Tessa Hill
@tessahill.bsky.social
16K followers 2.2K following 520 posts
Climate change, oceans, blue carbon and coastal communities. Professor, researcher, educator, author. 🌊 📕: At Every Depth @ateverydepth.bsky.social AtEveryDepth.com bio.site/Tessahill
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
tessahill.bsky.social
Ok, I’m loving the starter packs! This one is for women (inclusively defined) in Ocean Science.

You need more ocean 🌊 in your feed! Follow these folks.

If you would like to be added please just let me know 👋 … if I forgot you, please don’t be offended, it was an accident! go.bsky.app/7MdiLgo
tessahill.bsky.social
It’s been fun for me so far, and that matters a lot these days ♥️
Reposted by Tessa Hill
katestarbird.bsky.social
Henry Farrell on the Trump admin’s proposed “compact” for universities, arguing that the rollout signals weakness, and that academics need to band together to reject this authoritarian attack on university independence and academic freedom.

Gift link: www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/o...
tessahill.bsky.social
Right now my whole syllabus is on Canvas as both text & “modules” - but yes! Maybe at the end of the class I could consolidate everything & share as a document? This is my first time teaching this but I’m thinking of offering it a 2nd time so that will be good motivation to get more organized 😂
tessahill.bsky.social
I’m doing on online summary of my class on Rachel Carson each week 🍃 🐦 follow along if you’d like to read with us!
tessahill.bsky.social
Students also selected from a list of scholars that are carrying on Carson’s work today. They’ll do a presentation about what these folks work on. The list included @jambeckresearch.bsky.social @smbrander.bsky.social @rosannaxia.bsky.social and many others, so these presentations will be amazing!
tessahill.bsky.social
Discussion groups in class this week focused on a few questions, including:

- Why did Carson start the book the way she did?
- if Carson was to write this story today, what might she write about?
- What surprised you about the first few chapters?
tessahill.bsky.social
Yes, this and others by Lubchenco are helpful!
tessahill.bsky.social
Working on a project that requires pulling together a lot of literature on public engagement/ community engagement in marine science disciplines. I’ve done a traditional literature search - but if you have a favorite project, paper, or scientist in this realm, please post a link or DM me! #oceans
tessahill.bsky.social
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼😍
ucdmarinescience.bsky.social
Elisabeth Sellinger and Karolina Zabinski, PhD candidates at @ucdavis.bsky.social, study how #seagrass, sediments & #shellfish adapt under stress, while also navigating uncertainty in their own careers. Both kinds of resilience rely on federal support: arcg.is/1KTj02
A panoramic view of a seagrass meadow from the water level, with blue skies above it.
Reposted by Tessa Hill
governor.ca.gov
IF ANY CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY SIGNS THIS RADICAL AGREEMENT, THEY'LL LOSE BILLIONS IN STATE FUNDING — INCLUDING CAL GRANTS — INSTANTLY.

CALIFORNIA WILL NOT BANKROLL SCHOOLS THAT SELL OUT THEIR STUDENTS, PROFESSORS, RESEARCHERS, AND SURRENDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM.
New York Times: "Trump Administration Asks Colleges to Sign ‘Compact’ to Get Funding Preference."

The White House asked nine top universities to pledge support for President Trump’s agenda to help ensure access to research funding.
tessahill.bsky.social
So, if you’d like to follow along, here goes Week 1!

We started with some reflection questions, including:

When you think of Carson, what comes to mind?

What do you think Carson’s legacy is?

What are you curious to learn more about?
tessahill.bsky.social
In the class, we are reading Silent Spring, along with additional supplemental materials.
Photo of the cover of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. The cover is green, with a drawing of a leaf and a bird superimposed.
tessahill.bsky.social
In case you need something … less dark… on your timeline:

This week I started my seminar focused on the legacy of Rachel Carson.

I’m thinking I’ll post here what we are reading/watching/doing, and if you are interested, you could follow along. Like a bit of a Carson book group. 📕 🐦
Reposted by Tessa Hill
climatecrisisag.bsky.social
CCAG member Tessa Hill spoke with We Don’t Have Time about CCAG’s report on methane at New York Climate Week.

By cutting methane emissions, we can deliver affordable, available and urgent cooling within years – buying time to accelerate the transition to a safer future.
Reposted by Tessa Hill
Reposted by Tessa Hill
kevinjkircher.com
Methane from US oil and gas infrastructure causes more climate change than the entire US buildings and agriculture sectors. It has surged since ~2007 when the fracking boom began. Nations who are considering importing US natural gas should think carefully about its underestimated climate impacts.
kevinjkircher.com
New paper. I wish this wasn't the case, but most progress on reducing US greenhouse gas emissions is likely spurious. Why? EPA underestimates methane emissions from oil and gas. Relevant today as Repubs vote to gut IRA's methane monitoring/mitigation program. 🧵

authors.elsevier.com/a/1lL4K_6se4...
Two graphs from the paper. 

The left graph shows US net greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2022. The official EPA estimates decline fairly steadily from 6.6 gigatonnes per year in 2005 to 5.5 in 2022 (17% below 2005 levels), largely reflecting natural gas displacing coal for electricity generation. The adjusted estimates, which reflect independent measurements of methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure, end at 6.3 gigatonnes per year in 2022 (only 5% below 2005 levels).

The right graph shows 2022 emissions increasing linearly with the assumed global warming potential of methane. Climate scientists are divided on whether to use the 100-year GWP, 20-year GWP, or something in between. With methane warming impacts assessed via the 20-year GWP, the central 2022 emissions estimate is 7.9 gigatonnes per year - 20% *above* the EPA's official 2005 estimate.

Caption: Figure 1: Left: United States net greenhouse gas emissions over time. Right: Scaling of 2022 net emissions with methane’s GWP. After adjustment to reflect recent measurements of methane emissions from natural gas infrastructure, United States net emissions remain nearly as high as their 2005 level.
Reposted by Tessa Hill
bobkopp.net
I sent him an email, since he clearly hadn’t seen it…
To The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov

Dear Secretary Wright,

I saw that you stated in a press conference yesterday that "there is no disagreement with what's in the [Climate Working Group] report."

You probably have not seen our 85+ climate expert review of the Climate Working Group report, which was submitted as a public comment on August 30, but which appears not yet to have been processed for posting on Regulations.gov. You can find our review here:
https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.175745244.41950365/v As explained at great length in the 450+ pages of our review, the Climate Working Group report currently fails to adequately represent the scientific understanding of climate change, and it would require very substantial revision before it could be relied upon by any federal agency or other entity.

I hope that you find that our extensive expert review adequately addresses the question you raised in your press conference, "If the data and what we've said is wrong- as I read in countless newspaper articles, it's discredited data - what in the climate report is wrong?"

Sincerely,
Robert E. Kopp, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor, Department of Earth and
Planetary Sciences
Rutgers University
Reposted by Tessa Hill
andrewdessler.com
this is sooooooo f'ing sweet. every time Sec. Chris Wright lies about the DOE Climate Working Group report, reporters cite our response.
Mr. Wright falsely claimed that critics of an Energy Department report — written by five researchers who reject the established scientific consensus that the burning of oil, gas and coal is dangerously heating the planet — did not dispute any of the report’s data or facts.

“They just didn’t like that the conclusion of our report was, climate change is a real physical phenomenon that’s unfolding, it’s just not the crisis it’s often sold to be.”

In fact, 85 scientists submitted a sweeping critique of the report detailing a litany of inaccuracies, including claims that sea level rise is not accelerating; that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will help plants grow; and that computer models exaggerate future temperature increases. The American Meteorological Society, a leading science organization, also outlined what it called “foundational flaws” in the report. And the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the nation’s leading scientific advisory body, also contradicted the Energy Department report, saying the evidence that greenhouse gases threaten human health has only grown over time.
tessahill.bsky.social
I love this and might buy one for myself. Told a group of pretty awesome (and influential) people the story of this response this week ♥️