Zeke Hausfather

In the rush to build data centers, companies are starting to use their own off grid gas generators. This results in much higher emissions – 60% to 80% – compared with using their local electricity grid and risks locking in longer-term fossil dependence. www.theclimatebrink....

Its important to try and reduce the barriers to grid connection by making it easier to build more clean energy and transmission quickly to support new loads – from data centers, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and others. Otherwise we will be stuck with a lot more fossil fuel use.

In the rush to build data centers, companies are starting to use their own off grid gas generators. This results in much higher emissions – 60% to 80% – compared with using their local electricity grid and risks locking in longer-term fossil dependence. www.theclimatebrink....

These generators are much less efficient – and have higher methane leakage – compared with modern combined cycle gas turbines. Building off grid also means that data centers won't benefit from the continuing rapid decarbonization of generation occurring in many parts of the US.

While there is increasingly strong evidence that global warming is accelerating, we need to be careful about how we detect it. Unfortunately a newly published paper on the topic makes a number of mistakes in it approach, as I discuss over at The Climate Brink:

The October runs for dynamical El Niño models are now all out, and its a mixed bag. Some revise the event downward, some upward, but on average its still expected to peak at ~4C, albeit with the peak more likely to occur in December than November:

As always, you can stay up to date on El Niño observations and models over at the Climate Dashboard:

The October runs for dynamical El Niño models are now all out, and its a mixed bag. Some revise the event downward, some upward, but on average its still expected to peak at ~4C, albeit with the peak more likely to occur in December than November:

And the latest projected El Niño peak for each model and across all models:

The October runs for dynamical El Niño models are now all out, and its a mixed bag. Some revise the event downward, some upward, but on average its still expected to peak at ~4C, albeit with the peak more likely to occur in December than November:

There is a bit of a jump between observed September Oceanic Niño Index (ONI – 2.8C) and projected October ONI (~3.6C) in the models, but this isn't too far out of the realm of possibility as its been averaging about 3.2C over the first third of October:

This year's El Niño continues its climb into uncharted waters; Niño3.4 region anomalies are now at a 3.4C above normal (how fitting!), higher than any prior El Niño event on record. September monthly Niño3.4 anomalies also set a record at 2.9C (beating 2015 and 1877's 2.75C).

And Niño 1+2 region anomalies are at a stunning 5.3C, far above any prior year.

This year's El Niño continues its climb into uncharted waters; Niño3.4 region anomalies are now at a 3.4C above normal (how fitting!), higher than any prior El Niño event on record. September monthly Niño3.4 anomalies also set a record at 2.9C (beating 2015 and 1877's 2.75C).

The relative Oceanic Niño Index (RONI) is up to 3C; not quite in record territory yet, but rapidly closing in. With another two months or so of growth to go its almost certain to set a record as well.

I often see people argue that clean energy is not reducing emissions, because it just adds to rather than replaces fossil fuels. This argument is deeply misguided – clean energy built since 2005 has displaced 23 billion tons. I dive in over at The Climate Brink:

Globally around 75% of new demand has been met by clean energy since 2005, with 99% being met by solar and wind in 2025. The globe may be on the brink of absolute emissions reductions in the power sector, with clean energy growing faster than demand.

I often see people argue that clean energy is not reducing emissions, because it just adds to rather than replaces fossil fuels. This argument is deeply misguided – clean energy built since 2005 has displaced 23 billion tons. I dive in over at The Climate Brink:

Check out the full piece over at The Climate Brink:

I often see people argue that clean energy is not reducing emissions, because it just adds to rather than replaces fossil fuels. This argument is deeply misguided – clean energy built since 2005 has displaced 23 billion tons. I dive in over at The Climate Brink:

Globally around 75% of new demand has been met by clean energy since 2005, with 99% being met by solar and wind in 2025. The globe may be on the brink of absolute emissions reductions in the power sector, with clean energy growing faster than demand.

I often see people argue that clean energy is not reducing emissions, because it just adds to rather than replaces fossil fuels. This argument is deeply misguided – clean energy built since 2005 has displaced 23 billion tons. I dive in over at The Climate Brink:

Indeed, in many cases increased electricity use is a good thing – to effectively meet net zero goals we need to largely electrify transportation, industrial processes, building heating and cooling, and the ~70% of energy coming from non-electricity fossil fuel combustion today.

I often see people argue that clean energy is not reducing emissions, because it just adds to rather than replaces fossil fuels. This argument is deeply misguided – clean energy built since 2005 has displaced 23 billion tons. I dive in over at The Climate Brink:

If we hold solar and wind at 2005 levels and fill in the gaps with fossil fuels (with the mix determined by country – coal in China and India, mostly gas in the US and EU), global power sector emissions would have been 28% higher.

I often see people argue that clean energy is not reducing emissions, because it just adds to rather than replaces fossil fuels. This argument is deeply misguided – clean energy built since 2005 has displaced 23 billion tons. I dive in over at The Climate Brink:

But despite this rapid growth fossil fuel generation continues to set new records, though it has slowed down substantially compared to the rate of fossil fuel growth in the 1990s and 2000s. This leads some to argue that clean energy isn't actually reducing emissions.

I often see people argue that clean energy is not reducing emissions, because it just adds to rather than replaces fossil fuels. This argument is deeply misguided – clean energy built since 2005 has displaced 23 billion tons. I dive in over at The Climate Brink:

I often see people claim that because clean energy sources like solar, wind, or nuclear are manufactured using fossil fuels their emissions are high. But thats absolutely not the case: even accounting for full lifecycle emissions they are vastly better than burning coal or gas:

September 2026 was the second warmest September on record (after 2023's "gobsmackingly bananas" month), coming in at 1.63C above preindustrial levels in the ERA5 dataset.

2026 as a whole is now on track to end up roughly tied with 2024 as the warmest year on record in ERA5, at 1.6C above preindustrial. And 2027 waiting in the wings to be quite a bit warmer on the back of a record-setting El Nino event.