Based on your concluding sentence, we are fundamentally in agreement. I also agree that we have blown past 1.5℃.

But here's where I have to ask, "why are you following me?"

If you have been reading my stuff you know that I have been downgraded from "Semi-credible Doomer" to "Crazy Grandpa Crank". I am forecasting a massive "Climate Crisis" and 800 million to 1.5 billion dead in the next 4-6 years.

I have few enough followers that I take the time to look at everyone who follows me. If they have published anything I try to read a few pieces. I appreciate your time and attention. The least I can do is give you some of mine.

This is a very good first piece for someone who wants to be a "Climate Writer". It's clear that it's written from an engineer's perspective. Your "worst case" analysis reflects this.

I am not a climatologist, meteorologist, paleo-climatologist, geoscientist, ecologist, climate science specialist, or chemical engineer 🙂. I am (or was) an analyst. I am trying to synthesize information from all of those fields into a coherent, holistic whole.

As an engineer, what information are you giving me in this piece?

If you are to be the "chemical engineer" part of my exo-brain, my "trusted advisor" on the chemical engineering aspects of the climate change problem. What is it you would want me to know?

What is it, that you think it's important I understand?

What do you want my "take-away" from this piece to be?

Here's what I got:

We are going to need "massive amounts of CO2 capture and storage".

No duh. Every IPCC plan since day one has had that embedded in it. As the carbon load in the atmosphere has crept higher this issue has gotten worse.

If you have something to report on that front, you should have made that your main focus. I am VERY interested to hear what an actual chemical engineer has to report on that front. The efforts so far have been dismal from everything I've read.

I look forward to what you have to say about that.

The sooner reductions begin the lower the green line peaks in atmospheric CO2 and temperature gain will be.

Absolutely. I agree with you completely. I think it might have been stronger to lead with this rather than finish with it, but I totally agree with it. This statement for me establishes your bona fides as a sane human being and not a crazy Denier or energy shill Climate Action Resistor.

I would have led with it and finished with something more personal. Or perhaps a cry to action.

In any case, are these the take aways that you wanted? They are OK, but if I was your writing coach I would have encouraged you to "aim higher".

Finally,

Your title sucks.

Really "Chapter 1"?

Really?

I thought I was SO clever with my idea of "Living in Bomb Time" as a catch line for my column. I spent half of my first piece explaining it because I thought it was so cool.

"Quick, what’s the difference between a heat ray and climate change?"

There is no difference, your perception of it depends entirely on your timescale. The effects are the same"

After 22 pieces I am finally starting to feel like I have an identity as a "Climate Writer" here on Medium using that byline. I'm happy with it but it is constraining.

I should have created a publication using that title and then published articles in the publication. This would have allowed me to create much better titles that had a higher chance of being picked up by the algo and put on the Medium Recommends" feed.

I'm old and I didn't take expert advice because I'm stubborn and autistic. Don't be stupid like me.

Better titles in the future.