Håkon Nordhagen

@hakonnordhagen

Physics, climate change, system change. Knows quite a bit about material integrity, and wants to know more about the rest. Teaches natural science and math.

4,550 Following3,052 Followers6,646 Posts

YouTube Bluesky

Is this your profile?Claim it and hakonnordhagen.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· 11d

India having below half the global emissions per capita feels also worth noting here.

Emission per capita

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?country=OWID_WRL~USA~GBR~OWID_EU27~IND~CHN

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· 14d

Such an important point! I think rooted in the tech-optimist vision that whatever happens with climate/ecosystems, the time scale will be long enough for «us to deal with it». This totally neglects, eg with heavy discounting, the often non-reversability and self-amplification of these systems.

There are potential climate tipping points, but their most disastrous impacts will take centuries or even millennia to hit us. Whether it is the melting of the ice sheets or the flipping of the Amazon into a tundra, these are not things that happen in a few decades. Even the breathless press coverage of the potential collapse of the AMOC ignores the science that show it happening next century at the earliest, not this century. For instance a Guardian op-ed stating that “AMOC collapse could change Europe’s climate 10x faster than expected” failed to point out that in the paper on which the headline was based, the rapid collapse only begins a full 1,750 years after a hypothetical 80x increase in the flow of Greenland melt-water.

That’s not to say we should ignore tipping points, it’s just a plea for people to understand what tipping points are and aren’t, and what time constants they follow. While there are negative impacts happening right now and others that are expected to be felt within decades, they are not inevitable heralds of tipping points or “disastrous thresholds”.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· 18d

Value to GDP: 0 Value to me: a lot!

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Jul 18

It’s all there.

To summarize, wildfire smoke did not appear in our economic simulations of climate change. As recently as a few years ago, we did not really know that days like today — or June 7, 2023; or September 15, 2020; or September 9, 2020 — could occur. Then they happened. And happened again. And then we studied them and discovered that, in fact, they may be more expensive for the U.S. economy than we once thought climate change itself would be.

That worries me. Now we know these smoke-out days can happen; now they are fast becoming a rare but predictable feature of summer life. But until recently they were unimaginable. What other ignominies, what other tail risks and airborne surprises, are lurking in the uncontrolled experiment we’re running on the biosphere? What else — unforecast, unmodeled, unstudied, unthought of — lies ahead? After 10 years of covering the climate system, I am not someone who lies sleepless fretting about atmospheric CO2. But I do wonder what else we don’t know enough about to ask.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Jul 11

I guess this chart will be interesting today. From Vecellio et al. journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10....

Critical wet-bulb temperature (temperature which even moderate phusical activity results in hypertermia/fever) values for the study’s six experimental protocols.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Jul 10

At fiskebestandene vil falle drastisk bekymrer ikke frp, da prisene vil kompensere og være høyere (markedet styrer) 🤦 Håper så mange som mulig leser intervjuet med Jesse Abrams som, som i strake motsetning til Wara og hans nye rådgiver, vet hva han snakker om. www.energiogklima.no/nyhet/klimao...

Klimarisiko blir ofte behandlet som en variant av finansiell risiko vi kjenner fra før – noe det er mulig å sikre seg mot, spre utover eller hente seg inn fra. Men hvis vi mister økosystemfunksjoner som karbonlagre, fiskerier eller stabile monsuner, finnes det ingen redningspakke. Vi kan ikke trykke penger for å gjenopprette en kollapset havstrøm eller et tapt Amazonas.

Ekstremene, og ikke gjennomsnittet, vil definere fremtiden: Tradisjonell økonomisk modellering har alltid knyttet tap og skade til gjennomsnittlig temperaturendring. Men i virkelighetens verden gir lokale og regionale ekstremhendelser katastrofal effekt, nesten uten en gang å synes i det globale snittet.
BNP er utilstrekkelig som parameter: Rapporten viser at det å basere seg på landenes BNP (brutto nasjonalprodukt) blir for snevert når klimarisiko skal vurderes. BNP reflekterer ikke de reelle økonomiske tapene knyttet til dødelighet, sosiale forskjeller, kulturelle tap, ødelagte økosystem og så videre. BNP kan til og med gi et feil inntrykk av styrket økonomi fordi det offentlige bruker penger på gjenoppbygging – noe som tilslører samfunnsmessige tap.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Jun 25

The conditions also seem rather extreme at the moment... What is the best place to watch the development? I use climatereanalyzer. climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_dai...

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Jun 17

Furu med godt rotvalg.

Bilde av en Furu med god oversikt over Storlidalen ved Oppdal

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Jun 13

Svartlamon. Hardkor.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Jun 10

Ta en kikk på denne lista her. Dette er bankene som holder fossilproduksjonen i gang i verden. De har aldri lånt ut så mye penger som i 2025! Og tror du oljefondet er storeier av aksjer i disse selskapene? Jepp, samtlige! Rundt 2% av alle aksjer. www.bankingonclimatechaos.org?client=Equin...

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Jun 6

Spot the eggs

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Jun 4

My daughter’s school arts project: Trump’s orange head peeled open, and inside is dollars and epstein files. In ceramics and knitted content. Proud.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Jun 1

Very well put forward in «The alibi of capital» by Mitchell.

«We live in a world organised to place the future in debt, with the income discounted to the creditor and later repaid in full by those encumbered or indebted. The difference between the initial discount and the subsequent full repayment is measured as a growth in the economy and mistaken for an improvement in collective well-being.»

Utdrag fra
The Alibi of Capital
Timothy Mitchell
Materialet kan være opphavsrettsbeskyttet.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 30

Then… The way I read it, is mining affects a way larger area than previously thought through water pollution, but also adding to access (new roads) of remote areas not yet deforested.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 27

Fikk endelig lest hele artikkelen. Dette er en rimelig tynn suppe. Utgangsplottet altså denne figuren, som er på et historisk lavpunkt i dag. Men en skal jo ikke lengre tilbake enn til Bidens siste to år før man ser en kraftig oppgang(?) www.sca.isr.umich.edu/files/chicsh...

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 27

«CDR will be required to achieve net-zero in the first place.» It seems, from your figure 4, that many Gigatons of CDR is assumed to be deployed way before fossil emissions have been phased out(?) At even higher level than assumed in ar6!? Could you fetch out the fossil (not net) emission curves?

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 27

Tvert i mot. Vi må tørre snakke om de 1% rikeste, som stadig stikker i fra og soper opp. Zuckman sier mye smart, som i nylig KK-sak: bsky.app/profile/hako... e24.no/norsk-oekono...

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 27

Det har vel knapt vært kjappere økning av hvor stor andel de rikeste 1-prosentene i USA stikker av med, som siden 2020. wid.world/country/usa/

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 26

The norwegian oil fund owns 1.33% of the shares in Exxon Mobil Corp ($6.7 billion) and its leader, Nicolai Tangen has been very vocal against Exxon's attempts at blocking shareholder opinions. Today the fund voted AGAINST a proposal to stop the shareholder abuse!! bsky.app/profile/hako...

Supporting Statement:
Exxon is implementing a new retail voting program (the ‘Program’) that is intended to increase retail investor
participation- a goal we support. The current Program, however, raises significant governance concerns, as Exxon
has effectively created a process for robo-voting in line with board recommendations.
Notably, the Program is also inconsistent with Exxon’s own stated position. In connection with the SEC’s 2019
Roundtable on the U.S. Proxy Process, Exxon argued that ‘the current practice of automatic voting of shares with
predetermined voting policies immediately following issuance of a proxy advisor’s voting recommendations should be
prohibited.’1
Yet Exxon now proposes its own predetermined policy-not an investor-developed voting policy, but a board-created
predetermined policy. Moreover, the ‘predetermined voting policies,’ which Exxon criticized, are what is generally
known as ‘custom policies.’ These custom policies are developed independently by investors after analyzing relevant
topics and are based on their own voting guidelines. Custom policies may also be reviewed and revised by investors
as issues and markets evolve. Exxon’s Program, by contrast, only offers investors the board’s self-interested option
that may make board entrenchment more likely. Retail investors will be asked to sign onto this Program before a
proxy statement is even published.
This is particularly troubling because Exxon has a history of being unresponsive to shareholders and has even
attempted to limit their right to advance shareholder proposals. Prior to 2017, Exxon’s independent board members
had apractice of not engaging with shareholders (even large asset managers such as BlackRock.2) In 2021, Exxon lost
a proxy contest to Engine No. 1, who nominated directors that shareholders preferred over those designated.3In
2024, Exxon took the unprecedented step of suing its own investors who submitted shareholder proposals for ‘abuse’
of the shareholder proposal…

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 19

The land and ocean sink plots🥺

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 14

Det er 3 "AI-ting" som ***faktisk kan*** øke inntektene. 😂 e24.no/karriere-og-...

Tre AI-grep for ledere
Her er tre ting jeg har lært om AI-bruk som faktisk kan øke inntektene.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 10

Dette er i mine øyne nok en full hengivelse til hype-godstoget genAI nå dytter foran seg. Realiteten er veldig godt beskrevet av @edzitron.com . www.wheresyoured.at/the-ai-indus...

And in the end, AI is a test of your introspection. Can you tell when you truly understand something? Can you tell why you believe in something, other than that somebody told you you should, or made you feel bad for believing otherwise? Do you actually want to know stuff, or just have the ability to call up information when necessary?

How much joy do you get out of becoming a better person?If you can’t answer that question with certainty, maybe you should just use an LLM, as you don’t really give a shit about anything.

And in the end, you’re exactly the mark built for an AI industry that can’t sell itself without spinning lies about what it can (or theoretically could) do.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 6

Gjett om det er noen som sitter på god innsideinformasjon og soper inn penger på oljetrading her.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 6

Nærmest er nok 32/5 som ligger 2-3 km utenfor øya Fedje. De to andre nærmest ligger <10 km fra fastland/øy. www.sodir.no/tfo2026

Nærmeste områder til land fra områder foreslått i tfo2026

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 5

Quite clear in Norway. Basically all political donations from those closest to and with most capital (ceos, billionaires, ‘inner circle’ people) goes to the right-wing bloc. academic.oup.com/sf/article/1...

Donations to political parties in election years (2017, 2019, 2021).
Characteristic N firms N donations Amount (million NOK) Share of donation sum to right-wing bloc (%)
Inner circle firm 6 22 20 100
Inner circle director 13 45 34 100
Owners 57 132 48 99
All corporate donations 208 372 65 95
Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· May 3

Råd till ett nyfött barn. Tage Danielsson, Appell på FN-dagen, 24. oktober 1982

Råd till ett nyfött barn
angående i vilken ordning det bör
skaffa sej sina övertygelser
Tage Danielsson,
Appell på FN-dagen, 24. oktober 1982
Innan du blir kapitalist
kommunist, monetarist anarkist, marxist, fascist terrorist, imperialist socialist, syndikalist eller rentav folkpartist måsta lilla du förstå att så snart som du kan gå bör du stultande gå med i det världsparti för fred som går före allting annat.
Alla -ismer där vi stannat
är sekunda, inte störst.
Freden måste komma först.
Gör den inte det, min vän, kommer inget efter den.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Apr 29

I just need a bookmark on the big void in Hormuz. The void that made the planet finally realize fossil energy was not to be trusted. www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/...

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Apr 24

Mennesker kan leve et fint liv med 15-20GJ endelig energi. Dette tilsvarer <10 000 kwh/år (elektrisk energi med tap inkludert). Norge produserer omkring 30 000 kwh/år/person med strøm. Vi har altså, allerede, tilgjengelig 3 ganger mer elektrisk energi enn det vi må ha. Totalt!

Decent living energy per capita (in final energy), broken down into consumption categories and subcategories detailed in Table 1. Our global average is shown alongside data for Rwanda, Uruguay and Kyrgyzstan. Dashed lines indicating our global mean, minimum and maximum are also shown (15.3, 13.0, and 18.4 GJ/cap/yr, respectively).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Apr 17

Poesimafian har vært her.

Håkon Nordhagen@hakonnordhagen· Apr 17

Perhaps a golden opportunity to «cash in» on excess Nitrogen use? Or has efficiency improved since 2014? www.carbonbrief.org/fertiliser-e...