Abigail Swann, PhD

I can haz pdf? doi.org/10.1016/j.de...

Two bikes loaded with gear and a bike trailer on the front of a boat.

Me too!

I’m wondering if @ternbicycles.com knows that there are a whole bunch of climate scientists who ride GSDs!

I just hit 6500 miles on mine! I call it my minivan.

OCO-2 and 3 are also measuring solar induced fluorescence which helps us understand plant photosynthesis including of agricultural crops. I’d love to see that mentioned as well.

Screenshot of an ESS Open Archive preprint page. A green “Download PDF” button sits at top left. The title reads “Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report.” Below are subject tags “Atmospheric Sciences” and “Climate Science,” followed by two listed authors. A “Preprint timeline” box shows “Submitted to ESS Open Archive” on 24 Sep 2025 and “Published in ESS Open Archive” on 29 Sep 2025. A citation block includes the DOI 10.22541/essoar.175745244.41950365/v2 and notes version v2 (processing). A right-side box says “Non-exclusive” and “No reuse.” A yellow banner at the bottom states: “This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.”

Our comment to the DOE and EPA about the DOE Climate Working Group report is now posted on ESSOAR preprint server. It has a DOI and can now be cited!

essopenarchive.org/users/260056...

This puts students attending schools on the quarter system at a disadvantage as well. Our first year grad students basically haven’t started grad school before the deadline. So they don’t get a chance to apply after starting grad school but will be compared against applicants that did.

I recognize that bike!

We are searching for a Forest Ecophysiologist (tenure track Assistant or Associate Professor) to join the Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia Faculty of Forestry. Please share! Details are here: ubc.wd10.myworkdayjobs.com/ubcfacultyjobs

We're hiring! We have an open search for an Assistant Professor in physics of the ocean and/or atmosphere in Columbia's Dept. of Earth and Environmental Sciences. Please circulate this information to good candidates, and apply yourself if you are one! Ad & link to apply: apply.interfolio.com/173819

I’m working on analyzing land carbon sinks in the flat10 net-zero simulations right now.

I'm happy to share a paper in Science Advances that makes the case for a weak land carbon sink, drawing upon JPL and Chloris biomass time series. To close the budget with a net land sink of 0.8 Pg C/y from 2000-2019, we propose increases in the ocean sink and decreases in fossil fuel emissions.

The weak land carbon sink hypothesis Satellite-derived time series of vegetation carbon do not support a strong Northern Hemisphere net land carbon sink.

Maybe the land carbon sink is weaker than we thought. Big implications: "A lower-than-expected land carbon sink would also imply that the land biosphere may be closer to transitioning from a net carbon sink to a net source than current models predict" Randerson et al. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

If you want to get your simple climate model picked up by IPCC AR7, see below 👇

We have 11 on our radar from the previous round of RCMIP (egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/20...), plus a few others we found since.

Anybody we don't know about please ping me or Alex

😳 that does make me wonder how that person’s brain works- it must be different from mine!

flat10MIP: an emissions-driven experiment to diagnose the climate response to positive, zero and negative CO2 emissions Abstract. The proportionality between global mean temperature and cumulative emissions of CO2 predicted in Earth system models (ESMs) is the foundation of carbon budgeting frameworks. Deviations from ...

Our finalised paper on flat10MIP is finally up in GMD! This is the experimental protocol which allows for a simple, emissions-driven evaluation of TCRE, ZEC and climate reversibility in CMIP7. Thanks so much to all who ran these simulations as a proof of concept! gmd.copernicus.org/articles/18/...

In the sections I reviewed carefully there were quite a few mis-citations that someone familiar with the area should have noticed. If they did have review it seems was not done carefully or by people familiar with the field.

A comic-style meme depicts two people having a conversation indoors. In the first row, a person on the left says, "I want to debate climate change," while the person on the right replies, "OK, here's 450 pages of comments." In the second row, the left person asserts, "I'm going to respond to each comment," and the right person advises, "Be honest." In the final row, the left person admits, "I'm not going to respond to anything but just declare victory," with the right person concluding, "Thank you."

Yes, very happy to see the switch to emissions driven. Do you mean additional ZECMIP runs, or just that ZEC comes directly out of the flat10 protocol?

Or up from the south? The plume from the fire east of Rainer was headed right towards us.

Not emissions driven though? I want an emissions driven carbon cycle perturbed parameter ensemble! Computer please!

flat10MIP: an emissions-driven experiment to diagnose the climate response to positive, zero and negative CO2 emissions Abstract. The proportionality between global mean temperature and cumulative emissions of CO2 predicted in Earth system models (ESMs) is the foundation of carbon budgeting frameworks. Deviations from ...

flat10-MIP has landed! gmd.copernicus.org/articles/18/...

I disagree! I’d really like to do them. Convincing people to give us the computer time for 1000-year fully carbon cycle coupled ESMs is the hard part.

Think ahead of time about what you are looking for and write a rubric to guide your evaluation. Decide ahead of time and read the applications materials in the same order (I.e. always cv first). Keep asking yourself about any bias you have that might be creeping in.

Climate scientists file a public, point-by-point rebuttal of Trump admin report casting doubt on climate change | CNN More than 85 veteran climate scientists have pushed back against a Trump administration report downplaying the severity of climate change, submitting more than 400 pages in public comments to the Ener...

very nice article by @afreedma.bsky.social at @cnn.com about our comment on the DOE report
www.cnn.com/2025/09/02/c...

You can read the whole scientist-led review by more than 80 scientists as well as some high level comments here: sites.google.com/tamu.edu/doe...

Trump team’s contentious climate report ‘makes a mockery of science’, experts say Over 85 top climate specialists lambasted administration’s review, calling it a ‘shoddy mess’ that downplays risks

More coverage of the scathing review by more than 80 scientists of the report from the DOE's climate working group. It's biased, cherry picked, and written with a scientifically unsupported agenda. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...

The Department of Energy hired five academics to raise doubts about climate change. 85+ climate experts (organized by @andrewdessler.com) reviewed their report. Our conclusion, detailed in 450 pages of analysis: it is biased, full of errors, and not fit to inform policy making.

Having spent much actual and emotional time and energy responding to this report, I whole-heartedly agree. Greenhouse gas emissions are bad for our planet, it's not a matter for debate.

Our 400+ page comment on the DOE climate working group report is now out.

Our conclusion: The merchants of doubt are back, and they're coming for climate science.