Rust Never Sleeps / George Morrison🇨🇦

... in the not-unlikely event (historically or prospectively) that Republicans didn't regain legislative and executive decision-making power?

I am genuinely trying to understand your point. Was it some variant of "Go big or go home!", and then, surveying the landscape, they literally went home?🤷

ok, sure, and supposing that's true...

but isn't that just a slightly-shaded-differently way of saying advocates were already planning for a world where the IRA - forced through on a *strictly* partisan effort through the legislatures, and a strictly non-bipartisan outcome - was inevitably toast..

... with expected sensitivities.]

[p.s., if one wants to pick on the fact that I am just discussing CO₂ forcing, ok, but the same issue about "accelerated warming" with respect to time not being in conflict with "expected warming" similarly holds if other forcings have accelerated with time with a resulting warming response ~in line

... observed warming accelerating with respect to "time" and still not being unexpected.

... of how the warming is expected to occur.

Could the TCRE estimates be seriously off, or *itself* be "accelerating" with time? That's *possible*, but I haven't seen much literature - and certainly not a consensus shift - in this direction. Yet, anyway.

So, yes, no necessary conflict between...

... on the figure we are "used to" seeing on a time series, with the x-axis being time (year), - such as warming from pre-industrial, SPMx-y.y, CO₂ emissions, etc., - on *THIS* plot, those elements are on a plot that doesn't anywhere have time as an axis... which is more along the lines of...

IPCC AR6 WGI SPM FIG. 10 Every tonne of CO2 emissions adds to global warming Global surface temperature increase since 1850-1900 (°C) as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions (GtCO2) °C 3 SSP5-8.5 2.5 The near-linear relationship between the cumulative CO2 emissions and global warming for five illustrative scenarios until year 2050 SSP3-7.0 SSP2-4.5 SSP1-2.6 SSP1-1.9 1.5 1 0.5 Historical global warming 2 Cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850 1000 2000 3000 4000 4500 GtCO2 0 -0.5 1900 1850 time 1950 2000 2020 2019 2030 2040 SSP1-1.9 SSP1-2.6 SSP2-4.5 SSP3-7.0 SSP5-8.5 Future cumulative CO2 emissions differ across scenarios and determine how much warming we will experience. 2050 HISTORICAL Cumulative CO2 emissions between 1850 and 2019 PROJECTIONS Cumulative CO2 emissions between 2020 and 2050

... doesn't necessarily mean that the fundamental relationship between cumulative CO₂ emissions and warming has accelerated or moved above the best estimate of 0.45° per 1,000 GtCO₂ (0.27°C, 0.63°C) for TCRE indicated in IPCC AR6 WGI SPM Fig 10.👇

Not that although we "see" various elements...

Every tonne of CO2 emissions adds to global warming Global surface temperature increase since 1850-1900 (°C) as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions (GtCO2) °C 3 SSP5-8.5 2.5 The near-linear relationship between the cumulative CO2 emissions and global warming for five illustrative scenarios until year 2050 SSP3-7.0 SSP2-4.5 SSP1-2.6 SSP1-1.9 1.5 1 0.5 Historical global warming 2 Cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850 1000 2000 3000 4000 4500 GtCO2 0 -0.5 1900 1850 time 1950 2000 2020 2019 2030 2040 SSP1-1.9 SSP1-2.6 SSP2-4.5 SSP3-7.0 SSP5-8.5 Future cumulative CO2 emissions differ across scenarios and determine how much warming we will experience. 2050 HISTORICAL Cumulative CO2 emissions between 1850 and 2019 PROJECTIONS Cumulative CO2 emissions between 2020 and 2050

for the very fundamental reason that warming is not - and never has been! - a function of time, or year, or decade, etc.

It's primarily a function of cumulative emissions of CO₂ which *itself* has been accelerating over the past decades.

So if warming accelerated over the same time period, it...

Highbrow climate misinformation.

Yes!

open.substack.com/pub/josephhe...

... and nor is it an estimate of economic damages attributable, but the point is that that only a much smaller fraction of the $65 billion damages due to the LA fires was attributable to climate *change*... but that is not how the article - at least - is framing it. 🤷

... added to national total. Yet, World Weather Attribution assessed the increase of the intensity of the hazard due to climate change since pre-industrial at 6%. That's not the only way to consider change for that event attributal to climate change...
www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-chan...

US Spending on Climate Damage Nears $1 Trillion Per Year The bill for impacts from rising temperatures exceeded 3% of US GDP, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg Intelligence.

I don't know about the report, but the *article*👇also suggests that all these damages are due to climate *change*, or, say, here👇, "rising temperatures."

For instance, the article says "The Los Angeles fires in January added another $65 billion to the national total," so the entire damages were...

Spot on. Hard to make a definitive statement, but if

(1) Clean tech is only getting cheaper and better, while O&G (and especially coal, of course) are hanging on, clamoring for Trumpian subsidies

and

(2) NEPA made it hard to build

then yeah, Kavanaugh just sped up clean tech deployment.

Forecasts, predictions, projections oh my. Should we think of observationally constrained multidecade climate projections as predictions? is the question posed by Li, Zwiers and Zhang. They never come right out and say what the differences …

Forecasts, predictions, projections oh my.

diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2025/05/28/f...

... begin falling well before that point.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020

... falling but falling fast enough so that the oceans can take up the additional heat (still) being captured by (still) excess CO₂.

At the point of net zero, CO₂ concentrations are expected to be falling ~this👇fast, but that decline isn't a switch that suddenly starts at net zero. Concentrations..

... emissions need to reach net zero.

The communication challenge between *those* two points in time (hopefully relatively short?) will be explaining to the public why CO₂ concentrations are falling but temps are still rising.

But for surface temps to stabilize, concentrations need to be not only

concentrations will still rise as long as there are any emissions anywhere, which is why we need to get GHGs to zero.

your point to Kevin doesn't hinge on it, but the highlight👇 is not true.

Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will begin falling sometime around the point emissions fall below 15-17 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹. The problem is that they won't be falling *fast enough* to stabilize surface temps. For *that*, emissions...

Anyway, enough from me.

But I get really tired of this sort of "cake but eat it too" rhetoric by CDR slaggists:

"Everything is terrible and urgent, and CDR will never work... except for an arbitrary amount I define as essential, and I will continue to prioritize my time bitching about CDR."

🤷
/26

... unachievable, and that, to the extent that we will need a CDR industry capable of delivering, say, 7 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ to achieve net-zero, we should somehow wait to develop/deploy it (and delay all the learning effects) for decades while we only do mitigation.

Incoherent.
/25

... emissions... and just sort of leaving it open-ended as to how we should go about achieving these "necessary" amounts, but never really questioning the feasibility of achieving these "necessary" amounts, except to say that anything more than these amounts would be mysteriously...

/24

And, I could point to many other such examples, where 90%+ of authors' exposition is about everything that is wrong and scammy about CDR... but then *also* sort of offhand, blithe remarks about a quantified *necessity* of "5-15", "7", "16", etc., GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ of CDR for (undefined) "essential"..
/23

In reality, residual emissions will probably be 18% of our current total (H. J. Buck et al. Nature Clim. Change https://doi.org/j4jg; 2023), so we will have to scale up CDR substantially to reach net zero. Still, it might be feasible to build 7,290 DAC hubs or deploy other CDR technology

... the scientist offers up what amounts to a bunch of personal opinions and preferences as to how we should sequence our mitigation efforts... but cites only two scientific facts:
1• we emitted ~40.5 GtCO₂ in 2022;
2•👇 we'll *NEED* ~7.3 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ of CDR to achieve net-zero.

/22

Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution — we need to change the narrative Drastically reduce emissions first, or carbon dioxide removal will be next to useless.

... component of our portfolio of solutions to ultimately solving our climate problems.

And finally, I will just note again a particular thorn in my side about something these communicators do.

As an example, in this sort of letter-to-the-editor piece...

/21

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

... principle" for most of their messaging, they essentially ignored this siren of potentially needing "net-negative" to stabilize, and returned to all-or-nothing rhetoric of "real zero", and (of course!) only slagging of the nascent work to create a necessary and useful...
/20

... net negative emissions via anthropogenic CDR (and most geologic storage, if I recall correctly) for many decades simply in order to just stabilize global surface temps.

Again, rather than grappling with these implications, or invoking their favoured "precautionary

/19

... Pierre Friedlingstein, Stuart Jenkins, Ben Sanderson, Thomas Frolicher... which articulated the awkwardly large probability (~25%) that net zero emissions will not be sufficient to stabilize global surface temps, and may require awkwardly large (up to 7 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹) levels of...

/18

The Multi‐Decadal Response to Net Zero CO2 Emissions and Implications for Emissions Policy The conditions for stabilization of global temperature at any level depend on the multi-century carbon and thermal cycle response This is described by the rate of adjustment to zero emissions par...

... the accounts typically just noted "here's some more alarming research", before returning to regularly scheduled programming of 24/7 slagging of everything CDR.🤷

Or, what about this Nov 2022 paper, by carbon-cycle/temp-response heavyweights like Myles Allen, Glen Peters,

/17

... expect, this would *also* be highly suggestive of a need for very substantial net-negative CO₂ emissions - again, at a scale of many multi-GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ - in order just to *stabilize* global surface temps.

But, rather than grappling with that implication of the research
16/x