Claim: 1.5C Global Warming is Not a Magic Number

Essay by Eric Worrall

The struggle must continue after the world breaches 1.5C?

Yes, passing 1.5 C of global warming is cause for alarm, but not despair

Published: September 7, 2026 10.21pm AEST
Eric Galbraith
Research Professor, Experimental Sciences & Mathematics, ICREA; McGill University

The news has been full of headlines about findings from a United Nations report: the world is set to exceed the 1.5 C global warming target set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement. The report has raised concerns and questions about what a 1.5 C increase could mean for our world. 

As an Earth system scientist who has researched many aspects of the carbon cycle and long-term climate change, I was not surprised at the report’s findings. The scientific community saw this grim milestone coming from a long way off.

So 1.5 degrees was visible from a long way off, and it was clear just how quickly we needed to reduce emissions to avoid crossing it. Instead, the freight train continued to accelerate, the engine stoked with more coal, oil and natural gas than ever. Rolling across the 1.5 C threshold is a sign that we are now entering profoundly dangerous territory.

Crossing 1.5 C is a call for greater action, not despair. 

It’s not a magic number. At Paris, the global community chose 1.5 C as a safe target — because the science showed that most of us would probably be fine if we stopped by this point.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/yes-passing-1-5-c-of-global-warming-is-cause-for-alarm-but-not-despair-291331

A grim milestone spotted from afar, a sign we are now entering profoundly dangerous territory, but not a magic number. Got it.

The reality is the climate will change as it always has. And thanks to the rise of AI, attempts to reduce CO2 emissions are now doomed to failure. Even Bernie Sanders has figured out the climate cause now has no future.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 10 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
78 Comments
Neil Pryke
September 9, 2026 2:12 pm

Stop the World..!

I want to get off..!

Reply to  Neil Pryke
September 10, 2026 5:18 am

In the words of a modern day Bard “Ole Charlie stole the handle… and the train it won’t slow down… no way to slow down”. (Jethro Tull, Locomotive Breath)

Bryan A
Reply to  D Boss
September 10, 2026 1:23 pm

Of course 1.5°C isn’t a “Magic Number” it’s a made up number designed to illicit ever increasing fear in the masses. Without Fear They have nothing and They know it!

Scarecrow Repair
September 9, 2026 2:13 pm

Methinks Eric Galbraith does not know the meaning of “magic number”. It means a number pulled out of a hat or yer butt, with no real justification other than feeling “good enough for now”.

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
September 9, 2026 2:25 pm

but… but… but… I thought it was a tipping point and the entire planet will resemble hell! /s

Iain Reid
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 10, 2026 12:11 am

Joseph,

it is a figure arrived at by discussion with politicians (From the South Sea Islands) who argued the original 2 degrees was too high. There was no science whatsoever

Reply to  Iain Reid
September 10, 2026 12:45 am

Not forgetting that the original 2 degrees was pulled out of someone’s butt.

Bryan A
Reply to  DavsS
September 10, 2026 1:24 pm

Likely pulled from 2 butts.
And that’s a Very Big number 2

oeman50
Reply to  Iain Reid
September 10, 2026 3:55 am

Indeed. Ask them what the error bars are on 1.5C or 2C.

Answer: There are none because they are not from an actual calculation. They are political.

Pro tip: When you hear the term “aspirational,” reach for your wallet and hold on tight.

Alan
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
September 9, 2026 4:02 pm

The “magic number” only exists in baseball.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Alan
September 9, 2026 6:33 pm

I wrote plenty of programs with magic numbers. They exist all over.

Bryan A
Reply to  Alan
September 10, 2026 1:26 pm

There is one magic number…in Binary… #4
oo1oo

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
September 9, 2026 7:19 pm

Magic numbers are numbers that dont exist. Since the 1.5 degree C temperature number cited is actually a statistical anomaly with no error bars provided, it has no basis in reality and is therefore magical in all regards.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  doonman
September 9, 2026 11:59 pm

WTF is the point of using ANOMALY to define the nature or status of temperature?

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 10, 2026 8:49 am

Anomalies supposedly let you compare temperature changes between widely different climates. E.g. Miami with Nome, AK. It assumes that “global warming” will show up as the same temperature change in all climates, +1.5C in both Nome and Miami.

It’s one more piece of climate science garbage. For the life of me I can’t understand how any self-respecting physical science could buy into the garbage assumptions “global warming” depends on. They’ve apparently never done anything like drive the 40 miles from San Diego to Ramona and experienced the temperature variance between a coastal site and an inland site.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 10, 2026 12:38 pm

That’s a straw man claim. No climate science says what you say.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 10, 2026 9:41 am

About the same as calculating a Global Average Temperature.

Fails the sniff test.

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 10, 2026 9:52 am

WTF is the point of using ANOMALY to define the nature or status of temperature?

Yep.

You first have the problem that adding an intensive property in order to average it is not a proper treatment of a physical property.

Thenn yo have the problem that the mean is a statistical descriptor of a distribution that needs the standard deviation supplied so the variance in the data can be illustrated.

Then you create a baseline average using averages with their own individual standard deviations but throw them away and ignore the standard deviation of the final distribution.

Then you subtract the means of the two distributions and throw away the standard deviations of the individual distributions when standard statistics requires the standard deviations of the components be added in quadrature.

Then you trend the resulting anomalies as if they are 100% accurate. No consideration given to weighting the anomalies based on the percent change in Kelvin temperature. And why are anomalies even used instead of absolute Kelvin temperature which every other discipline of science uses.

Measurement uncertainty is totally ignored in favor of statistical sampling error of the mean of averages

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 10, 2026 12:40 pm

“So many problems, so little time to point them out. I just have to whine and of course not take the risk of actually trying to understand anything. Boy, life is tough! ” Says Janitor Gorman.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 10, 2026 12:55 pm

Looks like Jim and Tim have a fanboi, lucky them.

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
September 10, 2026 5:20 am

I thought the magic number was 43… and don’t forget your towel to deal with the infinite improbability drive.

Sweet Old Bob
September 9, 2026 2:14 pm

But it WAS!

How dare you !

snark …

Scissor
September 9, 2026 2:14 pm

I wonder what temperature rise would be enough to stop Canadians from moving to Florida.

Reply to  Scissor
September 9, 2026 2:31 pm

The US wants to win Canadian visitors back, but tourists say ‘it’s a wasted effort’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-us-canada-tariffs-travel-tourism-b3045515.html

Looks like it’s vote the felon back in degree…

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 9, 2026 3:13 pm

Having just spent 25 years living directly on the beach in Fort Lauderdale, I have much experience with both Canadian snowbirds and college spring breakers. The main difference is spring breakers are both more drunk and more fit. Both eventually resemble skinwise the bark of the local gumbo limbo tree (with its peeling red bark).

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 10, 2026 9:04 am

The Land of Traveler Palms and Tourist Trees.

michael fellion
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 9, 2026 3:28 pm

Plenty of canadians are coming here as tourists, the whole article is simply another anti
Trump distortion.

Reply to  michael fellion
September 10, 2026 12:41 pm

Not a distortion

Bryan A
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 10, 2026 1:30 pm

More a TDS tirade!

Mr.
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 9, 2026 5:48 pm

Canadians have to spend ~$1.39 of their money for every $1 of purchases they make in the USA.

With current and getting-worse-by-the-week high cost of living in Canada being a critical concern for ~70% of Canadians after 11 years of liberal government, they’re taking to over-flying the USA directly to Mexico, or taking “micro-vacations” exploring their own vast country.

Canadian “snowbirds” wintering in Southern USA areas are even more deterred by sky-high fuel costs of taking their motorhomes & trailers the ~2,000 kms to desirable winter stays down in the USA.

Blaming “Trump deterrence” is an easy out for Canadians who are really deterred by the $$$$$s travel hits they’re facing from their poor currency exchange rate.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 9, 2026 6:59 pm

Every charge brought against Trump has been dismissed or is provably just politically motivated fakery. !

The real felons are the ones that brought those fake charges against him.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 10, 2026 9:42 am

A new diversionary topic by our “beloved” flame warrior.

Bryan A
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 10, 2026 1:28 pm

I propose a trade agreement between the US and Canada. I propose we trade Minnesota for Alberta.

September 9, 2026 2:24 pm

“The scientific community saw this grim milestone coming from a long way off.”

BS!

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 9, 2026 2:42 pm

The scientific community. What is that? I spent most of my professional life in scientific research, but I have no idea what that community is.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
September 9, 2026 2:59 pm

People who all think the same at the risk of being ostracized and losing juicy careers.

September 9, 2026 2:38 pm

Sorry for going OT (Off Topic) here.
But a thought just occurred to me concerning the “Green” opposition to Data Centers.
Do those people use “The Cloud”? Where do those pictures, documents, etc. go?
To a mass storage device, a “Data Center”.
I might be wrong but, it seems the me the opposition to new Data Centers when it was realized by those run them came that wind mills and solar panels could never keep them in operation.
They started to turn back to nuclear and fossil fuels. The “Green” money was drying up.
Just a thought. Sorry for the diversion.

Mr.
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 9, 2026 3:31 pm

and most importantly –
they’re not paying for it themselves!

Harry Durham
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 9, 2026 4:48 pm

Actually, the frequent flyers don’t aggravate me as much as the privately-owned jets (or turbo-props, etc.). ‘Cause they’re not just using them for conferences, but for most of their travels essential to instructing us lower-class folks, or peasants, or serfs (depending on how low a class it is assumed we fit best) in the appropriate sacrifices that will be assigned to us in the next reduction.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Harry Durham
September 10, 2026 9:50 am

You mean we the deplorables?

Harry Durham
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 10, 2026 10:49 am

That would be a recently-created (relative to medieval times) and fitting title, but I’m not sure where it would rank in the list. Probably above serfs, since they are owned by whoever owns the land, but below peasants, since they generally are considered not only uneducated, but uneducatable. I’m reasonably sure Hillary considered us both of those, but also not worth the effort to verify or refute.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 10, 2026 7:48 am

Mad ED flew twice to and from the COP in Brazil just so he could vote in a House of Commons debate.

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 9, 2026 3:22 pm

Very relevant and on point .. Well done.

Just had a reminder of a VW Combi I got stuck behind the other day.

Climate and other greenie stickers all over it…

.. and spewing thick black soot from its tailpipe.. yuck.

Then I got a clear straight.. my little Mitsubishi 380 has some kick when needed.. 🙂

The greenies yelp and whinge and carry-on like demented children.. but never walk the walk.

Bob
September 9, 2026 2:54 pm

This was predictable. Trillions of dollars wasted in an effort to lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations yet here we are living with higher concentrations than when we began. All together now say FAILURE.

Reply to  Bob
September 9, 2026 10:39 pm

we are living with higher concentrations than when we began”

And thriving. 🙂 Biosphere is loving it.

Maybe, if we try really hard. we can get to 700ppm… or more. !!

September 9, 2026 2:55 pm

A brief history of 1.5C.
The ‘tipping point’ was originally 2C, a number self admittedly arbitrarily invented by Schellnhuber of PIK because he felt it would be useful for climate alarm when AR4 models said ECS was 3C. (Remember Schellnhuber is the guy who ‘taught’ the late Pope Francis, resulting in his 2015 Encyclical ‘Laudatory Si’.) When in the mid 2010’s the EBM (energy budget model) ECS estimates came in around 1.7, 2 was no longer alarming enough, so it was arbitrarily changed (by others by ‘consensus’) to 1.5. Arbitrary change to an arbitrary number is 2x arbitrary, thus holding the same factual scientific value as the Pope’s Encyclical.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 9, 2026 3:03 pm

I freely admit that I get “tipsy” at times.
But in the morning, I realize the world is basically the same as it was before I had that “one too many”.
The Doomsters need to wake up.

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 9, 2026 3:37 pm

Yes. But they won’t, because it isn’t a matter of waking up. They have a ‘religious belief’ reinforced by Pope Francis believing climate messiah Schellnhuber.

By at least some metrics, 1.5C has already been breached—yet nothing has tipped. Because there is nothing to ever tip, as my essay’Tipping Points’ in ebook Blowing Smoke’ explained over a decade go. Not even Guam, as Congressman Hank Johnson publicly feared if the military reinforced its presence there.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 9, 2026 4:40 pm

Reminds me of – “Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so” – Ford Prefect

MarkW
September 9, 2026 2:59 pm

For years we have been warned that exceeding the 1.5C barrier was an irreversible catastrophe and that we must destroy the world’s capitalist economies to prevent it from happening.

Now that the irreversible barrier has been breached, and life did not come to an end. The alarmists are trying to change the script.

oeman50
Reply to  MarkW
September 10, 2026 4:03 am

I’m sorry, Mark, but life DID come to an end. But it got better.

September 9, 2026 3:11 pm

Is this 1.5ºC anything but an imaginary or “created” warming in the first place?

Is it even “REAL” ?

According to temperature site maps, the only region that had any real coverage even up to 1920 is the USA.. Any other data is too sparce or basically just non-existent and “made up”.
Scientific ocean measurements are close to zero and only along trade routes. (random buckets on strings do not count, engine intakes also highly suspect)

comment image

NOAA/CIRES temps show 1870 similar to around 2000

comment image

There is also other data from places in the NH that shows late 1800’s similar to around 2000

Unadjusted Australian data shows the late 1800s also rather warm.

comment image

We know GISS et al use massive amounts of made up and “adjusted” data and cannot be taken seriously, because there is no way they have the data to “fabricate” a meaningful “global” temperature over most of the first 2/3 of their “series of number.”

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
September 9, 2026 11:34 pm

It’s interesting how the state of equipment used for temperature measurement never matters when the bias (in their preferred direction) occurred in the past …..

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-the-1896-heatwave-wiped-from-the-record-33742

Meteorologist Clement Wragge, in an 1886 report (Wragge, C. L. 1886. Meteorological Inspection and Proposals for a New Meteorological Organisation, Report to the Colonial Secretary, Brisbane, presented to the Queensland Parliament, 14 pp.), pointed out that some thermometers: 

are hung under verandahs and over wooden floors; others are placed against stone walls and fences. Such exposures (not to mention the several remarkable instances of thermometers being placed and observed indoors) give results which are not only not intercomparable and so valueless to meteorology, but which are affected by artificial and secondary conditions, giving misleading values.

Wragge convinced the Queensland government to introduce the Stevenson Screen as the standard method for housing thermometers, but failed to convince meteorologists in the other Australian colonies. So for much of the country, temperatures continued to be recorded on what was known as a Greenwich (or Glaisher) Stand, or even just mounted on a wall, leaving the thermometers exposed to radiation from the ground and their surrounds. 
Even where Stevenson Screens were used, they were often poorly maintained. In 1907, the newly appointed Commonwealth Meteorologist Henry Hunt complained that many of the screens in use at the time had warped and cracked, potentially allowing direct sunlight occasionally to fall on the thermometers.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 10, 2026 12:17 am

So GISS et al. should not be using data from that period either. OK. !

Funny you don’t seem to care about the quality of Met Office sites ! 😉

The fact remains that there are many well maintained sites showing exactly the same thing.

CSIRO also show the same thing.

comment image

michael fellion
September 9, 2026 3:27 pm

What is really bothering is how do these phony folks get PHD after their name and get embedded into our public universities and colleges. The guy knows every claim he makes is a fraud yet sits there compounding the fraud.

D Sandberg
Reply to  michael fellion
September 9, 2026 10:11 pm

Yes, of course they know better, how could they not? They get their PhD’s by telling their professors what the professors want to hear so that their university can continue to prosper from the grant money that will only come from promoting climate fear. Integrity and honesty are nice ideals but money in the bank rules.

DMA
September 9, 2026 3:31 pm

“As an Earth system scientist who has researched many aspects of the carbon cycle and long-term climate change, I was not surprised at the report’s findings.”
One would expect someone as well educated and experienced as Mr. Galbraith to have noticed that the warming is not correlated to the emissions and the emissions are not controlling the concentration so trying to control either by slowing emissions is wasted effort.

September 9, 2026 3:41 pm

1.5 °C is a negotiated number. It was put in Paris to keep the small-island bloc onside. It was never a physical threshold with a special law of nature attached. There is no phase change at 1.499. Heat, ice, and weather do not consult the UNFCCC text.Galbraith still writes as if crossing it is a moral event. That is advocacy with a university letterhead. The science use of 1.5 was always thin: a round figure near the low end of the impact curves, useful for targets, papers, and the next funding cycle. Once emissions failed to crash after 2015, the number was dead as a destination and alive as a brand.Climate will keep changing, as it did before Paris and before Hansen’s Senate hearing. The adult question is how much extra forcing, how much extra warming, and what is actually worth doing about coal, methane, and the Asian power system. Reciting 1.5 after we have already brushed it is not science. It is keeping the collection plate moving.

SxyxS
September 9, 2026 3:48 pm

The real magic of those scientific magic numbers(numbers so magic that you get instantly called denier or missinformant if you don’t believe in them) is that they almost always end with a 5 or a 0.

It’s 1.5 here.
Covid distancing in Europe was 2.00 meters.
But in the USA it was not 6.56 foot.No science changed and adjusted itself down to get to 6.0 foot.(and Fauci would have used 5 feet if the metric system didn’t exist)
My wild guess is that American Covid is 10% less leathal or has smaller wings and less stamina.
Peak oil was reached by the year 2000 ,
Conveniently the same year the Y2K bug (the only 0/5 apocalypse with some logical reasoning) caused the end of the world – but the bug got killed in time by AGW.

“Entire nations to be wiped out if global warming if trend isn’t stopped by 2000″
Noel Brown, UNEP Director 1989

The Antarctic glaciation started after co2 levels fell below the tipping point of 600 ppm.

After predicting in 1988 the drowning of Maledives in 30 years Hansen shifted the goalpost of drowning to 2050
and his tipping point of 350ppm was revised by others to 400ppm.

Even the CiA expert use the same magic
” The climate change began in 1960 ”
CiA global cooling report, 1974

And even the crazy dude who identifies as a king went full science using both magic numbers(royals can do twice the sorcery)
” Co2 has exceeded 400 ppm.450 ppm is the tipping point ”
Prince Charles

Or maybe the 0 and the 5 are the numerical equivalents of Rhymes and Alliterations.
Propaganda tools used because It’s easier for plebs to memorize them.

Reply to  SxyxS
September 9, 2026 4:59 pm

“Entire nations to be wiped out if global warming if trend isn’t stopped by 2000″”

UK is making its best attempt to wipe itself out !

Allen Pettee
Reply to  SxyxS
September 9, 2026 6:39 pm

Of course the Covid 2-meter or 6-foot distancing rules (whether you reside in a country using metric or imperial measurement of distance!) were equally ridiculous as they were arbitrary controls placed by the epidemiologic elites onto the plebes based on the work of Carl Fluegge, a 19th century German bacteriologist who recognized that TB (the bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis) was spread via respiratory droplets that he measured to be propelled into the air 1-2 meters, so early 20th century hygienists used in the USA the 3-6 foot (imperial system) rules for TB transmission risk. HOWEVER, the application of these concepts to viruses was intellectually fraudulent, since viruses, including Covid, are aerosolized, that is they float in the air like smoke when expelled from an infected human who is actively contagious, so the 6-foot social distancing rules were useless. Indeed, I believe that the CDC recommendation of hunkering down at home instead of going outdoors during the Covid lockdowns was counterproductive, since outdoor activities would reduce the risk of (aerosolized) virus transmission.

Edward Katz
September 9, 2026 6:12 pm

This indicates that the alarmists have thrown in the towel on limiting the increase to 1.5, so the next line of BS will be that we have to limit it to 2.0; and when that’s surpassed, they’ll come up with another unattainable figure. In the end the number will be in the same category as Net Zero, which every one’s ignoring anyway.

Reply to  Edward Katz
September 9, 2026 9:09 pm

The world surpassed both of those, by quite a bit, for most of the Holocene…

… the planet is still here….

.. and humans existed without all the modern heating and cooling aids, thriving during the warmer periods, but struggling to survive during the colder periods.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Edward Katz
September 10, 2026 10:00 am

1.5 will be forgotten and it will always be 2.0 or whatever revision is made.
In 1984, history is what we say it is today. Yesterday did not happen.

Chris Hanley
September 9, 2026 6:40 pm

Bernie Sanders Proposes a “Ban Artificial Super-intelligence Act”

I asked AI how it could destroy humanity and it came up with several answers but I’m not sure it’s telling me the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Rational Keith
September 9, 2026 7:12 pm

Yes, even Phil Jones of Climategate infamy agreed the figure of 2.0C was arbitrary.

(1.5 is just a margin of safety from 2.0C.)

Reply to  Rational Keith
September 9, 2026 9:05 pm

He also admitted that most of the ocean temperature numbers were “just made up”.

Rational Keith
September 9, 2026 7:14 pm

Interesting match of rainbow and horse anatomy, given climate catastrophists are usually ‘Woke’ – being Marxist. :-o)

September 9, 2026 7:53 pm

For a US temperature check, I went to:
https://www.extremeweathewatch.com/countries/united-states/average-temperature-by-year. The Thi and Tlo data from 2015 to 2024 is displayed in a table. Here is a summary for these two dates:

Year——-Thi——-Tlo——-Tav Temperatures are °C
2024——16.8——4.3——-10.5
2015——16.2——3.9——-10.0
Change–+0.6—–+0.4—–+0.5
CO2 Concentration Data
2024: 424 ppmv, 0.83 g CO2 per cu. m. of air
2015: 399 ppmv, 0.75 g CO2 per cu. m. of air
Range Thi: 14.7–16.8 Range Data is for 1901 to 2024.
Range Tlo: 0.7—4.3

Although the concentration of CO2 had increased by ca. 6%, the increase in of Thi and Tlo are quite small and are well with in the the Paris Agreement limit of 1.5° C. For Thi, the increase in the concentration of CO2 by 25 ppmv caused an increase of 0.6° C. If the concentration of CO2 were to increase to 499 pmmv, Thi would increase by 1.8° C. Since the concentration of CO2 in air increases by ca. 2 ppmv per. year, the increase of 1.8° C won’t occur before 2062. That is a long time away and there is nothing to worry about.

Although the world might warm up bit, it is of little consequence because for many countries there will always be long cold and snowy winters like in Canada where I live.

NB: At EWW, temperature data for countries starts in 1901 and goes 2024.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Harold Pierce
September 10, 2026 10:02 am

Your analysis is based on the unstated assumption that CO2 is the control knob.

September 9, 2026 10:12 pm

Talk about out of context offerings by Professor Galbraith. If he applied his mathematic wizardry to the geological records (Quaternary in this case) he would note that the -1.5C argument had a start date circa 1800. What a strange coincidence, it was the end of the Little Ice Age. Since then, temperatures have risen a mere 1.5C, well on their way to the average high of 5.5C above the LIA minimum. How do we know this. Chinese and European records point to these repeating phenomena.

September 10, 2026 12:21 am

Iron (Fe), is an Earth- & Solar-System abundant element, Atomic-Number-26. Its dominant isotopic mass (56), and its precisely measured ‘mass-defect’, reflects the stability arising from its count of thirty (30*) neutrons and twenty-six (26*) protons.

Both these Counts (26* & 30*) were derided as ‘Magic Numbers’, as late as 1950, because there was no accounting for them.

One Ms. Maria Mayer, neé Goeppert, attended a meeting in Chicago, wherein such matters were discussed, specifically how the nucleon(p+,n0)-counts associated with high abundance, reflective of special stability, should differ so much from the special electron-counts (electronic shell-fillings) of atomic-physics & chemistry.

At one point, Enrico Fermi, pausing at the exit-door, turned back to enquire:
“What is known about the magnitude of the spin-orbit interaction (effect) in the atomic nuclei?”

Ms. MGM, reflecting on her wartime (Manhattan Project) experience with the spectroscopy (electronic energy levels) of heavy elements (actinides), set herself to work out that question … and within a short time had it largely calculated out, in a framework she published a few months afterward.

And so the Swedish Academy recognized her contribution, to the understanding of the ‘Structure’ [i.e. mechanics] of the nucleus of the elements, with a share of its Nobel Prize in Physics.

Nepotism Law, in effect in mid-century America, meant that this German immigrant had never worked in a paid position, her husband, American Chemist J. Mayer having ‘earned the bread’ to support their home & family.

[ Incidentally, she was a classmate of one young American, J. Robert Oppenheimer, in the Göttingen group of Prof Max Born, where she wrote her PhD dissertation on the obscure subject of the rates of (simultaneous) multiple-photon absorption, her formulae remaining useless until the advent of high-powered lasers and the now-ubiquitous ‘nonlinear optical materials’ that exhibit such properties to great effect in applied optics / spectroscopy. ]

With her little ‘model’, all the magic had been squeezed out of the Magic Numbers of nucleon abundances. [But the derisory label remains with us today, as per the putative ‘Magic Number +1.5 (or +2.0) Celsius‘ for a climatic ‘tipping point’ into an Infrared Catastrophe, a Runaway Greenhouse-Warming.]

And so it must be(come), also in this case of that very big & complex fluid-dynamical machine that we call ‘The Climate System’. The observed invariants, these inexplicable-hence ‘Magic[al] Numbers’, such as the GH-Efficiency Ratio (1.652), must become disenchanted (literally), i.e. reduced from their present-day ‘Magic’ status to a basis in clear physical principles that could be — that must be — understood, even by small children (our own).

Thanking you for your kind attention to this most vexing matter, I remain
Respectfully yours, — RLW
Written on behalf of Prof A. Friend, he is absolutely & always AI-free.

Coeur de Lion
September 10, 2026 1:07 am

Oh dear I keep boring on that ‘Paris’ said two degrees which was not frightening enough so just before the failed Katowice COP the IPPC produced the faulty lying SR1.5 universally excoriated by proper scientists. Meaningless

Bruce Cobb
September 10, 2026 2:08 am

Au contraire. Everything in the world of Climate Alarmism is based on hocus pocus and flim flammery. You have to watch the pea carefully.

observa
September 10, 2026 2:20 am

Phew! For a moment there I thought it might cost $860 billion-
Rising seas to cost Australia $855 billion by 2100. Here’s what’s already happening

Reply to  observa
September 10, 2026 12:59 pm

Sea level rise along most of the east coast is considerably less than 2mm/year.

This clown is relying on fake sea level rise forecasts, probably from some idiot using RCPx.x while totally ignoring reality.

Giving_Cat
September 10, 2026 8:59 am

Pretty sure 1.5°C was selected because 2.0°C lacked immediacy. The two most dangerous words in public policy; “must” and “now.”