Computational Energy Efficiency (CEE) has increased by a factor of 10 TRILLION since the first 1940s electronic computers. An order of magnitude every 6 years. And yet, total computation energy use just keeps going up! Energy & computation are both pure forms of Jevons Paradox: >100% rebound!

It appears that a main driver of accelerated warming is whatever is causing the warming in oceans in the northern mid-latitudes. High aerosol sensitivity & IMO2020 would explain this. Do you have an alternative explanation?

My point is that policy should focus on phasing out FF, rather than promoting RE. If we phase out FF, RE will replace it!

World's 1st solar-powered car (1960) based on a 1912 Baker Electric. It had the world's largest solar panel (26 sq ft). It put out 100W & was ~4.5% efficient. It was made by International Rectifier (IR) that made the silicon solar cells. Cost was $20K at the time ($160K today). #EV #solarPV

James Hansen latest says 2026 will be the hottest year (& 2027 will be hotter). But this is not just the fault of the strong El Niño. The main reason is that Climate Sensitivity is 4.5ºC, not 3ºC as the IPCC says. This, combined with decrease in aerosol pollution, is driving accelerated warming.

My Climate Chat program "Ten Major Misconceptions About Climate Change" now has time stamps, so just listen to your "favorite" misconception by clicking on the time stamp in the video description. youtube.com/live/f5E67wq...

Nope. And while it was once used to describe a king that married his sister, the non-romantic word was used to promote the idea that the union for was harmony, etc.

Perhaps the first graph showing human-caused global warming:

I'm just saying what the letter says:

While it's cool that renewables are overtaking FF for electricity generation in WA, the FF line is "drifting" down, which is certainly better than rising. However, electricity is generally 20~25% of energy use, so WA's total FF energy use is still quite high (>95%):

Speaking of crying glaciers... It's a real photo... www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e...

It does say that the Gulf Stream moving north is a sign of AMOC weakening. Multiple other studies say there is a real risk of hitting the AMOC tipping point in about 20 years.

Now available on Climate Chat, our first "Climate Chat Shorts"! on Why SRM/Solar-Geoengineering is Required. This is the presentation only without Q&A. #SRM #Geoengineering #ClimateCrisis youtu.be/lmxsr6b5IhE

We know why!

While I agree that he was glossing over what Kirk's real work was, what Newsom said he wants to continue is:

Growth did slow but it would inevitably grow. Think of energy efficiency as lower cost. Lower the cost of your product & you will sell more. Jevons Paradox applies to anything (inc. energy & computation) that has insatiable demand at the right price.

Also, the recent acceleration in warming in 2023/24 imply both a high ECS & large cooling impact from aerosols, especially aerosols emitted over the oceans. This & the albedo change imply an ECS of 4.5ºC. 7/X

Satellite observations show that the Earth albedo (reflectivity) dropped 0.5% in the past 25 years year - a huge amount! The change is due to less sea ice, less aerosols (coal & ship smoke) creating fewer clouds, & less clouds due to global warming. 6/X

GHG forcing: 1/3rd of the warming in the first 10 years, the second third in the next 100 years, and the final third in the next ~1000 years.

I made a list of some of the reasons why people don't act on climate:

Then on Tuesday (special day!) at 10am on Climate Chat: Public Perceptions of Climate Change & Climate Solutions with U. of Michigan professor Kaitlin Raimi: Link coming soon. #ClimateChange #ClimateAction

Here is Hansen's explanation:

With high ECS, “fast” & “slow” feedbacks have overlapping timescales. This impacts sea ice area, which is near a minimum during the satellite coverage era (since 1979) in both hemispheres. 6/X

This is from a Scientific American newsletter. Do you agree with it? I think it gives the wrong impression and will lessen efforts to prevent an AMOC collapse. And as Stefan points out, much of this is about semantics, not science.

Also, I assume you disagree with James Hansen when he says in his "Global Warming is Accelerating" paper:

Here is Stefan's easy-to-understand summary of the situation:

From James Hansen's recent "Global Warming Has Accelerated" paper: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

If the IPCC is correct & ECS is 3ºC, then ship aerosol forcing is complete in 2025. But if ECS is 4.8ºC as Hansen says, then the warming from ships will continue longer & offset La Niña cooling. 7/X

Warming due to a forcing does not depend much on ECS in 1st few years because that warming is due mostly to the original forcing & not feedbacks. But within a decade or 2, the feedbacks kick in & we see the effects of the high ECS. 6/X