data sets provide. I am aware that there is high correlation between soil moisture in shallow depth layers, but to the depths I assume the Seo paper used I would not know.
Did the paper do a correlation between the shallow depth data sets soil moisture changes and the changes they found in their estimates and if so what were the coefficients?
If you share a contact I can share a copy of the article. That would be easier for me and clearer for you.
Wagathon:
Interesting AI overview.
Completely off topic!
I will do that to your email address and thanks.
China’s Three Gorges Dam could slow the rotation of the Earth, lengthening the day a 0.06 microseconds, according to NASA bringing, ‘unexpected global repercussions.’
https://www.sustainability-times.com/environmental-protection/china-disrupts-earths-rotation-nasa-confirms-massive-project-is-slowing-the-planet-with-unprecedented-global-consequences/
Southwest US may cease being a desert and become an urban jungle. Who knows?
This was written:
Can the Three Gorges Dam in China slow the Earth’s rotation? The Three Gorges Dam is a hydroelectric gravity dam that spans the Yangtze River, in Central China. It is the world’s largest hydroelectric power station, but all that power comes with great responsibility. According to NASA, the dam delays the rotation of the Earth by 0.06 microseconds.
I write this:
The Three Gorges Dam in China is at 32 degrees latitude, that means the water added there above sea level is closer to the spin axis of the earth than the water at sea level near the equator that was removed from what flows into the the oceans. That would more likely lower inertia and increase the spin rate of the crust of the earth.
It would, or might, be interesting to see the logic and math that went into the 0.06 microseconds calculation. No leap seconds have been added since 2016 and before that the number of leap seconds added since 1972 have decreased every decade.
Look for added leap seconds, if none are added, the sea level alarm-ism is either mistaken or out and our lies.
Dangerous thunderstorms in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.
https://i.ibb.co/wFf34Frh/Screenshot-2025-04-30-08-22-41.png
Two comments in moderation … three days on the original one.
On my first read through the Seo paper I found that the plot shown in this thread is the soil moisture from ERA5 Land for the 4 levels from 0 to 289 cm or approximately 10 feet down. The mean moisture is going to be large, but knowing how large will depend on me getting that data from the ERA5 Land data set. Obviously that depth of soil moisture is required for comparison with the papers sea level and polar rotation estimates of total global soil moisture.
The paper describes the two novel methods for soil moisture estimates and presents them not as a better estimate but rather as confirming or verifying the ERA5 Land estimates.
I found of great interest plots in the paper that showed changes from 1979 to 2016 in precipitation, sea level rise due to soil moisture changes and soil moisture changes all having
a break around year 2000 with no trend plateaues on either side. This what I found and noted here when looking at soil moisture data from KNMI. Based on that information the likely cause of the regime change in soil moisture would be a regime change in precipitation (evapotranspiration remains near constant over that time period compared to precipitation).
So much for IPCC’s erroneous claim of CO2’s supposed positive feedback, i.e., that increased atmospheric CO2 would supposedly raise temperatures globally that in turn would increase evaporation of water vapor to the atmosphere.
Yes, that is happening. Specific humidity is increasing, but not fast enough – relative humidity is decreasing.
i.e., you are all wet but.. no chance of flooding. Got it.
Anything that arguably contributes to lengthening the day also will lengthen the night.
Nope, didn’t get it. Higher specific humidity means more flooding, not zero. Speaking of zeros …
This one may also be of interest for its accessible language and observations: Shahvandi et al 2024 PNAS “The increasingly dominant role of climate change on length of day variations”: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2406930121
from their summary: “The melting of ice sheets and global glaciers results in sea-level rise, a pole-to-equator mass transport increasing Earth’s oblateness and resulting in an increase in the length of day (LOD). Here, we use observations and reconstructions of mass variations at the Earth’s surface since 1900 to show that the climate-induced LOD trend hovered between 0.3 and 1.0 ms/cy in the 20th century, but has accelerated to 1.33 0.03 ms/cy since 2000. We further show that surface mass transport fully explains the accelerating trend in the Earth oblateness observed in the past three decades. We derive an independent measure of the decreasing LOD trend induced by Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) of 0.80 0.10 ms/cy, which provides a constraint for the mantle viscosity. The sum of this GIA rate and lunar tidal friction fully explains the secular LOD trend that is inferred from the eclipse record in the past three millennia prior to the onset of contemporary climate change. Projections of future climate warming under high emission scenarios suggest that the climate-induced LOD rate may reach 2.62 0.79 ms/cy by 2100, overtaking lunar tidal friction as the single most important contributor to the long-term LOD variations.”
I will add their conclusions too as it is clearly written and may be helpful (remember that LOD = length of day!):
“Over the course of Earth’s geological evolution, tidal friction by the moon has been the dominant cause of the secular decrease in the rate of Earth’s rotation and increase in LOD. The waxing and waning of large continental ice sheets and associated viscous mantle adjustment to the Quaternary glaciations over the past 2.5 My induced 10-to-100 kyr fluctuations in LOD (45). Based on reconstructed climate-driven surface mass models, combined with observations, we infer a present-day rate of LOD change from ongoing GIA since the end of the last glaciation of 0.80 0.10 ms/cy.
We have computed the pole-to-equator mass transport since 1900 and shown that it has contributed to a rate of LOD change that hovered between 0.3 and 1.0 ms/cy during the 20th century. This is mostly caused by the melting of global glaciers and the Greenland Ice Sheet, with the melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet playing a secondary but not negligible role. With the accelerating rate of ice melting since 2000, the climate-induced LOD change has increased to a rate of 1.33
0.03 ms/cy in the past two decades, therefore not only compensating for the negative LOD trend due to the ongoing GIA, but overtaking it.
This present-day rate is likely higher than at any time in the past few thousand years (47) and, as we have shown, it is projected to remain approximately at a level of 1.00 ms/cy for the next few decades even if greenhouse gas emissions are severely curbed. If, however, greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the increase in atmospheric and oceanic warming and associated ice melting will lead to a much higher rate of climate-induced LOD change, perhaps even surpassing the rate of 2.40 ms/cy from tidal friction, and thereby becoming the most important contribution to the long-term LOD variations. The impacts of ongoing surface climate change are far reaching, both on land and in the oceans (22). As we have illustrated here, the mass transport that it causes is also impacting the whole of planet Earth, by changing its oblateness and slowing its rotation rate. This, in turn, affects precise time keeping (44).”
In five days, another upper low will be in the southwestern US, which could mean another round of thunderstorms in Texas.
CO2 is a trace gas in Earth’s thin atmosphere – 0,04 % CO2 in thin atmosphere of 1 bar at sea level.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Dynamic of planet or moon Rotational Warming
When rotating faster – to be exact – when having a higher (N*cp) product – planets or moons develop (everything else equals) a higher average surface temperature T (K).
Let’s see the Dynamic of the process:
Assuming planet has an equilibrium radiative energy balance
(Energy in)1 = (Energy out)1
And planet has (N1*cp1) product and average surface temperature T1 (K).
When suddenly – a thought experiment – planet starts having a higher (N*cp) product, let’s say
(N2*cp2) > (N1*cp1)
and, as a result, planet starts absorbing more solar energy as heat,
and the average surface temperature starts rising
At first there wouldn’t be an equilibrium radiative energy balance, so:
(Energy in)2 > (Energy out)1 + a very little more out
Because it would have taken time, for the additional heat absorption to rise the planetary temperature to the level when what energy is additionally absorbed to be equally IR emitted out.
And – when in time – the New equilibrium radiative energy balance would be inevitably established, then it will be the
(Energy in )2 = (Energy out)2
And then the average temperature rise will stop, and the finally established the respective New average surface temperature T2 (K) will be in accordance with the new (N2*cp2) product.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com-
When an equilibrium radiative energy balance
(Energy in) = (Energy out)
is reached, then the average surface temperature stops rising, because it has already reached its Maximum Possible level.
An analogical phenomenon we witness here on Earth.
The month of the year with an equilibrium radiative energy balance
(Energy in) = (Energy out)
in summer on Northern Hemisphere is the August, because at that time the land is already warm enough to entirely emitting out the solar energy which gets absorbed.
Also it is the August the hottest month of the Year.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I have done some further searching of other data sets concerning the 2000 regime change in soil moisture and precipitation that was reported in the Seo paper. What I have found is disconcerting since a multitude of precipitation data sets with consideration of evapotranspiration show either no trend over the 1979-2016 period or an increasing trend after year 2000. Some soil moisture data sets show no trend over the period of interest or an increasing trend after year 2000.
What I conclude is the ERA5-Land data from Seo is rather unique. It would help if KNMI had that data and convertible to a time series. I can extract it from CMS, but converting spatial temporal data to a global time series as I have done in the past can be a pain.
I added a few key citations in comments above. Maybe you missed them. This one is an addition, not sure if you can download https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05690-1.pdf
The link below is to a paper where the ERA5-Land and other ERA data sets were compared to in situ soil moisture measurements at several same world sites. The relevant information is found in
Figures 6 and 7. In my judgement the correlations between ERA5-Land and in situ measurements are not what would be expected as a verification. Further, I would expect that
diligent work and analyses of the differences would undertaken and resolved before making a claim about a dessicated world.
If the correlation coefficient is squared one can see that the variation in the in situ measurements accounted by the ERA5-Land data falls from approximately 30 to 40 % down to something less than 10%.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/4349/2021/
As an example of just how unique the ERA soil moisture data sets are we have the following from the Seo paper:
“Other commonly used land surface models—Noah version 3.6, VIC version 4.1.2, and CLSM version 3.6 of NASA’s Global LandData Assimilation (GLDAS, versions 2.0 and 2.1), aswell asMERRA-2 of Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO)—resulted in large discrepancies in SM contributions to GMSL and PM, particularly before the GRACE monitoring period, and were consequently excluded from our analysis (see section Discussion and conclusion).”
From the Discussion and conclusions we have:
“Variations in SM from other commonly used land surface models (GLDAS-Noah, GLDASVIC, GLDAS-CLSM, MERRA-2) exhibit interannual patterns similar to those of ERA5-Land and depict declining TWS during 2000–2002, but with smaller magnitudes. As a result, in contrast to ERA5-Land, TWS is replenished in subsequent years, which is inconsistent with observations of sea surface heights (fig. S9) and PM(fig. S10).”
It is important to note that the estimated total water in the global ground water is 33 times larger than that in the estimated global soil moisture. In the Seo paper esitimated changes in global ground water, among other water sources, were used to estimate changes in the global soil moisture. The annual global water run off is slightly lager than the global soil moisture. Changes in run off were used to estimate changes in soil moisture.
The Seo paper was devoid of confidences limits and comments on uncertainty. I found a single plot where one standard error was used in the supplemental material for an ensemble mean for sea level rise due to soil mositure depletion.
If one assumes that the ERA5-Land data for soil moisture and precipitation over time are uniquely correct and the esitmation of global soil mositure by the methods in the Seo paper are valid, one can make a case for a regime change in soil moisture without trends around the year 2000 caused by a similar regime change in precipitation. I am skeptical of this conclusion until I see better verification for the ERA5-Land data.
Ken … thanks for all the time you’ve put into this.
All considered, the paper seems to be a good insight into the many pitfalls in analyzing data that supposedly is evidence confirming the AGW conjecture– generally, it has been the ‘science’ of cherry picking data.
“The problem with science,” says William A. Wilson (Scientific Regress), is that so much of it simply isn’t.”
‘The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favor them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. ~Paul Smaldino and Richard McElreath (“The Natural Selection of Bad Science”)
The vote from heartland has given the happy heretics of the Left’s global warming religion the opportunity to de-politicize the EPA and extract the Left’s agenda.
Douglas in Netherlands | May 2, 2025 at 4:40 pm | Reply
Douglas, my major interest was in the global dessication of soil moisture claim of the Seo paper. The paper you linked was the affect of deforestation on precipitation. I note from the paper that there was disagreement of this affect between the satellite and the in situ and reanalyses measurements. Also the monthly deficiencies from the satellite measurements were small (fractions of a mm per month with relatively large confidence limits) compared to the precipitation amounts I would expect in a tropical region.
“I note from the paper that there was disagreement of this affect between the satellite and the in situ and reanalyses measurements.” … There will always be some mismatch (often serious) as none of the methods are great. What is striking is the consistent pattern of change … yes context and scale dependent (only consistent at larger scales). But this is what I would expect. Circulation and biology are both complex and impacted by many things. The dessication we report from Borneo was around 20% decline in rainfall since 1970 … this isnt a small effect. The good thing is that trees and forest can grow back so some or all of these losses can be reversed. Are there uncertainities? Sure.