Climate risk depends on both how far and how long systems are pushed. Overshoot increases exposure, even if temperatures later decline.

Want to make a difference in climate? The Drawdown Explorer is the world’s leading science-based, independent guide to effective climate action. No greenwashing. No AI slop. Just science, done by trusted experts. And it's 100% free.

Not all systems return to their previous state after stress. Some changes persist even when temperatures fall back.

"Experts say the cuts to the federal workforce and climate science funding could cause decades of loss in human knowledge and discovery." via @washingtonpost.com at www.washingtonpost.com/climate-envi...

Recovery depends on time between extremes. Rising baselines reduce that time.

All I want for christmas, is a 5 year binding road map to phase out fossil fuels. I am a bit greedy, it's the global version I want, gimme gimme gimme....

Crossing thresholds doesn’t require permanent warming. Short-lived extremes can trigger damage that isn’t undone when temperatures fall back.

The next National Climate Assessment will be written by five climate deniers and an AI in a trench coat.

As baseline warming rises, natural variability becomes more dangerous. The same pulses now push systems across biological and physical thresholds.

What is required is to rapidly reduce emissions and decarbonise the global economy. We must not waste time and funding on dangerous, costly and geopolitically divisive distractions.

Even without acceleration, climate change can erode control faster than temperatures rise. That’s what makes timing — not just trends — decisive.

Even without acceleration, climate change is not linear in its consequences. Impacts, risks, and loss of control can increase faster than temperatures alone suggest.

The 30-year non-linear extrapolation now shows +3°C in 2049! I consider this unlikely but not impossible (considering Earth's Energy Imbalance has more than doubled). From a precautionary principle perspective we should plan accordingly.

Whether warming accelerates or not matters mainly because it determines how much time we have. Time isn’t just a number — it shapes what responses are physically and socially feasible.

How about some good news? We got some indications that offshore windfarms can actually improve underwater ecosystems and diversify aquatic life. 🧪🌊 Link: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

Let’s see what we can learn from temperature change in the next two years – mailchi.mp/caa/global-t... Also available on Substack: jimehansen.substack.com/.../global-t....

One way is the Nordic social democracy, which is about withering away because the people in power in those countries dream about a place like America🥴

Ocean warming is expected in a warming world — but are oceans tracking what we expected, or drifting toward the high-risk end of projections? That distinction matters when projecting future warming.

Even without clear acceleration, a persistent positive energy imbalance is enough to push impacts earlier and harder than expected. The key issue may not be speed-up — but whether our response time matches the system’s inertia.

I’m noticing a growing mismatch. Even optimistic policy scenarios land above levels widely seen as hard to control and adapt to. That suggests the problem isn’t fine-tuning — it’s whether our current systems can deliver change fast enough.

I agree that climate sensitivity is assessed as a range, not a single value. But policy and communication consistently gravitate toward the central estimate, even though damages are nonlinear and thresholds exist. That disconnect — not model error — is what creates real-world risk.

I’m noticing a growing mismatch. Even optimistic policy scenarios land above levels widely seen as hard to control and adapt to. That suggests the problem isn’t fine-tuning — it’s whether our current systems can deliver change fast enough.

Actual climate scientist here. 2.5C is on the optimistic end of the literature on current policy outcomes, which spans the range from 2.3C to 3C. I wrote a review of the literature on the subject earlier this year: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

On short timescales, acceleration and noise can look the same in graphs. To tell them apart, we need time — time we may not really have.

Reading this, I’m reminded how noisy surface temperature really is. It explains record heat well — but it doesn’t answer whether the underlying energy imbalance is accelerating. That’s still the harder question.

I’ve been staring at OHC graphs, looking for acceleration. Honestly? I don’t clearly see it. What I do see is a stubbornly persistent rise — with less hesitation than before. That alone should worry us.

Climate acceleration is not “more extreme weather”. Extremes are impacts. Acceleration is about whether Earth is gaining energy faster over time. Confusing impacts with causes is how people miss the real signal.

False hope fills me with despair. It surprised me how many of those who (should) know better have been celebrating the *false* narrative that the Paris agreement has supposedly limited warming to below 2.6°C this century. Genevieve breaks it down here:

On the 10th Anniversary of the Paris Agreement, you’re going to hear a lot about the progress we’ve made — people saying we “are” heading to 2.5 degrees heating instead of four. I deeply regret to tell you that this is complacent misinformation. 🧵

EEI isn’t just driven by our emissions. Once warming triggers feedbacks or tipping elements, they can increase the imbalance on their own. That’s why gradual policy is risky: the longer EEI stays high, the more control shifts from us to the physics.

Climate policy is irrelevant unless Earth’s energy imbalance falls. Temperatures, targets and timelines are just symptoms. The only question that matters is whether the planet is gaining or losing heat. Right now, it’s still gaining.

Surface temperature is noisy because it’s controlled by the ocean’s short-term breathing — El Niño, La Niña, winds and mixing. But the Earth’s energy imbalance is the clean signal. It tells you whether the planet is still heating, regardless of the wiggles.

Over 90% of the excess heat from our energy imbalance goes into the oceans. That’s why atmospheric temperature can wobble with El Niño and La Niña, while the underlying energy accumulation stays remarkably steady. The ocean reveals the real trend.

I’m not asking anyone to agree with Hansen — just to refute him scientifically. So far the pushback is mostly hand-waving about “variability”, even as records fall during La Niña. If his physics is wrong, show where. That’s how science works.

Warming continues as long as Earth absorbs more energy than it emits. The pace depends on the size and trend of the imbalance. That’s why real climate solutions must affect the physics, not just the politics.

Project Drawdown’s overview is brilliant — and overwhelming. Seeing all these solutions in one place makes the scale of change brutally clear. We’re not facing a few tweaks but a vast transformation that most people still underestimate.

We have the solutions to stop climate change. Now, it's time to bring them to scale. Fast. To know what works, what doesn't, and how to get moving on science-based climate solutions, visit the Drawdown Explorer.

As a climate scientist, the most charitable thing I can say is that this guy's a fucking moron.

The US is saying the quiet parts out loud.. 'We reject the disastrous “climate change” and “Net Zero” ideologies' 'Expanding our net energy exports will also deepen relationships with allies [..] and enables us to project power.' Is this the 'ally' Europe wants to depend on for its energy supply?

A very objective and balanced walk through of our current dire situation, full of hope and horror. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP4N...

I did see it comming, but some choose to not look up. Great presentation from "Just Have A Think" www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sa7...

This is scary. "Three of the five worst harvests on record have now occurred since 2020, leaving some farmers asking whether the growing impacts of the climate crisis are making it too financially risky to sow their crops." www.theguardian.com/environment/...

but more seriously, it's like it's *impossible* for people to see what's right in front of their eyes — the next time it will work, they say! — because they cannot question their quasi-religious faith in innovation nor deal with the emotional fallout of the fact that we need to stop burning things

It's been quite something to see one of the world's leading climate scientists, James Hansen, being vilified the past years for presenting data showing the rapid acceleration of global and regional warming, associated with continued greenhouse gas emissions and rapid reduction of air pollution.

From Copernicus: This shows how the expected date for breaching 1.5C has been creeping ever closer in recent years. The orange date shows the baseline for the extrapolation; the red date shows when 1.5C is breached based on the trend...

Nature is our friend in the fight to combat climate change. We should stop making it harder and harder for this friend to help us.

In Europe, a division is emerging: the south and south east grow drier, including parts of the UK. Meanwhile, the North and North East, including parts of the UK, are growing wetter: 2/6

<< Taps the sign.. >> Blocking the sun as a means to combat greenhouse warming is a really bad idea on multiple fronts… globalecoguy.org/solar-geoeng...