Virginia connected the first of its off shore wind turbines yesterday. The rest of the largest off shore wind farm will follow suit soon. The emotional appeal will work for some, but you could expand still more. Kate Marvel's wonderful books does: "Human Nature, Nine ways to feel about our changing planet." It is well worth a double read, both for the quality of the science and the emotional admissions she documents in herself and others. I shared all of them, and keep sharing the book. I will be at our local No Kings event, saying no to kings, ice, war, and fossil fuels. Make the billionaires pay is another worthy theme. We can say yes to solar, wind, conservation, raising the minimum wage, welcoming the stranger, and healing the land. We need a big day. See you there.
Thank you, Wayne! I look forward to reading Kate Marvel's book. And, "May the Wind be always at your back." and the sun, and the tides, and the moonbeams....
No.. it's because there are no EVs even trying. The remedy is to continue using conventional vehicles until the transition is completed. And yes... that will necessarily add more CO2 to the atmosphere where it is causing the planet to turn greener. That's a plus for agriculture.
Every couple of paragraphs I have a new pertinent comment, but I can never remember any of them when I get to the end, so my only comment is thanks, and keep up the good work!
Thanks, Bill. Honestly, I can’t NOT be enraged by the stupidity and trollish energy around removing bike lanes. And what about paying $1 billion of our tax money to cancel a wind energy project?? It’s insane. These people must be stopped.
good news bad news: despite the US war crimes in blockading Cuba, China has stepped up to take advantage of the publicity in providing massive PV resources- good thing
and for the bad, given Gulf exporters inability to ship or store LNG, massive flaring is occurring, pouring horrendous amounts of Co2 and methane into the atmosphere.
Be aware and share the knowledge that we need some geoengineering because the whole world is not Vermont and is heating faster than you promote. Why, at least not advise your followers on worser case scenarios?
I like what you do in promoting greening Earth, solar,wind, and dethroning Trump.
But, I despise your treatment of Hansen and your moral hazard watchtower in a tea club in Vermont calling out the futures for the billions frying closer to the equator.
“Conventional” or 4th generation nuclear, fusion or any technology to replace fossil fuels to ZERO or NET ZERO will only slow the rate of warming to equilibrium level. To reduce the earth fever and the atmospheric CO2, CH4 and other GHGs to Human Habitable Holocene levels (Hansen et al’s approximately <0.5°C and <350ppm) will require a trillion tons REMOVAL by an entire suite of drawdown measures.
Michael Mann, Katharine Hayhoe, and their ilk don’t acknowledge Hansen’s Earth equilibrium work and fail to respond with precautionary strategies—this is treacherous.
ICYMI on LinkedIn, this post by Operaatio Arktis suggests global temperature is accelerating. What if we behave that this is true and it turns out not to be? What if we rebuff it and it turns out to be true?
What can be revealed when the three main factors of natural climate variation are removed from the data measuring temperatures, i.e. El Niño phenomena, variations in the intensity of solar radiation and volcanic eruptions?
Global warming has accelerated – significantly.
The researchers showed that the acceleration of global warming is statistically significant. The acceleration began a little over ten years ago, and it is suspected to be due to, among other things, a decrease in the cooling effect of aerosols. So the last decade has been hotter than any before. It is also noteworthy that the trend also applies without the particularly hot years of 2023 and 2024.
Global warming has progressed by about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade since the 1970s, while in the last decade the warming has been 0.34 °C or even 0.42 °C, depending on the data.
According to Rahmstorf and Foster, the threshold of 1.5 degrees of warming can therefore be reached as early as this year.
Foster, G., & Rahmstorf, S. (2026). Global warming has accelerated significantly.
I'd rather have to take insulin than not have insulin available. Moral hazard argument and termination shock arguments are the moral hazards put out by climate parrots who truly have no idea how bad the climate fiasco is. They feed Earth 🔥.
Climate parrots? Shelve the ad hominem attacks. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be skeptical of geo-engineering, especially when we can't even get the emissions down. This is a dangerous distraction.
Climate parrots yak and prosletyze incomplete truths, have no idea how bad the climate fiasco really is, oh yes and adaptation hominem attact the greatest climate scientists alive. And they are the moral hazard because they lead their followers to not fight Earth burn in earnest.
Many thanks for this, Bill -- a great top half (anger-fear-hope motivations) and some real gems in the round-up.
I am anxious, though, to see your response or any response to Jim Hansen's open letter of March 20 re "your characterization of my criticisms as “trash talk.”" I deeply respect both of you and this cannot be left hanging.
Doug, great post! I wish all the climate parrots and their flocks did the math. Lamedown or Crawldown is a poor substitute for drawdown and infinitely worse drawdown after the fact as carbon sinks become carbon sources and albedo goes down. We gotta reflect some sunlight, remove ghgs, and put the pedal to the metal on drawdown in earnest. The moral hazard is listening to mainstream fantasies that we just gotta stop oil.
Claude’s response to my follow-up query #2 (in part) “required offsetting mitigation to bend the CO2 Keeling Curve from its upward trajectory to a downward cooling trajectory” supports your math:
“The Keeling Curve framing is exactly right. We’re currently at ~424 ppm and climbing ~2.5 ppm/year. Getting back to 350 ppm — the threshold James Hansen and others identified as the safe upper boundary — requires not just zeroing out emissions but actively removing roughly 74 ppm worth of CO₂ from the atmosphere, which translates to drawing down approximately 575 Gt of CO₂.”
Indeed a serious problem Doug.. As already posted eight billion stakeholders need food and the only viable transportation is vehicles that use fossil fuels. Those demanding urgent reductions in CO2 emissions are facing starvation.
Great query and share Doug! As carbon sinks turn to carbon sources, the true ECS being around 4.5C, and drawdown being done so lamely we go up in ghgs there are people who say either( or both ): the ECS is about 2C less and geoengineering is a moral hazard because it will take the eyes off drawdown. Those people live in a fantasy world. I live in a burning world.
Hansen's latest post shows numbers. And, don't forget that climate is a heat engine. A very super heated one on Earth now which means a little movement of massive ties of heat 🔥
Surely Dr. Hansen knows that the equatorial Pacific ENSO is part of Earth's natural variability and has no correlation with the CO2 we have been emitting that has improved our lives and is turning the Earth greener as seen from NASA satellites. When he testified to Congress in 1988 the global average temperature was well above 15° C...59°F. warmer than now?
See if you can access the EU Arctic Policy feedback (free-form text and downloadable PDF supplement) my mentor/colleague and I submitted. It clearly and relatively concisely lays out essential reasons to consider urgent cooling measures.
Thank you Doug! Just downloaded and will read later. PRAG am familiar with and they absolutely know the urgency and need for DCC as part of the triad. Wish others would be on the same path..
I live in a small city whose City Council has approved a data center, but before it's built(!) they must study the laws and regulations permitting it. The same city has a good park system and is an official "Tree City." But the county and the state legislature are majority red, so gas-powered energy is the likely means of running the data center, which will of course result in air and noise pollution. And thanks for stating an obvious factor apparently not considered: for what will this data center be used? Plus, in an agricultural area, will the voracious use of water for the center leave enough for farms and other good things? I recall something I often say to myself, "Ready, fire, aim!"
Virginia connected the first of its off shore wind turbines yesterday. The rest of the largest off shore wind farm will follow suit soon. The emotional appeal will work for some, but you could expand still more. Kate Marvel's wonderful books does: "Human Nature, Nine ways to feel about our changing planet." It is well worth a double read, both for the quality of the science and the emotional admissions she documents in herself and others. I shared all of them, and keep sharing the book. I will be at our local No Kings event, saying no to kings, ice, war, and fossil fuels. Make the billionaires pay is another worthy theme. We can say yes to solar, wind, conservation, raising the minimum wage, welcoming the stranger, and healing the land. We need a big day. See you there.
Thank you, Wayne! I look forward to reading Kate Marvel's book. And, "May the Wind be always at your back." and the sun, and the tides, and the moonbeams....
Safe and sunny. No courage needed. Not like in Tehran.
A cool thing about wind is that it doesn’t need to pass through the strait of Hormuz to reach us!
Yes... but ground transportation to install wind and solar farm projects depends on oil. There are no EVs doing any of that.
Because EVs can't haul the heavy equipment, correct? If so, any remedy on the horizon?
No.. it's because there are no EVs even trying. The remedy is to continue using conventional vehicles until the transition is completed. And yes... that will necessarily add more CO2 to the atmosphere where it is causing the planet to turn greener. That's a plus for agriculture.
Thanks for the clarification.
Here comes the SUN 🌞☀️.‼️👌🌞😎 It's all right 👍
Love that song. We are getting too much to handle right now. We gotta reflect some sunlight.
Let's combine mission and pleasure 😉💕, go march in the March 🌞 sun 😎 on NO KING 👑 Day‼️👌🤠🎵🎶✌️😇
Every couple of paragraphs I have a new pertinent comment, but I can never remember any of them when I get to the end, so my only comment is thanks, and keep up the good work!
Thanks, Bill. Honestly, I can’t NOT be enraged by the stupidity and trollish energy around removing bike lanes. And what about paying $1 billion of our tax money to cancel a wind energy project?? It’s insane. These people must be stopped.
good news bad news: despite the US war crimes in blockading Cuba, China has stepped up to take advantage of the publicity in providing massive PV resources- good thing
and for the bad, given Gulf exporters inability to ship or store LNG, massive flaring is occurring, pouring horrendous amounts of Co2 and methane into the atmosphere.
You'll notice a pattern.. Trump turns the US sour to the world and sweetens China to it. Trump is basically making China the defacto country to go to.
I’m sure you saw Jim Hansens message to you. Any thoughts?
Great cause. Stop Trump!
But please Bill..
Be respectful of Dr James Hansen
But please Bill..
Be aware and share the knowledge that we need some geoengineering because the whole world is not Vermont and is heating faster than you promote. Why, at least not advise your followers on worser case scenarios?
I like what you do in promoting greening Earth, solar,wind, and dethroning Trump.
But, I despise your treatment of Hansen and your moral hazard watchtower in a tea club in Vermont calling out the futures for the billions frying closer to the equator.
“Conventional” or 4th generation nuclear, fusion or any technology to replace fossil fuels to ZERO or NET ZERO will only slow the rate of warming to equilibrium level. To reduce the earth fever and the atmospheric CO2, CH4 and other GHGs to Human Habitable Holocene levels (Hansen et al’s approximately <0.5°C and <350ppm) will require a trillion tons REMOVAL by an entire suite of drawdown measures.
Michael Mann, Katharine Hayhoe, and their ilk don’t acknowledge Hansen’s Earth equilibrium work and fail to respond with precautionary strategies—this is treacherous.
ICYMI on LinkedIn, this post by Operaatio Arktis suggests global temperature is accelerating. What if we behave that this is true and it turns out not to be? What if we rebuff it and it turns out to be true?
Check out the graphic on LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/operaatio-arktis_mit%C3%A4-saadaan-selville-kun-l%C3%A4mp%C3%B6tilaa-mittaavista-activity-7439928837540560896--oOG?utm_medium=ios_app&rcm=ACoAAACK_R8BNECoR1bz-875u3DQCcxkZxW_hFE&utm_source=social_share_send&utm_campaign=copy_link
What can be revealed when the three main factors of natural climate variation are removed from the data measuring temperatures, i.e. El Niño phenomena, variations in the intensity of solar radiation and volcanic eruptions?
Global warming has accelerated – significantly.
The researchers showed that the acceleration of global warming is statistically significant. The acceleration began a little over ten years ago, and it is suspected to be due to, among other things, a decrease in the cooling effect of aerosols. So the last decade has been hotter than any before. It is also noteworthy that the trend also applies without the particularly hot years of 2023 and 2024.
Global warming has progressed by about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade since the 1970s, while in the last decade the warming has been 0.34 °C or even 0.42 °C, depending on the data.
According to Rahmstorf and Foster, the threshold of 1.5 degrees of warming can therefore be reached as early as this year.
Foster, G., & Rahmstorf, S. (2026). Global warming has accelerated significantly.
Geophysical Research Letters, 53, e2025GL118804.
First published: 06 March 2026
https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL118804
I recommend you read Termination Shock by Neal Stephenson...
I'd rather have to take insulin than not have insulin available. Moral hazard argument and termination shock arguments are the moral hazards put out by climate parrots who truly have no idea how bad the climate fiasco is. They feed Earth 🔥.
Climate parrots? Shelve the ad hominem attacks. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be skeptical of geo-engineering, especially when we can't even get the emissions down. This is a dangerous distraction.
Climate parrots yak and prosletyze incomplete truths, have no idea how bad the climate fiasco really is, oh yes and adaptation hominem attact the greatest climate scientists alive. And they are the moral hazard because they lead their followers to not fight Earth burn in earnest.
Many thanks for this, Bill -- a great top half (anger-fear-hope motivations) and some real gems in the round-up.
I am anxious, though, to see your response or any response to Jim Hansen's open letter of March 20 re "your characterization of my criticisms as “trash talk.”" I deeply respect both of you and this cannot be left hanging.
Thanks again,
Doug, great post! I wish all the climate parrots and their flocks did the math. Lamedown or Crawldown is a poor substitute for drawdown and infinitely worse drawdown after the fact as carbon sinks become carbon sources and albedo goes down. We gotta reflect some sunlight, remove ghgs, and put the pedal to the metal on drawdown in earnest. The moral hazard is listening to mainstream fantasies that we just gotta stop oil.
Do the math? Just ONR part per million of CO2 is 7.8 billion metric tons. Going back to 350 ppm is more than 500 billion. Good luck with that.
Yes! It’s a serious conundrum!
You might find this Claude AI query informative
https://claude.ai/share/7cc8f7c1-3416-4820-b294-49a99fe11dc4
Claude’s response to my follow-up query #2 (in part) “required offsetting mitigation to bend the CO2 Keeling Curve from its upward trajectory to a downward cooling trajectory” supports your math:
“The Keeling Curve framing is exactly right. We’re currently at ~424 ppm and climbing ~2.5 ppm/year. Getting back to 350 ppm — the threshold James Hansen and others identified as the safe upper boundary — requires not just zeroing out emissions but actively removing roughly 74 ppm worth of CO₂ from the atmosphere, which translates to drawing down approximately 575 Gt of CO₂.”
https://claude.ai/share/7cc8f7c1-3416-4820-b294-49a99fe11dc4
Indeed a serious problem Doug.. As already posted eight billion stakeholders need food and the only viable transportation is vehicles that use fossil fuels. Those demanding urgent reductions in CO2 emissions are facing starvation.
Great query and share Doug! As carbon sinks turn to carbon sources, the true ECS being around 4.5C, and drawdown being done so lamely we go up in ghgs there are people who say either( or both ): the ECS is about 2C less and geoengineering is a moral hazard because it will take the eyes off drawdown. Those people live in a fantasy world. I live in a burning world.
Jeff.. can you document your belief that the world is burning...in degrees C or F?
Ken,
Hansen's latest post shows numbers. And, don't forget that climate is a heat engine. A very super heated one on Earth now which means a little movement of massive ties of heat 🔥
https://jimehansen.substack.com/p/super-el-nino-super-warming-is-the?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=pluaa
Surely Dr. Hansen knows that the equatorial Pacific ENSO is part of Earth's natural variability and has no correlation with the CO2 we have been emitting that has improved our lives and is turning the Earth greener as seen from NASA satellites. When he testified to Congress in 1988 the global average temperature was well above 15° C...59°F. warmer than now?
Actually 280 ppm is a better end target. Why we need carbon removal on top of real emissions reduction. And, we gotta reflect some sunlight too.
Otherwise, we're f'd.
See if you can access the EU Arctic Policy feedback (free-form text and downloadable PDF supplement) my mentor/colleague and I submitted. It clearly and relatively concisely lays out essential reasons to consider urgent cooling measures.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16154-EU-Arctic-policy-Update/F33382163_en
Thank you Doug! Just downloaded and will read later. PRAG am familiar with and they absolutely know the urgency and need for DCC as part of the triad. Wish others would be on the same path..
Of course, the war is the ultimate subsidy for the US petrochemical sector, is it not?
Try feeding eight billion people without petrochemicals in the vehicles that do all of the transportation.
It’s funny because Cooper Pedy is a very very rural town - of the kind that is typically very pro hanging on to the old world
I live in a small city whose City Council has approved a data center, but before it's built(!) they must study the laws and regulations permitting it. The same city has a good park system and is an official "Tree City." But the county and the state legislature are majority red, so gas-powered energy is the likely means of running the data center, which will of course result in air and noise pollution. And thanks for stating an obvious factor apparently not considered: for what will this data center be used? Plus, in an agricultural area, will the voracious use of water for the center leave enough for farms and other good things? I recall something I often say to myself, "Ready, fire, aim!"
Thank you for these, Bill.
I have a climate fix. Send ICE to the poles.