Last Update: (May 2026)

For several years I blogged a lot about climate change. Eventually I made “climate change cheatsheets” containing choice links that were more organized which I could use as a reference. Scientific research is progressing so quickly that by the time you read this, it may be out-of-date. But these are good starting points.

Introductions & Overviews to Climate Change

The MIT Climate Primer provides an excellent introduction to the basic science and climate models.

Skeptical Science analyzes all the myths and talking points about climate change which the climate deniers use. John Cook (who runs SS) has written the Cranky Uncle book and mobile app (both of which I have looked at and recommend).

Reference/Data Dashboards

Indicators of Global Climate Change Dashboard.

Climate Change Tracker for USA, India and China.

NYT Deep Dives: (all links are gift links): 10 Years after a Breakthrough Climate Pact, here’s where we are.

Climate Trace Lots of data visualizations, Here’s a detailed 2/2026 analysis of climate trends. (warning: a lot of this site’s web pages are memory hogs).

Video Tutorials/Advocacy

YouTube: I really like PBS Terra channel which has in-depth coverage of controversies and research into climate change and extreme weather. You probably have to watch the vids more than once to digest the information.

• May 2026. The Perfect Storm. The risks posed to New York City and surrounding areas by superstorms like Sandy and storms with record rainfall. This reports about the city’s expensive efforts to build resiliency and how despite that, it still is not adequate to address a superstorm like Sandy.
• April 2026 Is this the most dangerous river in America? A deep dive look into the risks at the Guadalupe River in Texas and how better communications can mitigate that risk.
• Dec 2025 of Sea Level Rise Predictions. FYI, Houston is between 10-15 meters above sea level. Galveston is about 2 meters above sea level. Both Corpus Christi and Port Aransas is at 0 meters. Miami is at about 1.8 meters, and New Orleans is at 2 meters and Manhattan is at 2 meters.
• Tipping Points and Climate Change (Nov 2025). FYI, that AMOC Collapse is a recent discovery and very scary.

2025 video presentation by Mark Z. Jacobson about the hows and why’s of transitioning to Wind Water and Solar (WWS). (40 minutes long, start at minute 4:30) In one slide, Jacobson estimated based on current trends the year at which each country will achieve a 100% WWS solution. Shockingly, the expected date for USA was the slowest and longest (2148) while China was expected to achieve it in 2048. (These estimates were based on pre-2025 data before Trump even had taken office). Jacobson estimates that the cost for USA to transition 100% to WWS by 2050 was about $6 trillion, but that is dwarfed by the extra cost of Business-As-Usual and the social cost of fossil fuels. The energy-cost-savings payback time to make the WWS transition was 6 years, while the social cost payback (savings resulting from improved mortality from air pollution) was only about 1 year. Startling, fascinating analysis.

YouTube: Simon Clark (YT) is a British atmospheric scientist who does explainer videos.

Here are some primary sources I check regularly: This is Not Cool, Texas Climate News, Deceleration News (Texas), Inside Climate News

2025 State of the Climate Report: A Planet on the Brink. A joint article written by several scientists (including Michael Mann). Originally published in BioScience, Dec 2025.

Substack/Newsletter: Heated, Bill McKibben, Genevieve Guenther, David Roberts (all are indispensable, but especially Bill McKibben)

Podcasts: Climate Pod ;

Subreddits about Climate Change: Climatechange, ClimateOffensive

AI Queries (Gemini)

If 100% of fossil fuels were replaced tomorrow by renewable energy, can you estimate the effect on annual global mortality? (GEMINI ANSWER 2026)

What percent of global carbon emissions for 2025 derive from burning different kinds of petroleum products (such as oil, natural gas, propane, etc)? (GEMINI ANSWER 2026)

What is the best available estimate of the number of people who die annually in the world from air pollution caused by fossil fuel emissions? Can you give citations from peer-reviewed journals about these estimates? Have there been estimates of the global increases in mortality from the use of fossil fuels which exclude deaths from air pollution? Which of these studies have been recognized by researchers as the most authoritative? (GEMINI ANSWER, 2026)

Here’s a breakdown of these mortality estimates for the North American region? (GEMINI 2026)

I also ran these queries on Copilot: What percent of 2024 CO2 emissions are from petroleum? Here’s one asking it to estimate the increased mortality from fossil fuels. If 100% of fossil fuels were replaced by renewable energy, here’s the estimate of how it affect global mortality?

Historical charts of Temperature Rise and Carbon Emissions

The best place to go for climate graphics is realclimate.org (run by real climate scientist Gavin Schmidt). Here are surface temperature graphics and miscellaneous climate graphics. I’m going to include some of my favorites below.

(Here’s the longer WRI article that this pie chart came from).

Here’s a great graph comparing CO2 levels with Antarctic temperature over an 800,000 year period:

Here are some graphics from Realclimate.org:

Equilibrium Climate sensitivity (ECS) is defined as what will happen to the earth’s average global surface temperature if CO2 concentrations double from pre-industrial levels. From AR6: “Based on multiple lines of evidence, the very likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is between 2°C (high confidence) and 5°C (medium confidence). The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3°C with a likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C (high confidence).” Note that feedbacks change over time and some effects may be longer term than others. For example, the ocean absorbs a lot of excess heat, and it takes a while for ocean and land to reach an equilibrium.

Impacts of Global Warming on the Ecosystem

This 2023 report by the UN Climate Summit summarizes the impacts of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3 and 4 degree temperature increase over pre-industrial levels:

The 2015 Paris climate agreement saw world leaders commit to limit temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to aim to limit the increase to no more than 1.5°C by the end of the century. Governments also produced a set of pledges detailing how they intend to reduce emissions. If countries meet all these pledges, global warming is likely to reach 2.4°C by the end of the century, but possibly as high as 3.3°C. If all mid-century net-zero targets that have been announced are met, it would take the world to about 2°C with a range up to 2.8°C. Policies that are currently in place take us to around 2.6°C, but possibly as high as 3.5°C. 

This IPCC 6 chart is one of the scariest things I have read. Click on it to see the detail!

Zero emissions and how quickly it brings benefits

Mark Hertsgaard et al on how we know that reaching Netzero emissions can produce benefits quickly:

For many years, the scientific rule of thumb was that a sizable amount of temperature rise was locked into the Earth’s climate system. Scientists believed — and told policymakers and journalists, who in turn told the public — that even if humanity hypothetically halted all heat-trapping emissions overnight, carbon dioxide’s long lifetime in the atmosphere, combined with the sluggish thermal properties of the oceans, would nevertheless keep global temperatures rising for 30 to 40 more years. Since shifting to a zero-carbon global economy would take at least a decade or two, temperatures were bound to keep rising for at least another half-century.

But guided by subsequent research, scientists dramatically revised that lag time estimate down to as little as three to five years. That is an enormous difference that carries paradigm-shifting and broadly hopeful implications for how people, especially young people, think and feel about the climate emergency and how societies can respond to it.

This revised science means that if humanity slashes emissions to zero, global temperatures will stop rising almost immediately. To be clear, this is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Global temperatures also will not fall if emissions go to zero, so the planet’s ice will keep melting and sea levels will keep rising. But global temperatures will stop their relentless climb, buying humanity time to devise ways to deal with such unavoidable impacts. In short, we are not irrevocably doomed — or at least we don’t have to be, if we take bold, rapid action.

Michael Mann on Zero Emissions Commitment and how it can bring immediate benefits:

So our best estimates today are that surface warming stops when carbon emissions stop, i.e.that there is no additional surface warming in the pipeline when emissions reach zero. The notion that there are decades of committed surface warming after emissions reach zero is based on outdated simulations that did not take into account the interactive role of the ocean carbon cycle. While the science on this is more than a decade old, this significant paradigm shift in our understanding of committed warming has still failed to be widely understood or recognized in much of the public discourse over climate science (see this op-ed I co-authored in the Washington Post about that last year). The point is that whether or not the 1.5C target is reachable is a matter of policy, not climate physics, at this point. It’s fine for Jim and his colleagues to explore scenarios where we do not act soon enough, and carbon emissions are not lowered adequately to avert specific warming targets such as 1.5C or 2C, but it should be clear that the differences in their conclusions are a result of those policy and behavioral assumptions, not climate physics.

Follies of Exporting Natural Gas

Mike Ludwig on how exporting US fracked gas is far worse than coal.

Texas and Climate Change

hello

Natural Gas and Fracking

Nice Charts about Progress

Climate Change Rhetoric

Here’s my introduction to my essay LET’S NOT HAVE A PITY PARTY FOR FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES:

If an industry’s business model is dedicated to degrading the livable world for EVERY SINGLE baby born today, tomorrow, next year, next decade — even the next century, then it’s a no-brainer that we ought to act sooner rather than later to stop it, especially because we ALREADY HAVE the technology to solve the problem and already have a good idea about how to do it right.

Should we have a PITY PARTY for those who have been profiting from the long term harm being done to the human habitat? No. Instead we should provide a humane way for EVERYONE to transition to a cleaner and less destructive economic model. This can be done by changing the incentive structure, so that each person can be rewarded for decarbonizing their lifestyle in a way he or she finds to be the most suitable. But now the financial incentive structures in the US are designed precisely to do the opposite — to reward bad behavior. Perversely, last year fossil fuel companies in the US received $500 billion in subsidies so they could extract and sell even more polluting energy. Eliminating tax breaks for fossil fuel companies would go a long way to improve this perverse incentive structure.

Many people who have become rich from this destructive business model will claim — FALSELY by the way — that “carbon pricing” will translate to higher taxes for everybody. Sure, carbon prices does increase the price on bad behavior — that indeed is the point. But most carbon pricing plans actually refund 100% of carbon taxes to consumers — indeed, taxpayers who decarbonize faster than everyone else can end up making a nice profit.

Sometimes people who understand the dangers of climate change worry about the costs of making the transition. Actually though, it is relatively easy for individuals and organizations to transition to clean solutions if they have enough lead time. If carbon reductions were gradually phased in over 10 years, that would minimize the economic disruptions. If you knew you had 10 years to transition to a carbon-free lifestyle, you would have adequate time to replace your vehicles, appliances and energy provider without needing to spend a lot of money. On the other hand, if Americans keep putting off agreeing to an emission target, that will only reduce the time they have to prepare for the transition — and end up forcing them to incur additional costs associated with a rapid transition.

….

We already know that fossil fuels are causing LONG TERM HARM to the livable world of all future humans.  The sad thing is that the people who will suffer the most from global warming also happen to be the people least responsible for causing it in the first place. A  12 year old girl living today in Bangladesh did almost nothing to cause climate change. Most likely she does not own an iPhone or has ever ridden in a Hummer.   Neither did her family or friends or previous generations of Bengalis. Compared to the typical American, the typical Bengali  has an almost trivial carbon footprint.  Yet according to several  environmental reports,  Bangladesh is the country most likely to experience the most devastating effects of climate change. Food supplies will be disrupted; flooding and sea level rise will render large portions of its coastal regions to be uninhabitable. Most likely the effects of climate change will trigger several waves of climate refugees from Bangladesh into nearby countries, aggravating the region’s economic and political tensions  as well.

Imagine that this 12 year old Bengali girl spoke perfect English and could skype you directly. Imagine her question: “Your  scientists had been telling you for over 20 years that fossil fuels had been causing permanent  harm to the planet and especially  countries like my own; why on earth haven’t you done anything yet ?  Do you really think my life and my country are so unimportant? Do you  really believe that I have less of a right to grow up and make a living in my own country than you did when you were born?  Why have your people been so unwilling to take even modest steps to reduce the harms of climate change being done on countries which never caused it in the first place? Is this what human civilization boils down to — allowing entire states  to collapse in order to preserve one nation’s  precious right to drive gas guzzlers  and blow up mountains to sell coal?”

…

(Although I think the rhetorical points are still valid, Michael Mann’s points about the timeframe for reversing global warming from Zero Emissions is both a reason to have hope and reject doomsayer rhetoric).

Previous writings by me: 2021 Cheatsheet, 2014 Cheatsheet and my 2019 slides.

In 2014, I prepared a cheatsheet of climate data. I still refer to it semi often. Since that time a lot has been published, so this post needs a substantial revision. Actually the day after I posted this, Washington Post published an analysis of estimated carbon emissions and estimated that the true amount is 23% higher than what is currently reported.

(more…)

Here’s the letter I wrote to the Houston Chronicle about climate change. Like the previous ones, it will probably not be published. Oh well.

Uncertainty Cuts Both Ways

I thought Sunday’s front page story about climate change skepticism presented the issues in a muddled way. Indeed, why, did the article keep citing Steven Koonin and his book which is already under fire from climate scientists? Climate scientist Ben Santer wrote, “It is simply untrue that Prof. Koonin is confronting climate scientists with unpleasant facts they ignored or failed to understand. The climate science community treats uncertainties in an open and transparent way. It has done so for decades.” Merely stating that uncertainty exists about climate predictions ignores the fact that predicted harms could turn out to be even worse than predicted. Says Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt (two leading climate scientists), “there is a great asymmetry in risk between the high and low end estimates. Uncertainty cuts both ways and is not our friend.”

Practically speaking, policymakers and citizens can and should still make decisions based on available scientific information and assessment of risk. That is why the IPCC Summary for Policymakers uses clearly defined phrases like “virtually certain,” “high confidence” and “medium confidence” to help nonscientists weigh the cost and benefits of various actions. Unfortunately, delaying action on climate change imposes additional risks and costs on both our natural system and global economy.

A carbon fee and dividend is a fast and effective way to reduce the production and consumption of fossil fuels. It also brings substantial benefits: cash dividends to consumers, reduced deaths from air pollution (estimated at 100,000 annually in the US alone) and more jobs created (renewable energy historically has created many more jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuels do).

Robert Nagle (not a climate scientist!)

…..

(Read more of my unpublished climate change letters to the Chronicle here).

A few years ago I wrote a rhetorical piece saying we should not have a pity party for fossil fuel companies. Since that time, I have noted how often business reporters will write articles (and sometimes clumsy headlines) that suggest that the decline of fossil fuel consumption is somehow a terrible thing. In Houston, where I live, we have a great newspaper HOUSTON CHRONICLE which can publish great pieces about the environment and energy. At the same time, its business section gives excessive and unduly sympathetic coverage to an industry which basically engages in odious (albeit legal) behavior. Houston grew rich from the oil and gas sector in an age where climate change wasn’t as clear cut. But now it is clear cut, and there is no special reason to give these industries the benefit of the doubt. I’ve long said that the tragedy of Houston is that its most talented and creative (and law-abiding) people were persuaded to work for an industry that produced harmful and odious results (more).

This page will list and criticize news stories (from the Chronicle and elsewhere) which I feel framed the subject wrongly — in a way to portray the fossil fuel industry more sympathetically than was necessary. There are many victims from climate change — and workers in these industries are victimized in a way. I grew up in a city where articles about fossil fuels were dressed up in language stressing hard-work and enterpreneurship — distracting from long environmental consequences. Even today, press releases and media stress the benefit of partial solutions and the fact that the industry obeys the law (not hard in a state with lax regulations). Apparently the welfare of a rapidly diminishing population of O&G workers is supposed to trump all other things. I often used to joke that the easiest way to tell the extent of a company’s ecological destructiveness is the amount of greenery (and flowing water) which appears in their ads and promotional material.

Here’s a list of the most egregious examples of fossil fuel reality distortion:

Uncertainty Cuts Both Ways

I thought Sunday’s front page story about climate change skepticism presented the issues in a muddled way. Indeed, why, did the article keep citing Steven Koonin and his book which is already under fire from climate scientists? Climate scientist Ben Santer wrote, “It is simply untrue that Prof. Koonin is confronting climate scientists with unpleasant facts they ignored or failed to understand. The climate science community treats uncertainties in an open and transparent way. It has done so for decades.” Merely stating that uncertainty exists about climate predictions ignores the fact that predicted harms could turn out to be even worse than predicted. Says Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt (two leading climate scientists), “there is a great asymmetry in risk between the high and low end estimates. Uncertainty cuts both ways and is not our friend.”

Practically speaking, policymakers and citizens can and should still make decisions based on available scientific information and assessment of risk. That is why the IPCC Summary for Policymakers uses clearly defined phrases like “virtually certain,” “high confidence” and “medium confidence” to help nonscientists weigh the cost and benefits of various actions. Unfortunately, delaying action on climate change imposes additional risks and costs on both our natural system and global economy.

A carbon fee and dividend is a fast and effective way to reduce the production and consumption of fossil fuels. It also brings substantial benefits: cash dividends to consumers, reduced deaths from air pollution (estimated at 100,000 annually in the US alone) and more jobs created (renewable energy historically has created many more jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuels do).

Robert Nagle (not a climate scientist!)

PERSONIFICATION OF SHALE

Dear Houston Chronicle:

In the Sept 27 HOUSTON CHRONICLE business section (page 1), we see the headline, “NEW MEXICO SHALE IS BRACING FOR POSSIBLE BIDEN REGULATIONS.” Please note that shale is an inanimate object incapable of having any mental processes or emotion. Solecism aside, it’s disturbing to lament the proposed reduction of a business practice which threatens both the planet’s climate and the local ecosystem (and potentially the water supply). The shale mining industry may provide short-term economic gain to a small number, but it also threatens the health and stability of our climate and the people and creatures that live on it.

The “Threat” of Solar Energy

Dear Houston Chronicle:

I need to quibble with some of the wording in the otherwise excellent report on the emerging solar industry by L.M. Sixel on Monday Dec 2.

According to the article, “Solar, however, may pose an even greater threat because unlike wind, it produces the most power when demand is highest — hot, sunny summer afternoons.”

“Threat”? I find nothing threatening about using solar power. But when air pollution from fossil fuels annually causes 4-7 million premature deaths globally (WHO Report, 2014 & Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health, 2017) and 75,000-100,000 domestically, I certainly feel threatened by the continued use of fossil fuels in Texas. Far from being a threat, solar is an encouraging sign, a reason to hope for the future. According to one economic analysis (U. of Mass, 2009– PDF), “clean energy investments create 16.7 jobs for every $1 million in spending. Spending on fossil fuels, by contrast, generates 5.3 jobs per $1 million in spending.”

Sometimes the overly effusive coverage by the Chronicle about the fossil fuel industry can be offputting. If an industry’s business model is dedicated to PERMANENTLY degrading the livable world for EVERY SINGLE baby born today, tomorrow, next year, next decade — even the next century, then it’s a no-brainer that we ought to act sooner rather than later to stop it, especially because we ALREADY HAVE the technology to solve the problem and already have a good idea about how to do it right.

Other fun Stuff