iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

My motivation to this, number 4, is not mainly cos of the socially responsibility. Fast reductions are needed to avoid irreversible collapse in cryosphere & eco-systems. Out of your 4 scenarios, only number 4 can deliver that, perhaps number 3 can be the trigger, but we need to live sustainable.

010

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 7h

"I doubt the idol god of GDP will be thrown out soon." I share that view, but this is also what scares me. I see this as a clear path to collapse. Some system collapses will be irreversible within useful time frames, but yeah I do agree, we will probably go look for more gold anyway.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 13h

Sure but I am pretty sure we will not electrify everything within the timelines our inaction have left us with. Am pretty sure we need to prioritize, cut the rich first imo. I do feel Zeke in his example, consider growth a bit too much an absolute. I claim growth as a major/core problem.

110

Reposted by Natskifte

Prof Ian Hall @ianhall.bsky.social · 14h

Why would Indigenous communities accept oil extraction despite knowing its environmental costs? Sometimes, “acceptance” isn’t consent. It’s survival, negotiation, and making the best of unequal choices. theconversation.com/why-some-ind...

theconversation.com

Why some Indigenous communities don’t resist oil extraction in their territories

In the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil extraction reaches communities already facing environmental pressures, pressing needs and aspirations for a better life.

1196

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 21h

Wind and solar do displace fossil power, but demand growth eats much of the gain. Electricity is only ~20% of final energy, and absolute cuts only came where demand stayed flat. IPCC: 2°C possibly as early as 2037. Displacement isn't fast enough. Rich countries must cut energy use now.

220

Reposted by Natskifte

Leon Simons @leonsimons.com · 03/10/2026

🚨NASA CERES satellite data shows another 4-year average record for global Absorbed Solar Radiation. Earth's Energy Imbalance has more than doubled over the past 20 years. We've been trying to warn about this and the impacts for years, but few seem to care.

717194

Reposted by Natskifte

Ketan Joshi @ketanjoshi.co · 05/10/2026

There are so many climate policy conversations in so many places around the world on "pragmatism", "realism", "compromise" etc How many of them include this end of the equation?

614357

Reposted by Natskifte

Professor Euan Ritchie FAMS @euanritchie.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Still not convinced that a majority of attempts at offsets are meaningfully mitigating the harms some claim they do, in fact in many cases it appears they are very much helping to fuel the harms, on account of laws of physics, chemistry, and ecological realities on a finite planet.

109723

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Satellites show Earth's energy imbalance has roughly doubled since the early 2010s, to ~1.5 W/m²: Earth absorbs more sunlight. Just as worrying: we don't know exactly why. Cleaner air, fewer clouds, less ice? Likely a mix, but the split is debated. To me, that calls for precaution over reaction.

000

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Heat in the upper 2000 m of the ocean is less noisy than surface temperature. So I looked at the data (largely from Argo floats) for signs that ocean warming has sped up in recent years. The chart suggests it has. It proves nothing on its own, but it supports those who say warming is accelerating.

Line chart, dark background. Global ocean heat content 0–2000 m from 2005 to 2025, as anomaly from the 2006–2015 average, in zettajoules (ZJ). A thin red line shows monthly values, a thick red line the 12-month mean, and a faint red band the 95% uncertainty. The curve rises steadily from about −53 ZJ in 2005 to +188 ZJ in mid-2025 (12-month mean). Two dashed white trend lines: 8.8 ZJ per year for 2005–2014 and 13.9 ZJ per year for 2015–2025, about 1.6 times faster. A dotted line continuing the 2005–2014 pace ends around +125 ZJ in 2025, well below the actual curve. The last six months are shaded as preliminary and subject to revision. 2025 averaged 23 ZJ above 2024. Data: IAPv4.2, Cheng et al. 2024.

010

Reposted by Natskifte

Prof Ian Hall @ianhall.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

The argument to give nature legal rights seems compelling, not because a declaration alone can solve climate and biodiversity crises, but because it can shift whose interests the law protects. The real test will be enforcement and turning recognition into action. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

nature.com

Nature has rights — it is time the world recognized them

Existing legal frameworks have not halted planetary crises. Recognizing the rights of nature could offer a different path.

18434

Reposted by Natskifte

Rob Larter @polarrobs.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

ALERT! Antarctic sea ice extent today tied with that in 2023 for the record low for the date, and on the present trajectory it is about to set new records. Graphic by @zacklabe.com zacklabe.com/antarctic-se...

9216110

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

I am glad you share your opinion, and that you debate possible flags so openly, huge thank you. You have made me more open when it comes to SRM, and anyway, like you said earlier, no roll out before we have build planes and stuff, and we need to cut FF now, while preparing emergency brakes, like SRM

000

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

...or how a fast transition away from fossil fuels will happen. Pretend the fossil fuel industry, offers to handle and pay for such a system. Would you trust them?

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

2°C by 2037 as some reasearch indicates as a very real possibility, should be avoided at all costs, and SRM should imo be considered a tool to counter that. I do find your position fair, but must admit, that I don't share your tech-optimism around CDR, and I dont see you explain very well, why.....

100

Reposted by Natskifte

Prof Ian Hall @ianhall.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

🌊 The concerning thing isn’t just that global SST is at a record-breaking +0.75°C above the 1991–2020 baseline. It’s the trajectory 🤯

14345163

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

3-5°C later this century, please elobarate on that. Middle of century, or end of century?

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

I will adress that concern, but just to be clear, I am no scientist, just a concerned citizen who over the years have learned a lot when watching ClimateChat. I am not critical to you or your show in general. Sometimes I disagree on conclusions, but am grateful you take time for talks like these!

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

we also risks to lock in a need for continued SRM, or termination shock will follow big time.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

We should build the planes, we should do the research, we should begin to create the needed governance, we should prepare! I still struggle with some major concerns. Do the UN misinform, when saying not more than a few tenth of a degree this century? If we do SRM, and CDR or ER fails, then....

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

The UN report seems to expands that perspective, but did include the paper in its analysis. This broader view, still made them warn about CDR as any major solution this century.

110

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

I fully share that perspective, but struggle to see why SRM should remove our chains.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Yeah true, but I do fear a limited storage capacity, and if used premature, we could loose our ability to do CDR for negative emissions . I do not see any robust evidence saying we easily can find more storage, and CCS seems to become a major player on this storage market.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

I do support us preparing for SRM, it can very well be needed! Once again, thank for the talk, am looking forward to the show.

000

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

..more than a few tenth of a degree this century

000

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

... A thing that puzzels me is. You seems to represent both a very pessimistic view on any fast reductions, both when SRM, something magical happens, and your seems very optimistic about same concern. Then there is this recent UN overshoot report, saying dont expect CDR to lower temps more.....

210

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

As you probably understands, I am a bit skeptical about SRM. I do realize it very well can be needed, and over some time, you have eased my fears on the concequenses, when compared to what happens if not. i do however still struggle to accept any asap roll out.....

210

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Fair points, thanks for engaging! Still, the question stands: should CDR clean up the past, or offset continued emissions? We're headed past 1.5°C and must come back down. 146 years at 10 Gt/yr only holds us at net zero; it cools nothing. I'd love Klaus's take on how to handle overshoot.

110

Reposted by Natskifte

Prof Ian Hall @ianhall.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

23,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules. That’s the amount of heat the oceans absorbed in 2025. A number so huge it’s almost meaningless…until you realise it’s roughly 40× humanity’s annual energy use. The ocean is buying us time. We’re running out of it. www.theguardian.com/environment/...

theguardian.com

World’s oceans absorbed record heat equal to 40 times annual global energy use

The injection of thermal energy comes amid an increasing rise in sea levels and continuing acidification

10373235

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Much like the 'green transition' – mostly brown, and so far more addition than transition.

000

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Can CDR scale beyond the storage it depends on, e.g. via mineralization? If not, the landfill is finite and large overshoot effectively irreversible. Given the uncertainties, shouldn't CO₂ as waste then mean cutting it at source, on precautionary grounds? doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09423-y (3/3)

doi.org

A prudent planetary limit for geologic carbon storage - Nature

A risk-based, spatially explicit analysis of carbon storage in sedimentary basins establishes a prudent planetary limit of around 1,460 Gt of geological carbon storage, which requires making explicit ...

111

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Gidden et al. (Nature, 2025) argue for a prudent limit on sedimentary CO₂ storage of ~1,460 Gt. Used entirely for CDR, that reverses at most ~0.7 °C, or ~0.4 °C under a precautionary climate response. And every tonne of fossil CCS competes for the same storage. (2/3)

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Thanks, Dan, for taking this on. Giving a contested topic like CDR a proper hearing, with one of its pioneers, is really valuable. Offered simply as inspiration for the show, a question on what CDR should be for: cleaning up the past, or offsetting continued emissions? (1/3)

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

[5] IPCC AR6 WG1 SPM, A.1.3: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/w... [6] web.de (Gößling, Lohmann): web.de/magazine/wis...

ipcc.ch

IPCC AR6 Working Group 1: Summary for Policymakers

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

None of this is reassuring. ~2°C by mid-century is already severe, and the acceleration debate is real. But precision is part of taking it seriously. Sources below.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Strong claims need strong evidence. Here two speculative claims are stacked: 3°C by 2050, and SRM as a manageable fix. Uncertainty compounds; it doesn't cancel. If anything, the tail argues most for deep, no-regret emission cuts.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

There's also a quiet contradiction. SRM is only a bridge if emissions fall fast, or the masking must grow indefinitely. So the case rests on being too pessimistic about cuts to go without SRM, yet optimistic enough about cuts to ever exit it.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

This is where 3°C-by-2050 is increasingly used: as a premise for urgent solar geoengineering (SRM). But SRM has fat tails of its own: termination shock, regional rainfall shifts, conflict over who sets the thermostat, and delayed emission cuts.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

And the tail logic has to run both ways. If we judge the climate by its worst plausible outcome, we must judge proposed responses the same way. Worst case for the problem, best case for the solution is not precaution. It's motivated reasoning.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Why it matters: "could, under a pessimistic combination" becomes "will" after a few reshares. If you want us to navigate by the tail, call it the tail. Otherwise your audience can't weigh it, and a risk turns into a forecast.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

A likely source of confusion: Lohmann noted that Europe could reach ~3°C by 2050, since land warms faster than ocean [6]. A regional number and a global one are different claims.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

That's roughly how German experts responded. Helge Gößling (AWI), whose albedo study the appeal cites, called it "not ruled out, but very unlikely" [6]. Karsten Haustein called it unrealistic [7]. Gerrit Lohmann expects ~2–2.3°C globally even in a pessimistic case [6].

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Aerosol unmasking is real but bounded: studies put the shipping fuel rules at ~0.05–0.25°C by 2050 [3], East Asian cleanup at ~0.07°C [4]. IPCC puts total aerosol cooling at 0–0.8°C [5]. A step, not a doubled rate. 3°C by 2050 needs every factor at the pessimistic end.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

What mechanism could do it? The appeal points to three: declining sulphur aerosols (less masking), a possible cloud feedback darkening the planet, and climate sensitivity above IPCC's best estimate [1]. All real research questions. None is quantified to 3°C by 2050 in the text.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

So the scenario needs the warming rate to more than double immediately and stay there. Even at the top of today's uncertainty range, we'd land around 2.4°C by 2050. Serious, but not 3.

100

Natskifte @beeeeeeel.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

First, the arithmetic. Human-induced warming was ~1.37°C in 2025 [2]. Reaching 3.0°C by 2050 means +1.63°C in 25 years: ~0.65°C per decade on average, starting now. The current rate is 0.27°C/decade (range 0.2–0.4) [2].

101