Justin S. Mankin

Promotional graphic for the AGU25 conference session titled "B008 - Advances in Understanding Water-Energy-Carbon Interactions." It announces a call for abstracts due July 30, 2025, at 23:59 EDT. The central question posed is: "How do water-energy-carbon interactions shape terrestrial biosphere responses to global change?" Key topics include coupling of water-energy-carbon cycles, bridging scales and processes, climate change sensitivities and impacts, and applications for climate resilience. The image features headshots and affiliations of invited speakers Julia Green (University of Arizona) and Gabe Kooperman (University of Georgia), and conveners YanLan Liu (Ohio State), Justin Mankin (Dartmouth), Dan Gianotti (MIT), Flavio Lehner (Cornell), and Xiangtao Xu (Cornell). The background shows a scenic natural landscape with trees.

Please consider joining our #AGU session on beautifully complex Water-Energy-Carbon interactions with a broad scope from theory to applied science.

Invited talks by Julia Green @juliakgreen.bsky.social and Gabe Kooperman.

Come do a postdoc with our group at Dartmouth, documenting and projecting climate impacts!

Applications will be evaluated until the position is filled.

Salary, benefits, and other details here:

apply.interfolio.com/168708

Reach out to me (mankin@dartmouth.edu) with questions.

Scientists Tally Oil Majors’ Climate Damage With Eye to Legal Liability New research breaks down economic losses from global warming and attributes them to individual companies. It could bolster lawsuits against big emitters.

OUT: You can’t connect extreme weather to climate change

5Mn AGO: You can’t connect extreme weather to fossil-fuel companies

IN: 🎁🔗⤵️
www.bloomberg.com/news/article...

Foundation-funded postdoc funding opportunity to work in WA state! Interested in applying to work with me on climate on land or global carbon cycle dynamics? Reach out! Info sessions in May and June, due date June 26. www.wrfseattle.org/grants/wrf-p...

See below, from the article itself (rather than AI) — you should read it!

I would gently offer that creating human benefit does not absolve you of the harms you also create. One can see that, in say, the pharmaceutical industry being held to account for the opioid crisis.

We are—as a nation—intentionally blinding ourselves at the precise moment we need to see our planetary insult most clearly.

As a former GISS postdoc, this is such a bummer, not least of which because the disruption and ambiguity can easily become a pretense for laying off many more highly trained and talented scientists dedicated to the public good.

Carbon majors and the scientific case for climate liability Nature - A transparent and reproducible scientific framework is introduced to formalize how trillions in economic losses are attributable to the extreme heat caused by emissions from fossil fuel...

Great point—please see here: rdcu.be/ei0T5

Can climate science attribute economic damage to major polluters? Climate researchers argue their science has advanced enough to directly link emissions from particular companies to damages from specific extreme weather events

This could be a big deal for the hundreds of climate lawsuits underway around the world. @jsmankin.bsky.social and @ccallahan45.bsky.social link emissions from specific fossil fuel companies to trillions of dollars in damages.

“I think this is going to be the future of climate litigation." 🧪🔌💡

What would be strange? The counterfactual is simply a world where one emitter forgoes their emissions.

The world's biggest companies have caused $28 trillion in climate damage, a new study estimates A new study estimates that the world’s biggest corporations have caused $28 trillion in climate damage, which is a shade less than the sum of all goods and services produced in the United States last ...

apnews.com/article/clim... world's biggest companies have caused $28 trillion in climate damage, a new study estimates

In it we show the trillions of dollars of economic losses from extreme heat caused by the emissions of individual carbon majors.

That’s from just one hazard. The scope of loss, while massive, is just the tip of the iceberg.

We are systematically underestimating the costs of climate change.

Carbon majors and the scientific case for climate liability - Nature A transparent and reproducible scientific framework is introduced to formalize how trillions in economic losses are attributable to the extreme heat caused by emissions from fossil fuel companies, whi...

Can scientists trace climate losses back to the emissions from individual fossil fuel companies?

Yes, we can.

The inimitable @ccallahan45.bsky.social and I provide an 'end-to-end' attribution framework that can be applied in many climate accountability contexts:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

YouTube video by National Conservatism J.D. Vance | The Universities are the Enemy | National Conservatism Conference II

"The universities control the knowledge in our society (...) We have to agressivly attack the universities (...). Fundamental lies that feminism is liberating (...) There is wisdom in what Nixon said, the professors are the enemy "

bryanalexander.org/politics/the...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FR6...

I receive numerous requests from journalists regarding the current situation with the Intergovernemental Panel on Climate Change.

I am not involved in the work of the IPCC for the 7th Assessment Cycle (AR7).

1/...

"What's that? The 10% that accounts for 60% of the country's wealth accounts for 50% of spending?"

This headline is an astounding (and gross) editorial sleight of hand.

Water memories are short in the American West. Just two years after the 2020–23 drought, the Southwest drifts back to its climatically preferred state: drought.

This 2021 op-ed feels relevant as we approach the 2025 dry season with low snowpack and reservoirs: shorturl.at/Uvsyv

Projected runoff declines from plant physiological effects on precipitation - Nature Water This study shows that Earth system models disagree on the spatial distribution of plant-induced precipitation changes but indicate that plant responses are as likely to decrease runoff as they are to ...

High CO2 is expected to boost runoff via plant responses, but our results challenge this. Conditioning plant-driven runoff changes on plant-forced precipitation changes, we find runoff declines are as common as increases, with CO2-driven runoff boosts over just 5% of land: shorturl.at/4zM7N

It’s not an assumption. There has been an attribution of how WUS drought severity has been increased because of warming from people’s GHG emissions. Perhaps you should read this: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

Global Warming, Home Runs, and the Future of America’s Pastime Abstract Home runs in baseball—fair balls hit out of the field of play—have risen since 1980, driving strategic shifts in gameplay. Myriad factors likely account for these trends, with some speculatin...

It's great that these researchers recovered the same effect we identified using independent data.

Chris's fun original manuscript is here: shorturl.at/NE1gx

Identifying climate impacts requires data. And data is reflective of the power, values, and priorities of the data collector.

MLB has high-speed cameras to isolate warming's influence on a batted ball, but no data on heat stress of ballpark staff & patrons.

What of the impacts we cannot track?

‘Mostly’ should read ‘disproportionately.’ But we need to run the numbers to see how the percent of total losses vary in income decile.

17 times less by 2030.

Human-caused increases in extreme heat caused ~$30T in losses over 1992-2013, mostly in the low-income world least culpable for warming.

$300B/yr in climate financing is 17 times less than the costs of but one climate hazard, estimated with data a decade cooler.

Paper here: tinyurl.com/3psfnt4p

A low-grade pan-continental drought has emerged across the US over the last several months, with 49 states experiencing moderate or worse drought. Global warming makes the exceptional the rule, stressing emergency management practices: shorturl.at/dhVWW

Likelihood of exceeding a 2°C temperature target as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions. Scientific uncertainty is dwarfed by risk aversion uncertainty.

As the governments of the world commit humanity to sailing by 1.5°C, a friendly reminder that our level of societal risk aversion—not science—remains the major uncertainty in setting the carbon budget. From Mathez & Smerdon, 2018, itself adapted from Meinshausen et al., 2009.

The heuristic convenience is great, but it’s important to remember that impacts are not linear in temperature. Where is that tool?

Thanks!