Profile avatar
damonmatthews.bsky.social
Climate scientist at Concordia in Montreal, co-creator of climateclock.net and Director of sustainabilitydigitalage.org. Interested in carbon budgets, nature-based solutions, AI-climate applications and many other things.
214 posts 3,635 followers 708 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter

"Finally, we emphasize that efforts to remove atmospheric carbon by means of any CDR technology will ultimately be futile for addressing the climate crisis without urgent and drastic emissions reductions and a transition to clean energy." 🧪

📢 Methane emissions are underreported - by a lot A new study finds that inconsistencies in carbon accounting standards lead to a massive underreporting of methane emissions - up to 3.3Gt CO₂ equivalent, depending on the metric used. 🔗 www.nature.com/articles/s41... #Climate #Methane #SciComm 🧪

Carbon capture more costly than switching to renewables, researchers find. “If you spend $1 on carbon capture instead of on wind, water, & solar, you are increasing CO2, air pollution, energy requirements, energy costs, pipelines, and total social costs.” techxplore.com/news/2025-02...

We need to be more willing to talk more openly about the impending dictatorship of malicious fools.

January 2025 was quite unexpectedly the warmest January on record at 1.75C above preindustrial, beating the prior record set in 2024. This is despite the presence of La Niña conditions in the tropical Pacific, with the El Niño event of 2023/2024 long faded. www.theclimatebrink....

Who knew that Dolores Umbridge would be so prophetic of the current national leadership style? Suggestions for other proclamations? There are lots of executive orders to work with ...

Are there new topics in climate science (understood broadly) from 2024 that you think deserve more attention? Do you know about the 10 New Insights in Climate Science? You can influence which 10 topics they cover if you go take the survey before Friday: 10insightsclimate.science/2025-2026-ca...

Every year, the World Economic Forum at Davos reports on the consensus of risks facing the world. In the short-term, it's DISINFORMATION. Long-term, it's CLIMATE CHANGE. And, guess what, they're linked!

@mitchelldickau.bsky.social ?

physics of climate impacts 101: - Stuff gets hot (worse heatwaves) - Hot air holds more water vapor (heavier rainfall) - Hot air is thirstier air (higher drought risk) - Warm water is hurricane food (stronger storms) - Hot water expands and hot ice melts (sea level rise)

Human-caused climate change helped set the stage for the devastating Los Angeles fires. Making that connection clear in news coverage doesn't have to be complicated. Here's a 🧵 of good examples...

Seriously, so what? Global heat content continues to rise apace; whether slightly more or less than 1% of that heat goes into the atmosphere vs the ocean in any given yr is basically irrelevant. As the IPCC says: every ton of carbon matters, every bit of action matters, and every choice matters.

This is a good piece and underscores the importance of adaptation not only to protect lives and livelihoods *today* but to also create political space and support for mitigation policies. theconversation.com/a-doom-loop-...

Some thoughtful words on overheated language. If we use the word "tipping point" to describe everything bad that might happen as a result of climate change, what does "tipping point" mean beyond "bad thing that might happen"? www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Comedian Nish Kumar helps Dr Fredi Otto spell out the actual risks of climate change, pulling zero punches, and using highly unscientific language throughout. Part of an ongoing project to help the climate science cut through to the public. climatesciencebreakthrough.com youtu.be/CnITUQVEqLQ?...

On The Climate Brink: Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check This is a crucial point because it determines how much warming is already "locked in" and effectively unavoidable. The answer is very little warming is locked in. Also, this is our 100th post! www.theclimatebrink....

How much longer can we keep using the IPCC AR6 1.5°C scenarios (limited overshoot) for percentage reductions, net zero years, etc, given that we are currently not even remotely on track? Starting today, the percentage reductions will be higher, net zero year earlier (all else equal).

What a chart. www.economist.com/interactive/...

”Preferably, the EU and the US should have a net zero target excluding the LULUCF sink, but additionally have a target to maintain the LULUCF sink, as long as it is not used to offset continued fossil emissions.” @glenpeters.bsky.social cicero.oslo.no/en/articles/...

Just signed this open letter calling for a fossil fuel phase out. The only unambiguously effective solution to the climate crisis is to stop using fossil fuels. Without this, everything else will be window dressing. fossilfueltreaty.org/cop29-open-l...

A great argument for why carbon offsets are unhelpful in achieving institutional net zero goals. Key question that is not answered — how to finance nature conservation and restoration if not via carbon offsets? theconversation.com/we-have-offi...

Softening the definition of Net Zero won’t stop global warming. As authors of the 2009 “Net Zero Papers” we call on countries and companies to recognise the need for Geological Net Zero, balancing flows of carbon into and out of the Earth’s crust. www.theguardian.com/environment/...

I have been quoted a few times saying that the current rate of climate changes is basically without precedent in the Earth's history ... I am glad to know that I wasn't just making this up www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shar...

Climate action is falling terribly short Time to bury the 1.5C goal? Absolutely not - why the 1.5 goal must prevail (even when global warming exceeds 1.5C) My opinion for Project Syndicate 👇 www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/a...

A veritable whos-who of the scientists behind our physical climate understanding of net-zero have a new paper in Nature, making the case for "Geological Net Zero" where fossil CO2 can only credibly counterbalanced by permanent removal: www.nature.com/artic...

Great article but I think “Trump 2.0” is a misnomer Trump 2.0 implies a better shiner upgrade But Trump is just older, crankier and more vindictive So much more like a sad remake of an already bad movie than a shiny upgrade