This article is deeply problematic for a number of reasons. Wildfire risk increased in western US is due to both climate change and poor forest management, much of which is down to Forest Service aggressively extinguishing fires for nearly a century in forests adapted to burn 1/4
Similarly, traditional logging activities do relatively little to reduce fire risk, as what regrows is often more flammable than mature forests. Best tools we have – thinning small trees and brush combined with controlled burns – are not econ viable for the timber industry 2/4
Traditional environmentalists are not without blame here; we need to ensure that pre-commercial thinning and controlled burns are not unduly restricted by environmental regulations. But laying our entire history of poor forest management at their feet is extremely misleading. 3/4
After a modest decline over the first half of the year (and after record 2024 warmth), global temperatures are ticking back up. The past two days have been the warmest on record for this time of year in ERA5 and the highest temperature anomalies since January.
With 26 days of October now reporting in ERA5, October 2025 will be the third warmest on record after 2023 and 2024.
Weather models expect global temperatures to remain relatively flat over the coming week as extreme Northern Hemisphere warmth persists, and anomalies (departures from normal) will be at or above the levels the highest levels any we've seen earlier in the year
The EPA cited my paper in their argument against the endangerment finding today. However, their point is completely backwards: my paper actually supports the EPA's 2009 range of 1.8C to 4C warming by 2100. nature.com/articles/d4158…
Specifically, in our paper we argue that RCP4.5 or RCP6.0 are more realistic representations of 2100 warming under current policy than the increasingly implausible RCP8.5 scenario. But the lower of those two – RCP4.5 – gives a 2100 warming range of 1.8C to 4C!
Its only the high end warming outcomes of >4C that have become increasingly unlikely as the world has moved toward lower emissions scenarios. The wide range of climate sensitivity and carbon cycle feedbacks still makes it impossible to rule out up to 4C: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/29…
I just published an explainer on aerosols and their role in the climate that I've been working on for the past few months! It includes both how aerosols work, how emissions have changed, and how thats driven recent warming (link below).
Human-caused emissions of aerosols – tiny, light‑scattering particles produced mainly by burning fossil fuels – have long acted as an invisible brake on global warming. This is largely because they absorb or reflect incoming sunlight and influence the formation and brightness of clouds.
Aerosols also have a substantial impact on human health, with poor outdoor air quality from particulate matter contributing to millions of premature deaths. Efforts to improve air quality around the world in recent decades have reduced aerosol emissions, bringing widespread benefits for health.
Whenever I post about climate, skeptical folks inevitable respond with this graph. So I decided to do something radical: actually read the underling scientific paper and ask the authors.
As it turns out, it actually says the opposite of what skeptics claim.
Rather than arguing against human influence on the climate, the paper makes the stark claim that "CO2 is the dominant driver of Phanerozoic climate [the past 485 million years], emphasizing the importance of this greenhouse gas in shaping Earth history."
Changes in temperature, it turns out, have been strongly correlated with CO2. Even more strongly than the authors expected when they set out to create a 485 million year reconstruction. CO2 is both a forcing (e.g. from volcanism) and a feedback (from solar forcing) at different points.
Every wildfire starts with an ignition – downed powerlines, lightning, arson – and we can do a lot to reduce these.
But in California the number of fires has dropped while the area burned has doubled. What has changed is conditions, not ignitions:
Why have conditions changed? A legacy of poor forest management has led to fuel loading (particularly in the Sierras), contributing to more destructive fires. But vegetation has also gotten much drier as fire season temperatures have warmed (+3.6F since 1980s)
We've historically seen the most destructive fires in hot and dry years. Human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause of increased temperatures in California.
I have a new paper in Dialogues on Climate Change exploring climate outcomes under current policies. I find that we are likely headed toward 2.7C by 2100 (with uncertainties from 1.9C to 3.7C), and that high end emissions scenarios have become much less likely
This reflects a bit of good news; 2.7C is a lot better than the 4C that many thought we were heading for a decade ago, and reflects real progress on moving away from a 21st century dominated by coal. At the same time, its far from what is needed.
It does raise an interesting question: how much of the change in likely climate outcomes relative to a decade ago reflects actual progress on technology and policy vs assumptions about the future (e.g. 5x more coal by 2100) that were always unrealistic.