Should we anticipate a particular research trend on climate change that differs from previous trends, particularly in the wake of President Donald Trump's election?

Dunno... Make Arctic Green Again? Let's bring back good old days of Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum?

And being more serious - unless someone is engaged in policy based evidence making, then there shouldn't be much change in actual findings in case of ideological wind shifting direction. Soft sciences are likely to be affected (especially if one assumes that this politician is merely a marker of pendulum swinging back), though in some more stringent modeling shouldn't be a problem as neither carbon dioxide nor other greenhouse gases bend to political will.

I wonder whether presentation of changes in more ambiguous cases may shift a bit, effectively the glass would be half full instead of being half empty. Maybe some people would for example skip presenting what would happen under RCP 8.5? I mean this pathway is at this point already unlikely, though by some inertia people publish estimations for it and later such extreme scenarios become presented in the media as the prediction creating one group living in terror and another group doubting also the more realistic scenarios.

Different policy recommendation? I mean if some solutions become even less likely to be implemented then one may stop acting otherwise. (Already a while ago I was somewhat perplexed watching emphasize on whether some small post-industrial nation reach net zero a few years sooner or later, instead of nervously discussing on trajectories in developing nations) From practical perspective, if there would lower emphasis on emission reduction then there should be better higher prioritization of adaptation. This may be in some cases a blessing in disguise, as a presented in recent California fires nothing says better that some conditions are totally unprecedented and impossible to adapt, than native palms being evolutionary adapted to surviving fires like that.

Hossam Ismael

Yes, it is possible to anticipate a certain trend in climate change research that differs from previous ones, especially when considering political changes and their influence on research priorities. Politics often shapes the direction of funding and the attention given to specific aspects of climate change, which can lead to shifts in research focus.

Key reasons for expecting a new trend:

Should we expect clear changes in approach?

It is anticipated that new trends will place greater emphasis on:

• Shifting from purely scientific analyses to practical solutions.
• Focusing on equity in climate policies (environmental justice, impacts on vulnerable communities).
• Developing economic strategies for decarbonization.

Do you agree that a new approach to research will also include a broader social and economic context, or do you think the focus should remain on technical aspects?

Prof. Dr. Dragan Ugrinov, I completely agree with what you have just mentioned about the analysis of research trends in the field of climate change studies as a result of changing management policies.

Are we expected to see a change in the database of trends in temperature values ​​or carbon dioxide concentrations?

Hossam Ismael

Yes, it is expected that we will see changes in the databases tracking trends in temperature values or carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. These changes can be based on several factors, such as global climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and policies implemented to reduce those emissions.

For example, based on trends from recent decades, the following changes are expected:

However, depending on global initiatives and technologies being developed to reduce emissions, such as renewable energy or carbon capture and storage technologies, some changes in these trends may be mitigated.

Databases will be useful for monitoring these changes and assessing the effects of climate measures being taken.

"Drill, drill, drill!" says Trump

Hossam Ismael

Are you sure it would be plausible to have meaningful impact in global, decades long process for a politician who would have a 4 year term in a country responsible for ~12% of global emission? Especially that the net impact would be not that obvious as while directly fighting climate would be at the bottom of his priority list, to be business friendly he may rubber stamp permits for a few nuclear plants or reduce carbon footprint of quite many people by deporting them back to their home countries.

Thank you all for your contributions and scientific opinions that enriched the discussion.

I don't blame Trump for making a mockery of climate change. There is so much fake news around plus the so-called "woke agenda" politicians who contribute strange messages, such as a no-religion, no-patriotism, no-customs, multiple-sex society. Being not a scientist Trump, an able business person, one needs to get the right advisor for him to explain the processes of climate change. It can be done! Any volunteers?

This may happen, but I don't think so, as the issue of climate change has become a political football game between two parties.

Drill, baby drill? Trump policies will hurt climate ― but US green transition is under way

Market forces could undercut the administration’s plans to increase the use of fossil fuels such as oil and petrol...

"Higher greenhouse-gas emissions, fewer jobs, more expensive energy and dirtier air that kills more people: researchers have begun plugging US President Donald Trump’s energy and climate policies into their models, and the early results suggest far-reaching environmental, health and economic consequences..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00243-8

After Jeff Tollefson "A broad repeal of current energy and climate policies could result in a net loss of nearly four million jobs by 2030, according to work by Orvis’s group.".

Trump picks Neil Jacobs to head NOAA ( Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ), a scientist with 'Sharpiegate' ties

"Jacobs was also cited for misconduct after the "Sharpiegate" incident, in which he and other Trump-appointed NOAA officials were found to have exerted pressure on scientists to alter the forecast for 2019's Hurricane Dorian to align with misstatements made by President Trump, suggesting the hurricane would veer into Alabama. It did not, and the weather modeling had not indicated that it was likely to.

"He was found to have compromised the scientific integrity of NOAA," says Andrew Rosenberg, a former NOAA deputy director who is now a fellow of public policy at the University of New Hampshire. "I find it very unfortunate that he would be renominated because that means there's no consequence for just ignoring the science."

Under the second Trump administration, the agency's priorities are expected to change, de-emphasizing climate research and potentially rolling back environmental protections for oceans and fisheries, areas that had been prioritized during the Biden Administration..."

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5286701/trump-neil-jacobs-noaa-sharpiegate-misconduct

The response to the pandemic in the USA, or lack of response and constant denial, means that political control of government is the primary objective and science and scientists have no business being involved in developing or directing governmental policies.

My favorite in March 24, 2020, where the pandemic was going to be over in two weeks, by Easter, and the country was supposed to "open up".

Reminds me of Europe during the Dark Ages, when the church was the ultimate political director, and if your scientific discoveries went against their dogma, you were in a heap of trouble. Unfortunately science in the US is mainly funded by the Federal government, so what better way to silence them, is to cut off ALL of their funding?

Look at the history of the Great Library at Alexandria.

The decline of the library began in earnest during the reign of Ptolemy VIII Physcon (145 BC), when many intellectuals were purged from Alexandria. This led to significant brain drain as scholars fled to other cities, which diminished the scholarly activity associated with the library.

Following Caesar’s time, support for scholarly pursuits waned under Roman rule. The library suffered from lack of funding and resources, leading to a gradual decline in its operations. By around 260 AD, it appears that membership had ceased altogether.

The current political system in the USA does not need the science and knowledge accumulated from the past, especially when it conflicts with political and economic goals like "Drill, drill, drill". Or turning a pandemic into political spectacle, by refusing to wear a mask.

And a more subtle lack of adopting and accepting science, is no changes in the amount of CO2 produced each year worldwide, despite promises made for 30 years to do so--the politicians have been afraid to implement what science tells us we needed to start doing, three decades ago.

Then, when science is purged from a society, expect a decline back to the Dark Ages which could be a decades-long to centuries-long era, until the scientists are put back in charge of directing societies with facts, instead of political, military and economic desires.

How many US scientists reading this are facing that issue right now?

The current political system in the USA, in regards to "research trend on climate change" maybe on hold until the system gets rearranged and settled down--maybe 4-5 years from now?

The USA has been a hollowed-out economic shell since the 1980s when the Federal deficit went over $1 trillion, and has been running on IOUs ever since.

That is because the politicians, instead of raising taxes on the rich and corporations to maintain an annual balanced budget, did exactly the reverse. Producing a $35+ trillion debt which is not leveling out, and is increasing every minute by $4.5 million. So a real odds with that much debt, favors a default and breakup like the USSR did in December 1991?

Governments must stop hoarding climate data

National agencies too often use spurious reasons to deny researchers unfettered access to resources that are key to understanding past and future climate..

“In climate science, where I work, the stakes of open data sharing are nothing less than the future of our planet.”

Fundamental climate data sets are all too often kept behind barriers by national agencies, despite the availability of work-arounds for privacy and security concerns, writes climate scientist Santiago Beguería...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00790-0

US pulls back from gold-standard scientific climate panel

Trump officials bar NASA climate scientist from international meeting, and the space agency shuts down a team supporting the next global climate assessment...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00596-0

Does US science have a future in Antarctica?

"Scientists say that changes under the Trump administration are undermining plans for US research in Antarctica, from penguin surveys to urgent work to understand the continent’s melting ice. The country has three research stations on the icy continent, which deliver groundbreaking scientific insights and a hefty dose of soft power. But the National Science Foundation (NSF), which runs the research there, is facing drastic budget and staff cuts. And the Trump administration has fired and — under court order — rehired several crucial programme officers for Antarctic research..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01055-6

EPA Plans to Stop Collecting Emissions Data From Most Polluters

Officials have asked staff at the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program to draft a rule that will drastically reduce data collection. Climate experts expressed shock and dismay at the move. “It would be a bit like unplugging the equipment that monitors the vital signs of a patient that is critically ill,” one said...

https://undark.org/2025/04/15/epa-emissions-data/

Yes, Your Friends and Neighbors Want to Talk to You About Climate Change

Really, they do — they just don’t think you want to talk about it. So stop being afraid of pushback, break the “climate silence,” and start a conversation...

https://therevelator.org/talk-about-climate-change/

The Dangerous Illusion of Climate Resilience

For decades, climate disasters were seen as the burden of poor nations. But the wildfires in Los Angeles and other catastrophes in the Global North prove that no one is immune. Adaptation, which could mean entire populations relocating, cannot replace mitigation as the main response to climate change...

https://undark.org/2025/04/23/opinion-climate-resilience-illusion/

Ljubomir Jacić "The Dangerous Illusion of Climate Resilience"

[...]

"The shift toward adaptation was not accidental. Rather, it reflects a deeper unwillingness within wealthy nations to disrupt entrenched economic systems built on fossil fuels and consumerism."

[...]

"It requires fundamentally reassessing our economic and social systems, moving beyond mere crisis management toward genuine environmental and social justice through approaches like degrowth."

I really wonder: do you seriously want to end consumerism and implement de-growth policies, possibly starting from your own country? Do you want go back to something looking like a bit greener version of late days of the communist block ('70s and '80s) with socialism, poverty and hopeless permanent economic stagnation at low development level? Are you accepting reduction of life expectancy due to GDP decline, as quite firmly demonstrated in Preston curve? Or do you hold some highly heterodox view on that relationship?

Or are you merely trying to boost your social status by paying lip service to such trendy, luxurious believes, while knowing that's safe, as there is no risk that someone would actually try to implement it thus make you much poorer?

Sometimes, ignorance is the bliss dear Marcin Piotr Walkowiak . Your concerns and assumptions are incorrect.

You are very nice to me dear Marcin Piotr Walkowiak, but your following of my replies through different discussion rooms for a long time, persistently and constantly, is becoming a burden to me. I no longer feel obligated to respond to you, especially not to incorrect claims. Best regards!

Ljubomir Jacić "Your concerns and assumptions are incorrect."

Which assumptions? You advertised here something akin to political manifesto, that if implemented, would achieve a remarkable feat of making recent streak of Trump's decisions appear as moderate and reasonable in comparison (he only appears self-inflicting with transient, mid-sized economic crisis; not self-inflicting with permanent, major de-growth).

So, I'm trying to figure out what's the rationale of promoting that:

a) Are you dead serious on wanting that de-growth?

b) Are you just virtue signaling?

c) Or if my initial guesses were wrong, then there is also third option: are you promoting stuff without bothering to read it first, thus not noticing what bold and far-fetched ideas you appear to endorse?

Seriously: I don't get your logic, so I'm trying to figure what's the rationale behind.

OK, Ljubomir Jacić, I'd like to apologize for daring to infringe on your echo chamber and asking logic question on what's the rationale behind some more bizarre stuff that you post... in threads that I had been already active before you started to flood them with unrelated copy&paste. If you consider that my actions were the improper ones, let it be.

Best regards.