https://abcnews.go.com/US/usda-orders-removal-climate-change-mentions-public-websites/story?id=118312216

We live in an imperfect world. When I first got out of school I had a very narrow view of how to solve all the worlds problems. This meant attacking people who are genuinely trying to make things better.

Now that I'm more established in my career I see this happening all the time. Just because a solution isn't perfect it's being shot down. I think this is disingenuous to the broader conversation.

One of these topics has been recycling. Our recycling system is broken. No one really argues that it's broken but no one really knows what to do about it. One of my possible solutions to this has been waste to energy plants. To me they kill two birds with one stone. This isn't a great fit for all places but in some cases it's excellent. A place like Maui who has extremely limited space and uses shipped in oil for there power generation are a perfect example.

In hill country the heart of Texas I’ve noticed a trend in weather. It’s far more rainy during the times it rains but more drought in the summer. The winters are overall warmer but the cold snaps are more severe and random. Is it only me?

I’m working on a school project about the impacts of Shell on climate change, if anyone has some information to share let me knoww!!

Exploiting satellite observations since 1985 and a statistical model incorporating drivers of variability and change, we identify an increasing rate of rise in global mean sea surface temperature (GMSST). This accelerating ocean surface warming is physically linked to an upward trend in Earth's energy imbalance (EEI). ... Using the statistical model to isolate the trend from interannual variability, the underlying rate of change of GMSST rises in proportion with Earth's energy accumulation from 0.06 K decade–1 during 1985–89 to 0.27 K decade–1 for 2019–23. ... Applying indicative future scenarios of EEI based on recent trends, GMSST increases are likely to be faster than would be expected from linear extrapolation of the past four decades. Our results provide observational evidence that the GMSST increase inferred over the past 40 years will likely be exceeded within the next 20 years. Policy makers and wider society should be aware that the rate of global warming over recent decades is a poor guide to the faster change that is likely over the decades to come, underscoring the urgency of deep reductions in fossil-fuel burning.

Christopher J Merchant, Richard P Allan, Owen Embury. Quantifying the acceleration of multidecadal global sea surface warming driven by Earth’s energy imbalance. Environmental Research Letters, 2025; 20 (2): 024037 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/adaa8a

Im very interested to learn more.

I just learned about green certificates from a friend. Based on what I understood, it might be the biggest greenwashing I ever heard of, where all companies around the world are involved in. What do you think about them? And can anyone working in carbon accounting explain how it works?

The politicians and economists of this world have been almost totally successful in convincing people that provided we plant more trees, or invest in more renewables, or pay somebody else to do that, then we can (say) expand Heathrow Airport, without making climate change worse.

Here is a typical comment, from yesterday:

Ah right. Can you please explain to me how CO2 emitted from the burning of fossil fuels is chemically, physically or in any other way different from CO2 emitted from other sources?

I was under the clearly misguided impression that the warming effect on the climate was the same, regardless of the source.

The true situation, which there is a desperate need for people to understand, is that our problem is very specifically the movement of carbon from fossil sources to the atmosphere. If carbon is taken from the atmosphere, turned into wood, and then the wood is burned as fuel, then that is just the same amount of carbon cycling around the biosphere. Most fossil carbon was removed from atmosphere millions of years ago, at a time when the climate was much hotter than it is today. Fossil carbon which is put into the atmosphere then starts cycling around, which means the total amount of carbon goes up, which is what is actually causing all of our climate problems.

Surely this is not too difficult to explain to people? The problem, of course, is it logically follows that we need to leave carbon in the ground. And nobody wants to hear that message, because everybody knows that it isn't going to happen.

EDIT: Unfortunately, that’s it for me! I wish I could get to all of the other questions but hopefully we’ll have an opportunity to connect sometime again. In the meantime, thanks to everybody for reading, and all of your interest and concern about the fires. My heart goes out to all those in Los Angeles, and I hope we can find a way to be inspired by this unimaginable tragedy rather than retreat into hostile partisan bunkers. Here’s hoping…

Hey all, it’s David Wallace-Wells, a science writer at New York Times Opinion and The Times Magazine. I’ve written about the devastating wildfires ravaging Los Angeles, how housing policy contributes to the likelihood of gigafire burns and the palpable turn in the city’s perspective amid the aftermath.

I’ve described the dollars in damage of these fires, the social media blame game, the role of human failure and the ways global warming remodels the risk landscape beyond California. I have also spoken about the scope and tragedy of the L.A. disaster and why more wildfires are coming.

Before The New York Times, I wrote agenda-setting essays on the dangers and complexities of global warming at New York magazine. I am also the author of the 2019 book, “The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming.” 

Ask me anything about climate change, California wildfires and any other related topics. 

I’ll answer your questions from 12:30-1:30 p.m. E.T. on Thursday, Jan. 30.

Proof picture here.

Bill Gates Climate Activist justifies his 1 1/2 Acre Home with CO2 offsets he buys.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/billionaire-bill-gates-reveals-why-170314064.html

Hello everyone,

I just posted a long article about this, all its possible consequences, and what is really happening in Thailand

It's in Portuguese, feel free to translate using translator and read here 👉 https://lusometeo.com/atualidade/cloud-seeding-tailandia-22838/

Would really like to know what's your opinion on this - do you think it can work? or just like any other tinkering with the atmosphere it will only make everything worse?

Hey Reddit,

I’ve been thinking about the problem of coral reef deaths and whether "dark oxygen rocks" (both natural and synthetic) could play a role in preventing oxygen deprivation in these ecosystems. I’m not an expert, so I’d love input from people more knowledgeable in marine science, chemistry, or environmental engineering.

From what I understand, one major issue causing coral reef decline is oxygen deprivation, which is exacerbated by algal blooms. These blooms flourish due to climate change, rising ocean temperatures, and acidification, leading to lower oxygen levels and suffocating marine life.

I recently came across the concept of natural "dark oxygen rocks"—minerals that, due to their chemical composition, can produce small electrical currents underwater. This electrical activity can sometimes trigger the electrolysis of water, splitting H₂O molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. While these processes are usually slow and not highly efficient, they can create localized oxygen-rich environments, even in deep-sea conditions where light doesn’t reach.

With this in mind, I wonder if synthetic dark oxygen rocks—engineered to be more efficient than their natural counterparts—could be deployed in coral reef areas suffering from oxygen depletion. If designed correctly, these synthetic variants could generate more oxygen per unit volume, potentially helping stabilize reef ecosystems.

My questions:

1. Are there known natural dark oxygen rocks that already contribute to oxygenation in marine environments?

2. Could these be used to combat reef oxygen deprivation, or are their effects too small?

3. Is it feasible to develop a synthetic variant that’s more effective and scalable for deployment?

4. Would introducing such materials create unintended ecological consequences?

I realize this wouldn’t solve the root problems of climate change and ocean acidification, but could this be a short-term mitigation strategy to help struggling coral reefs? Would love to hear thoughts from marine biologists, chemists, and environmental engineers. Thanks in advance!

A recent Nature article gave projections for heat deaths in Europe due to rising temperatures.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00239-4?utm_source=Live+Audience&utm_campaign=4972ef10a4-nature-briefing-daily-20250128&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b27a691814-4972ef10a4-50644548

Doesn't this all get iffy given uncertainty about when, if and how fast the AMOC shuts down?