Starting soon!
08.03.2026 16:16 — 👍 1 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0Starting soon!
08.03.2026 16:16 — 👍 1 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0
Check out Work on Climate here:
workonclimate.org
Sunday 3/8 at 10am PT on Climate Chat: 'Work on Climate' & Regenerative Economics with WoC CEO Eugene Kirpichov.
@leonsimons.com @bikingmzstacey.bsky.social @radsci.bsky.social
#ClimateAction #Regenerative
youtube.com/live/2BWQYAe...
Yikes! Another brick-wall-graph..
Because of the methane released during production, liquification, transported, regasification, and the CO₂ released from burning, LNG is very bad for our climate.
Fossil fuel wars are bad for people depending on fossil fuels.
For more on this, see:
Debunking the DoE Climate Denial Report with Andrew Dessler
youtube.com/live/6SPrGEY...
Of course, none of this is going to happen. But if we are talking theoretically, why not just require the phase out (& eventually banning) of fossil fuels?
03.03.2026 18:01 — 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
And if you're concerned about near-term tipping points (I am), then SRM can help reduce the risk of many (but not all) of them happening, since many of them are driven by increased temperature.
youtube.com/live/hywUpOx...
No one said SRM is a substitute. But as Peter points out, SRM reduces emissions & reduces the amount of CO2 we need to remove from the atmosphere.
02.03.2026 02:56 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0Starting soon!
01.03.2026 17:47 — 👍 3 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0
Sunday 3/1 at 10am PT on Climate Chat: Why We “Choose to Fail” on Climate Action with host Dan Miller.
@leonsimons.com @bikingmzstacey.bsky.social @radsci.bsky.social
#ClimateCrisis
youtube.com/live/pYknyTI...
SRM not only can eliminate the temperature overshoot, but it also reduces the amount of CO2 that needs to be subsequently removed:
Solar-Geoengineering Can Reduce Overshoot & Emissions, with Peter Irvine
youtube.com/live/NfCATLY...
If we fail to reduce emissions, then we are choosing to fail. If we choose to fail, we will.
If we choose to succeed, then emissions reduction, CDR, and SRM will be part of the plan.
Yes, black carbon heats but impact is smaller than sulfur cooling (which creates/brightens clouds). Cleaner shipping fuels and sulfur scrubbers also decrease black carbon and acid rain.
Bottom line is that SRM is the *only* tool we have that can decrease temperatures in short to medium term.
While we are increasing CO2 emissions, we are reducing aerosol emissions by (1) using sulfur scrubbers on power plants & (2) requiring ships to use low-sulfur fuel.
24.02.2026 19:34 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
But without SRM we are guaranteed to have higher temps than if we do SRM because cooling reduces feedback emissions (just like warming causes feedback emissions).
youtube.com/live/NfCATLY...
Also, it's too late for emissions reduction to work on its own (keep us below 2ºC or even 3ºC!).
Right now, one of the only ways to make money with CCS is to sell the captured CO2 to FF companies. That is a policy failure, not a technology failure.
With proper policies, CCS can greatly reduce industrial emissions while we wait for green cement, steel, etc. solutions to scale.
CCS does work & captured CO2 does not need to be used to get more fossil fuels. He is confusing technology with policy. Right now it is free to pollute the atmosphere with CO2, so don't expect CCS to scale until policy requires it or governments agree to pay for it.
24.02.2026 06:51 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0Starting soon!
22.02.2026 17:39 — 👍 2 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0
Sunday 2/22 at 10am PT on Climate Chat: SRM Research: Science, Risk & Responsibility with Reflective.org CEO Dakota Gruener.
#SRM #ClimateCrisis #GeoEngineering
@leonsimons.com @bikingmzstacey.bsky.social @radsci.bsky.social
youtube.com/live/V5gnRX6...
I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I love renewables & think they will play a major role in getting us off of FF. But the focus on subsidizing RE rather than phasing out FF leads to more RE & not less FF. If we phase out FF, it will make RE grow tremendously!
18.02.2026 22:56 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
The percentage of renewable energy (RE) is irrelevant to climate change. Only the absolute amount of fossil fuel (FF) emissions matter. So far, RE has only added to energy supply; It has not replaced FF energy yet.
We need to focus on phasing out FF, rather than growing renewables!
Starting soon!
15.02.2026 17:47 — 👍 3 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0
James Hansen's latest communication: "Another El Nino Already? What Can We Learn from It?"
mailchi.mp/caa/another-...
Sunday 2/15 at 10am PT on Climate Chat: "+2C by 2030s?!" w/ hosts Dan Miller & @leonsimons.com. Includes discussion of @drjamesehansen.bsky.social recent communications.
#ClimateCrisis #GlobalWarming
@bikingmzstacey.bsky.social @radsci.bsky.social
youtube.com/live/jcPwmfD...
Why are you annoyed? For many tipping points, the negative impacts are sea level rise, change in precipitation patterns and growing regions, local temperature changes, etc. Global temperature triggers them but they do not necessarily have a big impact on global temperature in the near term.
12.02.2026 14:16 — 👍 3 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0Starting now!
08.02.2026 18:00 — 👍 1 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0Clear and present danger is a term of art. Look it up.
06.02.2026 15:42 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Link to the paper we'll be discussing:
"Economic assessment of SRM under socio-political and geophysical tipping dynamics":
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
Sunday 2/8 at 10am PT on Climate Chat: "Risks of Termination Shock" with climate scientist Francisco Estrada. Hosted by @leonsimons.com.
#TerminationShock #SRM #ClimateCrisis
@bikingmzstacey.bsky.social @radsci.bsky.social
youtube.com/live/Q6XpRrm...
Tipping points are a clear and present danger which are based on real science (as you can look up).
06.02.2026 05:07 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0