ReviewNature2025
The other climate crisis.
Review in Nature, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physics-based models outperform AI weather forecasts of record-breaking extremes.Science advances · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As Earth warms, regional climate signals are accumulating. Some signals, for example, land warming more than the ocean and the Arctic warming the most, were expected and successfully predicted. Underlying this success was the application of physical laws under the assumption that large and small spatial scales are well separated. This established what we call the standard approach, climate science's dominant paradigm. With additional warming, however, discrepancies between real-world signals and expectations based on this standard approach are piling up, especially at regional scales. At the same time, disruptive computational approaches are advancing new paradigms. Philosophers of science characterize situations where accumulating discrepancies (anomalies) and disruptions lead to a loss of confidence in the dominant paradigm as a 'crisis'. Here we articulate what we consider to be the dominant paradigm, or standard approach, and the discrepancies and disruptions that have emerged in recent years. The policy implications of a purported crisis are discussed, as well as paths forward, crisis or no crisis. These paths include using signals to test assumptions and processes driving a warming Earth for the first time, developing testable hypotheses, and revitalizing conceptual thinking by filling gaps across climate-system components and spatial scales.
Identifiers
40140593What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.