29 Oct ‘BioScience’ paper snubs the elephants in the room

[Douglas Grandt]

BioScience

A Forum for Integrating the Life Sciences

The 2025 state of the climate report: a planet on the brink Free

William J Ripple,  Christopher Wolf,  Michael E Mann, Johan Rockström,  Jillian W Gregg,  Chi Xu, Nico Wunderling,  Sarah E Perkins-Kirkpatrick, Roberto Schaeffer,  Wendy J Broadgate, 

Thomas M Newsome,  Emily Shuckburgh,  Peter H Gleick

Author Notes

BioScience, biaf149, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf149

Published:

 

29 October 2025

Seemingly comprehensive and accurate in the listing of observations, but shallow and dogmatic in solutions, samo samo bunk.

A few keyword searches reveal zero mention of just about everything PRAG, HPAC, HCA, CDR, et al. discuss daily.

Irresponsible, but they have the loudest megaphone.

Disgusting!

Doug Grandt 

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Doug

 

Thanks very much for sharing this 2025 state of the climate report (link).  It provides an excellent overview of the accelerating crisis, but as you indicate, its analysis of what to do about it is hopeless and highly politicised.

 

The paper opens with a discussion of Vital Signs, stating “The last few years have seen … [heat] records broken by extraordinary margins …  consistent with warming accelerating because of a large cloud feedback and decreasing emissions of aerosols”, endorsing James Hansen’s assessment that cloud and aerosol loss are primary drivers of warming. 

 

Extraordinarily, it then totally fails to recognise the extensive research on activities to mitigate these problems by restoring planetary albedo.  It is deeply troubling how leading scientists feel they can recognise the most important causes of warming, and then proceed, as you say, to snub these elephants in the room.  This strategy is consistent with the ad hominem approach to Hansen’s research adopted by prominent media climate commentators such as Michael Mann, one of the report co-authors.

 

The section on page 5 titled Energy Balance, together with the excellent graph 2n, showing that annual mean albedo has fallen by 2.1% since 2000 (29.3/28.7%), reveal that the drivers of warming far exceed the capacity of the solutions they propose to rein in the Earth fever.  No feasible carbon action can slow the darkening of the Earth, so the restriction of response to carbon is a futile and delusional strategy. 

 

Their claim that there are “proven strategies” to support transformative changes is just rhetoric.  Darkening will swamp these efforts unless sunlight reflection becomes the main climate strategy.

 

I suspect some co-authors such as Michael Mann would have exercised a political veto on any mention of solar geoengineering, which is totally absent from this bizarre document.  It would be better if sensible authors rejected this bullying and stopped their subservience to such harmful and stupid views.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/9C4BB752-D01F-4F32-8BD1-09CC9F5E8B27%40mac.com.

[H simmens]

No one following the discourse amongst climate scientists can be at all surprised that direct climate cooling remains verboten in this and virtually every other paper article or communication. 

While Michael Mann is clearly in support of SRM research he interprets the research as making deployment unacceptable. 

Johan Rockstrom, another of the co-authors is - along with Jim Hansen, Michael Mann and Katherine Hayhoe - the best known and highest profile climate scientist communicator in the Western world. 

Johan is a world leading researcher on planetary boundaries and tipping points. 

Yet he answered with an emphatic and unambiguous no to the question I asked him about whether he supports solar Geo engineering in my interview with him during the Exeter Global Tipping Points Conference - an answer that surprised me in its finality. 

As far as I can tell this is the first time in recent years that he was put on the record regarding his views on SRM. 

See https://youtu.be/tG-hh-gSKFQ at a 15 minute mark. 

Nowhere in the paper did I see a definitive quantitative and qualitative description of what life would be like at mid century even with substantial if not complete decarbonization. 

All of these esteemed authors chose as they almost always do to avoid stating what is in my opinion the most alarming conclusion of mainstream science. 

Which is that the climate will not improve it will only continue to worsen even after NetZero and will remain at a level inconsistent with organized civilization for centuries. In other words even the most aggressive and utopian versions of successful decarbonization will still inevitably lead to a world that no one would choose to live in. 

Thus I wholeheartedly agree with Doug and Robert. 

This paper by choosing to avoid any mention of the possibility of cooling the planet paints a picture of a future that would make the word dystopia seem like a walk in the woods on a beautiful spring afternoon. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Nov 1, 2025, at 9:24 AM, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/042b01dc4b32%24c75cada0%24561608e0%24%40rtulip.net.

[Jan Umsonst]

Hi all, 

there exist reasons why the leading experts often are against SRM this has to be acknowledged. Still it could give us some time to reduce GHG concentrations with all we've got. But much more we can't hope for. 

I think this has to be communicated as to be able that SRM gives some more years to stall the cascading feedback reaction of Earth is the reason we need much more research on how to do it and to what extent it will be possible as we will not be able to radiate back ocean heat content.

This is also what Kevin Trenbert writes in one of his articles as the problem we have already is TOO MUCH ENERGY IN THE SYSTEM. 

Its therefore vital to accept the position of the leading experts in their fields as SRM won't be a magic wand reinstalling Holocene climate as this will only be possible after centuries. 

Also there won't be a re-installation of Earths albedo as the "albedo" achieved by SRM will be fundamental different one then the historic one. Even if we manage to reinstall sea ice, which is also by far not certain to what extent it can be done, maybe SRM only will be able to slow down the loss and increase sea ice for some limited time period as ocean heat will work against it.

The melting numbers from below strengthen fast as the holocline in the Arctic ocean capping the fresher colder upper water from the accumulating warmer waters below is weakening and rising thereby warmer saltier North Atlantic inflow water comes ever closer to the surface.

I think all these uncertainties need to be addressed in our communications, as the main reason that SRM has to be deeply being researched is that we will be able to role it fast if a cascading feedback reaction should start amplifying the surface warming. And SRM won't reverse such a cascading reaction, but hopefully give us some more years that we stay operational to be able to muster the full potential of humanity to reverse the cascading collapse of the Earth system which will only be possible if we bring down GHGs with all we've got as we won't have many decades time to do it, maybe even not more than 10-20 years.

The triad has to be seen as the most important project in human history being deployed as otherwise we will die out not counting populations in caves and bunkers.

This is the most important part of the study:

"A dangerous hothouse Earth trajectory may now be more likely due to accelerated warming, self-reinforcing feedbacks, and tipping points." - This is the main reason that we need research on how to do it... Also the ultra rich will loose all if this cascade comes into motion for real, as it is already starting to do so. 

We have likely only one more temperature jump to go and the massive feedback reaction of Earth starts...

All the best

Jan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/9C4BB752-D01F-4F32-8BD1-09CC9F5E8B27%40mac.com.

-- 
Jan Umsonst
Wallauer Str. 6D, 30326 Frankfurt am Main
Tele: 0176 41114523
E-Mail: j.o.u...@gmail.com
Performing Vitality: https://performingvitality.wordpress.com/